The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15490
Location: Combat Information Center
RangerDave wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I like how people think the ABA is a nonpartisan reviewer of judicial qualifications.

They are non-partisan, but that doesn't mean they're ideologically neutral.


Regardless of how they want to put it, their judgments regarding judicial nominees - much like the judgments of the ACLU and SPLC on matters that ostensible fall under their 'nonpartisan' areas of concern - are questionable under the most generous assumptions.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:28 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5075
The way this is shaking out is beginning to have the appearance of a soft coup by the Clinton Campaign, the Demicratic Party, and the Bureaucratic apparatus.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:35 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15490
Location: Combat Information Center
That's what happens when the press goes along with you repeating the word "collusion" over and over again as if there were a law on the books prohibiting it - which there isn't.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5075
Diamondeye wrote:
That's what happens when the press goes along with you repeating the word "collusion" over and over again as if there were a law on the books prohibiting it - which there isn't.

It's much more than that.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:10 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15490
Location: Combat Information Center
Rynar wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
That's what happens when the press goes along with you repeating the word "collusion" over and over again as if there were a law on the books prohibiting it - which there isn't.

It's much more than that.


Indeed, but that's the elephant in the room of the whole thing. Immediately after the election people started questioning whether there was "collusion", relying on the official-sounding nature of the word to convince the public that there was a crime. The press has been singularly silent on this, even FOX has largely ignored it.

The problem extends beyond just that there isn't a law on the books - it means there is no basis for the special counsel, who must be appointed to investigate a particular crime or crimes, not just to find out if one has occurred. Because collusion is not a crime, no amount of evidence in favor of it can justify a special counsel. You can't even catch people "Red handed" because it isn't illegal.

If Congress wants to investigate it, they can because that is not a criminal investigation. If the FBI conducts a counterintelligence investigation, that's ok because that's directed at defeating foreign intelligence operations, but the special counsel is completely unacceptable.

Jeff Sessions should have firmly told Congress that there would be no special counsel and no recusal, and that if they want to prevent this in the future to pass a law; if they want to investigate to do so themselves.. Donald Trump should be finding Congressmen to sponsor such legislation.

I can guarantee you that there will never be another Presidency where Congressional opponents do not investigate or demand investigation of everything they don't like - on both sides. We do not need more accountability among political leaders, what we need is for political leaders to be stopped from exploiting accountability mechanisms to criminalize the other side. Whatever is done to Trump will be repeated. He is not a special case.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:48 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7527
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Collusion may not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that illegal things didn't happen. Conspiracy, fraud, and elections violations could very well have happened, especially if Jr. actually received substantial, material assistance from a foreign power. And filing false statements, as is the case with several of the required clearance documents, is a crime.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15490
Location: Combat Information Center
Khross wrote:
Collusion may not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that illegal things didn't happen. Conspiracy, fraud, and elections violations could very well have happened, especially if Jr. actually received substantial, material assistance from a foreign power.


This is exactly what the "collusion" is supposed to be. So far, the illegal conduct that has been discovered has been either A) before the campaign even started or B) a product of the investigation itself.

Furthermore "illegal things could very well have happened" is not a legal justification for a special counsel. Special counsels have a history of turning into open-ended fishing expeditions already; appointing one on this justification is an outright admission that it was one from the start.

Quote:
And filing false statements, as is the case with several of the required clearance documents, is a crime.


So far, the only "filing false statements" charge has been against Mike Flynn for statements about conduct that was not illegal in the first place. It is a process crime that would not have existed if not for the investigation itself.

Furthermore, filing false statements on security clearance documents is generally not prosecuted as a crime (it happens all the time; the vast majority of such instances just result in denial of clearance and sometimes not even that with enough mitigating factors), nor is it significant enough to warrant a special counsel.

And of course, filing false security clearance requests was not used as one of the justifications in the first place.

This is entirely "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" reasoning. It is not enough to merely suspect that someone somewhere in the Trump administration must have committed a crime - there must be a specific crime articulated.

By the way, as to security clearances, extramarital affairs are usually viewed very seriously in regard to clearances because of the vulnerability to blackmail, but apparently that was no barrier to entry for at least two senior people who have been revealed to have significant biases. The DOJ is in a very poor position to proceed on quibbling over security clearance paperwork in light of this and giving Hillary Clinton a pass.

As Andrew McCarthy (a former prosecutor) lays out here, it is likely that it is impossible for Mueller to prove to a judicial standard that any crime was committed, much less that anyone is guilty of it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:
Because it has been our focus, though, Mueller has gotten a free pass on a defect that would be fatal to any related prosecution theory: He cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia is guilty of hacking the Democratic National Committee and prominent Democrats.

This doesn’t mean it didn’t happen — like the U.S. intelligence agencies, I’m assuming it did, and that Russia should continue to be the subject of intense government counterintelligence efforts. The point is that Mueller can’t prove it in court, which is the only thing for which a prosecutor is needed. If he can’t establish to the required standard of proof that Russia conducted an espionage attack on the election, it is impossible to prove that anyone conspired with Russia to do so. There is no criminal case.

Plainly, that is why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to appease Democrats angered over former FBI director James Comey’s firing in May, appointed a special counsel without specifying any crimes that the Justice Department is purportedly too conflicted to investigate (as the pertinent regulations require). This infirmity was papered over by calling the probe a “counterintelligence” investigation — which is not a criminal investigation but an information-gathering exercise to defend the nation against foreign threats to American interests. Rosenstein did not identify a crime because he did not have one. There are two reasons for this, but we have focused myopically on the wrong one: the fact that contacts between Trump associates and the Russian regime do not prove they conspired together in an espionage scheme. That simply shows that Mueller does not have a case. The more basic problem is that he cannot have a case. Russia’s espionage operation cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so it will never be possible to prove the Trump campaign colluded in it.


The article goes on to explain why this is the case, and the difference between an intelligence estimate and the proof required in a court of law. The most critical element however, is this:

Quote:
The intelligence agencies may have high confidence in their judgment about Russian espionage. But that does not mean this judgment could ever be proved in a criminal prosecution. In fact, the intelligence agencies’ own January 6 report on “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 Presidential Election” flatly states: “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.” (Report, p. 13, Annex B, explaining “Estimative Language.”)

Let that sink in.

A comparison is in order: If a prosecutor presenting an indictment were to say, “This allegation is not intended to imply that we have proof that shows the allegation to be a fact,” the jury would say, “Not guilty.” Indeed, the judge would dismiss the case before it ever got to jury deliberations.


Now, because this nonsense was not nipped in the bud (and because the DOJ apparently does not hold its attorneys and agents to any sort of standard regarding their partisanship) we are faced with the absurdity of demanding another special counsel to investigate this one. No doubt, some problem with THAT special counsel will be found as well, and so on.

The answer here is not more investigation, it is less. Both sides need a good hard crack across the back of the head and a reminder that investigations are not there to win political victories they lost at the ballot box - and the FBI needs to be told firmly that its trust rests entirely on its officials forthrightness. FBI personnel are entitled to their political beliefs; they are not entitled to insert themselves into investigations because they think they need to protect the country from the voters.

Its a long-standing requirement in government to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and this investigation is covered in such appearance, even if Mueller himself is not. It is irrevocably tainted because its justification was improper from the outset.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3752
Location: 63368
Khross wrote:
Collusion may not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that illegal things didn't happen. Conspiracy, fraud, and elections violations could very well have happened, especially if Jr. actually received substantial, material assistance from a foreign power. And filing false statements, as is the case with several of the required clearance documents, is a crime.

Is an accusation of collusion considered probable cause, and if not, how is any evidence gathered from the resulting search to be considered legal?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9234
Location: Ohio
Taskiss wrote:
Khross wrote:
Collusion may not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that illegal things didn't happen. Conspiracy, fraud, and elections violations could very well have happened, especially if Jr. actually received substantial, material assistance from a foreign power. And filing false statements, as is the case with several of the required clearance documents, is a crime.

Is an accusation of collusion considered probable cause, and if not, how is any evidence gathered from the resulting search to be considered legal?


The act of offering to trade future political favors such as repealing the Magnitsky Act in exchange for opposition research/dirt would be a crime. You can call it collusion if you want or not, this was always the thrust of the investigation. It is no different than Clinton accepting $100M through the Clinton Foundation and then agreeing to the sale of Uranium mining rights to a Russian conglomerate.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:35 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15490
Location: Combat Information Center
Taskiss wrote:
Khross wrote:
Collusion may not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that illegal things didn't happen. Conspiracy, fraud, and elections violations could very well have happened, especially if Jr. actually received substantial, material assistance from a foreign power. And filing false statements, as is the case with several of the required clearance documents, is a crime.

Is an accusation of collusion considered probable cause, and if not, how is any evidence gathered from the resulting search to be considered legal?


Accusations are not probable cause.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:49 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15490
Location: Combat Information Center
Hopwin wrote:
The act of offering to trade future political favors such as repealing the Magnitsky Act in exchange for opposition research/dirt would be a crime. You can call it collusion if you want or not, this was always the thrust of the investigation. It is no different than Clinton accepting $100M through the Clinton Foundation and then agreeing to the sale of Uranium mining rights to a Russian conglomerate.


Like anything else that "would be a crime", that crime is supposed to be specified in the act of appointing the special counsel, and that was not done. A "thrust" is not good enough.

The reason for that is that there is no probable cause to think a specific crime was committed. Pointing out that certain acts would be crimes, if committed, is insufficient. Suspicion and cynicism about Trump, his team, family, and campaign is also insufficient (even if such suspicion is warranted). Personal conviction that something must have happened or probably happened is not of any value in trying to show cause or proof in court.

Ironically, this is also a reason not to appoint another special counsel to investigate the investigation. So far no one has articulated a specific crime that has been committed in pursuing the investigation.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 450
FBI investigations do not require probable cause. Mueller's investigation is a continuation of the previously ongoing FBI investigation. And regardless, hacking is a crime and there's plenty of probable cause that hacking occured.

Furthermore, several warrants have been issued by federal judges to obtain information and investigate members of Trump's campaign. These would not be issued without probable cause. To come here and say there's no probable cause that a crime occured is absurd.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Trump and Russia
PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:16 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15490
Location: Combat Information Center
Amanar wrote:
FBI investigations do not require probable cause.


Probable cause refers to both the fact that a crime was committed and that a specific person committed it. Mueller is also not conducting an FBI investigation; he is conducting a special counsel investigation.

Quote:
Mueller's investigation is a continuation of the previously ongoing FBI investigation. And regardless, hacking is a crime and there's plenty of probable cause that hacking occured.


But that crime is not what Mueller was appointed to investigate. No such crime was specified in the creation of the special counsel - and that's probably because the people to be investigated are not in the United States.

Quote:
Furthermore, several warrants have been issued by federal judges to obtain information and investigate members of Trump's campaign. These would not be issued without probable cause. To come here and say there's no probable cause that a crime occured is absurd.


No, what's absurd is for you to continue to intentionally misunderstand what I'm saying. I already addressed this. Special counsels are supposoed to have the investigation of specific crimes as their mandate. It is this way in order to prevent (evidently unsuccessfully) open-ended fishing expeditions, which is what the last two special counsels ended up becoming and now this one as well. Mueller does not. His discovery of any arbitrary crime doesn't change this. The fact that he had probable cause when he went to court for a warrant does not change the fact that the appointment that empowered him to seek the evidence for the warrant is improper in the first place.

Moreover, of the people he has charged, one was for crimes completely unrelated to the campaign and two others are for exclusely process crimes relating to the investigation itself. The special counsel is manufacturing its own justification for its existence.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 450
Mueller's investigation is a continuation of the already ongoing FBI investigation. The Acting Attorney General determined it was necessary to use a special counsel to continue this investigation to assure the American people that the investigation will be fair, impartial, and not interfered with by President Trump.

Diamondeye wrote:
Special counsels are supposoed to have the investigation of specific crimes as their mandate.

Source? Where does it say they are required to lay down specific crimes at the start of the investigation?

This is an investigation, not a prosecution. There's no way to know the crimes that may or may not have been committed until after it's been investigated.

Here's the relevant excerpt from the law outlining the establishment of a special counsel:

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.


It does not require specific crimes to be specified, only a statement on the matter to be investigated. Rosentein's letter establishing Mueller's investigation does this, listing these facts:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).


Furthermore, the beginning of his letter establishes that this is related to the Russian hacking:

Quote:
... and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election...


Are you suggesting that this special counsel was illegally established?

Also, you'll note that both the law and Rosentein's letter specifically mentions "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." This includes things like lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice. So the crimes that people have been charged with so far are plainly within the scope of the special counsel's investigation.

The matter seems pretty straightforward to me:

1. There is very strong evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election (illegally)
2. Trump benefited from this interference
3. There is evidence that members of Trump's campaign have been in communication with member's of the Russian government.
4. There is evidence these campaign members lied about this connection.

So... don't you think it's worth investigating if these things are related? "Collusion" on its own may not be a crime, but if there was any sort of collusion around hacking the DNC's emails, then that's a crime.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:56 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5075
You're about to see the beginnings of the indictments.

They aren't going to be who you thought they were. You're going to begin to have a very different understanding of what Mike Flynn meant when he communicated through his lawyer that he had a story to tell.

People have already started hanging for their crimes. Some around the fringes are being scandaled out (being doled out in the private sector as well) or by not seeking re-election.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:28 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15490
Location: Combat Information Center
Amanar wrote:
Are you suggesting that this special counsel was illegally established?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Especially since the matters you specifically cited as the reasons for the special counsel are not actually criminal.

Are you suggesting that it is, in any way, acceptable to establish a special counsel for non-criminal matters? There is not, in fact, evidence that Russia unlawfully influenced the election. Period. You are flat-out wrong about that (specifically, that Russia broke the law, not that they attempted to influence the election) and even if you weren't, Russia is a foreign power. It is not bound to obey our laws. An investigation targeting Russia is a counterintelligence investigation, and it is improper to use counterintelligence auspices to circumvent the Constitutional protections of U.S. citizens.

This entire investigation is unlawful, no matter what results it produces. Mike Flynn should appeal his conviction to the USSC.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5702
There should be suspicion of a crime, and there should be potential for a conflict of interest. That's it. That's the standard, and that has been met. You can say "period" all you want, but it doesn't make it true.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3752
Location: 63368
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
There should be suspicion of a crime, and there should be potential for a conflict of interest. That's it. That's the standard, and that has been met. You can say "period" all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Those are entirely subjective conditions, you satisfy them by pulling from bias by definition

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:47 pm 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2181
Location: Bat Country
Technically, doing something illegal isn't even the requirement for impeachment. The Russia thing is going no where. Also, someone please detail how the Russians influenced the election. Like, with data.

Trump didn't win, Hillary lost. This was her "race to lose" as they say.

_________________
"Call me old-fashioned, but I miss the days when rappers rapped about selling drugs and not about doing them." -Jeff

"Race is a lie. The attitude of seeing race before the human behind a race creates a silent apartied of lowered expectations..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:11 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5075
Wwen wrote:
Technically, doing something illegal isn't even the requirement for impeachment. The Russia thing is going no where. Also, someone please detail how the Russians influenced the election. Like, with data.

Trump didn't win, Hillary lost. This was her "race to lose" as they say.

Oh, the "Russia thing" absolutely is going somewhere.

Just not where anyone thought it was going

People are going to fry for using the power structure of government to attempt to rig a federal election and then attempting a soft-coup to cover up their crimes.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group