Powered by TypePad

« Neil Lewis Of Times - Still Watching A Different Trial | Main | Avast, Matey »

February 14, 2007

Comments

Tom Maguiret

Ok, it was two weeks ago; Colts beat Bears; Peyron Manning; Addai and a player to be named later (Brooks?)

If you can't name Addai then Libby must fly. Or something.

nittypig

1) I'm confident it was 2 weeks ago based on I can remember doing something non-football related last Sunday.
2) Colts Beat Bears
3) Manning I guess. He I can remember.
4) No a chance.

Seixon

Reasonable Doubt, meet Tom Maguire.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Add extra-points. Did the audience of tens of thousand sit in the rain?

Can you get people to sit in the rain for four hours, just because a pig(skin) flies in the air?

And, when it was over, who forgot the most? The idiots who bet da' bears? REALLY?

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

MORE! MORE! MORE!

Do Da'Bears come from Chicago?

Did they go home to a hero's welcome?

Will Fitz get the same welcome? Will his team still be in business "next year?" Will the coach be fired? Just asking.

What makes anyone think that reporters aren't gonna set their teeth on revenge?

You think they came off swell under Well's questioning? You think that journalism is a field you respect MORE THAN the prosecution, here? Go ahead. You be da' judge. He's a real character, too.

Jack is Back!

You mean they played the Super Bowl already? Geez, what have I been doing?

No wonder the press wants this clanker of a circus to get over with. Everyone of them just shot their credibility in the foot while firmly planted in their greedy, lying mouths. I just wish Gregory had been called and Wells had asked him all his questions in French.

CAL

Well, I think I know all these but I tend to watch Sportscenter which keeps all that stuff bouncing around and even so I did initially think Benson for number 4 until some part of the brain said, "No. He's a Bear you nit."

I agree with all of TM except the other RB was Rhodes. He got 100+ rushing yards and the TD while Addai got the 10 receptions and 75ish rushing yards but no TD. Peyton got the MVP and probably deserved it but a co-MVP to the two RBs would have been fine imo.

clarice

Add this--TM says "Ms. Miller's tale that she and Libby discussed Plame on July 8 undercuts this"

Does the obstruction count concern Libby's July 8 conversation with Miller or the July 12 discussion? If it's not the July 8 conversation, machts nicht.

Sue

1. Was the Super Bowl last week, or two weeks ago?

Two weeks ago.

2. Who won, who lost?

Of course, the Indianapolis Colts. I wasn't for them, was I?

3. The winning team was led by whom?

The non-hot quarterback that ruined my theory. Manning.

4. The winning team got great efforts from their two running backs - one caught about ten passes, the other rushed for over 100 yards. Care to name them both?

Rhodes and Addai. Both of whom should have had co-MVPs and screw Manning. Not literally. He isn't hot.

::grin::

Sue

I think I'm obsessed with my dislike of Manning. As Libby was supposedly about Wilson/Plame. Maybe this wasn't such a good test for memory.

::eyes open wide::

::looks around::

::grins::

SaveFarris

A better Memory test:

A) who won the Pro Bowl?

B) who was the MVP?

C) Remember that vicious hit that got replayed 1,000 times? Who doled it out?

D) Who was on the receiving end?

Anyone who can get 2 out of 4 without Googling is either a relative of the players in question or Rain Man. And this happened less than 4 days ago!

Jane

Clarice,

Remember when I asked if they would be able to re-call Russert. Well Walton doesn't like the timing, or so FDL says. Hmmm

Patrick R. Sullivan

Who was the winning pitcher in last Fall's deciding game of the World Series?

CAL

You know I don't think I have seen a Manning commercial since he won. He was all over the place before.

Cut that meat!

Dwilkers

I'm actually quite pleased. I can answer them all except #4 and I just don't care enough about RB's to pay attention to that one.

(I think RB's get - WAY WAY - to much credit in the NFL and the OL gets way too little.)

clarice

I honestly don't have an answer to a single one of those questions. My husband warched the super bowl and talked about it, and I skimmed thru TM's posts on it, but it was of no interest to me. I can recall my husband watching and the posts but the details never registered.
Isn't that a vindication of Libby's defense?

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: CLARICE

Prior to July 8th, Miller, after sitting in jail for 85 days, had a memory refreshing epithany. And, she searched all of her shopping bags, under her desk; to retreive "memories are made of this."

QUESTION: If Miller's way of keeping notes, matches what Pincus' desk looks like, too; what's the "believabilty factor for journalists, ahead?" IS THE VISIBILITY ZERO? "Macht Nicht" (meaning "it doesn't matter), is not what your lawyer wants to hear when you relay to him your accident. And, you're asked "was the light green or red?")

centralcal

Jane, Clarice, anyone -

Does it seem Walton always seems to go Fitz's way? It is so disheartening.

Tom Maguiret

I agree with all of TM except the other RB was Rhodes

Oh, geez - where was I?

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: CLARICE

If you had superbowl tickets, at the 50-yard-line, no less. Would you have stayed seated in that rain? Seems to me you complained about your courtroom WiFi. Just being there was not a bonus, huh?

And, if you felt the courtroom deprived you of a better use of your hands, how do you think the jurors felt? They did have one advantage. They could scribble. While if you did so, the Court's marshal would probably grab your pen. Or your BlackBerry.

I also noticed BOND's testimony, which traveled into the jurors ears. The FBI thinks it's important, enough, when victims are being questioned, that one person does not scribble at all. But watches "body language."

Only in a morgue is there no "body language," you can observe; if all you're looking for is "movement." Just the slicing of the knife.

Why is everyone so sure that the jurors are not as UNCOMFORTABLE as those fans were in the rain? And, consider this: FANS are NUTS. Jurors, however, are just "stuck."

Need more proof? Think of how so many people when the jury summons arrives in the mail!

clarice

centralcal I answered on another thread a minute ago.


Other Tom

Uh-oh. Got 'em all four, no prob. But then, the mean wife and I watched it on the 50" plasma mounted on the wall six feet from the foot of our California King bed. Screened all calls. Tivo'd it for subsequent analysis. Kept the Stoli to the bare minimum.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Also remember, that viewers at home can see replays. So, if the referee's call stinks, there's hell to pay.

Yes, our little black judge seems to own a terrible distaste for Wells. And, I wonder why?

Perhaps, not all black people, among blacks, get treated alike? It's not one harmonious choir after all.

If Waltoon, could, he'd be the kind of player that would go for a guy like Wells, by pulling at his face mask.

While Fitz? He'd hold a PRESSER telling the world what a great guy Waltoon is. And, Wells deserved it. Just like Libby. And, that "living record" in the PRESSER.

Waltoon never saw the PRESSER I suppose? He was just not clued in. Stinking affirmative action hire. Got placed in law school because of his skin color. Enough to make normal people puke.

Jane

Centralcal,

I can never tell. I try and figure in my bias and then I come up with nothing. Before the 12:12 entry I thought he was saying Russert cannot be impeached. Now I think he is saying he must be impeached in person. That's okay with me.

I'm not sure I get the Winpac stuff.

Sue

Walton is going to allow Fitz to put on evidence of where Valerie worked, simply because it would be unfair not to allow it if defense uses WINPAC to impeach Miller. Russert won't be back, I can already feel it in my bones. The judge rules for govt when the question is iffy...defense is not given the benefit...even though defense is facing jail time and govt facing nothing...

JM Hanes

I was just not that into it. Go Colts!

Sue

Take this in proportion. If people strike agreements, those are putting in writing. Those were given over to the defense. This was something that didn't merit being put into writing.

Uh...oh...come on Wells...quick on your feet...remind Fitz how nothing was in writing for Ari...

JM Hanes

Something's hinky here. Can only post short comments. Multi-paragraph efforts won't load into preview window at all! Feature or bug....

Jane

Sheesh that Fitzy is a scumbag!

Russert didn't know, my ass!

Sue

I'm telling you, the judge isn't going to allow it. I have this spidey feeling...

Martin

How odd then that the Russert conversation got seared into Libby's mind:

"I have a specific recollection I was surprised."

IOW, Libby sure forgot about Plame but he never forgot about Russert telling him about Plame!

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

How long will it take for SOUTH PARK to do its own version of this trial? ANd, consequences?

Call it NO TRUTH to consequences.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: JM HANES

Funny, I've had no problems. (But I tend not to preview.)

However, my BANNER HEADLINES just go right on thru. Never had a problem, here, posting.

That's the long and the short of it, too.

steve sturm

Tom: your attempts to show that memory isn't all that great are fine, but you and the other pundits on this are missing the big picture.

What matters are not the 'facts' but whether the jury wants to convict someone for the supposed outing of Plame and the campaign to discredit Wilson. I know that's not what they're supposed to base their verdict on, but if the jury is upset about that, if they think the Administration was wrong, they're going to want someone to pay, and, if that is the case, then Libby is their only outlet for their anger and they've got plenty of ammo on which to base a guilty verdict.

Likewise, if they don't think the Plame brouhaha is the crime of the century, they've got plenty to support a not-guilty verdict.

For this reason, I think the Libby side has dropped the ball by not giving the jury more of either a 'no harm, no foul' storyline for the whole kerfuffle or perhaps playing up the 'runaway prosecutor making much ado over nothing' storyline. And this is where I think Libby needed to testify, to give the jury the view that what he and the rest of the anti-Wilson team were doing was quite reasonable and lawful and not the evil that the Administrations critics and the MSM have portrayed it to be.

Remember, the lawyers have to argue what the jury wants to hear, not what they think the law calls for.

Jane

Clarice,

WHo is Levine?

jwest

(Fitz whining)……..”This is being made into something so different than what happened.”

Welcome to Libby’s world, Mr. Fitz.

clarice

I missed the context, Jane. But there is an Adam Levine. He was the producer of the Matthews show who came to work at the WH for Ari Fleischer and who is believed to be the "High Administration official"(harumph) who peddled the 1x2x5 fantasy.

clarice

1x2x6 I mean or 2x4 or something equally preposterous which Fitz took as the gospel truth, being gullible or ambitious or vindictive--take your choice.

dorf

FROM DORF

I get it now. Rus was with kerry in Cambodia. Silly me!!

jwest

Isn't Levine the NBC lawyer?

hit and run

Sue, your answers to Tom's questions were top notch hilarious. lol!

Who else *wanted* to watch the Super Bowl but had friends throw a welcome/dedication party for their new adopted daughter from South Korea?

Yeah, try and top that excuse for not knowing the answers.

And try and top that for friends without a clue.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Hey, Dorf. That's a great banner header you got there. Where'd you learn to do that one, huh?

sferris

The best Libby can hope for at this point I think is a hung jurry. The collective wisdom of Intrade contracts on Libby being found guilty on at least 1 charge is 67.

dorf

CH: just joshin' ya. :)

bio mom

I think Levine is the lawyer for NBC??

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Talking of memory tests, since we seem to be affirming that the superbowl was played on Sunday, February 4th ...

And, wasn't Wells up last, on Thursday, February 1st? As the clock ran out. WHAT DID HE SAY? AND, TO WHOM DID HE SAY IT?

Where's the MEMORY REFRESH BUTTON located, anyway?

JM Hanes

Do we still have backup thread at Flares? Can only post snips -- no cheering, pls. This be some serious [ ], man! Charlie, Syl, you in here?:)

bio mom

sferris: Well then, who needs a jury??

hit and run

FREE JM HANES!!!

FREE JM HANES!!!

FREE JM HANES!!!

JM Hanes

Long posts = "The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection. Please try again." Help me! I'm falling through a hole in the flag! You guys are great, and if I had it all to do over again I

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Professor Kim reports ice and wind in DC has people without electricity. I'd bet jurors, today, who can show up "two hours late," because of weather conditions, are still not happy campers having to go to court.

I'd also bet, on days like this, even the faithful, were it a Sunday, would not be so eager to get out of bed to go to church.

Leaving a lot of people at home. And, perhaps, keeping busy on their computers?

JM HANES, brings up a great point, too.

Yesterday, DRUDGE ran a headline, that IF Bird Flu breaks out in London, people will be allowed to WORK FROM HOME. And, this will curtail bandwith. Leaving people who want to watch bandwith eaters, like U-TUBE, unable to play with their computers as a hobby.

What a day. What a way the weather can affect those who venture out. (And, in our Internet age? Also those who stay at home. Gee.)

Oh. And, Walton has a cold! My momma said, when you have a cold you should stay in bed. Going out, only makes you sicker.

How is the jury holding up, by the way? Colds are catchy.

clarice

JMH, I seem to be in good graces with the typepad goddess today. Email me and I'll try to post it for you.

What is this Levine reference? I haven't been to FDL today?

Jane

Carol appears to be the only person who can post long posts.

I think Levine was the lawyer too, and I am shocked the prosecutor is talking about putting him on the stand.

Ralph L.

Steve, the jurors' anger may also be directed at Fitz for giving immunity to and not charging the actual leakers Ari and Armitage. And for wasting their time.

229930

Bush and Plame.

http://www.arcamax.com/newsheadlines/s-163489-812299?source=1930

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: RALPH L.

I wouldn't discount the jurors' anger at having to get out of bed this morning.

And, I wouldn't discount any juror's anger if they woke up today with a scratchy throat.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: DORF

Joshing is fine. Attribution, though, is necessary. Thanks.

Ralph L.

Carol, I never get colds when I use a vaporizer at night. Keep those mucous membranes moist!

Patrick R. Sullivan

Something I can agree with from the judge:

'Walton[:] I believed all along throughout these statements that iw as understaood that Libby was going to be testifying. All of these processes would only come in as substitute for his ability not to be able to testify. That was always understood. Now, to suggest that an agreement entered into in that environment. If that's what SCOTUS is going to require, we're going to say govt isn't entitled to fair trial,but defense is. If I get reversed on that one, maybe I need to hang up my spurs.'

You said it, Cowpoke. Take Fitz with you.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: STEVE STRUM

Just to qualify your remark that "lawyers have to argue what jurors want to hear," then it seems Fitz has been out-of-the-room pitching his balls to mirrors.

You can't win doing that!

And, I think Wells knows this jury is ready to close. And, I'd bet he's gonna get the best deal, ahead, too.

Waltoon, however, loses as a judge. Even if JAY LENO doesn't have "skirting dancing Ito's" on his set. The left's not outraged enough to develop a sense of humor about this case. YET.

Give it time. A watched pot, even if black, takes a long time to boil. If you keep lifting the lid. And, looking inside. Made worse, if you're kind'a rushed.

UglyinLA

During the closing arguments in the OJ trial, Cochran came up with his famous chant, "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Assuming that this DC jury is as dumb as the LA jury, Wells needs to come up with his own enthymeme. I was thinking along the lines of, "If he didnt say Plame, then Fitz is lame."

Jane

Carol,

I don't want to be rude, but is there any chance you can slow it down a bit. It seems like we are all having a bit of a problem getting thru, and the sheer volume of your posts might be an issue.

ARC: Brian

Interesting discussion going on at FDL on whether Russert received an accomodation in exchange for his testimony for the GJ. Fitz seems absolutely livid that Russert may have to undergo cross again.

From FDL (emphasis mine):


F It wasn't an agreement. It was never in writing to counsel. It was a footnote in ex parte affadavit to Hogan. We didn't put it in writing with defense counsel. It was an oral conversation about whether we were going to argue waiver. We thought we had a stronger argument in Branzburg. They wanted to know what we going to argue. They asked us if we were making a waiver argument, we said no. This didn't take very long and it wasn't very significant.

Walton: It is a concession that a reporter might want to have.

F How, this is so far removed from the reality of what happeend. It's styling a brief. After the brief was filed, we reached an accommodation which was given to the jury. It's no different than if you're sitting here working on a brief and we're saying "no, we're not going to argue that, you don't have to deal with in the brief."

Wells Mr Russert testified that he had been going on TV telling everybody about how he fought the subpoena. The truth of the matter is that['s] because the govt decided not to say what happened.

Walton The issue we're talking about is whether he waived when he talked to FBI.

Wells if you look at public filings, no one would have any idea that Russert talked to FBI. Whenever we got the Jencks material is the first time we learned he talked to the FBI, We were shocked. He went around the whole country talking about how he was a great protector of the First Amendment.

Walton: I didn't understand [its like your learning it as if for the first time huh? ;-)] the full scope of what we're talking about. I think that's significant. I'll make a ruling right after lunch.

Wells, It's our position it was of great value.

We'd never know that Russert spilled the beans to the FBI without a waiver either except for the fact that Wells brought it up during cross. So did Russert tell Fitz what he wanted to hear in exchange for getting to maintain the facade of great protector of the 1st amendment?

All this talk from Fitz about how they just did it orally doesn't wash in my opinion. Wells cant get Levine or Russert to talk about their accomodations due to attorney-client privelege, so if Fitz just goes to the attorney and makes an accomodation with a wink and a nod its not Jenks material now?

On the political front, if Russert testifies its HUGE! Especially with the media meme going around today, i.e., Libby and Cheney (Cheeeney in Mathews-speak) aren't testifying.

With Russert back on the stand, the meme might shift to highlight Russert's inconsistencies. Libby and Cheney didn't testify because the star witness is misleading the jury and the public.

As somone else pointed out it also nicely bookends Defense reporter witnesses with Prosecution ones.

centralcal

Hey UglyinLA your little rhymey even works if it is actually plam-ay (lam-ay).

Jane - you just noticed that might be typepad's problem? it has been going on for awhile. (how do you whisper in html?)

ARC: Brian

FYI I didnt have a problem getting through, but I didn't preview either.....

Ralph L.

Russert is a pooter, so Libby must scooter.

rjarango

I am sure it has been discussed, but what are the Plamiacs going to do after the trial? I suppose best case for continued plamiacs is Libby convicted and case is appealed--that should keep this esteemed group together for at least a couple more years; worst case, Libby acquited--brief extenstion of Plamiac togetherness watching lefty heads explode, fitz recriminations, rovian plots etc..but that will probably be short-lived.

So Tom Maquire (and Clarice and many others): your blog is continued proof that good blogging beats journalism anytime-Similary, KC Johnson's work on the Duke LAX case, and Porkbusters--I no longer even read newspapers, and listen to NPR only because it satisfies some deep dark maschoist streak I havent been able to get under control.

I know Clarice is going to tackle the Haditha show trials (and as an old soldier, thanks Clarice); Tom M: what is your next project?

229930

Plame and Bush

http://www.playfuls.com/minigame_2467_Defend_Your_Inglor.html

centralcal

okay, holding my nose Ralph L. (Or was that the idea?)

Jane

Maybe I'm just touchy today. Sorry

clarice

Smoke and mirrors is exposed...Since when does an "oral agreement" between counsel not constitute an agreement that should have been earlier disclosed?
Since when does it become okay for a prosecutor to keep his mouth shut about a misrepresenation on a significant point against the govt's interest filed by the opposition?

OPR I hope you are paying attention.

danking70

1) That's a trick question. Superbowl was on Feb. 4th. That's 10 days ago. If you say one week ago or two weeks ago, you're still right.

2) Bears killed the Colts One Hundred and Tree to Tree.

3) Urlacher and that cute QB Grossman led the Bears to victory.

4) Jones and Benson were the RBs.

Ralph L.

I keep losing my personal info when the threads get big.

ARC: excellent, but 2 m's in accommodation. I heard in 2000 that Cheeney is the way the family used to pronounce it, but it was OBE (overtaken by events).

james

"Walton: I didn't understand the full scope of what we're talking about."

Walton does not seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer. Or else he is playing dumb.

dorf

Yeah,and Prince scored a TD in the third quarter.

Armor

Bush, Plame, and Laura

http://www.armorgames.com/games/alias2.html

PeterUK

A bit late to the thread,what was the first question again?

Dan S

What's the super bowl? A large toilet?

jwest

Jane,

Someone had to say it. You were very graceful.

Homey

Carol-

For an African American woman you are awfully hard on the fellas.

Ranger

What matters are not the 'facts' but whether the jury wants to convict someone for the supposed outing of Plame and the campaign to discredit Wilson.

Posted by: steve sturm | February 14, 2007 at 09:59 AM

Except for the fact that Wells was able to play the tape of Armitage saying 'yeah, I know F...ing Joe Wilson... His wife is an analysit in WMD at the CIA, and did I mention, she works with WMDs at the CIA and got him the gig' (or words to that effect). That has effectivly insulated Libby from being convicted just because some unidentified person leaked. The jury knows who leaked and it wasn't Libby.

ARC: Brian

Thanks Ralph, I guess I should have previewed :)

Ralph L.

CentralCal, I was going to add "No Clinton jokes," but I demurred due to my natural delicacy.

ARC: Brian

clarice -

Since Comey gave all the powers of the Attorney General to Fitz, I guess!

Semanticleo

Well, I took in $650 on the point spread.

When my money is in the game, I remember
EVERY detail, don't you?

I know it's a crime to gamble, so you can
bet every alibi obtainable was preordained
in my memory. (just in case)

Ranger

Ok, let me get this right. There was no written agreement between the government and their star witness regarding his special treatment of not going before the GJ if his testimony was going to be used to charge Libby?

That really is unbeleavable.

Think Fitz is that lazy or does he have something he was trying to hide really hard?

Ralph L.

I got a "Submit Query" button again instead of "Post." I find that both aggressive and hurtful.

Ralph L.

Cleo, glad you found another use for your psychic powers, since you can't make money from TV ads anymore.

Semanticleo

BTW, Maguire;

When are you going to connect the dots
between the Duke prosecutor and Fitz?

I mean, that's what you been building to,
isn't it? But don't show your hand too soon.
Imagine the traffic you will harvest when you have a shred of proof Fitz was, and is out of control.

Or, your bonanza may never materialize.
All those posts on Nifong. What a waste.

Dan S

I wonder if Fitz's scrambling on this issue doesn't relate somehow to the deal with Armitage too. Isn't that another behind the scenes case of deals that were not disclosed?

ARC: Brian

I still can't imagine how a judge would make a decision based on a defendant testifying. It would seem to me that any judge should expect that a defendant has a right to not testify. 5th amendment and all.

Libby could have gone on Oprah prior to the trial and said he couldn't wait to testify but that shouldn't mean that everybody assumes its going to be a done deal. And make plans based on it.

It really seems 'listening' to Fitz's arguments that he truly planned his whole trial around Libby testifying. Which if true, just proves his incompetence.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

By this point, if people can't figure Walton out, then you don't understand the courtroom dynamics, when the judge is biased.

As to what Walton allows, or not. He just an affirmative action hack. And, what's really too bad? He picks up the ladder, so people who are good, won't get a chance. Blame it on Kofi Anan's tailor.

As to the RECORD? IT WILL STAND. THE RECORD HAS LEGS.

And, for all you all know, the jurors have had it with the judge, too. Let alone, if any of them have, or get, scratchy throats.

hit and run

Clarice -

Tom asked me to ask you to give me the login credentials so I can post here at JOM while you're gone.

Don't ask him about it though, he said he didn't want to be disturbed until after I have my first post up.

Thanks!

jwest

Leo,

Some things are just so obvious that connecting the dots would be overkill.

hit and run

Clarice -

Tom asked me to ask you to give me the login credentials so I can post here at JOM while you're gone.

Don't ask him about it though, he said he didn't want to be disturbed until after I have my first post up.

Thanks!

ARC: Brian

Think Fitz is that lazy or does he have something he was trying to hide really hard?

Maybe we should convene a grand jury to find out? I've got the perfect overzealous prosecutor! Patrick Fitzgerald! He's not partisan, and he would get to the bottom of it real quick.


F Mr. Fitzgerald were you hiding something?

F No

F Liar!

AP Washington. Today in a stunny development, Patrick Fitzgerald handed down indictments on himself. Mr. Fitzgerald is considered by most to be a tough, non-partisan, fair-minded prosecutor. He made an obscure baseball reference about an umpire throwing sand in the eyes of the crowd.......

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

No, Jane, I do not think I'm responsible for your Internet problems. Your call to abandon ship is just silly.

To give you some compass "halp," I do not think algore invented the internet, either.

Jane

I got a "Submit Query" button again instead of "Post." I find that both aggressive and hurtful.

That made me laugh. Thanks!

Ralph L.

All's Wells That Ends Wilsons

ARC: Brian

um... stunning/ development.. stunning...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame