Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[W. Niederhut]

33 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

They were both working on shady energy projects that would have paid well had HRC won. McCabe probably thought he had more leverage on them than he actually did. 

The Flynn case has all kinds of layers. Brass balls.com has been very thorough.

In other news, the whistle blower Bill Taylor is turning out to be very interesting. Aside from being Tipper Gore’s Cousin, his father was a big shot at the AEC back in the 50s & 60s, like Bezos grandfather LP Gise. (Also a few Cabells in the Taylor family tree.) 

Uranium then and Uranium now. 

 

  Good grief...    Tipper Gore's cousin?  Talk about your inconvenient truths...  😠

  Let us know when you and your fellow right wing conspiracy theorists find any inaccuracies in Taylor's Congressional testimony about Trump's Ukrainian extortion scam.

  If Trump has nothing to hide, why has he worked so tirelessly during the past two years to prevent Congress and the public from learning anything about his campaign contacts with Russia, and, recently, his extortion scheme involving Zelensky?

  Why did Trump adamantly refuse to talk to Robert Mueller?

  As for Uranium One, surely, everyone knows by now that that was another fake, GOP-fabricated, pre-election "scandal" to smear Hillary Clinton-- the most "investigated" politician in American history.

   Michael Flynn was working as an unregistered paid foreign agent in 2016-- while serving as Trump's chief national security advisor.

   Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his undisclosed 2016 contacts with Russian government officials.

Edited October 27, 2019 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

WN:

As I have said you are one of the most erudite and intelligent people on this forum.  No question about that.

But I think you and Bob and Paul are missing at least some of the points involved in this.

Unless something really big happens, the Dems simply do not have the votes to succeed in this.  I think Pelosi knows that, which is why she sat on the sidelines and waited it out.  She figures that even if she loses, she can extend this drama over to the election cycle and hurt the GOP and Trump that way.

But meanwhile, as this plays out its a great opportunity to see the inner workings of the Shadow Government, its players and its allies in the press. Having been through several of these things--the JFK case, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran/ Contra, 9-11, the Clinton impeachment, Florida 2000, Ohio 2004--if you avoid the smoke and mirrors of the MSM, and bypass the partisanship, you can get a sharp and indelible picture of the workings behind the scenes of a thoroughly corrupted system. Slowly,  I have learned how to do that.

To give you one example:  the guy who was played up as the whistleblower in Watergate, was actually the guy who helped set up the whole thing.

https://kennedysandking.com/obituaries/the-mysterious-life-and-death-of-james-w-mccord

But if you look at the other obits for McCord, the MSM still did not tell you any of this.  And its 45 years after the fact!   Know why?  Because the MSM was almost as bad on Watergate as they were on JFK.  So I have learned not to trust them on anything major, except maybe brushfires, hurricanes and earthquakes.

I don't agree with Mr Wheeler on everything, but I appreciate a different point of view with different sources.

 

PS . Is Mr. Wheeler from the same county that the Clintons live in?

Edited October 27, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

To further the analogy.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were not journalistic heroes in 1973-74, and Redford should never have glorified them as such in his film

Well, in this case, you have people like David Ignatius being puppets for people like Brennan.  The latter encouraged the former to "take the kill shot on Flynn".

Sydney  Powell is a good lawyer. The fact that no one knows who she is, tells you how bad the MSM is. And Mr. Wheeler should post the pdf of her latest filing.

As she illustrates with examples,  this is a battle between the White House and the Deep State people who hate Trump.  The latter do not want to see the IG report on how RG  started.  And they do not want to see Barr go after people like Brennan and Clapper who started it.

Again, to draw a parallel, the real winner behind Watergate was not Bradlee, Woodward, Ervin, or Sam Dash.

It was Dick Helms.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - I’m not buying it. The Deep State as you call it, fighting hard to prevent a demagogue from taking complete power are in this case doing the right thing. David Talbot has managed to parse this new reality. The Clinton’s, power brokers in the old system, are infinitely preferable to the Bush family. Yet notice that all the promoters of the hate Hillary camp never mention Bush. Why is that? Today’s FBI is not Hoover’s. Clapper and Brennan are not Dulles and Helms. Times change. 

[Bob Ness]

On 10/25/2019 at 8:59 PM, Robert Wheeler said:

Sydney Powell, General Flynn’s lawyer, file a 37 page brief yesterday. Note the CIA reference. 

Question. What did Halper or any of this have to do with Flynn's guilty pleas to charges of lying to investigators and FARA violations? It's seems she's fishing for irrelevant information to boost his value to certain pardon capable denizens of the House of White. That is she wants dope about crap that isn't material to his case. Especially since when a person accepts a plea agreement they usually waive their constitutional and legal rights. The plea itself basically states "I did it! I understand the charges and I did it!" All other considerations are set aside including Brady claims.

BTW They're extremely unlikely to turn over classified call records and random NSA material to some Fox lawyer to scan through. And they shouldn't.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

To further the analogy.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were not journalistic heroes in 1973-74, and Redford should never have glorified them as such in his film

Well, in this case, you have people like David Ignatius being puppets for people like Brennan.  The latter encouraged the former to "take the kill shot on Flynn".

Sydney  Powell is a good lawyer. The fact that no one knows who she is, tells you how bad the MSM is. And Mr. Wheeler should post the pdf of her latest filing.

As she illustrates with examples,  this is a battle between the White House and the Deep State people who hate Trump.  The latter do not want to see the IG report on how RG  started.  And they do not want to see Barr go after people like Brennan and Clapper who started it.

Again, to draw a parallel, the real winner behind Watergate was not Bradlee, Woodward, Ervin, or Sam Dash.

It was Dick Helms.

To me it appears like she is trying to get access to information for her client that is irrelevant to the interviews in which he gave false statements. Grist for the "Deep State" mill. He knowingly plead guilty knowing he lied. It's that simple. He hadn't registered as a foreign agent and then accepted 600k from Turkey. The US Government has proof. End of story.

I'm not saying it's bad lawyering but it appears to me like posing.

[Bob Ness]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

So, are you saying that the entrapment of George P is similar to Flynn's?

I just don't get it. What entrapment? They made Flynn lie to FBI agents? They made him plead guilty and admit to breaking the law? Where is the entrapment?

[W. Niederhut]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

To further the analogy.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were not journalistic heroes in 1973-74, and Redford should never have glorified them as such in his film

Well, in this case, you have people like David Ignatius being puppets for people like Brennan.  The latter encouraged the former to "take the kill shot on Flynn".

Sydney  Powell is a good lawyer. The fact that no one knows who she is, tells you how bad the MSM is. And Mr. Wheeler should post the pdf of her latest filing.

As she illustrates with examples,  this is a battle between the White House and the Deep State people who hate Trump.  The latter do not want to see the IG report on how RG  started.  And they do not want to see Barr go after people like Brennan and Clapper who started it.

Again, to draw a parallel, the real winner behind Watergate was not Bradlee, Woodward, Ervin, or Sam Dash.

It was Dick Helms.

Understood.  But I agree with Paul Brancato's point about the current dubious theories blaming the "Deep State" for Donald Trump's Ukrainian extortion scam.

For one thing, we have the July 25th Trump-Zelensky phone call transcript.

Two relevant, interesting MSM articles this morning...

1)  A history professor from UW published an NYT piece about the origins of the career Civil Service cadre/Deep State in the Progressive Era. (Although, she doesn't delve into the post-WWII corruption of the U.S. government by Dulles' "Secret Team.")

2)  WaPo has an interesting article about the latest PRRI survey showing that the delusional 26 percent of Americans who get their "news" from Fox will stand by Trump regardless of the evidence.  

 

[James DiEugenio]

To finish off my McCord analogy to illustrate the point about Helms vs Nixon:

By the summer of 1973, Nixon seemed to realize what had really happened. He called up H. R. Haldeman at four in the morning, and asked him some pointed questions:

• “Do you know anything about the Bennett PR firm, the Mullen Company?”
• “Did you ever employ them at the White House? Were they ever retained by us for any purpose?”
• “Did you know they were a CIA front?”
• “Did you know that Helms ordered Bennett to hire Howard Hunt?”
• “Did you know that Hunt was on the payroll at the Bennett firm at the same time that he was on the White House payroll?” (Probe, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 32)

It was too late.

Shouldn't we learn from that?

When Paul says that he prefers the Clintons to the Bushes, again, this misses the point. One has to get past the partisanship, and into the process of how and why these things occur. I believe that there was a problem with Trump with certain elements of the Power Elite.  He ran as an outsider, and he had certain ideas about foreign policy that were not aligned with the Neocons.  And let us please acknowledge the fact that the Neocons know no political boundary.  Hillary Clinton is a neocon in foreign policy e.g. her association with Kagan, and Nuland.  Which is why Obama was an idiot to appoint her Secretary of State and let her run wild. This  is why she was attacking Trump as being a Putin groupie during the campaign.  Don't you guys understand that this was the whole point of the Steele Dossier, what with its idiotic Golden Showers BS? That is why Steele wanted it circulated throughout the State Department.

Comey and McCabe and others in the FBI bought into the Steele Dossier. After Trump was elected, the Democrats wanted to use this against Trump for purely political purposes. Adam Schiff did all he could to keep the provenance of it hidden.  Which tells you a lot about what he was up to.  McCabe and Comey and Rosenstein wanted to remove Trump from office because of it.  Which is nutty.  And they then used it for FISA purposes, which may be even nuttier.

Sidney Powell is exposing the whole Flynn matter as politically motivated. 

The interview was set up directly via a phone call to Flynn from Andrew McCabe, who then was deputy director of the FBI. McCabe, by his own account, made it sound like an ordinary national-security-related briefing of the sort Flynn was accustomed to giving the FBI. Even though McCabe clearly knew that Flynn was a potential subject of investigation, he deliberately dissuaded Flynn from having attorneys present.

Moreover, when the agents arrived, they and Flynn both treated the meeting as rather informal, even “jocular,” and “the agents did not provide General Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement … before, during, or after the interview.” The agents’ decision not to so inform Flynn was made at the direct behest of McCabe because “they wanted Flynn to be relaxed.”

In legal lingo, this is called a perjury trap.  The late, great Bob Parry diagnosed it as that when it happened. We are all catching up to him three years later.

Edited October 27, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

1. The Flynn Entrapment A court filing shows the ugly tactics employed by James Comey’s FBI. - WSJ Editorial Board 12/12/18

2. FBI's entrapment of Gen. Flynn was despicable - Washington Examiner 12/14/18

Note that the second link above and quote below is from someone who claims to be a defender of Mueller.

3. The Flynn Entrapment - Hot Air - 12/13/18

More importantly than the actual content at the links, which can answer your questions, are the dates the article were posted. I'm pointing out the dates to highlight that we moved past the entrapment question almost a year ago (yes Flynn was "entrapped"); and that we are now at a deeper level of trying to understand the reasons for the entrapment.

Overly simplified, our question is: What is so important that the FBI would attempt to entrap a Sr. Trump official in the Trump Admin. (General Flynn)? 

All in the context of:

• the FBI's willingness to mislead the FISA court. (the IG report is supposed to be coming out soon [they have been saying this for a month so I'm not holding my breath.]) 
• the conviction of George P. and the "outing" of other FBI informants and CIA assets (Mifsud, Downey, Halper etc.)
• the arrest of Paul Manafort and his conviction on charges related to crimes committed prior to joining Team Trump, where those crimes also destroyed the Podesta brother's lobbying firm (Podesta Group).
•  the necessity of bringing in one of the biggest and rarely used guns in the Deep State's arsenal, Robert Swan Mueller 3rd. 
  • Mueller was not called in to investigate Trump.
  • Mueller was not called in to preserve the integrity of the FBI.
  • Mueller was not called in to keep Hillary's name clean, or from being investigated.
  • Mueller was not called in to protect Obama.
  • Mueller is too big and important for any of the above bullets. 

In the FBI/Flynn question and the bullet points added for context, Trump must go. 

Trump has to "go", like JFK and his brother had to go. Also like MLK and Nixon had to go. (I would argue Nixon was probably more of a loose canon and potential threat to some lines of business, rather than as a history changing agent of change like the first three (JFK, RFK, MLK.)

You don't assassinate a President because of a proposed change in the oil depletion allowance, and you don't peddle fake dossiers and expose the upper echelons of the CIA and FBI to indictments because you disagree with a Boarder Wall. 

You assassinate a President or plot a coup d'etat because the President is a threat to the entire Deep State franchise. The Deep State is at risk of losing control of entire legitimate industries (weapons, energy (especially nuclear), the media, mineral extraction, re-Insurance) and illegitimate industries (drugs & trafficking.) 

In turn, the Deep State franchise (the money making arm) finances the subversion of institutions, which in turn provide the protection of the franchise from Democratic processes, outright military insurrection or even Hong Kong/Chile/Yellow Jacket demonstrations and civil disruptions.

Those institutions include government agencies, certain courts, parts of academia, parts of the culture, and the keepers of the official historical record.

Trump threatens the Deep State. If they could kill him, they would.

No one has to like him.

No one has to agree with his policies.

Feel free to debate whether the ideal marginal tax rate is 35% or 55%. 

Just recognize that he is not a Deep State President, if he was, they would not have so blatantly exposed themselves trying to take him out.

If you know where to look, and who to listen to you can get a clearer look at the Deep State every day, things are being exposed, breadcrumbs are being dropped. You'll probably have enough information to know who was behind the JFK Assassination over the next year.

Some interesting info. about the CIA's involvement a Child Trafficking ring dropped Friday.  https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders/the-finders-part-01-of-01/view

 

 

 

Your WSJ link is behind a paywall.

Let me clarify this.

If Flynn lies to a federal investigator or employee that is against the law. The Vice President claimed he lied to him. You don't believe that? It has nothing to do with anything pertaining to Halper, HRC, Mueller, Mifsud or anything. It has everything to do with sitting in a room with a federal agent and saying something he knows to be untrue. That's it. There's nothing more to say about it. Flynn has participated in probably thousands of these interviews, on both sides, while serving in his many positions as the DIA, his Army career , JSOC and on and on. He knows very well what the laws are about this as did his attorneys which is why he plead guilty. He was and so stated in clear and uncertain terms. These facts and the proof he lied is all we need to know. You can claim other things. But that is over.

Regarding the FBI's conduct while interviewing Flynn being "entrapment" or a "perjury trap" let me say this. There has never been a time in the history of legal proceedings and conspiracy investigations where the guilty party hasn't been "entrapped". Felons throughout the US will tell you they were "entrapped" because that's what they say and that's what the investigators do. They don't go handing out business cards saying "Hi, I'm a federal agent trying to see if you're a criminal. You'd better get that attorney of yours over here while we chit-chat about drug running." Believe it or not, the subjects often times don't know the person they are talking to are police/informers/agents! If they do, as in the case of Flynn, they'd be pretty stupid to try and BS them.

As I said, Flynn has been through and likely conducted THOUSANDS of these interviews and for him to claim entrapment is so laughable it's ridiculous. That's what they all say when there is no other defense. But it appeals to a certain victimization mind set which is easy to stoke in people predisposed to the idea.

He may be able to convince his mom he was entrapped - she'll feel better about her son - but the court is likely to throw it out.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Bob,

Flynn was not charged with any conversation with Pence.  If prosecutors charged every administration official with lying to another one, there would be no administrations.

Now, if you cannot see the unethical practice of planning to indict someone over an interview but not telling him to bring a lawyer, then this is what I am talking about.  Namely the process, the ends justifying the means.  

And that is not all in this case.  If you read the Powell filing, she argues that documents were altered. Even Sally Yates, who ended up going along with it, had problems with what McCabe had done.

Edited October 27, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

On 10/18/2019 at 10:30 AM, W. Niederhut said:

FATAL FLAWS IN THE DEEP STATE-IS-OUT-TO-GET-TRUMP THEORY

 

1)  The FBI played a crucial role in defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016

       Remember all of those weekly front page stories in the mainstream U.S. media (including the NYT) in 2016 about the Hillary Email-gate nothing burger?  Most of these weekly headlines were based on leaks by anonymous FBI "sources"-- culminating in James Comey's "October Surprise" letter shortly before the election about re-opening the "investigation" of Hillary's Emails.  Recall also that Rudy Giuliani (PNAC's 9/11 man in NYC) had announced the Comey/FBI "October Surprise" in advance.  Meanwhile, Dean Baquet and the NYT had put the kibosh on any 2016 stories about the Trump campaign's collusion with the Kremlin.

2)  Russia definitely hacked the 2016 U.S. elections to put Trump and Congressional Republicans in office

       The evidence that Russia hacked our 2016 elections to put Trump and Congressional Republicans in office is overwhelming.  It was a multi-faceted Kremlin op based on Gerasimov Doctrine strategies of creating social divisions in the U.S. (ethnic, religious, cultural) in close parallel with the campaign strategies that helped Trump win the GOP nomination and Electoral College -- e.g., fear-mongering about Mexican immigrants, Muslims, blacks, etc.

3)  Trump and Congressional Republicans have repeatedly obstructed investigations of their close ties to the Kremlin, and have also blocked efforts to prevent ongoing Russian interference in our U.S. elections

4)  Trump has betrayed the research communities investigating Deep State crimes-- both the JFK assassination and 9/11

       After vowing to release the classified JFKA records in October of 2017--- as required by a unanimous act of Congress-- Trump abruptly declined to release the JFK records.

       After saying during his Republican primary debates that, "When (he is) President, Americans will find out who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11," Trump never said a word about what really happened on 9/11 subsequently.  In fact, his first trips abroad after his Inauguration were visits to PNAC's 9/11 co-conspirators in Saudi Arabia and Israel.

5)   Trump's main accomplices in obstructing investigations and suppressing the evidence of Republican collusion with the Kremlin have been Deep State insiders-- especially William Barr, the former CIA lawyer who was recruited to the DOJ from the Company by GHWB to manage the Iran-Contra pardons.  Another Deep State insider working for Trump has been Rudy Giuliani-- Dick Cheney and PNAC's crucial resource in NYC during the 9/11 op.  (Giuliani managed the sequestration and destruction of the WTC forensic evidence after 9/11, while telling everyone that Ground Zero was non-toxic.  He also told Peter Jennings on 9/11 that he had been forewarned by the OEM about the impending collapse of the WTC Twin Towers-- a claim which he later denied to Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission.)

The theory that the "Deep State" conspired to "entrap" and sabotage Donald Trump's crooked 2016 campaign associates continues to make no sense, despite the machinations of Rupert Murdoch Trumpaganda rags like the WSJ.

It's like a systematized paranoid delusion from a Thomas Pynchon novel, seeking putative sinister connections where none exist.

For one thing, if the Deep State wanted to sabotage Trump, why did the FBI and the mainstream U.S. media (including the NYT) collude in sabotaging Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy, while suppressing Steele's Dossier-- even after Steele shared his findings with John McCain?

And, if Trump is at odds with the Deep State, why didn't he release the JFKA records and tell the American people "who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11," as he promised?

On the contrary, one of Trump's closest associates, Rudy Giuliani, was intimately involved in the Bush-Cheney/PNAC 9/11 op.

[Jeff Carter]

Flynn's new lawyer is arguing that his plea deal was undertaken even as the prosecution knew that the charge (lying to FBI officials) was not tenable. DOJ response to filings requesting information included this:

"the government informed defense counsel that DAD Strzok said that the defendant had a sure demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception during the January 24 interview, and that both of the interviewing agents had the impression at the time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying."

Flynn's position is that he accepted the plea deal to avoid a piling on of further charges, including directed against members of his family, which his lawyers at the time indicated would be the consequence for not accepting.

The wide net being cast is meant to establish patterns of entrapment and/or deliberate malfeasance directed towards the Trump campaign and individuals associated with it. It's not a "conspiracy theory" if it can be established as actually having happened.

[Bob Ness]

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob,

Flynn was not charged with any conversation with Pence.  If prosecutors charged every administration official with lying to another one, there would be no administrations.

I know this and do not expect they would. My point is he finds it easy to mislead regarding these subjects.

 

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, if you cannot see the unethical practice of planning to indict someone over an interview but not telling him to bring a lawyer, then this is what I am talking about.  Namely the process, the ends justifying the means. 

Jim this is standard procedure for every investigation. This is the SOP that I swiped from Marcy Wheeler's site just because I don't have time to type it up. I've been through these. I take it you haven't.

To make her case that her client — who, she herself emphasizes, served for 30 years as an intelligence officer and so was no spring chicken about the ways of the world — nevertheless got duped by evil FBI officers attempting to entrap him by his own actions, Powell attacks the following utterly routine parts of FBI investigations:

1. People who know things relevant to an investigation are interviewed by FBI Agents, working in twos, who then write up a 302
2. The FBI doesn’t tape non-custodial interviews, though probably should record more than they do, as 302s can be dodgy
3. FBI Agents often don’t take notes while they’re interviewing someone, because that distracts from the interview
4. The FBI would prefer to talk to witnesses — all witnesses! — without lawyers present
5. FBI will prepare for interviews to ensure they are as useful as possible
6. FBI often watches how suspects respond to learning about potential criminal evidence against them
7. Prosecutors try to get suspects to plead guilty by showing them some, but not the most sensitive, damning information they have about them
8. The FBI usually doesn’t tell people it is investigating that it is investigating them
9. The FBI is allowed to open investigations when they obtain evidence that might indicate a crime — they don’t have to wait until they have evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt someone is guilty before they try to collect evidence to try to figure out whether a crime has been committed and if so by whom
10. People considering pleading guilty meet with prosecutors before doing so to lay out what evidence they’ll be willing to share for a lenient plea deal
11. Even for cases that may one day end up in Emmet Sullivan’s court, suspects don’t get to review all the evidence the government has against them before they’re charged and even in Sullivan’s court, defendants only get to review the evidence that would be helpful to their defense (or sentencing) pertaining to the crimes in question, not other bad deeds
12. When the FBI thinks a hostile foreign country is trying to interfere with the United States, it investigates
13. People who work at DOJ work with other people who work at DOJ

Effectively, Powell’s argument is that none of these very routine things that happen with every single FBI investigation should have happened with an investigation of her client. She has a point that some of them — especially the way FBI writes up 302s — should be fixed. But that doesn’t mean her client is anymore innocent than any of the thousands of other defendants treated similarly.

I can't explain it any better.

48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And that is not all in this case.  If you read the Powell filing, she argues that documents were altered. Even Sally Yates, who ended up going along with it, had problems with what McCabe had done.

As explained above, the interviews aren't recorded and variations in 302s are common. It does not change whether Flynn plead guilty to the charges or not. All relevant evidence was presented to Flynn and his lawyers before the plea was entered for their comment. They saw it before the plea was entered into. Either way, Flynn said "Yeah I did it." She's trying desperately to undo the agreement and I've already speculated on why I think that (she's posing).

Sullivan has seen the classified material that she hasn't and she could very well be burning her client because that evidence appears to be so damning the judge insisted the sentencing be delayed to help with receiving leniency.

[James DiEugenio]

Yes it does Bob, and that is why he brought in a new lawyer.

A perjury trap is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

A good lawyer would have smelled it coming in.

And the interrogation would have ended right there. And the indictment  would not have happened.

As per the 302, there is a difference between rewriting a report for grammar and flow and making a material alteration.

“Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘FLYNN stated he did not’—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.”

If Powell is granted more discovery, this will really get interesting.  Flynn was not served well by his previous lawyers.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by James DiEugenio