Jump to content

Mueller indictments (split from Collusion with Russia)


Ten oz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Phi,

Granted.  But collusion has not yet been charged.  So far lying to the FBI, shady offshore money laundering and such are the indictments.  Collusion to manipulate the vote, is only implied. Putin could have had bots on this board pitting American against American to swing votes toward Trump and away from Clinton, thinking he would get more favorable treatment from Trump, and it still would not be collusion.  There were, I am sure, companies and countries spreading lies aboutTrump to help Hilary.  Collusion?

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this topic was about the Meuller indictments?  Why no comments on those?

Well here they are.

https://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2017/10/30/us/money-laundering-tax-fraud-lobbying-manafort-gates/s/manfort-docs-slide-FRXD.html

Here is commentary from the NY Times.

Quote

The indictment of Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates makes no mention of Mr. Trump or election meddling. Instead, it describes in granular detail Mr. Manafort’s lobbying work in Ukraine and what prosecutors said was a scheme to hide that money from tax collectors and the public. The authorities said Mr. Manafort laundered more than $18 million.

 Looks like Trump is in the clear to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Looks like Trump is in the clear to me.

A page back tar and iNow summarized the indictments of Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos. Considering that all three were important figures in the campaign, it is quite optimistic and I dare say premature to view the indictments as evidence of no collusion whatsoever. It is unclear if things can actually be linked to Pres. Trump himself, yet there are quite a few more people on the list that are linked to Russian operatives and/or people who have close ties to them (as e.g. the indicted people above). What is true is that at this point no smoking guns have been revealed. Note that the investigation is not over yet. In the clear would ideally be if the campaign operatives were found not to have any meaningful connections to the Russians (or at least hadn't lied about it). As it stands it is still wait and see.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Looks like Trump is in the clear to me.

If they go after Trump right away, it plays into his "witch hunt" sob. By tying up his underlings before showing the connections, nobody can say they didn't follow the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Perhaps also for another thread... but I'm unclear on what basis you could operationalize this. By what mechanism could we prevent "anyone from an administration guilty of collusion" from maintaining office and power (unless they themselves are charged / prosecuted)?

AFAIK, congress is the only body with any authority here, and it seems obvious to me that most of them (especially those with the power to actually bring this conversation to the floor or introduce a bill) don't seem to care what's happening in the Executive branch... at least not so long as it houses someone with a hand capable of holding a pen... so long as the exec branch is willing to sign legislation to remove medical care from the sick, elderly, and children, eliminate the ability of wronged consumers to sue their banks, and to sign massive deficit increasing tax cuts for the already uber wealthy into law... that's just not gonna happen.

If the indictments show Trump collusion with the Russians, why would we accept the administration's #2? If T is impeached, then P should be too. Ryan is next, and not part of a fake election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than that, Tony Podesta appears to have come under scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.

Quote

Former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were indicted on several counts Monday. And hours later, Democratic super-lobbyist Tony Podesta announced that he’d step down from his firm, the Podesta Group, Politico’s Anna Palmer reported.

That’s no coincidence. According to a report last week by Tom Winter and Julia Ainsley of NBC News, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Manafort’s foreign work before the campaign implicated Podesta’s own foreign work.

Specifically, both Podesta’s and Manafort’s firms represented a Ukrainian nonprofit group — the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine — between 2012 and 2014. This group was attempting to improve the image of the Ukrainian regime at the time, which was pro-Russian and under scrutiny for its treatment of their domestic opposition.

And while we are at it, some more details on Papdopoulos:

Quote

A professor with close ties to the Russian government told an adviser to Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in April 2016 that Moscow had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” according to court documents unsealed Monday.

The adviser, George Papadopoulos, has pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about that conversation. The plea represents the most explicit evidence that the Trump campaign was aware that the Russian government was trying to help Mr. Trump and that the campaign was eager to accept that help.

As part of that effort, the Russian government hacked Democratic accounts and released a trove of embarrassing emails related to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The Trump campaign has repeatedly denied any inside knowledge about that.

 

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tar said:

1- Putin could have had bots on this board pitting American against American to swing votes toward Trump and away from Clinton, thinking he would get more favorable treatment from Trump, and it still would not be collusion. 

2- There were, I am sure, companies and countries spreading lies aboutTrump to help Hilary.  Collusion?

1 - that Russia was interjecting itself into of Democratic process was known early as July of 2016. Candidates were made aware by our intelligence agencies. What did Trump do: joke that he hoped Russia would hack Hillary some more, claim no one knows who is doing hacks, and called the whole issue fake news. That may not be proof of collusion but it is unethical and extremely unpatriotic. At the very least Trump knowingly enabled the Russians by fostering doubt amongst his supporters.

 

2 - You are sure; do you have any evidence or is this just a gut feeling?

Edited by Ten oz
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If the indictments show Trump collusion with the Russians, why would we accept the administration's #2? If T is impeached, then P should be too. Ryan is next, and not part of a fake election. 

I’m sympathetic to your point, but find the answer here fairly plain. We’d accept it because that’s how line of succession works. It’s the law. We can advocate for a change in the law, but need to follow it as it exists today until that happens.

We can only circumvent Pence if he’s proven guilty, complicit, or similar. I find that exceedingly unlikely given his background and political skill. I don’t think he’s the type to make those types of mistakes, but could very well be mistaken. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iNow said:

We’d accept it because that’s how line of succession works. It’s the law. We can advocate for a change in the law, 

 

This whole situation begs for a healthy debate about changing the law. Many other countries are capable of holding special Elections. Here in the U.S. we are able to for Governors and other various elected officials; why not President. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

1 - that Russia was interjecting itself into of Democratic process was known early as July of 2016. Candidates were made aware by our intelligence agencies. What did Trump do: joke that he hoped Russia would hack Hillary some more, claim no one knows who is doing hacks, and called the whole issue fake news. That may not be proof of collusion but it is unethical and extremely unpatriotic. At the very least Trump knowingly enabled the Russians by fostering doubt amongst his supporters.

 

2 - You are sure; do you have any evidence or is this just a gut feeling?

Ten Oz,

No evidence except for the fact that little reports of this or that country or company or political organization attempting to win an ideological battle through the media and the internet is more or less common knowledge of the way the world operates.

It is, in my mind a political witch hunt, to suggest Trump should be impeached, because Putin hated Hilary or Obama.

Regards, TAR

That Trump utilized Putin's desire to unseat Obama and Hiliary was politically savvy and did not rise to the level of treason.    If you were a Hilary supporter you might view it that way, but right now, if you are talking about Trump, you are talking about the  president of the U.S.   If you are an American (meaning U.S.A.) then Trump is your president.  The same way that Obama was the president of the leader of the KKK.  The law should be politically blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, tar said:

It is, in my mind a political witch hunt, to suggest Trump should be impeached, because Putin hated Hilary or Obama.

This is, in all logical thinkers minds, a remedial and obvious strawman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, tar said:

Ten Oz,

No evidence except for the fact that little reports of this or that country or company or political organization attempting to win an ideological battle through the media and the internet is more or less common knowledge of the way the world operates.

It is, in my mind a political witch hunt, to suggest Trump should be impeached, because Putin hated Hilary or Obama.

Regards, TAR

That Trump utilized Putin's desire to unseat Obama and Hiliary was politically savvy and did not rise to the level of treason.    If you were a Hilary supporter you might view it that way, but right now, if you are talking about Trump, you are talking about the  president of the U.S.   If you are an American (meaning U.S.A.) then Trump is your president.  The same way that Obama was the president of the leader of the KKK.  The law should be politically blind.

You presume to know what Putin's motives were and are dismissing them as typical. You do not know what Putin's motives were nor is Putin in any way shape or form accountable to U.S. citizens; Trump is. One of the primary functions of the President is to defend the country. The President is directly over our intelligence services, State Department, and military. There is no innocent excuse or acceptable reason for a President or Presidential candidate to tolerate, cooperate with, or otherwise enable what Russia did during the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You presume to know what Putin's motives were and are dismissing them as typical. You do not know what Putin's motives were nor is Putin in any way shape or form accountable to U.S. citizens; Trump is. One of the primary functions of the President is to defend the country. The President is directly over our intelligence services, State Department, and military. There is no innocent excuse or acceptable reason for a President or Presidential candidate to tolerate, cooperate with, or otherwise enable what Russia did during the election. 

OK, now we are getting down to it.  IF Trump did this or did that it would be bad.  So did he do what you presume he did for the reasons you presume he did them?

We have already presumed that to talk to Putin about defeating Hilary would be treason against the U.S.  

Not correct, it would be bad for Hilary, but not per se bad for the U.S.

What would actually be bad for the U.S. is to have Russia control a fifth of our Uranium supply.  OK if Canada controls it, but not good for a global political and military rival to control it.

If Trump had promised Putin power over the U.S. in someway, in return for help defeating Hilary, then that would be treason.  However, perhaps Trump had different motives than you presume.  And at each stage, the rules for what he could or should or would do, in terms of agreement with the Russians is different.  What he would do as a private citizen, looking to gain an advantage on some real estate deal is one scenario.   What he can, should and would do as one of 12 Republican candidates is a new condition, surrounded by new rules.  What he could should and would do after winning the Republican candidacy brings new rules, new information, new protection and responsibilities, but still he is a private citizen.   After the election, a whole new set of rules came into place.  He got new information, daily briefings and the like to bridge into actually being president and get ready for the transfer of power, from Obama.

During this transition period, having already defeated Hilary, his connections with the Russians were expected.  He needed to create channels of communications, negotiate and so on.   He  should not undermine the U.S. or the security of the U.S. and from all we know, he did not.   The only person that might have negatively affected our potential relationship with Russia, was Obama who threw out Russian spies that had been instrumental in hacking our internet.  

So any collusion with the Russians to defeat Obama and Hillary would be campaign related and not illegal.   Same as if there were people on this board in Lancaster, that knew the prime minister, posting pro Hilary, anti-Trump spins.

And anything Trump did to change the relationship with Russia, after the election, during the transition, he did as soon to be, president of the U.S.

After the inauguration, any disrespect you show the president, you are directing at me, because he is my president.

Under these different states, different assumptions and presumptions are made.  The way you guys are talking, you view it as a victory if Trump is impeached.   This is not the case, with me.  I would not view it as a victory for us, I would view it as a victory for Putin.

Did you know it is actually illegal to publically threaten the life of the president of the U.S.?

Consider the different presumptions a Sanders supporter has, or a Trump, or and ANTIFA person has, when somebody holds up the bloody head of the president.

The presumptions don't matter.  Legally it is a felony for a senator to get a crowd riled up, saying she is so mad, she is going to go up to the White House, and get the president, tonight.

Regards, TAR

 

by the way the same senator accused the President about colluding with Russia over Korea

Not only, as it turns out was there no collusion between Russia and Trump over the invasion of Crimea, but she shouldn't be a senator. 

the only illegal thing, so far that has been uncovered by Mueller concerning Russia is lying to the FBI

the cover up is often the thing that makes a situation a felony

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tar said:

After the inauguration, any disrespect you show the president, you are directing at me, because he is my president.

what?  that's totally daft. He is a human being - the post of POTUS doesn't give him infallibility.

 

My previous post in reply to Tar's comments on North Korea have disappeared..  Were they moved to a more relevant thread?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so I am sure that some illegality will be uncovered

Trump was baited by the Russians, baited by his political opponents, both GOP and Dem.  I am sure he took the bait, on more than one occasion, and lied about taking the bait, as to not be considered duped.   And he was surrounded by thousands of operatives, both for him and against him, during the transition and after.  Someone that wanted to see the election reversed, for whatever reason, could set up a situation, where he would have to lie to protect his pride.   So this is how I see this witch hunt going.  None of the initial charges that brought on the investigation are true, but somewhere in the mix, somebody lied to somebody, and if that happened before congress or before the FBI somebody is going to jail.  Personally I think the Dems have ten times the chance of having to lie in front of congress about real crimes.   So you want to talk about crimes, or lying to the FBI or failing to file as an agent of a foreign government?

Notice the political aspect of this investigation.  It is supposed to be about treason against the U.S. on Trump's part, colluding with the Russians to undermine our political system, so the first two charges are conspiracy against the U.S.   It has to do with conspiracy to defraud the government in terms of taxes, and has nothing to do with hacking the election, but the word conspiracy is in there, and everybody says "see" its true, Trump is dangerous for the country (falling into the narrative spoken again and again during the election by Hilary and Obama)

So who is the dupe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tar said:

OK, now we are getting down to it.  IF Trump did this or did that it would be bad.  So did he do what you presume he did for the reasons you presume he did them?

 

 

 

Oct. 7th 2016:

" The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. "

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

 

Oct 20th 2016 at the 3rd President Debate:

CLINTON: ... that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.

So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 -- 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

WALLACE: Secretary Clinton...

CLINTON: And I think it's time you take a stand...

TRUMP: She has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else.

CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.

TRUMP: She has no idea.

CLINTON: I am quoting 17...

TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.

CLINTON: ... 17 intelligence -- do you doubt 17 military and civilian...

TRUMP: And our country has no idea.

CLINTON: ... agencies.

TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.4954e8f8987f

 

Tar, it isn't a matter of "IF". We know Trump willfully lied about what he knew and seeded doubt in the very agencies it is his duty as President to lead. As a major party nominee Trump received intelligence briefings. The DHS and DNI joint press release linked above was made public in October. Trump had been brief in greater detail and his respones when asked about intelligence assessment on national TV was to say "And our country has no idea" and "Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it". I can spend the rest of my morning link you tweets and interviews where Trump has continued to deny our own intelligence communities work and say it might have been China. I am not presuming a darn thing! Facts are facts. Are you, as a proud patriotic American (I presume) honestly going argue that a President bold face lying about his own military, intelligence, and State Department is somehow acceptable? You honestly think there is wiggle room here for you to be using "IF"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, tar said:

We have already presumed that to talk to Putin about defeating Hilary would be treason against the U.S.  

!

Moderator Note

Please stop strawmanning. Treason has a specific definition in the constitution, this doesn't fit, and you are the only one who has brought it up.  

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tar said:

Notice the political aspect of this investigation.  It is supposed to be about treason against the U.S. on Trump's part, colluding with the Russians to undermine our political system, so the first two charges are conspiracy against the U.S.   It has to do with conspiracy to defraud the government in terms of taxes, and has nothing to do with hacking the election, but the word conspiracy is in there, and everybody says "see" its true, Trump is dangerous for the country (falling into the narrative spoken again and again during the election by Hilary and Obama)

So who is the dupe?

Nope!!!! Mueller's investigation primarily about obstruction of justice in relation to the Firing of Comey. It was Comey's investigation which was about the attack on our electoral process and collusion. Part of proving obstruction of justice will include validating the investigation Comey was fired from and a just one in the first place and the charges against Manafort and papadopoulos appear to go a long way towards do that. Trump firing Comey would be obstruction of justice if Comey was investigating partisan nonsense. These charges lay the ground work proving Comey's investigation was legtimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ten Oz,

Where the problem comes in, in my mind, is that Hilary knew more than she said,  and knew more than Trump about what wiretaps and things were going on, being that FBI investigations are somewhat private.  If Trump knew for instance, that it was HIS staff being wiretapped he would have perhaps fired that staff member, not wanting to have a criminal or a Russian agent on his staff.   If you go into this trying to show that Trump is not fit to be president, you can't use your assumption to prove he is guilty by association with anybody on his staff that ever talked with a Russian.  Clinton wished to deflect the idea that she deleted emails that Trump thought might contain information that we would be interested in, to the idea that Trump wanted our democracy interfered with.

So the probe is for what?  What are you going in, looking for?  State it now, in clear words, what it is you thought Trump did wrong, to hurt our country, and then we will see if that is what happened.  

This shotgun approach is dangerous.  You think Trump is dirty, so you say just look and you will find some dirt.   Oh he didn't get the golden shower?  Oh that is not important it is that he colluded with the Russians to undermine our democracy.   Well suppose he didn't.  Then it is a witch hunt.  Or suppose he did.  Then it is an important investigation to remove a criminal from the WH.   But what crime do you think he committed?   Lying?  Well knowing Trump, he probably did.   So guilty as charged.  Send him to the electric chair.   

Or tell me what crime you think he specifically committed.  For instance, perhaps obstruction of justice happened on the plane on the tarmac with Bill and the AG or happened on the plane Hilary was on with Obama on her way to a political event, WHILE Comey was recommending no charges be brought against her, regardless of her mishandling of government documents.

Those would be actual crimes.   Did Trump do something like that?  What?  Make an allegation. We will see if its true.   Or you can just figure he is already guilty of something, and you are willing to just wait and see what it is, and then you will say "see", I told you so.

Regards, TAR

By the way, I have very thin skin.  If you have a problem with a post of mine please tell me what it is, so I can defend my ideas.  Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, tar said:

Ten Oz,

Where the problem comes in, in my mind, is that Hilary knew more than she said,  and knew more than Trump about what wiretaps and things were going on, being that FBI investigations are somewhat private.  If Trump knew for instance, that it was HIS staff being wiretapped he would have perhaps fired that staff member, not wanting to have a criminal or a Russian agent on his staff.   If you go into this trying to show that Trump is not fit to be president, you can't use your assumption to prove he is guilty by association with anybody on his staff that ever talked with a Russian.  Clinton wished to deflect the idea that she deleted emails that Trump thought might contain information that we would be interested in, to the idea that Trump wanted our democracy interfered with.

!

Moderator Note

The admonition I gave in the parent thread about sticking to facts and supporting claims apply to all, and to all threads, including this one. 

The claim, e.g. that "Hilary knew more than she said"  is conjecture and innuendo, as well as being off-topic, so leave it out of this thread. 

 

 
18 minutes ago, tar said:

So the probe is for what?  What are you going in, looking for?  State it now, in clear words, what it is you thought Trump did wrong, to hurt our country, and then we will see if that is what happened.  

!

Moderator Note

The charter of the investigation is documented. Again, stick to facts rather than opinion, when and where facts are the topic of discussion.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tar said:

Ten Oz,

Where the problem comes in, in my mind, is that Hilary knew more than she said,  and knew more than Trump about what wiretaps and things were going on, being that FBI investigations are somewhat private.  If Trump knew for instance, that it was HIS staff being wiretapped he would have perhaps fired that staff member, not wanting to have a criminal or a Russian agent on his staff.   If you go into this trying to show that Trump is not fit to be president, you can't use your assumption to prove he is guilty by association with anybody on his staff that ever talked with a Russian.  Clinton wished to deflect the idea that she deleted emails that Trump thought might contain information that we would be interested in, to the idea that Trump wanted our democracy interfered with.

So the probe is for what?  What are you going in, looking for?  State it now, in clear words, what it is you thought Trump did wrong, to hurt our country, and then we will see if that is what happened.  

This shotgun approach is dangerous.  You think Trump is dirty, so you say just look and you will find some dirt.   Oh he didn't get the golden shower?  Oh that is not important it is that he colluded with the Russians to undermine our democracy.   Well suppose he didn't.  Then it is a witch hunt.  Or suppose he did.  Then it is an important investigation to remove a criminal from the WH.   But what crime do you think he committed?   Lying?  Well knowing Trump, he probably did.   So guilty as charged.  Send him to the electric chair.   

Or tell me what crime you think he specifically committed.  For instance, perhaps obstruction of justice happened on the plane on the tarmac with Bill and the AG or happened on the plane Hilary was on with Obama on her way to a political event, WHILE Comey was recommending no charges be brought against her, regardless of her mishandling of government documents.

Those would be actual crimes.   Did Trump do something like that?  What?  Make an allegation. We will see if its true.   Or you can just figure he is already guilty of something, and you are willing to just wait and see what it is, and then you will say "see", I told you so.

Regards, TAR

By the way, I have very thin skin.  If you have a problem with a post of mine please tell me what it is, so I can defend my ideas.  Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum.

 

 

I don't uderstand what you are talking about. What things did Clinton know which Trump did not? They received the same intelligence breifings as candidates. What wiretaps are you specifically talking about?

You seem to be attempting to argue that while Trump did many bad things nothing he did has yet been proven illegal and as such he gets the benefit of doubt and maintains all due respect required of his office. In my opinion that is a very weak argument. Anytime a president is caught bold face lying it should alarm people. Anytime a President is caught bold face lying about sensitive security matters to the contrary of our own military and intellignce services it should both alarm people, generate termendous scrutiny, and people should demand answers. Trump is President of the United States and not just some average joe. To acknowledge unethical and unpatriotic behavior on his part but then insist that technically it may not be criminal is not in keeping with the oath one takes upon entering office. Ultimately time will tell. If and when more people are indicted no amount of bringing Hillary Clinton will change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tar said:

part of this, is a what did he know, when did he know it thing, and being such, I am sure he knew something at some point that he pretended he didn't know, but please remember that is like Hilary saying she had nothing to do with the Uranium One deal.   It basically means she was either an inept Secretary of State, and didn't know the Russians were getting control of a Canadian country that had control of a fifth of our Uranium.  Either way she is wrong.  But she has not done anything illegal until she is caught in a lie, made to congress or the FB

!

Moderator Note

I've already extended an invitation to start a new thread for the off-topic discussion such as this. This thread was moved because it had gone off topic, and I posted a note asking people to stay on-topic.  I will remove off-topic posts and/or issue warnings from here on out.

Posts on Uranium One have been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/111288-uranium-one-split-from-mueller-indictments-split-from-collusion-with-russia/

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.