Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pardon Libby
American Spectator ^ | 6-21-07 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Posted on 06/22/2007 5:45:36 PM PDT by STARWISE

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
"The defense in the Scooter Libby trial has subpoenaed NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell to speak about her earlier statement that the profession of Valerie Plame Wilson "was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community."

She's since retracted it after her remarks seemingly implicated her NBC colleague Tim Russert. The prosecution also does not want Mitchell to testify as Clarice Feldman notes:

Yet Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is fighting hard to make sure reporter Andrea Mitchell's testimony is not heard, and is asking the jury to buy some highly implausible notions about a key FBI interview with NBC's Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert.

The prosecution is still trying hard to keep Andrea Mitchell from being called as a defense witness. In a pleading Friday, the defense is trying just as hard to get court permission to call her. The prosecution argues that the defense cannot call a witness just to impeach her, and the defense says that is not their only reason to call her, that she has other evidence to provide, and that a fair trial cannot be had without her being called and questioned by the defense."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I suspect karma will be Hell for these charlatans... and, FatTimmy: how DO you sleep at night?


1 posted on 06/22/2007 5:45:37 PM PDT by STARWISE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi; Laverne; onyx; Howlin; SE Mom; Grampa Dave; samadams2000; popdonnelly; ...

Scooter ~~PING!


2 posted on 06/22/2007 5:46:25 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Why hasn’t Bush pardoned Libby?


3 posted on 06/22/2007 5:47:51 PM PDT by Savage Beast (If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Maybe he doesn’t want to hurt his chances at reelection … oh, wait … never mind.


4 posted on 06/22/2007 5:50:48 PM PDT by doc1019 (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

because he is George the Wuss (GW)


5 posted on 06/22/2007 5:52:29 PM PDT by Y2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Fits filed his response to Libby’s petition to the Ct of Appeals this afternoon. It is here http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070622_govt_reply.pdf


6 posted on 06/22/2007 5:53:38 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Every day that passes without a pardon is just one more reason I’ll never send a dollar to the GOP.


7 posted on 06/22/2007 5:54:57 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

while he is at it, how about the other Libby, G. Gordon, Chuck Colson, and any one else that tweaks the left....


8 posted on 06/22/2007 5:55:04 PM PDT by taildragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Here’s a question.. if you are gonna pardon a guy, why wait until after the government has spent millions prosecuting him and he has spent millions defending himslef? Why not just pardon him up front?


9 posted on 06/22/2007 5:56:28 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

G. Gordon Liddy....


10 posted on 06/22/2007 5:57:56 PM PDT by clintonh8r (Sort of better than Gore or Kerry, but that's about it.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

I believe you have to be convicted to be pardoned?


11 posted on 06/22/2007 5:58:55 PM PDT by doc1019 (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
"If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation."

Well, at least it wasn't a Mexican drug runner whose word they took over an American Border Patrol agent's word.

12 posted on 06/22/2007 5:59:26 PM PDT by donna (They hand off my culture & citizenship to criminals & then call me racist for objecting?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

One could argue the prudence of allowing our system of justice to officially play out fully, and that a defendant have every opportunity to pursue the system’s remedies to clear his name until every legal recourse is exhausted.


13 posted on 06/22/2007 6:01:23 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: donna

A totally irrelevant analogy, and disingenuous immigration insertion.


14 posted on 06/22/2007 6:02:28 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Well is so, that answers my question!


15 posted on 06/22/2007 6:02:36 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

I think it’s because that he is hoping that by not pardoning Libby it will provide some kind of “closure” on the whole stupid Palme affair.

He hopes, and I think in vain, that by giving them Libby they will stop harrassing him with other spurious investigations and he will be able to spend the rest of his presidency in relative peace.

A pardon, he reasons, will infuriate the dems again and they will redouble their efforts to drag down any other member of the administration they can sink their teeth into.

But that’s stupid. Nothing he could do short of suicide on the White House lawn would satisfy the dems. He should realize that by now.

Oh heck — I just don’t know anymore. I am so disgusted with Bush these days, on so many levels, I have given up on the idea that any good at all will come from the remainder of this administration.


16 posted on 06/22/2007 6:03:48 PM PDT by Ronin (Bushed out!!! Another tragic victim of BDS. Now an official Fredhead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

The conviction of Scooter Libby proves that Justice does not live in a DC Court. Everyone from the prosecutor,the Judge ,the Jury were under the shadow of the DNC who cooked up this scheme.

If I were Mr. Bush , Fitzgerald would be explaining why he tossed away millions of dollars on this farce.


