Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove As Source In Plame Case

  1. #21
    NeoRevolutionaryChickVol2 Guest
    Didn't ROVE (blech) just callall liberals traitors......don'tcha just LOVE it when stuff like that comes back to bite someone like him in the assssssss!!!!!

  2. #22
    911=inside job Guest
    if it bites him at all... these fucking assholes can do anything and get away with it...

    orwell is rolling in his grave....

  3. #23
    911=inside job Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by somebigguy
    Another nail in the coffin. If the lilly livered Liberals can't do anything with all the ammo they now have after the last month, were in big trouble.
    very true, sbg, very true....

  4. #24
    erose001 Guest

    Some new Rove news

    Check this out:

    DemocracyNOW News Brief, Today:

    NY Times: Karl Rove Was Cooper's Source
    Since the beginning of this scandal, the top suspect in many eyes has been President Bush's senior advisor Karl Rove. Today, the New York Times quotes a source the paper says has been officially briefed on the case as saying that Matt Cooper's source was indeed Karl Rove. This detail is buried in the 24th paragraph of the Times lead story. The paper says Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Cooper and Rove. The independent prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald was reportedly also involved in the discussions.
    ###

    Here's the article. I've bolded the 24th paragraph to which DN was referring:

    July 7, 2005, New York Times

    Reporter Jailed After Refusing to Name Source

    By ADAM LIPTAK
    WASHINGTON, July 6 - Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, was sent to jail on Wednesday after a federal judge declared that she was "defying the law" by refusing to divulge the name of a confidential source.

    Another reporter who faced jail in the case, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, was spared after announcing a last-minute deal with a confidential source that he said would allow him to testify before a grand jury.

    Before being taken into custody by three court officers, Ms. Miller said she could not in good conscience violate promises to her sources. "If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality," she told Judge Thomas F. Hogan, "then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press."

    Judge Hogan held the two reporters in civil contempt in October for refusing to cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. The prosecutor's efforts produced the most serious confrontation between the government and the press since the Pentagon Papers case in 1971. The Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from the reporters last week.

    On hearing Mr. Cooper's statement, Judge Hogan indicated he would lift the contempt sanction against Mr. Cooper after he testified.

    After listening to Ms. Miller, the judge ordered her sent to "a suitable jail within the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia" until she decided to talk or until the term of the grand jury expired in October.

    "I have a person in front of me," Judge Hogan said, "who is defying the law."

    Ms. Miller appeared shaken and scared as she left the courtroom. In a telephone interview later in the evening, she said she had been taken to the Alexandria Detention Center in Virginia.

    Ms. Miller, who conducted interviews but never wrote an article about the C.I.A. operative, joins a line of journalists who have accepted jail time rather than betray their sources' confidences. That tradition, according to Judge Hogan, does not deserve respect.

    "That's the child saying: 'I'm still going to take that chocolate chip cookie and eat it. I don't care,' " the judge said.

    Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, disagreed.

    "The law presented Judy with the choice between betraying a trust to a confidential source or going to jail," Mr. Keller said after the hearing. "The choice she made is a brave and principled choice, and it reflects a valuing of individual conscience that has been part of this country's tradition since its founding."

    On Friday, saying it was obligated to comply with a final court order in the case, Time turned over Mr. Cooper's notes and other documents to the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

    At the hearing here Wednesday, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for Time, said Time's move should obviate the need for Mr. Cooper's testimony.

    Mr. Fitzgerald opposed that request. "Mr. Cooper's testimony is essential," he said. "We need to get this right one way or the other, and we need Mr. Cooper to testify."

    Judge Hogan rejected Time's request that he excuse Mr. Cooper from testifying. Indeed, the judge said, the reporters' failure to cooperate, until now a civil matter, may be considered criminal conduct.

    "It could be seen to be obstruction of justice," Judge Hogan said.

    Mr. Cooper then spoke directly to the judge, reading from a statement.

    He said he had awoken Wednesday morning certain that he would continue to be in contempt and had said goodbye to his 6-year-old son. Time's actions, he said, did not absolve him from a promise he had made to his source. He added that a waiver form that his source had signed months ago did not affect his thinking.

    Investigators have presented many government officials with waiver forms instructing journalists to ignore pledges of confidentiality. Mr. Cooper, Ms. Miller and other journalists have said they view such waivers as coerced and ineffective.

    Mr. Cooper said his situation had changed earlier in the day.

    "A short time ago, in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express, personal release from my source," Mr. Cooper said. "It's with a bit of surprise and no small amount of relief that I will comply with this subpoena."

    Mr. Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case. Mr. Fitzgerald was also involved in the discussions, the person said.

    In his statement in court, Mr. Cooper did not name Mr. Rove as the source about whom he would now testify, but the person who was briefed on the case said that he was referring to Mr. Rove and that Mr. Cooper's decision came after behind-the-scenes maneuvering by his lawyers and others in the case.

    Those discussions centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source.

    Richard A. Sauber, a lawyer for Mr. Cooper, said he would not discuss whether Mr. Cooper was referring to Mr. Rove, nor would he comment on discussions leading up to Mr. Cooper's decision.

    Mr. Fitzgerald's policy is to refuse to respond to inquiries about the case.

    Mr. Rove declined to comment on Wednesday.

    In recent days, a lawyer for Mr. Rove has said that Mr. Cooper and Mr. Rove had a conversation not long before the name of the operative first became public. News articles referred to the operative by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, although she now goes by her married name, Valerie Wilson.

    Mr. Cooper's involvement in the matter dates back two years, when he and two other reporters wrote an article for Time.com.

    The article said "some administration officials" had told Time and the syndicated columnist Robert Novak that "Valerie Plame is a C.I.A. official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

    The article also noted that she is the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who had recently written an opinion article in The New York Times questioning one of the rationales, concerning Iraq's weapons program, offered by the Bush administration for the Iraq war. Mr. Wilson based his criticism on a trip he had taken to Niger for the C.I.A.

    On July 14, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote: "Valerie Plame is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger."

    The Time article, published three days after Mr. Novak's column, suggested that the officials had "declared war" on Mr. Wilson and had released the information about his wife as a form of payback or in an effort to undermine the seriousness of his criticism by suggesting that his trip was a boondoggle.

    Mr. Sauber said Mr. Cooper's agreement to testify was limited to a single conversation with a single source.

    "It's not open season on Matt's sources," Mr. Sauber said, noting that Mr. Cooper had testified in the investigation on similar terms once before, after receiving the permission from I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.

    Reporters from The Washington Post and NBC testified after similar releases. Mr. Novak has refused on numerous occasions to discuss whether he provided information to Mr. Fitzgerald.

    In her statement in court, Ms. Miller said she had received no similar permission from her sources.

    "Your Honor," she said, "in this case I cannot break my word just to stay out of jail. The right of civil disobedience based on personal conscience is fundamental to our system and honored throughout our history."

    She noted that she had covered the war in Iraq, and had lived and worked all over the world.

    "The freest and fairest societies are not only those with independent judiciaries," she said, "but those with an independent press that works every day to keep government accountable by publishing what the government might not want the public to know."

    Because Ms. Miller did not write about the Plame matter, it is not known precisely why Mr. Fitzgerald focused on her. But the prosecutor could have learned about her through phone records and the questioning of government officials.

    Mr. Keller, The Times's executive editor, acknowledged that the case did not involve classic whistle-blowing.

    "To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld," he said, referring to the secretary of defense, "you go to court with the case you've got. It would be nice if there was absolute clarity about the nature of this case. On the contrary, there's immense mystery about this case."

    Mr. Fitzgerald, who has relied on secret evidence in persuading courts to order Ms. Miller jailed, said the law now requires her to testify.

    "The law says the grand jury is entitled to every man's evidence," he said. "We're doing our honest best to get to the bottom of whether a crime has been committed."

    Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation is based on a 1982 law that made it a crime to disclose the identity of covert agents in some circumstances.

    Robert S. Bennett, a lawyer for Ms. Miller, urged Judge Hogan to conclude that Ms. Miller would never talk, making confinement pointless.

    Mr. Fitzgerald said no one could be sure that Ms. Miller would not talk until she was actually jailed.

    "People change their minds," he said. "We saw here today that a source reached out to Mr. Cooper and caused him to testify. How do we know the same would not happen with Ms. Miller?"

    In a statement, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times, said Ms. Miller had followed her conscience, with the paper's support. "There are times when the greater good of our democracy demands an act of conscience," Mr. Sulzberger said. "I sincerely hope that now Congress will move forward on federal shield legislation so that other journalists will not have to face imprisonment for doing their jobs."

    Ms. Miller, speaking from the Virginia jail, said that her first hours in confinement had struck her as surreal but that the jail's staff had been professional and courteous. Her trip from the courthouse to the jail, she said, had brought home the gravity of her situation.

    "They put shackles on my hands and my feet," she said. "They put you in the back of this car. I passed the Capitol and all the office buildings I used to cover. And I thought, 'My God, how did it come to this?' "

    David Johnston contributed reporting for this article.


    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

    Links:
    http://www.democracynow.org/article..../07/07/1340259
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/07leak.html

  5. #25
    erose001 Guest

    Some additional thoughts

    I don't know that this is "treason" per se, but it is against the law, signed into the U.S. Code by none other than Bush Senior. It is a felony, punishable by up to life in prison, I believe. It's still an open question as to whether Mr. Rove will be standing before a judge, however, as the Ol Boyz Club has a way of getting guys off the hook, even guys like Prescott Bush, who DID commit treason and who should've hung. I just can't help but wonder if the world would in a less-awful state if the Bush family had been discredited back during WWII when Prescott Bush was trading with the Nazis. I do seriously doubt we would've had any of these conniving recent and current Bushes in political office.

    Speaking of conniving, as I was reading the horrible news about the London attacks today, my first thought was that Shrub would be thrilled. "He'll probably say something like, 'The war on terror continues.'" Guess what he said? This just plays right into his plans, in spite of the fact that it was the U.S. invasion of Iraq that prompted this retaliation.

    I'm off to check on Gold's links. It does seem as if there are a few in Congress lately who have stopping being so conciliatory, so I pray everyday that these people will lead the charge to boot these bootlickers out of office. However, they sure aren't getting help from the media, which tried to bury the Downing Street Memos, and now have demonstrated clearly that they've been protecting Mr. Mean for two years.

    I appreciate that journalists want to protect their sources, but there should be a limit when the source has violated Federal law to reveal info. Judith Miller belongs in jail, IMO. No one should protect Karl Rove for engaging in this despicable, vengeful, and felonious activity, and those who do are, IMO, co-conspirators.
    Last edited by erose001; 07-07-2005 at 03:07 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #26
    erose001 Guest

    I think faster than I type

    P.S. If other professionals are required by law to reveal to law enforcement people who appear to be an imminent danger to themselves or others, then why do journalists think they get a pass? Had Valerie Plame been undercover at the time, she might very well have been in imminent danger (hence, the law against this). If she had been made, and hurt or murdered as a result, that would have been not just Rove's fault, but the fault of anyone who knew about the danger and didn't tell law enforcement.

    I believe in free speech and I understand some sources need to be confidential. But the founders didn't advise limiting secrecy for nothing. This is exactly the kind of situation they were concerned about. Not to mention the abuses of power occurring in secret by both administration and certain members of Congress. Or the abuses of the black budget which has led to things like the torture of detainees. If I could, I would shut the black budget and the CIA Operations Directorate DOWN. Keep the analysts and the legit agents, but get rid of the muckity mucks who use illegally comingled funds to order coups, assassinations, and to train assassins at the School of the Americas.

    Do these people have any clue how evil their behavior is??? How at odds with national security their actions are???

    Okay, that's the end of my rant on this for now.
    Last edited by erose001; 07-07-2005 at 03:17 PM. Reason: typos again

  7. #27
    erose001 Guest

    Can you seriously believe this CRAP?

    I don't credit the Times for much, but lately it has at least tried to sneak some reporting that isn't straight from the mouth of Scott Maclellan. Until today:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/op...html?th&emc=th

    July 7, 2005
    Judith Miller Goes to Jail

    This is a proud but awful moment for The New York Times and its employees. One of our reporters, Judith Miller, has decided to accept a jail sentence rather than testify before a grand jury about one of her confidential sources. Ms. Miller has taken a path that will be lonely and painful for her and her family and friends. We wish she did not have to choose it, but we are certain she did the right thing.

    She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government.

    The Press and the Law

    Some people - including, sadly, some of our colleagues in the news media - have mistakenly assumed that a reporter and a news organization place themselves above the law by rejecting a court order to testify. Nothing could be further from the truth. When another Times reporter, M. A. Farber, went to jail in 1978 rather than release his confidential notes, he declared, "I have no such right and I seek none."

    By accepting her sentence, Ms. Miller bowed to the authority of the court. But she acted in the great tradition of civil disobedience that began with this nation's founding, which holds that the common good is best served in some instances by private citizens who are willing to defy a legal, but unjust or unwise, order.

    This tradition stretches from the Boston Tea Party to the Underground Railroad, to the Americans who defied the McCarthy inquisitions and to the civil rights movement. It has called forth ordinary citizens, like Rosa Parks; government officials, like Daniel Ellsberg and Mark Felt; and statesmen, like Martin Luther King. Frequently, it falls to news organizations to uphold this tradition. As Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1972, "The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring to fulfillment the public's right to know."

    Critics point out that even presidents must bow to the Supreme Court. But presidents are agents of the government, sworn to enforce the law. Journalists are private citizens, and Ms. Miller's actions are faithful to the Constitution. She is defending the right of Americans to get vital information from news organizations that need not fear government retaliation - an imperative defended by the 49 states that recognize a reporter's right to protect sources.

    A second reporter facing a possible jail term, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed yesterday to testify before the grand jury. Last week, Time decided, over Mr. Cooper's protests, to release documents demanded by the judge that revealed his confidential sources. We were deeply disappointed by that decision.

    We do not see how a newspaper, magazine or television station can support a reporter's decision to protect confidential sources even if the potential price is lost liberty, and then hand over the notes or documents that make the reporter's sacrifice meaningless. The point of this struggle is to make sure that people with critical information can feel confident that if they speak to a reporter on the condition of anonymity, their identities will be protected. No journalist's promise will be worth much if the employer that stands behind him or her is prepared to undercut such a vow of secrecy.

    Protecting a Reporter's Sources

    Most readers understand a reporter's need to guarantee confidentiality to a source. Before he went to jail, Mr. Farber told the court that if he gave up documents that revealed the names of the people he had promised anonymity, "I will have given notice that the nation's premier newspaper is no longer available to those men and women who would seek it out - or who would respond to it - to talk freely and without fear."

    While The Times has gone to great lengths lately to make sure that the use of anonymous sources is limited, there is no way to eliminate them. The most important articles tend to be the ones that upset people in high places, and many could not be reported if those who risked their jobs or even their liberty to talk to reporters knew that they might be identified the next day. In the larger sense, revealing government wrongdoing advances the rule of law, especially at a time of increased government secrecy.

    It is for these reasons that most states have shield laws that protect reporters' rights to conceal their sources. Those laws need to be reviewed and strengthened, even as members of Congress continue to work to pass a federal shield law. But at this moment, there is no statute that protects Judith Miller when she defies a federal trial judge's order to reveal who told her what about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as an undercover C.I.A. operative.

    Ms. Miller understands this perfectly, and she accepts the consequences with full respect for the court. We hope that her sacrifice will alert the nation to the need to protect the basic tools reporters use in doing their most critical work.

    To be frank, this is far from an ideal case. We would not have wanted our reporter to give up her liberty over a situation whose details are so complicated and muddy. But history is very seldom kind enough to provide the ideal venue for a principled stand. Ms. Miller is going to jail over an article that she never wrote, yet she has been unwavering in her determination to protect the people with whom she had spoken on the promise of confidentiality.

    The Plame Story

    The case involves an article by the syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who revealed that Joseph Wilson, a retired career diplomat, was married to an undercover C.I.A. officer Mr. Novak identified by using her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Wilson had been asked by the C.I.A. to investigate whether Saddam Hussein in Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger that could be used for making nuclear weapons. Mr. Wilson found no evidence of that, and he later wrote an Op-Ed article for The Times saying he believed that the Bush administration had misrepresented the facts.

    It seemed very possible that someone at the White House had told Mr. Novak about Ms. Plame to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility and send a chilling signal to other officials who might be inclined to speak out against the administration's Iraq policy. At the time, this page said that if those were indeed the circumstances, the leak had been "an egregious abuse of power." We urged the Justice Department to investigate. But we warned then that the inquiry should not degenerate into an attempt to compel journalists to reveal their sources.

    We mainly had Mr. Novak in mind then, but Mr. Novak remains both free and mum about what he has or has not told the grand jury looking into the leak. Like almost everyone, we are baffled by his public posture. All we know now is that Mr. Novak - who early on expressed the opinion that no journalists who bowed to court pressure to betray sources could hold up their heads in Washington - has offered no public support to the colleague who is going to jail while he remains at liberty.

    Ms. Miller did not write an article about Ms. Plame, but the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, wants to know whether anyone in government told her about Mr. Wilson's wife and her secret job. The inquiry has been conducted with such secrecy that it is hard to know exactly what Mr. Fitzgerald thinks Ms. Miller can tell him, or what argument he offered to convince the court that his need to hear her testimony outweighs the First Amendment.

    What we do know is that if Ms. Miller testifies, it may be immeasurably harder in the future to persuade a frightened government employee to talk about malfeasance in high places, or a worried worker to reveal corporate crimes. The shroud of secrecy thrown over this case by the prosecutor and the judge, an egregious denial of due process, only makes it more urgent to take a stand.

    Mr. Fitzgerald drove that point home chillingly when he said the authorities "can't have 50,000 journalists" making decisions about whether to reveal sources' names and that the government had a right to impose its judgment. But that's not what the founders had in mind in writing the First Amendment. In 1971, our colleague James Reston cited James Madison's admonition about a free press in explaining why The Times had first defied the Nixon administration's demand to stop publishing the Pentagon Papers and then fought a court's order to cease publication. "Among those principles deemed sacred in America," Madison wrote, "among those sacred rights considered as forming the bulwark of their liberty, which the government contemplates with awful reverence and would approach only with the most cautious circumspection, there is no one of which the importance is more deeply impressed on the public mind than the liberty of the press."

    Mr. Fitzgerald's attempts to interfere with the rights of a free press while refusing to disclose his reasons for doing so, when he can't even say whether a crime has been committed, have exhibited neither reverence nor cautious circumspection. It would compound the tragedy if his actions emboldened more prosecutors to trample on a free press.

    Our Bottom Line

    Responsible journalists recognize that press freedoms are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. This newspaper will not, for example, print the details of American troop movements in advance of a battle, because publication would endanger lives and national security. But these limits cannot be dictated by the whim of a branch of government, especially behind a screen of secrecy.

    Indeed, the founders warned against any attempt to have the government set limits on a free press, under any conditions. "However desirable those measures might be which might correct without enslaving the press, they have never yet been devised in America," Madison wrote.

    Journalists talk about these issues a great deal, and they can seem abstract. The test comes when a colleague is being marched off to jail for doing nothing more than the job our readers expected of her, and of the rest of us. The Times has been in these fights before, beginning in 1857, when a journalist named J. W. Simonton wrote an editorial about bribery in Congress and was held in contempt by the House of Representatives for 19 days when he refused to reveal his sources. In the end, Mr. Simonton kept faith, and the corrupt congressmen resigned. All of our battles have not had equally happy endings. But each time, whether we win or we lose, we remain convinced that the public wins in the long run and that what is at stake is nothing less than our society's perpetual bottom line: the citizens control the government in a democracy.

    We stand with Ms. Miller and thank her for taking on that fight for the rest of us.





  8. #28
    erose001 Guest

    Judith Miller in the same rank as Rosa Parks??? I DON'T THINK SO.

    Here's my letter to the New York Times in response to their verbal vomit:


    Judith Miller is exactly where she belongs until she testifies. And to compare
    her situation to that of our historical visionaries is nauseating, especially in
    light of her terrible reporting before the war in Iraq.

    There is no mistaking that she has put herself above the law. The law is very
    clear. It is a felony to reveal the identity of an undercover intelligence
    agent. Anyone who has knowledge that this information has been revealed,
    including who revealed it, not only has the responsibility to report the
    incident to law enforcement, but in not doing so, becomes an accessory to the
    felony.

    Regardless of who the administration staffer was who revealed Valerie Plame's
    identity, every reporter who had that knowledge was obliged by the law (and by
    the responsibilities of citizenship) to report the incident to law enforcement.
    (And, preferably NOT to print the information as Mr. Novak stupidly did.) Had
    Ms. Plame been put in imminent danger as a result of what many of us believe to
    be a retaliatory action, then the staffer and those to whom the staffer talked
    would all be complicit in the danger Ms. Plame faced.

    A free press IS essential, and some sources should be given assurance of
    confidentiality - if publishing their information does not place someone else in
    imminent danger. Health care, lawyers, and law enforcement are required to
    report such situations, even when interactions with the individuals in question
    would otherwise be confidential. Journalism does not get a free pass. The
    First Amendment encourages a free press to encourage transparency to PREVENT
    abuses of power. It was never intended to support secrecy to allow the kind of
    abuse of power that permitted a vengeful White House to reveal the identity of a
    CIA operative just because she was the spouse of another official who had not
    towed the administration line.

    I had been willing to ignore the Times as you continued in your denial of the
    crime occurring here in your twisted and subverted interpretation of the First
    Amendment, and even though this is administration propaganda in the first
    degree. But when Judith Miller was compared to Rosa Parks, that was where I drew
    the line. You people need to screw your heads on straight. If Judith Miller is
    remembered by history at all, it will as the woman who was willing to let the
    most secretive administration in history keep a felony secret too. She will NOT
    be on the same page as Rosa Parks.

    Angrily submitted,
    Elizabeth Rose
    Lisbon, ND
    [That's me, and I did also include full addy and phone, as you are required to in these letters.]
    Last edited by erose001; 07-07-2005 at 05:50 PM. Reason: minor correction

  9. #29
    beltman713 Guest
    Actually, it is said (Allegedly) that as many as 70 agents may have been killed as a result of this leak.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    I don't think I've ever known someone from North Dakota.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


Similar Threads

  1. CIA Leak: Karl Rove And The Case Of The Missing Email
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2005, 12:20 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-02-2005, 10:12 AM
  3. Matt Cooper's Source
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-10-2005, 10:55 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-07-2005, 11:16 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2005, 01:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •