America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,707 comments
  • 1,592,375 views
It goes back to the adverse political research dossier ginned up by British Superspy Steele & associated Secret British Spy Co. Who paid? Who received? When? How much? What use was made of it? Was it 100% (or only 80%) phony and was an illegitimate investigation based upon it? Was the FISA court process abused?

You need to understand this is political warfare. Trump was, right or wrong, targeted for elimination. Happily or sadly, the attempt came close but failed. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The would-be usurpers are now running for cover, and those seeking sweet revenge are loaded for bear. It's a game. It's fun. It's war. Enjoy.

Yeah but what crime is the catalyst. I still don’t get it. Even if the origin is proven to be somewhat politically motivated. What crime is that? It is clear the DOJ is only doing this, because trump wants to deflect or just wants payback, but I fail to understand what crime could be revealed by such an investigation.
 
Yeah but what crime is the catalyst. I still don’t get it. Even if the origin is proven to be somewhat politically motivated. What crime is that? It is clear the DOJ is only doing this, because trump wants to deflect or just wants payback, but I fail to understand what crime could be revealed by such an investigation.

'"Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands and the echo answered "Fraud!", to quote Casey at the Bat, a famous American poem.

It is submitted that on multiple occasions lies (bought and paid for by political opponents) were presented as true evidence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court, which is a secret court like the old English Star Chamber, in order to obtain ongoing abusive adverse legal procedures against the president, his family and his campaign. They treated the President of the US like he was a foreign spy. The Mueller investigation was launched, and ultimately exonerated the President from being a Russian spy or agent. Now the tables are turned, and "Hell hath no fury like a woman President and his supporters scorned".
 
Last edited:
'"Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands and the echo answered "Fraud!", to quote Casey at the Bat, a famous American poem.

It is submitted that on multiple occasions lies (bought and paid for by political opponents) were presented as true evidence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court, which is a secret court like the old English Star Chamber, in order to obtain ongoing abusive adverse legal procedures against the president, his family and his campaign. They treated the President of the US like he was a foreign spy. The Mueller investigation was launched, and ultimately exonerated the President from being a Russian spy or agent. Now the tables are turned, and "Hell hath no fury like a woman President and his supporters scorned".
How is that fraud? If treated the president as a foreign spy wouldn’t he already be in jail?
 
How is that fraud? If treated the president as a foreign spy wouldn’t he already be in jail?

I have bent over backwards trying to answer your questions. I think it is about time for you to acknowledge that.

From Wikipedia:

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States,[1] even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.[2] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[3] Rod Blagojevich,[4] Michael T. Flynn,[5] Rick Gates,[6] Scooter Libby,[7] Bernard Madoff,[8] and Jeffrey Skilling.[9]

This statute is used in many contexts. Most commonly, prosecutors use this statute to reach cover-up crimes such as perjury, false declarations, and obstruction of justice and government fraud cases.[10]

Its earliest progenitor was the False Claims Act of 1863. In 1934, the requirement of an intent to defraud was eliminated. This was to prosecute successfully, under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), the producers of "hot oil", i.e. oil produced in violation of restrictions established by NIRA. In 1935, NIRA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to the decision in United States v. Gaudin, the jury is to decide whether the false statements made were material, since materiality is an element of the offense.

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),[11]imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....

Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.[12] In the 1998 case Brogan v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the "exculpatory no" doctrine that had previously been followed by seven of the courts of appeal, which had held that "the mere denial of wrongdoing" did not fall within the scope of § 1001.[13][2] The Brogan court stated.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
 
I have bent over backwards trying to answer your questions. I think it is about time for you to acknowledge that.

From Wikipedia:

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States,[1] even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.[2] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[3] Rod Blagojevich,[4] Michael T. Flynn,[5] Rick Gates,[6] Scooter Libby,[7] Bernard Madoff,[8] and Jeffrey Skilling.[9]

This statute is used in many contexts. Most commonly, prosecutors use this statute to reach cover-up crimes such as perjury, false declarations, and obstruction of justice and government fraud cases.[10]

Its earliest progenitor was the False Claims Act of 1863. In 1934, the requirement of an intent to defraud was eliminated. This was to prosecute successfully, under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), the producers of "hot oil", i.e. oil produced in violation of restrictions established by NIRA. In 1935, NIRA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to the decision in United States v. Gaudin, the jury is to decide whether the false statements made were material, since materiality is an element of the offense.

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),[11]imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....

Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.[12] In the 1998 case Brogan v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the "exculpatory no" doctrine that had previously been followed by seven of the courts of appeal, which had held that "the mere denial of wrongdoing" did not fall within the scope of § 1001.[13][2] The Brogan court stated.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements

I know what fraud is, but what is the underlying crime? So there is suspicion somebody lied about what? The Steele dossier?
 
Sorry, I'm failing to communicate with you. So I'm done with it. Have a good day.

Hey Dotini, look at this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

This is really simple. They could determine (based on their findings of course) that use of uncorroborated evidence (the Steele Dossier) to start an investigation into then-candidate Donald J. Trump (which was funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign) defrauded the United States of America.

The question is, who introduced the Steele Dossier, Comey or Brennan? This is why they are finger-pointing. I'm somewhat doubtful either will serve time, but if either is found guilty there will be substantial fines.
 
Sorry, I'm failing to communicate with you. So I'm done with it. Have a good day.

Probably because there is no answer to that question. If there is anything that could be arguably fraudulent it is the Steele dossier. But could you blame the FBI/CIA or Dems for that? The dems did pay for a report to get dirt on Trump. Steele being from a private intelligence firm and considered an allie to the USA. Trump's campaign tried to get dirt via russians connections, which are arguably not allies to the USA. This already could be considered as a threat to US security. Since both instances are not deemed illegal though, what is the point then of investigating the origin of the Mueller investigation? Do you think the FBI/CIA purposefully made up suspicions?

Hey Dotini, look at this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

This is really simple. They could determine (based on their findings of course) that use of uncorroborated evidence (the Steele Dossier) to start an investigation into then-candidate Donald J. Trump (which was funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign) defrauded the United States of America.

The question is, who introduced the Steele Dossier, Comey or Brennan? This is why they are finger-pointing. I'm somewhat doubtful either will serve time, but if either is found guilty there will be substantial fines.

Steele offered the dossier tot the USA because of concerns of national security, which could have started the investigation. But I dont see how an investigation, based on suspicions is "defrauding" anyone? Unless it is proven the dossier was purposefully written to deceive the clinton and dems. The whole point of an investigation is corroborating the evidence they received. If Trump actually was convicted of a crime, solely based on the dossier, then I could agree the US public were defrauded, not because of fraud, but because of incompetence. They received information that was suspicious and decided to investigate if it was true. They were doing their job.

Lets say you were accused of a crime by a tip from a source that the police considers credible. Isnt it the job of the police to find evidence? Lets say you were innocent, would you then demand the doj to do an investigation in that investigation? Where is the logic in that? What crime would the police be guilty of?

edit: clean up post
 
Last edited:
Steele offered the dossier tot the USA because of concerns of national security, which could have started the investigation. But I dont see how an investigation, based on suspicions is "defrauding" anyone? Unless it is proven the dossier was purposefully written to deceive the clinton and dems. The whole point of an investigation is corroborating the evidence they received. If Trump actually was convicted of a crime, solely based on the dossier, then I could agree the US public were defrauded, not because of fraud, but because of incompetence. They received information that was suspicious and decided to investigate if it was true. They were doing their job.

Lets say you were accused of a crime by a tip from a source that the police considers credible. Isnt it the job of the police to find evidence? Lets say you were innocent, would you then demand the doj to do an investigation in that investigation? Where is the logic in that? What crime would the police be guilty of?

edit: clean up post

#1 Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to research then-candidate Donald Trump which was paid for by Clinton, and then turned over to the FBI this is well documented. Depending on what Obama knew, this could be Watergate level and that is why it needs to be investigated. That is why it is important and we can't just let this go.

#2 Using uncorroborated evidence from a foreign entity as a basis for launching an investigation that cost tax payers millions of dollars very well could be determine as fraud.

#3 It's also very possible that a Russian disinformation firm was feeding Steele false information. What we do know is that there was interference, and that the ultimate goal of the Russians was to sow as much discord during the election season as possible . They did this by attempting to slander the two candidates that emerged from the primary, both Trump and Hillary.

In the context of this discussion, your last paragraph is doesn't matter because the evidence wasn't credible, it was trash plain and simple and has been largely discredited by multiple Intelligence sources. It's pretty obvious that a gross abuse of power occurred in the FISA court, and they need to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 
#1 Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to research then-candidate Donald Trump which was paid for by Clinton, and then turned over to the FBI this is well documented. Depending on what Obama knew, this could be Watergate level and that is why it needs to be investigated. That is why it is important and we can't just let this go.

#2 Using uncorroborated evidence from a foreign entity as a basis for launching an investigation that cost tax payers millions of dollars very well could be determine as fraud.

#3 It's also very possible that a Russian disinformation firm was feeding Steele false information. What we do know is that there was interference, and that the ultimate goal of the Russians was to sow as much discord during the election season as possible . They did this by attempting to slander the two candidates that emerged from the primary, both Trump and Hillary.

In the context of this discussion, your last paragraph is doesn't matter because the evidence wasn't credible, it was trash plain and simple and has been largely discredited by multiple Intelligence sources. It's pretty obvious that a gross abuse of power occurred in the FISA court, and they need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

#1 Watergate level? For what crime? Is it illegal to investigate candidates? Please explain what part is breaking the law. If there were suspicions Trump was "colluding" isnt it the job of the FBI to investigate?

#2 Nope, convicting someone innocent based on uncorroborated evidence is perhaps fraud. All the people indeicted and even trump are hardly innocent. Starting an investigation based on a report with considerable national ecurity concerns is doing their job. The report actually has proven that there was contact between a foreign enemy and an election campaign and that that russians were actiuvely trying to influence the 2016 election. Yet Trump's whitehouse choses to believe Putin, that he wasnt behind it. Also the investigation has "earned"more then it cost. So it actually made money for taxpayers.

#3 If there was disinformation fed, then it should be investigated if the disinformation is legit or not. There was a serious security risk to ignore the evidence. The goal of the meddling by russians was to favor Trump. There is evidence of this in the mueller report.

This is not an abuse of power, because multiple people were indicted of serious crimes. Without considering left/right it was a good thing the FBI investigated this. You shouldnt look at the report a partisan way. If you are a trump supporter then ignore all the evidence concerning the alleged obstruction of justice and focus on the russians influencing n US election. It doesnt matter if it was in favor of a republican or a democrat. Lets assume they didnt start the investigation. I am sure the russians would probably be influencing/meddling with elections more then it is/has now.
 
@PocketZeven it is very tiresome reading your posts. It almost seems as though you are playing dumb. You seem to ignore what others are saying to you.

The crimes committed seem pretty obvious to me.

This right leaning Fox news commentator describes what many of us on the right believe.

 
@PocketZeven it is very tiresome reading your posts. It almost seems as though you are playing dumb. You seem to ignore what others are saying to you.

The crimes committed seem pretty obvious to me.

This right leaning Fox news commentator describes what many of us on the right believe.



Conservatives love to make up criminals based on opinions on Faux “News”
 
Holy crap on a cracker...I didn't even click the video and I can already hear Jeanine's special brand of loud, monotonous fearmongering.
 
@PocketZeven it is very tiresome reading your posts. It almost seems as though you are playing dumb. You seem to ignore what others are saying to you.

The crimes committed seem pretty obvious to me.

This right leaning Fox news commentator describes what many of us on the right believe.



Which crimes? Please explain how there could be any fraud or conspiracy against the US concerning the origins of the mueller report.
I just need to look at the thumbnail and I already know it is biased opions. Something I consider unbiased is the mueller report, which you maybe havent read or viewed. There is legitimate evidence of russian meddling which should have your concern. How can an investigation into russian meddling in a presidential election can be considered fraudulent or conspiracy?
 
As @DDastardly00 has explained to you already, they took what they knew to be untrue (the Steele dossier) and presented it to a FISA judge in order to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign / transition team. This is part of what is being investigated by Barr.

How could they know it was untrue? By investigating ofcourse. Is spying on a private citizen under suspicion of conspiracy a crime? Please view the mueller report. There is proof of russian-trump campaign contact. The right is focusing on the origin, but completely ignoring the result and contents of the report??
 
Which crimes? Please explain how there could be any fraud or conspiracy against the US concerning the origins of the mueller report.
I just need to look at the thumbnail and I already know it is biased opions. Something I consider unbiased is the mueller report, which you maybe havent read or viewed. There is legitimate evidence of russian meddling which should have your concern. How can an investigation into russian meddling in a presidential election can be considered fraudulent or conspiracy?
What is the evidence of Russian meddling via the Trump campaign?
 
What is the evidence of Russian meddling via the Trump campaign?

From the mueller report?

The Mueller Report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law"

Or just read the executive summary written by Mueller.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

edit: I reread your post and wanted to add another link to the Steele dossier:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

Perhaps the sources were suspect, however wasnt it a risk to national security to not investigate the truth behind the allegations in the dossier?
 
Last edited:
Explain to me what Russians did in the 2016 Election?

The report says The Kremlin has dirt on Trump but Trump hasn't taken any lucrative real estate offers given to him or something.

Trump is a Corrupt Leader there is no doubt about it, he has done business deals with the Saudis on His buildings while he is in Office, but this whole idea that Russia interfeared with the Election is total and utter drivel, if you can make such a claim it should be bloody obvious what it is that they are claiming.

It's Concerning when we have baseless claims made by the US that Iran needs to be invaded because the people are mistreated or what not and the same crap with Venezuela meanwhile the US is Financially backing most of the world's Dictatorship's as if they have some kind of Moral high ground to be the World Police, this Crap with Russia just sounds like a some Cold War Nonsense trying to start up Old tensions.

Not to sound crazy(On America) but your Whole system is owned by big money interests and it is made incredibly obvious by the actions of the Government, Senate the House and especially the Media which is Completely Different to what the rest of the Western world gets, it's insane(and I'm not talking just about Fox the other Major networks push hard on WarHawk crap trying to justify all this nonsese when a quick Google search can correct them on all theof their baseless claims).

It's been like this for years/decades, It also hurts my head when people look to Obama as some level headed leader that did no wrong, that guy was owned by Wall Street look at his Donor lists and look at how his net wealth exploded from the moment he got into the Whitehouse till when he left.

This would be unthinkable Corruption here yet he gets away with good coverage and dignity, America is seriously a Banana Republic.
 
Last edited:
Explain to me what Russians did in the 2016 Election?

The report says The Kremlin has dirt on Trump but Trump hasn't taken any lucrative real estate offers given to him or something.

Trump is a Currupt Leader there is doubt about it, he has done business deals with the Saudis on His buildings while he is in Office, but this whole idea that Russia interfeared with the Election is total and utter drivel, if you can make such a claim it should be bloody obvious what it is that they are claiming.

@DDastardly00
@Chrunch Houston
@Johnnypenso

I am bad at summaries so I recommend reading it yourself:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

But in short:
- Active social media campaigns (or trolling)
- hacking directed at clinton campaign
- Russian contact with Trump campaign concerning the Trump tower meeting and Russian tower project. All of whom have lied about it to the american public.
- Various redacted evidence, still unknown to the public.

Straight from the report:

"First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election-the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operationsviolated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws, the federal computer-intrusion statute, and the have been so char ed. See United States v. Ne ksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 D.D.C .."

"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks' s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal falsestatements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton .in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen leaded uilt to makin false statements to Con ress about the Trum Moscow ro · ect. "
 
Last edited:
Trolling isn't meddling(like really)

The Main charge here is that the methods on how they got dirt on Clinton wasn't disclosed and lied about when asked, the thing is though can you use the claim of interference as a legitimate excuse if they actually uncovered things that where proven true, Clinton didn't have to do the things she did she got found out and the people judged her for it?

If it was later Proven untrue then yes that is a flawed election and would require a redo but that isn't what happened, it's essentially Whistle blowing by the official state baddie and that's considered an Act of War or something.
 
Trolling isn't meddling(like really)

The Main charge here is that the methods on how they got dirt on Clinton wasn't disclosed and lied about when asked, the thing is though can you use the claim of interference as a legitimate excuse if they actually uncovered things that where proven true, Clinton didn't have to do the things she did she got found out and the people judged her for it?

If it was later Proven untrue then yes that is a flawed election and would require a redo but that isn't what happened, it's essentially Whistle blowing by the official state baddie and that's considered an Act of War or something.

The underlying evidence is missing in the report. The report does conclude these efforts violated federal law. Identity theft and fraud.

I was using trolling myself, it wasnt language from the report. I shouldnt have done that, so apologies.

It was a flawed election, but finding out how many votes were influenced is a needle in a haystack. The main conclusion is to prevent any future meddling, starting with 2020.
 
Last edited:
If they knew it was untrue, that is the crime. That is what Barr is investigating.

If you care to listen, here is what Barr has to say on the subject.



Barr is a very unreliable source and it was impossible to know a 100% sure to know if the Steele dossier was 100% inaccurate. You have to investigate to establish it was untrue. Which they ultimately did and along the way indicted serious felonies and ultimately the report actually didn’t cost the taxpayers a penny.

Remember how Barr’s letter was inaccurate and lied to Congress not knowing if mueller disagreed with his letter. It’s a probe and I dont disagree it’s legitimacy. One should investigate if there was no misconduct, but the right are reporting it as if the mueller report was some kind of partisan coup initiative, which objectively it wasn’t.


So, honest question, do you consider your involvement in threads dedicated to U.S. elections and domestic policies to be meddling?

Don’t compare apples with pears here. I am not here propagating lies and faking my identity. I am posting facts based on the mueller report. You can corroborate it yourself by reading the report.
It isn’t my opinion that Russian interference was breaking the law, it’s a fact and Mueller concluded it. Read the report. Do you think the mueller report is inaccurate?

Edit:

After thinking about it, I guess if there is proof that the Steele dossier was purposefully written as a piece of fiction, then I agree it was fraud and people should be charged. However that does not mean the reports findings were not legit. Why are you guys ignoring the conclusions from the report? Let’s hypothetically assume that there was “fraud” during the origins of the mueller investigations, does that mean to you that the mueller report is also a fraud?
 
Last edited:
Don’t compare apples with pears here. I am not here propagating lies and faking my identity. I am posting facts based on the mueller report. You can corroborate it yourself by reading the report.
It isn’t my opinion that Russian interference was breaking the law, it’s a fact and Mueller concluded it. Read the report. Do you think the mueller report is inaccurate?

I'm not comparing anything to anything, just trying to establish what you define as "meddling". Because you are probably the most vocal in this section when it comes to the U.S. and while I've never seen you post false info, you certainly have posted opinions about what the U.S. should do, which could be viewed as meddling.
 
Whatever.
We will just have to wait and see.

Just put Barr’s letter next to the summary in Mueller report and read objectively. Do you think Barr’s letter accurately represented mueller report or not?

I'm not comparing anything to anything, just trying to establish what you define as "meddling". Because you are probably the most vocal in this section when it comes to the U.S. and while I've never seen you post false info, you certainly have posted opinions about what the U.S. should do, which could be viewed as meddling.

The definition is written in the report. If I inaccurately described it to you, I am sorry for the confusion. I highly recommend reading the language in the report to define, what I wrote as “meddling”. Perhaps I should have said “interference”, which is the language used in the report.

There are opinions of mine and facts where I try to post the sources. The problem is if I hypothetically am telling inaccuracies/lies and claim I am an American citizen working for some government agency on a very large scale. (Which I am not) But reading your posts I am certain you know the difference when I share my opinion and when I post facts.

Edit:
@Northstar as a direct answer to your earlier question. I do not considering my posts in this thread as meddling in a us election.
 
Last edited:
Back