17 posted on 06/22/2007 6:04:04 PM PDT by sgtbono2002 (http://www.imwithfred.com/index.aspx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

No. Ford pardoned Nixon before any charges were filed.


18 posted on 06/22/2007 6:04:36 PM PDT by Ronin (Bushed out!!! Another tragic victim of BDS. Now an official Fredhead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I would normally agree with that, but the fact that this judge has decided to incarcerate Libby during the appeals process is an outrage and purely vindictive. Libby is neither a flight risk nor a threat to others. Bush should pardon him now. Otherwise, I would agree that the appeal process should be allowed to play out.


19 posted on 06/22/2007 6:05:32 PM PDT by clintonh8r (Sort of better than Gore or Kerry, but that's about it.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I agree.


20 posted on 06/22/2007 6:05:51 PM PDT by wardaddy (on supervised release...btw....I know Trent Lott and he sucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

See post #18


21 posted on 06/22/2007 6:06:00 PM PDT by doc1019 (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Nixon was never convicted of anything...Ford still pardoned him. Bush’s refusal to pardon Libby is indecent.


22 posted on 06/22/2007 6:06:04 PM PDT by pgkdan (Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions - G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

Bush has at his disposal the legal “respite”, which is a delay in imposition of sentence. Woodrow Wilson used this effectively to delay sentence of a subordinate until the end of his term, when the underling was pardoned.


23 posted on 06/22/2007 6:06:25 PM PDT by bennowens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Says you.


24 posted on 06/22/2007 6:08:09 PM PDT by donna (They hand off my culture & citizenship to criminals & then call me racist for objecting?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

From what I understand Libby has ecellent prospects on appeal. It would be so much better if the conviction were overturned than if the Prsident pardoned him. It’s worth the wait to see if he can be vindicated on appeal as opposed to a pardon.


25 posted on 06/22/2007 6:09:30 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Well, OK, except his name is G Gordon Liddy.


26 posted on 06/22/2007 6:10:39 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

That is why my response ended with a question mark. Didn’t know for sure. Thanks for the info.


27 posted on 06/22/2007 6:11:03 PM PDT by doc1019 (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r

He’s not in jail yet, so .... I think there are more options that are yet to play out.


28 posted on 06/22/2007 6:15:12 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
Why hasn’t Bush pardoned Libby?

Because Libby can and will win his case on appeal.

If Bush pardons Libby, then Libby can no longer clear his name. He will be tarnished for eternity.

29 posted on 06/22/2007 6:36:20 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

A pardon suggests guilt. He has the appeal process to handle the injustice that has been done to him. To pardon him now, before the appeal has run its course, would short circuit the system. The only way a pardon would be good at this point is if the judge does not let him remain free pending the appeal. This judge has been anything but fair to Libby from day one and the only reason I can think of that he would not let Libby remain free pending appeal is that he has it out for Libby and knows if he’s going to get him it’s got to be before the appeal can wipe out the conviction.

This has got to be the single worst example of injustice that I have ever seen. It was never even proved that there was crime to begin with and yet Fitzgerald pushed on for two years or more and finally charged Libby with something that came down to absolutely nothing more than the two people remembered a phone conversation two years earlier. A conversation during which neither party took notes.


30 posted on 06/22/2007 6:39:22 PM PDT by jwpjr (Sigh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

“and, FatTimmy: how DO you sleep at night?”

Probably like a baby (that he is), on his big, oversized pillow.


31 posted on 06/22/2007 6:42:14 PM PDT by Disturbin (01-20-09: Fred's First Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr

Boy, if Sandy Berger is still running around free after stealing from the National Archive, admitting it, etc ... how can Libby ever be put in jail ... this is absolutely amazing.


32 posted on 06/22/2007 6:44:56 PM PDT by Oclan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi; Laverne; onyx; Howlin; SE Mom; Grampa Dave; samadams2000; popdonnelly; ...
Thanks, fifi:

"III. Exclusion of the Testimony of Andrea Mitchell

At trial, defendant sought to impeach Tim Russert's testimony that he did not tell defendant that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA (2/7/07 PMTr.22,26) purportedly by showing that Ms. Mitchell knew of Ms. Wilson's CIA-employment prior to the publication of Robert Novak's column and may have conveyed that information to Mr. Russert.

Ms. Mitchell had made an out-of-court-statement which defendant argued indicated that she knew that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIa prior to the publication of Mr. Novak's column, and prior to defendant's conversation with Mr. Russert.

As the district court found, however, the prior statement was at best ambiguous, and the interpretation defendant was pressing had been publicly refuted by Ms. Mitchell on numerous occasions (((WHEN SHE THEN LIED TO COVER UP HER PREVIOUS STATEMENTS!!!).

Thus, it was clear defendant's sold purpose in calling Ms. Mitchell was to put the October 3, 2003 statement before the jury.

As the district court correctly held, the October 3, 2003 statement was not admissible as substantive evidence, and calling Ms. Mitchell as subterfuge to place her otherwise-inadmissible statement before the jury violated not only well-settled authority in the D.C. Circuit, but also authority from other jurisdictions. .................

~~~~~

fifi, I don't understand this footnote .. that defense turned down the option of questioning Mitchell?:

The defense requested and was granted an opportunity to question ms. Mitchell; however, defense counsel declined the court's offer to allow questioning under oath and outside the presence of the jury. 2/13/07 AM Tr. 18-23. See also 475 F. Supp. 2d at 82, n.8. Defendant thus waived the claim that Ms. Mitchell's account would differ from her attorney's representation had she been placed under oath.

~~~~~~~

The district court's evidentiary determination that the probative value of ms. Mitchell's testimony was minimal at best (as the jury would be asked to draw a string of speculative inferences), and was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusion and unfair prejudice, is entitled to substantial deference.

Moreover, any error in excluding Ms. Mitchell's testimony is harmless, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HORSE PUCKEY !!!

33 posted on 06/22/2007 6:49:26 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
“Why hasn’t Bush pardoned Libby?”

Since Bush is notoriously loyal to his cronies, the question is somewhat problematic. Based on his history, though, I can make one guess and that is that Libby is significantly more competent at what he does than is George. Bush’s loyalties are strongest toward those that can’t make that claim — i.e. Gonzalez, “Brownie”, Mineta (now there was a REAL jewel) Chertoff, Miers, etc.

34 posted on 06/22/2007 6:56:04 PM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I thought that Mrs. Greenspan had written an article, under her name Andrea Mitchell, where she mentioned that the ambassador was sent on the mission by CIA operatives (or some such thing). That article was published prior to Novak’s. I’m curious why the defense didn’t introduce it, or discuss it, as it was also relevant to Andrea’s (aka the drunk, due to her IMUS statemet) knowledge of what was going on.

NBC in the names of the spitter (Matthews), the crybaby (Gregory), the fat dim one (Russert) and the drunk (Mitchell) are all intimately involved in this. Not to mention, their great reporter (Schuster, or is it Scheister?) who got more of this story wrong than anyone else.

This whole case is NBC against the White House; to this day when this subject is discussed on NBC, they somehow forget to mention that the LEAKER WAS RICHARD ARMITAGE.

I will look forward to reading the take on Fitzy’s filing at JOM. I think Team Libby’s response to this filing is due on Tuesday, next week. The I guess a date will be set for a hearing?


35 posted on 06/22/2007 7:08:06 PM PDT by Laverne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.

What a lie. Do they think we can't see this. How does one obstruct an investigation where they already know the answers. I've been a lawyer for many years. When you hear anyone ssy we are a nation of laws, not of men, throw eggs, boo and hiss, realize it is not true and we only pay lip service to it.

36 posted on 06/22/2007 7:10:41 PM PDT by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

The judge was going to permit limited questioning outside the jury’s presence. Not quite the same thing as a full examination before the jury.(At least not in this country.)


37 posted on 06/22/2007 7:11:33 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Karma has begun!

NBC News is turning into a joke- first the anti-American crap, and especially since this million dollar/Paris Hilton nonsense.


38 posted on 06/22/2007 7:48:57 PM PDT by Finalapproach29er (Dems will impeach Bush in 2008; mark my words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oclan

It also gives me great pause in my faith that the justice system works as the Founding Fathers intended it to. If a person at that level and with that access to excellent legal services can be convicted in a case where no crime was committed in the first place and then be incarcerated before even his first level of appeal then what chance do you and I stand?


39 posted on 06/22/2007 8:35:32 PM PDT by jwpjr (Sigh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Laverne
...Now, an odd burp of a story is floating around the Internet about a question from Andrea Mitchell to James Risen on the possibility that CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour was the subject of a government wiretap. The place to start here in The Moderate Voice, where Joe Gandelman has some good analysis and lots of links to get you around. Be prepared for the typical responses in the comments from the usual suspects. Bush backers will say something on the order of, "Well, there must have been a good reason," while anti-Bush people will be throwing I-told-you-sos amidst the predictions or hope of an early impeachment. And let's not forgo the obvious Nixon parallels. In a nut shell, Mitchell, in interviewing Risen, gave the impression that she was aware that the administration was bugging Amanpour's communications. NBC killed the transcript and issued an oddly phrased statement that implied that NBC thought that the charge was credible but wasn't ready to break the story, which, whether this ends up being true or hooey, is the right thing to do. 39 posted on 01/06/2006 9:39:46 AM PST by Cboldt | To 1

* Jamie Rubin (former State Department Clintonista) and Christiane Amanpour (CNN war slut) [are married]-- 51 posted on 05/22/2004 1:31:22 PM PDT by Miss Marple

* Tim Russert & Andrea Mitchell : Russert clearly remembered first reading about Mrs. Wilson in the Novak column. “I said, Wow, look at this, this is really significant, this is big,” he testified. “I went to work and began to ask people I was working with what we knew about what, why we didn’t have the story, because to me it was a significant development in the story.”
NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported three days before the Novak column that Wilson was sent to Africa by the CIA according to a CIA informant. I wonder why no one ever asked Mitchell who her informant was. Obviously, Russert is lying here.---------32 posted on 02/08/2007 6:47:24 PM PST by Hoodat | To 1

* Andrea Mitchell : A question for you or anyone else who might know. When was the Vanity Fair spread on the Wilson's released? When was the interview and photo shoot for this spread? It was mentioned last week that [Tim] Russert's wife works for Vanity Fair. In addition, Andrea Mitchell said that those reporters who cover the CIA knew about Plame before Novak's column. If Andrea Mitchell knew, the suggestion was that her Bureau Chief - Russert - also knew about Plame. How does the Vanity Fair article on the Wilson's fit into the timeline? Or is this just a red herring? 38 posted on 11/07/2005 7:49:02 AM PST by pieces of time | To 23

It was mentioned last week that [Tim] Russert's wife works for Vanity Fair.----38 posted on 11/07/2005 7:49:02 AM PST by pieces of time | To 23

...
40 posted on 06/22/2007 9:03:56 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
I pardon at this point would be a huge mistake. Libby would forever be tagged as GUILTY. A respite from any jail time would be perfect, while his appeal is decided. He stands a very good chance of winning on appeal.
41 posted on 06/23/2007 4:15:14 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr
The only way a pardon would be good at this point is if the judge does not let him remain free pending the appeal.

A respite would let him stay out of jail pending the appeal.

42 posted on 06/23/2007 4:18:02 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
Yes. I agree with everything you say. Your explanation about pardoning Libby makes sense. And you're right--if that's what Bush is expecting, it is stupid.

I'm fed up with Bush too. I would vote for him again--today--if he ran against Gore, Clinton, Kerry--any of the Democrats--but if his refusal to close the Border and halt Illegal Immigration leads to serious catastrophe, I won't be able to say that.

43 posted on 06/23/2007 4:25:21 AM PDT by Savage Beast (If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: saganite

But why put him through all this? And where is that Bush loyalty?


44 posted on 06/23/2007 4:26:48 AM PDT by Savage Beast (If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Okay. That makes sense.


45 posted on 06/23/2007 4:27:39 AM PDT by Savage Beast (If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr

Aren’t there similarities between Libby’s prosecution and the Duke lacrosse players’ prosecution? Could the outcomes be similar?


46 posted on 06/23/2007 4:30:01 AM PDT by Savage Beast (If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: vetsvette

From what I’ve seen of Chertoff he wins the Bush Freakshow Prize.


47 posted on 06/23/2007 4:31:12 AM PDT by Savage Beast (If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr
If a person at that level and with that access to excellent legal services can be convicted in a case where no crime was committed in the first place and then be incarcerated before even his first level of appeal then what chance do you and I stand?

Actually, if it was you or I, since we're not 'trophy scalps', we would not have even been indicted. FitzFong/Comfy had a personal vendetta against Libby.

48 posted on 06/23/2007 4:33:38 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

“Everyone from the prosecutor,the Judge ,the Jury were under the shadow of the DNC who cooked up this scheme.”

A preview of the American legal system once the democrat party is entirely in control. Criminalization of political differences. Stalin is looking up through the flames and smiling at this.


49 posted on 06/23/2007 4:35:20 AM PDT by Constitutional Patriot (Socialism is the cancer of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

I suspect he will get pardoned but if Libby has excellent grounds for getting the verdict overturnd wouldn’t you rather that happen? Can you imagine what a slap in the face of Fitz and his persecution, I mean prosecution, that would be? A tremendous victory for the administration as well. If the pardon is issued before the appeal Bush will face the standard drubbing in the press and the aura of the conviction will always hang over Libby. I think it’s worth the wait.


50 posted on 06/23/2007 4:46:01 AM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson