Secret CIA assessment says Russia intervened in election to help Trump win

anon_de_plume · Dec 16, 2016

clarise said: ↑

It's being reported in Britain that the DNC hacks were an inside job perpetrated by Bernie's crew, over outrage over what Clinton and the DNC had done to their primary campaign. Further, it is being reported that the subsequent hacks of government email accounts were piled on by FBI/Justice, over similarly motivated outrage. (Many in FBI/Justice felt that the American people should not elect Hillary without knowing who she is.)

An inside job, as I've been alleging all along. And as Assange has repeatedly asserted, the Russians have nothing to do with it.

I know the UK Daily Mail is derided on both shores as a tabloid rag, but it is more trustworthy than most of the American media, and they've been reporting Assange truthfully for years.

Meanwhile Facebook is going to crack down on fake news. And who is their main arbiter of what is and isn't fake? ABC!!!! Great! The "news" outfit that hosts Steffie Stephanopoulis. The subsidiary of Disney Corporation.

Great, just great. Mickey Mouse is going to tell Americans what is and isn't real.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...termediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

Isn't proof that Russia didn't hack anything...

Distant Lover · Dec 16, 2016

JoeDirty said: ↑

Where do the black helicopters and the Illuminati fit into your nutjob conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Black helicopters and the Illuminati appear in right wing conspiracy fantasies, along with Hillary Clinton, dressed like a dominatrix, confiscating the guns of red blooded, patriotic Americans.

freespiritx · Dec 16, 2016

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

stumbler · Dec 16, 2016

Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.

Republicans have a different explanation for why no documents from their networks were ever released. Over the past several months, officials from the Republican committee have consistently said that their networks were not compromised, asserting that only the accounts of individual Republicans were attacked. On Friday, a senior committee official said he had no comment.

Mr. Trump’s transition office issued a statement Friday evening reflecting the deep divisions that emerged between his campaign and the intelligence agencies over Russian meddling in the election. “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” the statement said. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’”

One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful.

But the intelligence agencies’ conclusions that the hacking efforts were successful, which have been presented to President Obama and other senior officials, add a complex wrinkle to the question of what the Kremlin’s evolving objectives were in intervening in the American presidential election.

“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians.

It is unclear how many files were stolen from the Republican committee; in some cases, investigators never get a clear picture. It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.

The Russians were as surprised as everyone else at Mr. Trump’s victory, intelligence officials said. Had Mrs. Clinton won, they believe, emails stolen from the Democratic committee and from senior members of her campaign could have been used to undercut her legitimacy. The intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to help Mr. Trump was first reported by The Washington Post.

In briefings to the White House and Congress, intelligence officials, including those from the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, have identified individual Russian officials they believe were responsible. But none have been publicly penalized.

It is possible that in hacking into the Republican committee, Russian agents were simply hedging their bets. The attack took place in the spring, the senior officials said, about the same time that a group of hackers believed to be linked to the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency, stole the emails of senior officials of the Democratic National Committee. Intelligence agencies believe that the Republican committee hack was carried out by the same Russians who penetrated the Democratic committee and other Democratic groups.

The finding about the Republican committee is expected to be included in a detailed report of “lessons learned” that Mr. Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to assemble before he leaves office on Jan. 20. That report is intended, in part, to create a comprehensive history of the Russian effort to influence the election, and to solidify the intelligence findings before Mr. Trump is sworn in.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt about any intelligence suggesting a Russian effort to influence the election. “I don’t believe they interfered,” he told Time magazine in an interview published this week. He suggested that hackers could come from China, or that “it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

Intelligence officials and private cybersecurity companies believe that the Democratic National Committee was hacked by two different Russian cyberunits. One, called “Cozy Bear” or “A.P.T. 29” by some Western security experts, is believed to have spent months inside the D.N.C. computer network, as well as other government and political institutions, but never made public any of the documents it took. (A.P.T. stands for “Advanced Persistent Threat,” which usually describes a sophisticated state-sponsored cyberintruder.)

The other, the G.R.U.-controlled unit known as “Fancy Bear,” or “A.P.T. 28,” is believed to have created two outlets on the internet, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, to make Democratic documents public. Many of the documents were also provided to WikiLeaks, which released them over many weeks before the Nov. 8 election.

Representative Michael McCaul, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on CNN in September that the R.N.C. had been hacked by Russia, but then quickly withdrew the claim.

Mr. McCaul, who was considered by Mr. Trump for secretary of Homeland Security, initially told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “It’s important to note, Wolf, that they have not only hacked into the D.N.C. but also into the R.N.C.” He added that “the Russians have basically hacked into both parties at the national level, and that gives us all concern about what their motivations are.”

Minutes later, the R.N.C. issued a statement denying that it had been hacked. Mr. McCaul subsequently said that he had misspoken, but that it was true that “Republican political operatives” had been the target of Russian hacking. So were establishment Republicans with no ties to the campaign, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Mr. McCaul may have had in mind a collection of more than 200 emails of Republican officials and activists that appeared this year on the website DCLeaks.com. That website got far more attention for the many Democratic Party documents it posted.

The messages stolen from Republicans have drawn little attention because most are routine business emails from local Republican Party officials in several states, congressional staff members and party activists.

Among those whose emails were posted was Peter W. Smith, who runs a venture capital firm in Chicago and has long been active in “opposition research” for the Republican Party. He said he was unaware that his emails had been hacked until he was called by a reporter on Thursday.

He said he believes that his material came from a hack of the Illinois Republican Party.

“I’m not upset at all,” he said. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”
Click to expand...

RandyKnight · Dec 16, 2016

In a recent speech given on his “victory tour,” Trump said the following:

Trump. "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments. Our goal is stability not chaos."

For the whole of its existence, the CIA has been in the business of toppling regimes that didn’t bow to Washington’s dictates, from Guatemala to Iran to Chile and on and on. The production of chaos is their whole reason for existing.

Trump would effectively put them (CIA) out of business. No wonder they want to destroy him.

The CIA is institutionally quite close with the Saudis right now, and has been in charge of their covert war against Assad.

The Saudis, having given millions to the Clinton Foundation, along with their Gulf state allies, were counting on a Clinton victory. The CIA has a longstanding relationship with Riyadh, and together they have been working assiduously to not only overthrow Assad in Syria but to forge a “moderate” Sunni alliance that will effectively police the region while establishing the Saudis as the regional hegemon.

This was the Clintonian strategy while Hillary was at the helm of Foggy Bottom: Libya, Syria, the alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, are all examples of this utterly disastrous “Sunni turn.”

stumbler · Dec 16, 2016

US agency that certifies the security of voting machines was itself hacked: report

he U.S. agency charged with ensuring that voting machines meet security standards was itself penetrated by a hacker after the November elections, according to a security firm working with law enforcement on the matter.

The security firm, Recorded Future, was monitoring underground electronic markets where hackers buy and sell wares and discovered someone offering log-on credentials for access to computers at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, company executives said.

Posing as a potential buyer, the researchers engaged in a conversation with the hacker, said Levi Gundert, vice president of intelligence at the company, and Andrei Barysevich, director of advanced collection.

Eventually they discovered that the Russian-speaking hacker had obtained the credentials of more than 100 people at the election commission after exploiting a common database vulnerability, the researchers said.

The hacker was trying to sell information about the vulnerability to a Middle Eastern government for several thousand dollars, but the researchers alerted law enforcement and said Thursday that the hole had been patched.

The Election Assistance Commission said in a statement late Thursday that it had become aware of a “potential intrusion” and was “working with federal law enforcement agencies to investigate the potential breach and its effects.”

“The FBI is currently conducting an ongoing criminal investigation,” the statement added.

The election commission certifies voting systems and develops standards for technical guidelines and best practices for election officials across the country.

The researchers said the hacker had an unusual business model, scanning for ways to break into all manner of businesses and other entities and then moving rapidly to sell that access, rather than stealing the data himself.

“We don’t think he actually works for any government or is super sophisticated,” Barysevich said.

In the case of the election commission, the hacker used methods including an SQL injection, a well known and preventable flaw, obtaining a list of user names and obfuscated passwords, which he was then able to crack.

Though much of the commission’s work is public, the hacker gained access to non-public reports on flaws in voting machines.

In theory, someone could have used knowledge of such flaws to attack specific machines, said Matt Blaze, an electronic voting expert and professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers were confident that the hacker moved to sell his access soon after getting it, meaning that he was not inside the system before election day.

The U.S. voting process is decentralized and there were no reports of widespread fraud in November.

The Election Assistance Commission was created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and is led by presidential appointees.
Click to expand...

stumbler · Dec 16, 2016

anon_de_plume said: ↑

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!
Click to expand...

Ace/M4M is actually hilarious. He makes totally bullshit claims, posts sources that actually prove they are bullshit, posts sources that contradict his other sources, and then tries to claim he proved something.

I am literally still laughing at his desperation.

RandyKnight · Dec 16, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

Ace/M4M is actually hilarious. He makes totally bullshit claims, posts sources that actually prove they are bullshit, posts sources that contradict his other sources, and then tries to claim he proved something.

I am literally still laughing at his desperation.
Click to expand...

seems to me he is getting a lot of free rent in your head.......

clarise · Dec 16, 2016

anon_de_plume said: ↑

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...termediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

Isn't proof that Russia didn't hack anything...
Click to expand...

And I can't prove that there are no pink elephants on Alpha Centauri.

For the umpteenth time, you leftists have the burden of proof backwards. The burden of proof is on YOU. (Not you, specifically, Anon de Plume. You, 2nd person plural.) You, who are asserting that the Russians are behind the Wikileaks releases, must prove it.

And don't tell me about a consensus of seventeen climate scientists.

PROVE IT.

RandyKnight · Dec 16, 2016

clarise said: ↑

And I can't prove that there are no pink elephants on Alpha Centauri.

For the umpteenth time, you leftists have the burden of proof backwards. The burden of proof is on YOU. (Not you, specifically, Anon de Plume. You, 2nd person plural.) You, who are asserting that the Russians are behind the Wikileaks releases, must prove it.

And don't tell me about a consensus of seventeen climate scientists.

PROVE IT.
Click to expand...

As the hysteria about Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election grows, a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence would rely on “circumstantial evidence” when it has the capability for hard evidence, say U.S. intelligence veterans.

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.

All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.

In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.

clarise · Dec 16, 2016

JoeDirty said: ↑

I think that at the very least they're trying to delegitimize Trump's Presidency.

However, what they REALLY want IMHO is a revolt in the electoral college giving it to Crooked Hillary. That ain't gonna happen. If it did...the sorry liberals would feel the People's wrath.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Look, he is going to win the Electoral College. Hell, he might even pick up a few from the Hillary side and go over 306, because people are that disgusted with her at this point.

But what I am saying is this: it will not matter. Trump will not be president in 2017.

clarise · Dec 16, 2016

RandyKnight said: ↑

As the hysteria about Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election grows, a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence would rely on “circumstantial evidence” when it has the capability for hard evidence, say U.S. intelligence veterans.

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.

All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.

In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.
Click to expand...

Toward the end of the Wikileaks flood, there were releases of correspondence on White House servers going back seven years. That material cannot possibly be hacked, because it is no longer on active systems. It is archived to physical storage.

This whole charade is absurd on its face, but it is also very dangerous. We knew they would not go down without a fight, but are they really willing to drag us into a potential world war?

They just might be.

Hellcat41979 · Dec 16, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

That is an obvious bald faced lie. The Russians did not just release information. The Russians hacked into the DNC, DCCC , Podesta's email account, possibly the RNC and many other government agencies and institutions.

Stop trying to spread this false right wing pro Russian propaganda.

Now watch you contradict yourself. Because here you admit electors in many states are not bound to vote for the candidate who won their state and can cast a vote for someone else.

But then just a little while later you act dumb again.

We hold elections to determine who wins the electoral college. But the constitution provides a check and balance for electors to keep unqualified and/or criminals from becoming president.
Click to expand...

First of all they are accused but other hearing CIA sources said so no evidence has been made public on if the Russians were even responsible or not. All the while the FBI has said that Russia wasn't behind the leaks. Secondly this is quite ironic considering that Obama was proven to have used taxpayer dollars to influence the election in Israel. Thirdly what went on with these leaks was no different then the Billy Bush tape that was recorded without Trump's knowledge or consent which is the same thing as an illegal wire tap but we are not hearing you complain about the media trying to influence the election as well.

Your also full of shit I never said the Electors are bound to cast there vote for the winner My exact words are "they are expected to cast their votes for the candidate that won." As more people voted for this candidate then that one then the people who voted are expecting that according to the results of the election they voted in that the winner of their state will get the electoral votes. Not someone's but hurt because the guy they don't like won then all of a sudden the will of the voters doesn't matter.

As for your checks and balances comment your right but it will also require a visit to the courts and they require more evidence then confidential CIA sources said so to overturn the results of an election.

ace's n 8's · Dec 16, 2016

clarise said: ↑

It's being reported in Britain that the DNC hacks were an inside job perpetrated by Bernie's crew, over outrage over what Clinton and the DNC had done to their primary campaign. Further, it is being reported that the subsequent hacks of government email accounts were piled on by FBI/Justice, over similarly motivated outrage. (Many in FBI/Justice felt that the American people should not elect Hillary without knowing who she is.)

An inside job, as I've been alleging all along. And as Assange has repeatedly asserted, the Russians have nothing to do with it.

I know the UK Daily Mail is derided on both shores as a tabloid rag, but it is more trustworthy than most of the American media, and they've been reporting Assange truthfully for years.

Meanwhile Facebook is going to crack down on fake news. And who is their main arbiter of what is and isn't fake? ABC!!!! Great! The "news" outfit that hosts Steffie Stephanopoulis. The subsidiary of Disney Corporation.

Great, just great. Mickey Mouse is going to tell Americans what is and isn't real.
Click to expand...

Mother fuck me....

I had suspected all along, this was an inside job, with high suspicions towards Vindictive Valerie.

Earlier today, I told Randy that if Sanders really had a chance of winning the Candidacy he would have taken Clinton out of the race, little did I know....He did take Clinton out of the race.

Furthermore...who gives a fuck about facebook, anyone that gets there news from facebook deserves to remain a fucking idiot

anon_de_plume · Dec 16, 2016

clarise said: ↑

And I can't prove that there are no pink elephants on Alpha Centauri.

For the umpteenth time, you leftists have the burden of proof backwards. The burden of proof is on YOU. (Not you, specifically, Anon de Plume. You, 2nd person plural.) You, who are asserting that the Russians are behind the Wikileaks releases, must prove it.

And don't tell me about a consensus of seventeen climate scientists.

PROVE IT.
Click to expand...

I'll just post the title of the article... You can find it yourself...

FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election

ace's n 8's · Dec 16, 2016

anon_de_plume said: ↑

I'll just post the title of the article... You can find it yourself...

FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election
Click to expand...

Here is a title that you can research your ass off for.........

Reports: FBI, CIA Not On The Same Page About Russian Hacking (Maybe Because The Evidence About Russia Helping Trump Is Not Substantiated)

stumbler · Dec 16, 2016

ace's n 8's said: ↑

Here is a title that you can research your ass off for.........

Reports: FBI, CIA Not On The Same Page About Russian Hacking (Maybe Because The Evidence About Russia Helping Trump Is Not Substantiated)

Click to expand...

FBI now agrees with the CIA: Russia intervened to help Trump win the election

Another shoe just dropped in the 2016 presidential election Russian hacking scandal: It seems the FBI and the CIA now agree that Russia’s goal with the hacks of the DNC and Clinton campaign official John Podesta was to help Donald Trump win.

Previously, the FBI had maintained that it didn’t know the true motives behind Russia’s hacks on Democrats, but The Washington Post reports that FBI Director James Comey has now acknowledged that the FBI shares the CIA’s conclusions.

“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” wrote CIA Director John Brennan in a message to employees cited by the Post.

While the FBI and the CIA both agree that Russia was trying to help Trump win the election, they also believe the Kremlin had other goals in mind, such as undermining the confidence of the American electoral system.

The report on the FBI and CIA’s agreement on the purpose of Russia’s hacks came just before President Barack Obama was scheduled to address the nation on the matter Friday afternoon.
Click to expand...

RandyKnight · Dec 16, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

FBI now agrees with the CIA: Russia intervened to help Trump win the election
Click to expand...

Obama a few minutes ago when pressed by Martha Raddatz would not say that is true.....

ace's n 8's · Dec 16, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

FBI now agrees with the CIA: Russia intervened to help Trump win the election
Click to expand...

“The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI,”
Click to expand...

Furthermore;

Okay—so the three big wigs of domestic and foreign intelligence said that Russia was working to help elect Donald Trump. Still, the review isn’t done—and the methods in which an election could be hacked in the ways that Democrats want to convey to undermine Trump are not possible. Amber Phillips and Philip Bump of The Washington Post mentioned how difficult it would be to hack an election in August:
Click to expand...

stumbler · Dec 16, 2016

US intelligence agencies feuding with Republicans over Russian hacking

Republican members of Congress are complaining that U.S. intelligence agencies are refusing to brief them widely on a classified CIA report that concluded Russia hacked Democratic Party data in an effort to help Donald Trump win the presidency.

The Republicans said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has refused their requests for full briefings of Congress’ two intelligence committees. U.S. government officials said the leaders of Congress and the chairmen of the two intelligence committees, known as the “Gang of Eight,” have been briefed on the CIA’s conclusion.

Nevertheless, Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and is a member of President-elect Trump’s transition team, as well as the Gang of Eight, has called for a briefing for his entire committee on the CIA assessment, which the Washington Post reported on last week.

“The committee is vigorously looking into reports of cyber-attacks during the election campaign, and in particular we want to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us,” Nunes said.Representative Ron Johnson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said his panel also has asked for a briefing but the CIA refused.

“It is disappointing that the CIA would provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but will not provide information to elected members of Congress,” Johnson said in a statement on Friday.

Three U.S. government sources, who all asked for anonymity to discuss classified information, told Reuters that the while the full congressional committees have not been briefed, the congressional leadership has, which is the standard procedure for briefing Congress on sensitive intelligence.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a statement that because President Barack Obama last week ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full-scale “review of foreign efforts to influence recent presidential elections – from 2008 to the present,” the agencies would not comment further until the study is completed.

BRIEFING TO FOLLOW

ODNI, which oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said that when the review is complete, the U.S. intelligence community “stands ready to brief Congress.”

The office said it also would make the study “available to the public consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods.”

The CIA based its conclusion about Russia hacking to influence the election not on irrefutable evidence but largely on its analysis of the fact that the Russians hacked both political parties while only publicizing information damaging to Democrats and their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, said a fourth U.S. official familiar with the agency’s work.The FBI, which has responsibility for counterintelligence investigations inside the United States, did not endorse the CIA’s finding because it does not meet the standards of evidence necessary to win a conviction in a U.S. court or identify individuals whose hacking violated American law, the fourth official said.”The CIA’s case would never hold up in court but it is almost impossible to reach a different conclusion than the agency did based on the selective nature of what the Russians did and did not choose to publicize,” the official said.

ODNI has not endorsed the CIA’s conclusion but does not dispute it. Two sources said there was “no daylight” between ODNI and CIA on the issue. An ODNI spokesman said the agency would not comment beyond its official statement.

The debate over Russian hacking, which three officials said has continued after Election Day and extends beyond the election to multiple U.S. government agencies, as well as to private firms and individuals, also is opening a rift between Trump and some Republican members of Congress.

The president-elect continues to dismiss the intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed the hacking of this year’s election but Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are calling for a full investigation.

On Friday, Senator Richard Burr, Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, announced his committee will conduct a review in the new year of U.S. intelligence on Russian activities, including the classified information that led to the Obama administration’s Oct. 7 statement that Moscow was behind the hacking of U.S. political institutions.

The review also will cover Russian cyber activity more broadly, he said in a statement.

Burr said the review will include interviews of both Obama and Trump officials, “including the issuance of subpoenas if necessary to compel testimony.”
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

anon_de_plume Porn Star

Distant Lover Master of Facts

freespiritx DreamWeaver

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

clarise Precious princess Banned!

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

clarise Precious princess Banned!

clarise Precious princess Banned!

Hellcat41979 J.A.F.A.

ace's n 8's Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Secret CIA assessment says Russia intervened in election to help Trump win

Log in or Sign up

anon_de_plume Porn Star

Distant Lover Master of Facts

freespiritx DreamWeaver

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

clarise Precious princess Banned!

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

clarise Precious princess Banned!

clarise Precious princess Banned!

Hellcat41979 J.A.F.A.

ace's n 8's Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Useful Searches