HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Enough of this 'rules' vs...

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:01 PM

Enough of this 'rules' vs. 'legal requirements'!!!

The OIG conclusion says: "... the office of the Secretary ... been slow ... to manage effectively the legal requirements..."

If someone can explain to me why the OIG used this term 'legal requirements' instead of 'party rules' or 'department rules' , I will stop pushing this point.

54 replies, 4772 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Enough of this 'rules' vs. 'legal requirements'!!! (Original post)
floppyboo May 2016 OP
MisterP May 2016 #1
floppyboo May 2016 #4
annavictorious May 2016 #52
YouDig May 2016 #2
Press Virginia May 2016 #3
YouDig May 2016 #5
Press Virginia May 2016 #6
YouDig May 2016 #7
Press Virginia May 2016 #9
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #11
YouDig May 2016 #14
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #18
YouDig May 2016 #21
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #22
YouDig May 2016 #23
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #24
YouDig May 2016 #25
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #29
YouDig May 2016 #30
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #33
YouDig May 2016 #34
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #37
YouDig May 2016 #38
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #40
YouDig May 2016 #41
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #42
YouDig May 2016 #43
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #44
YouDig May 2016 #45
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #47
YouDig May 2016 #49
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #54
tonyt53 May 2016 #26
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #32
Aerows May 2016 #48
Press Virginia May 2016 #50
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #8
YouDig May 2016 #10
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #12
YouDig May 2016 #13
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #15
YouDig May 2016 #16
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #17
scscholar May 2016 #19
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #20
notadmblnd May 2016 #27
YouDig May 2016 #28
notadmblnd May 2016 #35
Aerows May 2016 #46
treestar May 2016 #31
COLGATE4 May 2016 #36
Dem2 May 2016 #39
floppyboo May 2016 #53
uponit7771 May 2016 #51

Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:02 PM

1. it's like how they said Honduras was a coup but not a MILITARY coup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #1)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:08 PM

4. And Brazil and Venezuela aren't economic coups either

Got nothing to do with OPEC and the dollar being the for-now currency, nothing at all. Look at that tree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #1)

Tue May 31, 2016, 06:28 PM

52. Here's the whole quote

 

"Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed
within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of
State. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have
been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cyber security
risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to
its most senior leadership."

Why did you leave so much out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:03 PM

2. Being "slow to manage effectively the legal requirments" is not breaking the law.

It's breaking some red tape rule that nobody would care about if they weren't trying to score political points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:06 PM

3. What "red tape" rule are you referring to?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #3)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:14 PM

5. That she should have kept paper copies instead of electronic copies of her emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #5)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:15 PM

6. She could have used the SMART system. Saved them

 

in another approved medium.

She chose to do nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #6)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:17 PM

7. Tsk tsk. She still saved them, but yeah she broke some little rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #7)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:19 PM

9. The rule is in place because of a law

 

that was intended for transparency in government

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #7)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:21 PM

11. That is not a little rule

 

Document preservation for historic value and FOIA request is a big deal, especially for open and transparent government advocates. I will put you down into the pro corruption types though. They usually are not open about that though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #11)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:25 PM

14. The goal of the rule is preserving documents, and the documents were preserved.

It's got nothing to do with transparency, it's a bureaucratic rule. I get why bureaucratic rules are necessary, but breaking some red tape rule is not committing a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #14)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:40 PM

18. Under legal jeopardy two years after

 

And after State could not fnd the documents. Which led to secretary Kerry asking questions.

There, I fixed that for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #18)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:53 PM

21. Here's what's going to happen. The FBI will come back and say that she technically

broke rule xyz and she really really shouldn't have done it and it's very serious and blah blah, but it doesn't rise to a prosecutable criminal offense. And then people like you are going accuse the FBI of corruption and protecting her. But that won't matter because you're just another person on the internet who doesn't know what you are talking about..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #21)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:08 PM

22. You realize there are folks doing hard time

 

For losing control (check) of classified material right? I expect a pardon though. Politically it is the least damaging this can go.

There are also people serving hard time for giving access of classified material, in this case Special Access Program,close, if not the Crown Jewels of national Intel to somebody without a clearance.

I expect the denial. It is a symptom of a mature scandal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #22)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:14 PM

23. No criminal intent. No classified material, except retroactively. There's nothing.

Petraeus didn't even get time and he intentionally shared actual classified material with someone he was having an affair with.

Watch you'll see. I'm sure you'll be shocked, and then you'll make a bunch trying to claim the FBI doesn't understand the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #23)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:16 PM

24. Mens rea is not necessary in national Intel cases

 

This was explained in painful detail to me by a pro who works in these types of cases. Though there is motive counselor, and any competent lawyer would use it to get the pity of the court

As to Patreaus, Intel folks are still pissed. Care to get out of the buble and consider carefully why there was a plea deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #24)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:21 PM

25. Explained by a pro, huh? That sounds very credible to me.

Intel people should be pissed about Petreaus. He intentionally shared actual classified info with a woman he was having an affair with. Hillary had non-classified material on a server that didn't get hacked, same as other secretaries of state and other state employees who also aren't going to be indicted.

What's your excuse going to be when the non-indictment comes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #25)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:31 PM

29. Yup a lawyer who specializes in these cases

 

I think he has a smidgen more of a clue than you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #29)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:33 PM

30. So when the FBI doesn't recommend any charges, you can ask him to help you out with

your "why the FBI is wrong and I am right" posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #30)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:40 PM

33. Frankly we will be surprised

 

Because the IG report has the skeleton of a pretty serious case

So what happens when you are wrong? Oh and articles are now starting to appear suggesting she will implode. That is in the water. Again, a very mature scandal.

Oh and this is fully self inflicted. People have been warning you folks all this time. That is a train light down the tracks...it is moving

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #33)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:42 PM

34. Yes, a lot of Berners will be surprised. Happens a lot, Berners being surprised.

Usually followed by a bunch of excuses and conspiracies.

If I'm wrong? That would suck. Good thing I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #34)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:54 PM

37. Except that I am an American not a Berner

 

Expected though. By your logic Kerry is a Berner, so is Judge Sullivan, and even maybe the President himself.

For the record, your party has a choice. You can use that very loaded gun to commit political suicide and hand the WH to a fascist. This is a Weimar Republic mistake, or you can run somebody else that is not damaged.

Who your party chooses is your business. For all I care you can appoint the man on the moon after the goat sacrifice, and entrail reading ok. But you run her, with all this baggage. I guess suicide is painless.

And if you go for plan B, who emerges ultimately will be a timing issue. Many are thinking Biden. I am thinking somebody truly dark. As in a dark horse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #37)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:57 PM

38. You can be both an American and a Berner.

I didn't realize that John Kerry thinks the FBI should indict Hillary. Is that something your lawyer friend told you?

The party is going to run the candidate that the voters chose in the primaries. That is Hillary Clinton.

And given that Berners have long thought, and even many still think, that Bernie is going to be the nominee, I'm not too worried about their other prognostications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #38)

Tue May 31, 2016, 05:08 PM

40. Sweet one for all you know I could be voting for her

 

My vote is truly my business. Your choice soon will be party or country. My, Republicans were this stubborn too, in 1973 and 2003. Your choice will be stark and for that I feel sorry for you. It will be painful. But this is not going away.

If the IG report was a slap in the hand, it was not, you might have a point. It was't.

On the bright side, people who I talk to, some democrats higher than you in pay grade were shaken by this report. People who do make those decisions are starting to realize this is very serious. It took the party elder statesmen to get Nixon to concede. Am afraid that conversation will come.

And my, you and me as voters have nothing to do with this decision. This is at a very different level, assuming the party does not want to commit suicide. If they do, by all means, pick up that gun. None will stop you, but we will not take the blame for the damage either. It will be completely on your party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #40)

Tue May 31, 2016, 05:17 PM

41. Your vote is indeed your business. There we agree.

My choice is not party or country. I'm a Democrat, so I can proudly choose both party and country. I think Hillary will be a good-to-great president, like Obama before her. And compared with Trump, voting Hillary is the easiest decision I can imagine. For you maybe it's a tough call. Not me.

As for all the insider connections you claim to have, you can give that game up, at least with me. It's kind of funny that you feel the need to "pull rank" by talking about all the inside info you get, but sadly it's very transparent. People who actually talk to experts aren't as poorly informed as you, nor do they keep trying to brag about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #41)

Tue May 31, 2016, 05:28 PM

42. Then you chose your party

 

good to know

Can I have the same level of contempt for you I have for partisan Republcians? There, I said it, you are not that different from them. But I do feel sorry for you, This will not be easy. Though when all is said and done, you might be one of the few Republcians who actually admired voting for Nixon... I found one, rare breed that this was, in 2003 in Hawaii. That took brass balls, even that many years after Watergate.

For the record, I do not fall in love with politicians, I cover them, they are slimey little creatures, I look at their policies. And of course, who gave money to whom... it is quite revealing. Local democrat getting moneys from a local REPUBLICAN PAC... hmmm lovely. What favors is he promising already? Then there is the mayor in the pocket of the local developer mafia, who might indirectly benefit over construction projects, YOU DIG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #42)

Tue May 31, 2016, 05:37 PM

43. You can have as much contempt for me as you want. That is your choice too.

I think that the Democratic party is clearly superior to the Republican party. If that makes you want to scorn me, so be it. I'm proud of it. Look at what the Dems stand for, and look at what the GOP stands for. Look at Obama/Hillary, then look at Trump, and even before Trump, the rest of them, the tea party, all that. Look issue by issue. Abortion, LGBT, environment, labor, taxes, everything. Every single issue. I can't think of one where the GOP is better. Can you?

So yeah, have your contempt, if that's what you like. Having political views means some people are going to scorn you for them. I don't know your politics, it seems to be mostly an anti-Hillary vendetta, but whatever they are, be they right left or center, you are welcome to your contempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #43)

Tue May 31, 2016, 05:46 PM

44. Two right wing conservative parties

 

your party would not nominate, let alone elect, FDR, JFK, LBJ, or for that matter Carter OTOH, you would elect real Reagan,, that is how far right this neoliberall party has gone. What is the matter with Kansas. indeed.

And no my politics, are what the democratic party used to be, As to HRC, I do not know her, I don't care to know her. see what I wrote about politicians. But nobody is above the law That at least used to be an accepted principle of American jurisprudence, the fall from that actually was Nixon. What she did, would see people I know in club fed for DECADES, you dig.

So what is there to love? One party is more open about it. She manages to get elected... and I expect Social Security to be privatized a classic of neoliberal policies around the world. I expect her to sing the TTP, yes, she will, I expect her to push for more TPAs, for the record I expect the Republcians to do the same.

And I expect us, to cross beyond the points of no return for climate change. HUMAN EXTINCTION is no longer out of the realm of possibility and due to it I expect more wars, a lot more wars, like a fucking world war at some point. I dig policy, not fucking politicians. Oh and yes that includes Sanders ok.

Enjoy the fall, it will be fun to watch. Oh and I am with a lot of former democrats, YOUR FUCKING PARTY left my working class behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #44)

Tue May 31, 2016, 05:58 PM

45. No, just one. The Republicans. Yeah, the Dems are more right than their counterparts in Europe,

but that doesn't make them right-wing conservative. That's just dumb.

I said in my last post, look at the issues. Can you find even one where the GOP is better, or even the same as the Dems? I can't. Maybe there is one, but I can't think of it. Maybe you can help me out.

On the issues you mention, there's a huge difference. Climate change you bring up, that's a big one. Guess what the GOP's policy is there? It's to deny that it exists. Guess what Trump wants? More fossil fuels and less regulations. If you can't tell that Clinton is way better on climate and environment than Trump, I have nothing to say. To me it's obvious. To the NRDC it is also. I guess not to you.

And the idea of Hillary going to prison for having non-classified information on a private email server, when Colin Powell and Condi Rice also had the same kind of non-classified info on private emails, it's just nuts, really. Yeah, I know, it wasn't a private server, but an aol account is just as non-permitted as a private server. Actually, even a state department email account is not supposed to be used for classified info. Did you even know that? Did your lawyer friend not mention it?

Yeah, classified isn't supposed to circulate by email, period. Now you know. As a practical matter, sometimes it does, especially info that's in the grey area or one department thinks its classified but not another, or retroactively classified like the Clinton stuff, but nobody ever goes to prison for that or even loses their job for it or anything. So enjoy your prayers to the email fairy and your false equivalence between the Dems and the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #45)

Tue May 31, 2016, 06:04 PM

47. Political science is not your strong point either I see... the DNC is now a RW party

 

The RNC is a far right wing party, with strokes of hyper nationalism and fascism...

As to the rest, you are clueless, Don't worry, you will have your bunker where you can hide from the ongoing investigation.
My goodness, we should not find out what is really going on....

It will come... and the gluten and nut free cookies will be good here... I hear they will create such a safe space that reality will not intrude either. Like FR circa 2006, the denial will be hilarious to watch, That is a bright side. It is comedy gold, but also predictable, within the anatomy of all scandals.

As to your last para, I read the full report. Try that again... Have a wonderful day, I have actual work to do and I am done wasting my time with you. You think I hate people, nope, but I have the same contempt for you guys as I do for republicans now. Partisanship is the reason we are in this shitty hole partly and you guys are partly responsible for it. HEY GO, TEAM GO!!!!

It is not a fucking game. People die due to this shitty mentality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #47)

Tue May 31, 2016, 06:13 PM

49. Pretty strong, I'd say actually.

You can define the spectrum however you want. The important thing is that the Dems are very different and very much better than the GOP. Personally I'm a bit to the left of the average Dem, but I'm still very happy to stand with the party. They stand for what I stand for, and they are infinitely better than the GOP.

I notice that you ignored all the differences between the Dems and GOP on global warming, the issue that you brought up. Can you really not see them? I find that hard to believe.

Yeah, you think I'm clueless, and I think you are clueless. After all, you didn't even know that a state.gov email account cannot be used for classified info either. Those experts of yours failed to mention that one, I guess. I suggest getting new experts. Maybe real ones this time.

I agree that it's not a game. People will die if Trump is elected. Hopefully you will realize that before November. If not, I hope we win without your vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #49)

Tue May 31, 2016, 11:44 PM

54. So you are a fan of hte one we all make fun off? If you are what you say,

 

you will know which one I mean.

Live with hit, both parties are right wing. And politics does abhor a vacuum, so sooner or later, a labor party will rise. Which national party will be replaced? That is the question. But anyway, on my way to an actual wild fire, NPR was actually covering the scandal, Hey it is a flood!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #11)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:24 PM

26. Better ask Bush II and Cheney about theirs too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #26)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:33 PM

32. In 2006 people were up in arms over that too

 

We still are. But my ethics is not situational. Perhaps yours is. Oh and who took impeachment for actual war crimes under article 1 of the Nuremberg indictment? You go ahead and take all the time in the world to think about that one, ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #26)

Tue May 31, 2016, 06:07 PM

48. Wrote to Senator Leahy myself.

 

Does that still classify as a "new" "concern" or do I get to gripe about it now 10 years later?

Because I've been told by members of this forum that I'm not allowed to comment on "certain types" of bigotry because it "seemed so sudden" so I am just wondering when the expiration date of "not being able to show concern" is.

I want to note it in my calendar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #7)

Tue May 31, 2016, 06:15 PM

50. and it took a lawsuit for her to comply with that "little rule"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #5)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:19 PM

8. Hmm that is because she purposely avoided

 

The SMART system which logs this automatically. The paper requirement is for the infrequent and emergency use of a private email. It's in the report. I wonder if you will read that. Nah, too much work

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #8)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:20 PM

10. Not purposely, she just didn't know. Didn't read all the minor technical red tape rules.

She still kept her emails, so in the end it doesn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #10)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:21 PM

12. That is not what the report says.

 

Read it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:23 PM

13. All 100 pages? I've read enough excerpts and analyses from others who have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #13)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:26 PM

15. Yes all of it. Include footnotes

 

At this point you are looking quite ignorant. The apendix... A few actually, will explain the possible legal peril as well. Don't worry, that is not their job. But do worry,it is the FBI's to recommend those. This is not a nothing burger.

Oh and a cog would be facing 35 to life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #15)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:30 PM

16. No thanks. Others who know what they are talking about already have. Plenty of other

people used private emails, and none of them are facing 35 to life. You are in a fantasy world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #16)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:33 PM

17. Continue to live in the bunker

 

The is not minor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:41 PM

19. It is minor or the FBI would have at least gone to the trouble of talking to her

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #19)

Tue May 31, 2016, 03:47 PM

20. They intend to interview her

 

As well as the rest of the staff with DOJ lawyers present

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #10)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:29 PM

27. So you're saying she is not very smart?

Or are you saying she is smart but made it a point not to read all the minor technical red tape rules so she could play stupid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #27)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:30 PM

28. Not very tach-savvy. Also had more important things to do than red tape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #28)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:47 PM

35. Smart woman like her- can't figure it out? Or she just refuses to?

Not very smart or lazy? You decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Tue May 31, 2016, 06:00 PM

46. This is not the ballpark you are looking for.

 

It's ---------------------------------------way----->

over there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:33 PM

31. here it does mean more procedural, civil things

like when the Department of Commerce audits people - there are going to be mistakes. They just correct them and suggest better ways of keeping up. Any Department will audit - for instance the bar may audit lawyer's trust accounts. They will always find the lawyer doing some little thing wrong and will just tell them how to fix it.

The Department of Education may keep track of student records - they find mistakes and fix them. No one gets arrested.

This is the problem with exaggerating everything to death. Nobody running a huge department will always be doing things exactly right, especially now - the new technology and how to best use it is in flux everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #31)

Tue May 31, 2016, 04:50 PM

36. Good explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #31)

Tue May 31, 2016, 05:02 PM

39. It's true

Add than many people think the rules are too strict and there's minor violations by the thousand happening all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #31)

Tue May 31, 2016, 07:11 PM

53. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Tue May 31, 2016, 06:18 PM

51. Zzzzzmog Hillary drove 47 in a 45 !!!!!! [email protected]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread