Comey admits to being a leaker

msman · Jun 11, 2017

But But that was different. Lynch is a democrat. She has a built in excuse for every criminal act she does.
Comey is a piss ant. Who can blame Trump for firing him. He was not doing his job.
Comey pissed all over himself every time his boss, no matter who it happened to be, talked to him.

thinskin · Jun 11, 2017

Technically speaking hiring two pissing hookers to wet Obama's bed is not really against the law (well I guess it may be in some states!) and I guess if you lot are willing to forgive selling your country out to the Russians and making you an international laughing stock, then a Presidential interest in watersports is not really going to bother you too much!!

Thinskin

ace's n 8's · Jun 11, 2017

stumbler said: ↑

Obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Alan Dershowitz Schools CNN Panel: ‘It Simply Is Not A Crime For the President to Exercise His Constitutional Authority’

"If you and I were expert witnesses in an impeachment trial of President Trump, and we were asked the question, 'has President Trump committed an obstruction of justice by pardoning Flynn or by firing Comey, or by telling Comey not to investigate Flynn?', my answer, as an expert on the constitution would be 'absolutely not, he didn't commit an obstruction of justice [...] it simply isn't a crime for the President to exercise his constitutional authority.'"

msman · Jun 11, 2017

People should learn, imaginary crimes cannot be punished in the real world. It has to be real world crimes.
We have way too many people living in an imaginary world where they encourage others to join them in their hunt for imaginary criminals.

stumbler · Jun 11, 2017

‘It’s not a nothingburger’: Chris Wallace shatters Fox & Friends for claiming Russia scandal is over

Fox News host Chris Wallace was forced to correct his colleagues on Fox & Friends Sunday morning after one host called the investigation into possible Trump campaign links to Russia a “nothingburger.”

During a tease for Wallace’s show, Fox News Sunday, host Clayton Morris asserted that the “Russia story imploded this week” because the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey did not provide details about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Wallace agreed that there was no “hard evidence of collusion so far” but he noted that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony to Congress this week could shed light on possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump. And Sessions is also expected to address allegations that he had an additional meeting with the Russian ambassador that was never disclosed.

“Little evidence has been shown that there’s collusion with Russia,” co-host Pete Hegseth opined. “Now we know that Comey was a leaker, potentially multiple times. Can the investigation move in those directions instead of the Russia investigation, which is proven to be pretty much a nothingburger?”

“I certainly wouldn’t say it’s a nothingburger,” Wallace replied. “We have to see where it goes. Among other things, we still haven’t heard from Michael Flynn. And he’s one of the key figures in all of this. He was the one who had the most contacts Russia. He’s the one who got paid by Russia.”
Click to expand...

stumbler · Jun 11, 2017

In the View of the Supreme Court, Alan Dershowitz Is Wrong About the Powers of the President

Alan Dershowitz, in a series of recent op-eds, has taken to arguing in his characteristic take-no-prisoners style that the whole issue of whether President Trump might have obstructed justice is a red herring. Even if the President ordered James Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation and had a corrupt intent for doing so, this would still not amount to the crime of obstruction of justice. The reason, according to Dershowitz, is that the Constitution gives the exclusive power to the President to control all federal law-enforcement investigations—and thus to shut any of them down for any reason the President sees fit. In other words, the President can never commit obstruction of justice by shutting down a criminal investigation or prosecution.

But Dershowitz fails to take into account that the Supreme Court has decisively rejected this view. In Morrison v. Olson (1988), a 7-1 Supreme Court turned back constitutional challenges to Congress’ creation of the Act that gave us the office of the Independent Counsel—and in doing so, dismissed exactly the argument that Dershowitz now seeks to invoke.

The Ethics in Government Act was created out of the recognition that the President should be taken out of the process of controlling investigations and prosecutions that involved potential crimes by himself or high-ranking government officials—i.e., close aides of the President. As the Supreme Court thought was obvious, “Congress, of course, was concerned when it created the office of independent counsel with the conflicts of interest that could arise in situations when the Executive Branch is called upon to investigate its own high-ranking officers.”

The Act created a process that could lead to the appointment of an Independent Counsel for this role, and the entire point of the Act was to insulate the Independent Counsel—and hence the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving the President and his or her top aides—from the President’s complete control. The Act essentially put the powers of the Department of Justice in the hands of the Independent Counsel: it vested him or her with the "full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice [and] the Attorney General."

Then, to even further ensure that the President not have unfettered control when potential crimes involving himself and his top aides were at stake, the Independent Counsel, once appointed, was wrapped in several layers of additional insulation from presidential control. Thus, the only person who could remove the counsel from office was the Attorney General—and, very importantly, the Attorney General could only do that for limited and specific reasons (“good cause”), such as misconduct in office or inability to perform the counsel’s duties.* If the Attorney General did remove a counsel, the AG had to file a report with Congress and the courts stating the factual basis for this removal. And as yet further protection of the Independent Counsel, the federal courts—which were given the power to reinstate an Independent Counsel who had been illegally removed—would be the ultimate adjudicator of whether any removal was in fact for good cause.

In Morrison, the Act was challenged on the ground that it violated the separation of powers because it took unfettered investigative and prosecutorial control over these politically sensitive potential crimes out of the President’s hands. But in firmly rejecting that challenge, the Court held that the President’s constitutional powers were not violated by cabining his control over the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving himself and his top aides. The Act and the Court’s decision reflected the common sense understanding that the President has an inherent conflict of interest when he or his top aides are potential subjects of criminal investigation—and that nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to completely control those investigations or shut them down.

So the premise of my friend Alan Dershowitz’s argument is wrong: the President does not have unfettered constitutional power to decide whether to shut down criminal investigations of his top aides for any reason. As the Supreme Court concluded, “we simply do not see how” it is “so central to the functioning of the Executive Branch as to require as a matter of constitutional law that” the President be understood to have unlimited control over the investigation and prosecution of potential crimes involving himself or his top aides. Given the established constitutional principle that Congress can protect a federal prosecutor from the President’s domination in these type of cases, Congress can certainly constrain the President’s power in more limited ways—to protect the integrity of these very investigative and prosecutorial processes—including by making it a crime for the President to act with a corrupt intent to stymie or shut down investigations of the President himself and his top aides.

Dershowitz’s mistake is to confuse what might be true in run-of-the-mill federal cases, where the President arguably has ultimate control over prosecutorial decisions, with potential criminal matters involving the President’s top aides—which the Supreme Court has concluded can be taken out of the President’s complete control, given the obvious conflict-of-interest.

Dershowitz does rightly point out that the President could pardon Michael Flynn. And if he can do that, says Dershowitz, what’s the difference in ordering the investigation to be shut down instead? To be sure, there’s a bit of a paradox in that. But an exercise of the pardon power is a fully public act, for which the President is publicly and politically accountable. For a President behind the scenes to put pressure on federal law enforcement officials to stop an investigation or prosecution into his top aides—or even to order them to do so—is a far more dangerous use of power, precisely because it might very well remain more obscured.

As a practical matter, we know that the Independent Counsel system was a mess in implementation (for example, the threshold for initiating the appointment of such a counsel was much too low), which is why Congress decided to abandon it as a policy matter. But as a matter of understanding how our Constitution is structured, Morrison nonetheless stands for the principle that Congress can take the investigation and prosecution of certain crimes—those involving the President and his or her top aides—out of the President’s complete control. From that it follows that Congress can take the lesser step of addressing precisely the same conflict-of-interest public policy concerns by denying the President the power to act with a corrupt intent to interfere with these investigations. Needless to say, ordering them to be shut down with this intent would certainly constitute interference.

Even if Congress can criminalize presidential obstruction of justice in cases involving his top aides, one might argue that any such statute must expressly make this clear, including by stating explicitly that the President is covered. And there is a longstanding debate about whether a President can be criminally prosecuted while in office, or whether the impeachment process is the sole route through which a President can be held accountable, even for the commission of crimes.

None of that matters, though, to Dershowitz’s claims. Instead, Dershowitz wants to end all talk of possible obstruction of justice by arguing that the Constitution makes it impossible for any President ever to be guilty of such a crime—even if he acts with a corrupt intent to shut down a criminal investigation into the President or his top aides. But the Supreme Court has established that the Constitution is not so foolish as to reflect any such principle. Perhaps Dershowitz wants to shift gears and take issue with the Supreme Court (many academics have criticized Morrison). But under the constitutional law that we have, Congress can make it a crime for the President to obstruct justice by acting with a corrupt intent to shut down criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President and his or her top aides.

* In the terms of the Act, removal was permitted only for “good cause, physical disability, mental incapacity, or any other condition that substantially impairs the performance of such independent counsel's duties." The committee report from the House described the "good cause" limitation as "protecting the independent counsel's ability to act independently of the President's direct control" since it permits removal only for "misconduct." The Court has also made clear that “good cause” removal constraints do not permit removal based on simple disagreement with the policy judgments or priorities of an official who is protected by a “good cause” provision.
Click to expand...

msman · Jun 11, 2017

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said former FBI Director James Comey likely knew he would not be allowed to publicize his leaked memos.

Comey indirectly leaked memos - about conversations with President Trump - to Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, who sent them to the press on his behalf.

Richman could not be found at his Brooklyn Heights, N.Y. home and has "gone into hiding," according to the New York Post.

"People are treating [the memos] like it's a diary entry. He wrote this on an FBI computer about a pending sensitive investigation," Turley said.

Turley said that FBI protocol dictates that in order to publicize the memos, Comey would have had to get permission from the Justice Department.

He added that if he, as a lawyer, would want to get the memos through a FOIA request, the FBI would have refused.

"I think that Comey probably knew that," he said.

"This was really tarnishing of his reputation," Turley said.

ace's n 8's · Jun 11, 2017

stumbler said: ↑

In the View of the Supreme Court, Alan Dershowitz Is Wrong About the Powers of the President
Click to expand...

That's nice.

Did the Supreme court forget the little fact that Flynn is not a high ranking official in Trumps administration or cabinet?

Dershowitz's analysis still stands..you again, still lose.

Furthermore, when was an ''assumed'' ethics violation, an obstruction of justice?

ace's n 8's · Jun 11, 2017

stumbler said: ↑

‘It’s not a nothingburger’: Chris Wallace shatters Fox & Friends for claiming Russia scandal is over
Click to expand...

Yeah, another one of those legal super experts.

If there was something there, it would already be there.

Keep looking losers.

Trump is damn sure not smart enough to cover his tracks that well.

Surprisingly though, I'm very shocked that you leftists haven't thought of that shit yet....ya know, because he's too stupid to walk straight, in your mind.

msman · Jun 12, 2017

I always thought it was strange. The democrats will always complain about someone being dumb but that person is outwitting all of the democrats.
There can only be a very few reasons for this. I will let everyone decide what the reason is.

clarise · Jun 12, 2017

msman said: ↑

I always thought it was strange. The democrats will always complain about someone being dumb but that person is outwitting all of the democrats.
There can only be a very few reasons for this. I will let everyone decide what the reason is.
Click to expand...

+1

Remember how they marketed George W. Bush as an incompetent imbecile who couldn't tie his own shoes, and yet he was still being given credit for virtually everything that happened in this country six, seven, eight year later?

I don't think a bigger imbecile in human history has accomplished so much.

Strange how that works.

msman · Jun 12, 2017

That is one of the people I was thinking about when I posted.
For a person who the democrats thought was so dumb he sure out smarted the democrats.
If the democrats were a little more intelligent they might take notice of that fact.
But then, if they were more intelligent they would not be democrats.

clarise · Jun 12, 2017

msman said: ↑

That is one of the people I was thinking about when I posted.
For a person who the democrats thought was so dumb he sure out smarted the democrats.
If the democrats were a little more intelligent they might take notice of that fact.
But then, if they were more intelligent they would not be democrats.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence reminds me of something an anonymous caller said recently on Boston's talk radio show. He said, "Imagine how much trouble we'd be in if Islam were not the Religion of Peace."

I laughed so hard i nearly ran off the road.

The remark has an irony similar to the one you are making about Democrats and their dismissal of the intelligence of their opponents. Democrats spout their assertions, such as "Republicans are ignorant racists" and "Islam is the Religion of Peace," but they do not appear to have the presence of mind to perceive the faultiness of the slogans. They never check their premises. And if you threaten their faith-based world view, you're a blasphemer.

power123 · Jun 12, 2017

Democrats intelligent. Tell us another joke.
A political party dumb enough to let the Clinton's do their planning can not be considered intelligent.
Crooked yes, intelligent no.

M4MPetCock · Jun 12, 2017

Comey ought to be arrested and jailed

Fired G-man likely to flip on Dem co-conspirators

6/11/17

James Comey needs to go to prison.

Or at least he needs to start thinking he might be in jeopardy of going to prison.

As the president said Friday of the former FBI director, “Some of the things he said just weren’t true.”

And he was under oath when he said them. That could be a problem, especially now that the federal government is open under new management.

If I were running the feds’ probe, the first question I’d want answered is, “Mr. Comey, how many times have you leaked or caused to be leaked to the alt-left media government documents?”

We know he did it once. He’s copped to it. How many times do you get caught doing something — anything — the first time you do it?

“He’s already had to retract earlier false statements he made under oath,” Corey Lewandowski pointed out yesterday on Fox. “I think Jim Comey’s in big trouble. Clearly he’s got some big problems.”

Reality Winner leaked government documents, ditto James Comey. But she’s being held in a Georgia jail cell this weekend without bail, while he’s putting the finishing touches on his $10 million book deal. What’s the difference between the two perps, except that Comey has more kingpins to trade up than Reality?

Still, there’s no reason Comey has to end up in Club Fed. If there was an organizational chart of the Clinton-Obama crime family, Comey’s mugshot would be found somewhere in middle management. Comey can flip. He can deliver Mr. Big ... and Ms. Big.

Do you see how this Democrat conspiracy is beginning to come apart, like the old Winter Hill Gang back in 1995? Comey didn’t directly deliver the memo — if indeed there was a memo — to the fake-news media. He used a cut-out, another pajama boy from a Brooklyn hipster neighborhood. A guy by the name of Richman — you may have seen the video of him on YouTube, absolutely petrified while being interviewed on CNN by Anderson Cooper.

Now Richman has vanished. He has taken the advice of Winter Hill hood Sonny Mercurio: “I advocate the lam.”

Do you think Professor Richman will stand up? Nah, me neither.

They’re all running like rats, as Joe Early used to say.

Comey should be called in to answer a few questions for the grand jury. Mr. Comey, you have testified you were ordered by the attorney general to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton a “matter,” in order to falsely “align” the FBI’s narrative with that of the racketeering enterprise dba Hillary for America.

When Comey points the finger at Loretta Lynch, they can lug her, and ask her, under oath, which of the crime family’s caporegimes directed her to tell Comey to dummy up? Ms. Lynch, how could you discuss your grandchildren with Bill Clinton when you don’t have any grandchildren?

When they want to, the feds know how to turn up the heat. And God forbid Comey should ever be convicted of some, uh, process crime, as they like to say. Comey loves to impress irredeemables with his legalese, saying things like he “memorialized” his conversations “contemporaneously.” So let’s continue with the legal mumbo-jumbo. With no priors, after his conviction Comey could ask for probation, but the judge could ... “depart from sentencing guidelines.”

Better “lawyer up,” Mr. Comey, to use another of his class’ favorite expressions.

If you ever do have to go to prison, J. Edgar, then they really start turning the screws. To break jailbirds like you, they’ll put you “on the bus,” riding from one Bureau of Prisons facility to another. These rickety old buses have covered windows, and no shock absorbers, and it’s not like Jet Blue — you can’t buy extra-legroom seats. Very uncomfortable, especially if you’re 6-foot-8.

At night they herd you into the nearest BOP lock-up, and serve up some really bad prison slop, and you don’t have any cash to buy something edible in the commissary. And your home prison credit card doesn’t work on the pay phones, so you won’t be able to call any of your alt-left soulmates like Jake Tapper or Chris Matthews to commiserate with.

And I won’t even get into what happens when they really lose patience. Mr. Comey, did you ever hear of something called “the hole”?

But perhaps Comey can cleanse himself of the contempt. Draw up a “proffer,” as to what he’s willing to testify about, and against whom. There’s one requirement, though, which may be very difficult for Comey, perhaps impossible, considering he’s done next to none of it lately.

He’ll have to tell the truth.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

But the road to redemption starts with these simple words:

“Mr. Comey, you have the right to remain silent ... ”

~ Howie Carr - Boston Herald

power123 · Jun 12, 2017

Any person who leaks information is a traitor.
They should hang as soon as possible.

thinskin · Jun 12, 2017

I am going to ignore the half-wit who wants to make leaking a capital crime!

You could argue that everyone of the Chump's tweets is a leak but his latest is a fine example!

“I believe the James Comey leaks will be far more prevalent than anyone ever thought possible,” the president tweeted Sunday morning. “Totally illegal? Very ‘cowardly!’”

He makes accusations without evidence which appears to be the favourite US game at the moment! He makes legal assessments but he is certainly not a lawyer and then he defames Comey yet again! All of which only serves to validate Comey!

So is he going to release the tapes of the conversations or is the Chump going to admit that there are no tapes of the conversations now! Whether there ever were tapes is speculative but I know what I think!

Thinskin

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump-tapes-leak

power123 · Jun 12, 2017

Good think being ignorant is not against the law. You would be spending a life sentence, maybe get the death penalty.

RandyKnight · Jun 12, 2017

M4MPetCock said: ↑

Comey ought to be arrested and jailed

Fired G-man likely to flip on Dem co-conspirators

6/11/17

James Comey needs to go to prison.

Or at least he needs to start thinking he might be in jeopardy of going to prison.

As the president said Friday of the former FBI director, “Some of the things he said just weren’t true.”

And he was under oath when he said them. That could be a problem, especially now that the federal government is open under new management.

<snip>

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

But the road to redemption starts with these simple words:

“Mr. Comey, you have the right to remain silent ... ”

~ Howie Carr - Boston Herald
Click to expand...

SC Rep. Trey Gowdy tapped for House oversight chairman with Chaffetz retiring

Chaffetz is leaving the oversight panel just as it was poised to investigate Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey amid the FBI's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Chaffetz has asked the FBI to turn over documents about Comey's interactions with the White House and Justice Department, including materials dating back nearly four years to the Obama administration. Trump fired Comey May 9 amid questions about the FBI's investigation, which is now being overseen by special counsel Robert Mueller, a former FBI director. Comey testified Thursday before the Senate intelligence committee about his interactions with Trump.

stumbler · Jun 12, 2017

Oh so Trump's lawyer is going to file a complaint is he? Well let's see how that works out.

Trump’s New Lawyer Has Lost Some Big Cases for Trump

The lawyer hired to represent President Donald Trump in various federal investigations is a highly experienced and successful legal mind, but he doesn’t exactly have a perfect score representing the man who is now commander-in-chief.

Marc E. Kasowitz lost two highly publicized key libel cases he filed on behalf of Trump and a whopping attorney’s fees motion.

The $1,500-an-hour New York trial attorney also has been criticized for sending two letters threatening to sue The New York Times for its coverage of candidate Trump — but never suing — and for arguing that the president is immune from a libel lawsuit.

Trump has retained Kasowitz to act as his private lawyer in dealing with federal probes by a special counsel and congressional investigations into possible collusion by the Trump campaign last year with Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to the Washington Post and other media outlets. Trump denies any misconduct and says he is not under investigation.

Kasowitz’s first big loss for Trump was in New Jersey. Kasowitz filed a $5 billion — yes, billion with a “b” — libel lawsuit in 2006 against book author Timothy O’Brien and his book publishers over O’Brien’s 2005 book, “TrumpNation, the Art of Being the Donald.”

The website for Kasowitz’s law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman in New York, mentions the “TrumpNation” lawsuit but not the later dismissal.

Kasowitz claimed on behalf of Trump that the book falsely reported that Trump merely was a millionaire, not the billionaire that Trump claimed.

A New Jersey judge dismissed the lawsuit and the dismissal was affirmed by a New Jersey appeals court in 2011. The court ruled Kasowitz failed to prove that O’Brien published his statements knowing they were false or with seriously doubts, known as publishing with “actual malice.”

In 2010, Kasowitz filed another doomed libel suit, this time on behalf of Trump University. Kasowitz filed the $1-million lawsuit against Tarla Makaeff, a Trump University student, yoga instructor, and whistleblower after she filed a class-action fraud lawsuit against the school and Trump.

Kasowitz argued on behalf of Trump University that Makaeff defamed the school by claiming in various letters and online posts that that the university and its affiliates engaged in “fraudulent business practices,” “grand larceny,” “predatory behavior,” and “criminal” business practices.

Once again, a judge dismissed the lawsuit because Kasowitz failed to prove the former student published her statements with actual malice.

Kasowitz’s loss carried an extra sting for Trump University: The court ordered the university to pay the student’s hefty $800,000 legal bill.

Last year, Kasowitz grabbed headlines when he sent two letters threatening to sue the New York Times for reporting about Trump during the presidential campaign.

Trump’s lawyer threatened to sue New York Times for publishing an article about two women who claimed they were groped by the candidate before he ran for president.

Kasowitz told the newspaper in his Oct. 13, 2016 letter that the article was “defamatory” and a “failure to retract the story will leave my client with no option but to pursue all available actions and remedies.” The Times published an article about Kasowitz’s letter and the response by the newspaper’s lawyer, who said the article would not be retracted and invited Trump to sue.

Kasowitz did not sue the Times and his threatening letter was mocked as a “stunt” by a experience Los Angeles libel lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

Several days earlier, Kasowitz wrote another letter threatening legal action against the Times, saying the paper’s publication of Trump’s leaked state income tax returns was “illegal.” No lawsuit followed that threat, either.

In his latest representation of Trump, Kasowitz is arguing that Trump is immune from a libel filed by Summer Zervos, a contestant from NBC’s “The Apprentice” reality television show who claimed she was groped by Trump.

Zervos claims that Trump defamed her by calling her a liar after she publicly alleged that Trump groped her while she worked on “The Apprentice” with Trump.

“President Trump intends to file a motion to dismiss or stay this action until he leaves office on the ground that the United States Constitution, including the Supremacy Clause, immunizes President Trump from being sued in this action while he is in office,” Kasowitz argued on behalf of Trump in a recent court filing. Trump will file his immunity motion on July 7.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that sitting presidents cannot claim immunity from civil lawsuits for their pre-presidential actions, Kasowitz is relying on an obscure passage in the court decision suggesting that a president might be immune if sued in state court instead of federal court. The Zervos case was filed in state court.

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said Kasowitz’s immunity argument is “wrong.” John Dean, a former counsel to President Richard Nixon, agreed and argued only a “blindly partisan” court would rule in Trump’s favor.

Kasowitz has won some cases for Trump, including recently defeating a media motion to open Trump’s divorce records in New York, where divorce records are traditionally secret. Kasowitz’s website also says that the lawyer defeated financier Carl Icahn’s takeover plan for Trump’s three Atlantic City casinos in bankruptcy court.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

msman Porn Star Banned!

thinskin Porn Star Banned!

ace's n 8's Porn Star

msman Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

msman Porn Star Banned!

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

msman Porn Star Banned!

clarise Precious princess Banned!

msman Porn Star Banned!

clarise Precious princess Banned!

power123 Porn Star

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

power123 Porn Star

thinskin Porn Star Banned!

power123 Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

Comey admits to being a leaker

Log in or Sign up

msman Porn Star Banned!

thinskin Porn Star Banned!

ace's n 8's Porn Star

msman Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

msman Porn Star Banned!

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

msman Porn Star Banned!

clarise Precious princess Banned!

msman Porn Star Banned!

clarise Precious princess Banned!

power123 Porn Star

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

power123 Porn Star

thinskin Porn Star Banned!

power123 Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

Useful Searches