Gonzales Lied To Senator About Plan To Install Rove Protege As U.S. Attorney
Gonzales Lied To Senator About Plan To Install Rove Protege As U.S. Attorney
In today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Aberto Gonzales tried to claim that he never intended to take advantage of a Patriot Act provision that allows the administration to indefinitely name “interim” U.S. attorneys and avoid Senate confirmation.
But in a Dec. 19, 2006 e-mail, Gonzales’s then-chief of staff Kyle Sampson wrote an e-mail explaining the administration’s plan for installing Karl Rove’s protege Tim Griffin as U.S. attorney in Arkansas:
We should gum this to death. [A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance…then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in “good faith,” of course.
Gonzales today said it was a plan he “never liked” and immediately “rejected” it. Watch it:
But at one point, Gonzales did like the plan. A timeline of events:
Sampson tells Gonzales about plan to appoint Griffin without Senate approval. Sampson testified that he told Gonzales about the plan to avoid Senate approval for Griffin in early December. At that time, Gonzales did not “specifically reject” the idea.
Gonzales promises Pryor that Griffin will face Senate approval. In a meeting with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK) on Dec. 15, Gonzales said that he “wanted to go through a Senate confirmation” for Griffin. When Pryor objected to Griffin’s nomination, Gonzales promised that Justice Department would “look for someone else” and asked Pryor to “give me names that we ought to consider.”
Sampson implements plan to avoid Senate approval on Griffin. Four days after the meeting between Gonzales and Pryor, Sampson sends out the e-mail recommending that they “gum this [Griffin's nomination] to death.”
Gonzales finally rejects Sampson’s plan. Sampson testified, “I don’t remember him specifically rejecting the idea until after he spoke with Senator Pryor in mid-December, and I don’t remember him specifically rejecting the idea until sometime in January. … [H]e did reject it after that e-mail.”
Therefore, Gonzales did not reject Sampson’s plan until after he met with Pryor and assured the senator that any U.S. attorney nominee would face Senate scrutiny. According to the Arkansas News Bureau, “Pryor said he still believes the attorney general lied to him by stating that he intended to seek Senate confirmation for Griffin.”
As Schumer noted, “I mean, you can’t have it both ways. If your chief of staff is implementing a major plan that contradicts what you just told the U.S. senator from that state, in my view, you shouldn’t be attorney general. And if, on the other hand, what you said to Senator Pryor contradicts the plan, you also shouldn’t be attorney general.”
Transcript:
Gonzales’s testimony today:
SCHUMER: We’ll get it to you.
As everyone here knows, Senator Pryor is one of the most temperate members of the Senate. He’s mild-mannered, and his words are all the more striking for that reason. He said, quote, The attorney general not only lied to me as a person but, when he lied to me, he lied to the Senate and he lied to the people I represent.
I spoke to Senator Pryor yesterday. He stands by those words.
Now, Kyle Sampson wrote that — wrote to Harriet Miers last September — that’s what he wrote — he wrote that they wanted to do this plan of getting around the Senate and appointing interim U.S. attorneys.
And he also told Congress that the White House never rejected the idea of evading the Senate confirmation in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
According to Kyle Sampson, you became aware of this idea or plan in early December of 2006. He told you about it; you did not reject it.
Then on December 19th, Kyle Sampson is promoting this astonishingly perverse plan. He’s going forward with it.
And this poster which we have here — and I’ll get you a copy of what it says — shows it. Sampson’s advice to the White House is, quote, We — we, meaning the department — should gum this to death, to run out the clock.
He lays out a specific plan for running out the clock: The Department of Justice should ask Arkansas senators to meet Tim Griffin, give him a chance; after that, the administration to pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney and so forth.
The plan was to use these tactics of delay so Griffin could stay in, without Senate confirmation, until the end of the president’s term.
But now, four days before Kyle Sampson sends that plan, you personally talked with Senator Pryor. Kyle Sampson testifies that he was in the room — you talked to him twice, he was in the room on one of those occasions — about Tim Griffin.
Kyle Sampson says you talked with Senator Pryor two times. He was in the room. And you said to Senator Pryor that you wanted to go through a Senate confirmation. This is in December.
GONZALES: Yes.
SCHUMER: Well, what would you think if you’re in Senator Pryor’s shoes? There’s a plan to circumvent U.S. attorneys early in December. You go along with that.
GONZALES: I didn’t go along with it.
SCHUMER: On December 19th, a memo was sent to implement it. Yet, on December 15th, you’re on the phone with Senator Pryor saying oh, no, no, you’re going to get confirmation.
So, which is it? Again, did Kyle Sampson put out this memo completely on his own?
GONZALES: Senator…
SCHUMER: And if he did — I mean, you can’t have it both ways. If your chief of staff is implementing a major plan that contradicts what you just told the U.S. senator from that state, in my view, you shouldn’t be attorney general.
And if, on the other hand, what you said to Senator Pryor contradicts the plan, you also shouldn’t be attorney general.
Can you explain what happened here?
GONZALES: Yes.
SCHUMER: Because I am totally sympathetic with what Senator Pryor said.
GONZALES: Mr. Sampson also testified, 15 to 20 times, in various ways, that I either rejected this plan; I never liked this plan; I thought it was a bad idea; never considered it; would not have considered it.
SCHUMER: No, he said that you did know about it.
He told you about it.
GONZALES: Senator…
(CROSSTALK)
GONZALES: … he said I either rejected it, didn’t like, thought it was a bad idea, wouldn’t consider, didn’t consider it.
SCHUMER: OK. Then he went ahead, when you didn’t like the plan, on December 19th?
GONZALES: Senator, I…
SCHUMER: That was later that you didn’t like the plan.
Kyle Sampson said in December you had no rejection of the plan. But let’s even assume you didn’t like it.
What are we to think, as U.S. senators? You don’t like a plan. Your chief of staff, the man in charge of everything, even though you are saying, Don’t do this plan, puts out something to go ahead and go forward.
Who’s running the department?
GONZALES: Senator, I wasn’t aware of this e-mail.
But, again, I want to be very, very clear about this. I never liked this plan.
SCHUMER: You never liked the plan, and your chief of staff four days after you assure Senator Pryor otherwise, puts out a detailed, step-by-step process on how to implement the plan.
Does that indicate someone who’s running the department?
GONZALES: Senator, Mr. Sampson has testified that this was a bad idea. And it was a bad idea. And it was never accepted not only by me, but he also testified as to the principals.
SCHUMER: Mr. Sampson said it was a bad idea in retrospect in February in March. In December, he was going full bore ahead with the plan, as the memo you’ve just been shown shows.
GONZALES: And he’s also testified, if we’re going to go on his testimony, that this is a plan I never liked, that I rejected it…
SCHUMER: No. That is not what he testified to, sir. Go look at the transcript. In December, he says, you did not reject the plan when he talked to you about it.
GONZALES: Sir, I don’t recall the exact time frame. But he also said that I never liked this idea. I didn’t consider it and wouldn’t consider it.
LEAHY: Gentlemen.
SCHUMER: I would just say, sir, that it defies credulity that your chief of staff four days after you tell somebody you’re going one way goes exactly the opposite way…
LEAHY: Senator…
SCHUMER: … and says that you never rejected the plan when you say you did.
Sampson’s testimony on March 29, 2007:
SEN. SPECTER: You saw the attorney general on a daily basis?
MR. SAMPSON: Yes, I did.
SEN. SPECTER: Multiple times a day?
MR. SAMPSON: Yes, sir.
SEN. SPECTER: Talking with him about, discussing with him the plan to replace United States attorneys?
MR. SAMPSON: Yes. As I stated before, you know, I kept him generally apprised of –
SEN. SPECTER: Okay, so you were discussing plans to replace U.S. attorneys, but you never talked to him about utilizing the provisions of the Patriot Act to circumvent the Senate?
MR. SAMPSON: Oh, I think I did, but I don’t think he ever liked the idea very much.
SEN. SPECTER: Well, did he say, “I don’t like the idea”? Did he say, “I reject the idea?” Or did he just listen to you and go off in another direction?
MR. SAMPSON: I don’t remember him specifically rejecting the idea until after he spoke with Senator Pryor in mid-December, and I don’t remember him specifically rejecting the idea until sometime in January.
SEN. SPECTER: So that he was still considering the idea — he rejected it sometime in January, still considering in December, and we have these e-mails where it’s still very much on your mind and, as you say, to circumvent the Senate and what you concede is in bad faith, and it is being considered at least for one U.S. attorney, and you don’t have any recollection of Ms. Miers or the attorney general or anyone at that level of authority rejecting the idea?
MR. SAMPSON: I remember the attorney general rejecting the idea.
SEN. SPECTER: But not in December. You said in January.
MR. SAMPSON: I remember him rejecting it soon after he had a conversation with Senator Pryor. And let me –
SEN. SPECTER: Well, you just –
MR. SAMPSON: Let me just say –
SEN. SPECTER: You just said he rejected it in January, didn’t you?
MR. SAMPSON: I remember that he spoke with Senator Pryor –
SEN. SPECTER: Now wait a minute. I’m asking you, didn’t you just say he rejected it in January?
MR. SAMPSON: Senator, I’m not sure whether he rejected it in late December or in early January. I don’t know.
SEN. SPECTER: Well, did he — did he reject it after the December 19th e-mail, which is the critical day? That would be late December, if he rejected it after that e-mail.
MR. SAMPSON: I believe he did reject it after that e-mail.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Now, are you guys going to leave this headline as “lied” or was Gonzo “hyping” it?
April 19th, 2007 at 7:08 pmSpudge,
He “mispoke”.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pmSo he “lied” about ever liking the plan?
April 19th, 2007 at 7:17 pmcskendrick, commenting over at kos, has this to say, something with which i totally agree…
after watching gonzo’s performance today, i don’t know how anyone could come to any other conclusion… i hold a similar low opinion of bush, including that he is under the control of behind-the-scene handlers… moreover, under heavy questioning, i would expect to see bush turn in a performance that would make gonzo look like richard feynman…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
April 19th, 2007 at 7:21 pmFor a former judge in TX he’s a really little, shakey, talkey, buttwad!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 7:25 pmAlso, what is “astonishingly perverse” about following the law, as amended, in the Patriot Act? Is that similar to the Supreme Court upholding the partial birth abortion ban passed overwhelmingly by Congress being “astonishingly perverse”?
April 19th, 2007 at 7:27 pmComment by Harvey Mc Kanna
one of our resident moron trolls has a new name I see.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:32 pmLawyers and their use of selevtive memory is one thing, but Gonzo is clearly selectively not remembering out of convenience!!! No one can be that consistently not recalling facts presented by others.
Either that or he has flawed memory capabilities or has a mental problem.
Yet another reason to can the guy.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:35 pmSquidbilly:
Now that President Clinton is relevant again, wanna guess how many times he testified he could not recall? Or, how about Hillary? Can YOU recall everything you did on December 7th?
April 19th, 2007 at 7:43 pmDuring his January 18, 2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales almost surely lied about the political purge underway among the ranks of the U.S. attorneys, as well as the vital role of the Patriot Act in facilitating it.
During the January 18th hearing, Gonzales pompously declared, “I would never ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or that in any way would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.” But as the email exchanges between Gonzales’ chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson, White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Karl Rove deputy Scott Jennings show, that’s exactly what was going on. A damning Sampson email described the system Gonzales’ DOJ would use for ranking U.S. attorneys, keeping those who “exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general” and sacking the prosecutors who “chafed against administration initiatives.”
Gonzales also misled the Senate about the critical importance of a hitherto little-known provision of the Patriot Act enabling the Attorney General to appoint new prosecutors without Senate confirmation. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that:
“I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.”
But as a September 13, 2006 Sampson email to Harriet Miers shows, Gonzales’ DOJ was committed to exactly the opposite course of bypassing Congressional approval for its new U.S. attorneys.
“I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments. [...] By not going the PAS route, we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House.”
More about Gonzales lying under oath here.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:48 pmGood god. Gonzales sounds like a little kid who’s got a story and its sticking to it. Did his office really only prepare that one “15-20 times, I thought it was a bad idea, etc…” talking point for that question? They had to have know it’d come up and that wasn’t going to be enough. Schumer looked good though – his concise reduction of the problem made Gonzales look ridiculous. Which apparently he is.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:49 pmDecember 7th of which year.? I remember them all from 1945 to now, how about you?…..
April 19th, 2007 at 7:51 pmBut… but… but.. Clinton’s penis!
April 19th, 2007 at 7:52 pmGonzo will be another White House appointee to take the fall for what Karl Rove has done. Libby’s willing to go to jail now Gonzo will resign for the good of his criminal team. All the Kings horses will take the fall just to make sure Karl Rove is safe to continue his criminal acts. If Gonzo stays on the job then the jails will be full of appeals based on the new law set by Gonzo. Yes lying under oath is legal and Libby will use it in his appeal. Children will grown up knowing that lying is ok. GOP family values and morals are being followed by all American people.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:54 pmDecember 7th, of LAST year, Sharon. I bet I could ask you 45 questions about that day you do not recall as well.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:54 pmWas Gonzo under oath when he said this? If so…P-E-R-J-U-R-Y.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:56 pmlol…jake/harvey. doubt it….I alway’s know where I have been and where I am going…..Back under the bridge, with out your answer tiny little troll…
April 19th, 2007 at 8:05 pmSharon:
1. Did you eat breakfast?
2. Did you eat lunch?
3. Did you eat dinner?
4. What did you eat for breakfast?
5. What did you eat for lunch?
6. What did you eat for dinner?
7. What time did you wake up?
8. What time did you go to sleep?
April 19th, 2007 at 8:09 pmLOL…Hey troll, no answers from me, how about you try some other way to derail the thread…You are so jake, harvey and we are bored with you..
April 19th, 2007 at 8:20 pmComment by Harvey Mc Kanna
**yawn**
Yeah I agree with Sharon……. Boring……
April 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pm#9 So are you arguing that Gonzales should be impeached?
April 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pmThese are not the types of questions being asked d!ck wad.
They are asking “Did you order the USAs to resign?” and Gonzo is saying “I don’t recall.” Sorry, if you can’t remember if you ordered 8 USAs to be fired, you should be attorney general.
Just because you are a fu*king moron jake, doesn’t mean we are.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pmCan YOU recall everything you did on December 7th?
Comment by Harvey Mc Kanna
Well Mc Buttwipe let me tell you at least three errors in this kind of statement.
1. I may not remember what I was doing on December 7th, but I am not the AG. I would hope that the AG is one of the great legal minds of our day. I would hope that he would have a memory good enough that he would have a relatively good idea what he was doing on December 7th.
2. The AG had over a week to prepare for this hearing. I would hope he went over his calendar, appointment book, etc. to have some idea who he was meeting with and when.
3. And this is the big one. Most of the questions asked of the AG had to do with who he meet with and about what, not dates. When asked directly did he have a conversation with so and so he couldn’t remember. Are you telling me he couldn’t remember having the conversation with the President. Come on stop the bullsh!t McButtwipe.
Stop the Lies.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:34 pmThese trolls would have you believe that Gonzales isn’t smart enough to quote laws, judgments and rulings off the top of his head and you know he can. He is smart. He knows where he has been and who he has talked to. He isn’t an idiot. Bush may be, but Gonzales isn’t. This is not to mention that Gonzo has an entire team that keeps his schedules and keeps track of who he talks to and what he talks about.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:41 pmHey, Spudge Boy and Eric the Blue:
Sharon said SHE remembered everything. Now she doesn’t want to answer.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:42 pmHey Jake, stop trying to pretend you are a girl.
It is sad that there are only 3 of you fu*kers. So, you change your name to appear as if there are more of you. Too bad we know you eh?
April 19th, 2007 at 8:50 pmSpudge; Jake IS a gurl-sort of. On hormones prior to sex-change surgery.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:59 pmDecember 7th, of LAST year, Sharon. I bet I could ask you 45 questions about that day you do not recall as well.
Comment by Harvey Mc Kanna
Jake,
The thing that Sharon may not have, which Abu G definitely has, is a F*CKING DAILY CALENDAR. All he has to do is flip the day to refresh his memory.
Why are you such a coward? Use your original name or get lost, assh*le.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:22 pmSSHHH! Military intelligence Jake’s on a mission, and you’re blowing his cover!!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:24 pmSSHHH! Military intelligence Jake’s on a mission, and you’re blowing his cover!!
Comment by B.Fly
Oy, I guess I’ve missed a lot today. :D
April 19th, 2007 at 9:28 pmLOL…Again, I remember, you just arn’t important enough to get an answer from me, jake / harvey / lizzy the looser, back under the bridge you boring tiny troll..Be gone
April 19th, 2007 at 9:32 pmGonzales looks and acts like some little child. Is he retarded? Seriously! Here’s what that conversation was like:
Schumer: 2+2=4.
Gonzales: 2+2=5!
Schumer: 2+2=4.
Gonzales: 2+2=5!!!
Schumer: 2+2=4.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 pmGonzales: 2+2=5!!!!!
“…In a meeting with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK) on…”
Arkansas is abbreviated “AR”, not “AK”.
You have identified Mark Prior as a Democrat from Alaska.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:55 pmSurely Al Qaeda must have a waiting list by now…
…the criminal Bushite junta has done more to increase Bin Laden’s recruiting power…
…as they’ve done for the Democratic Party…
…France, Germany, S. Korea, Japan, and EVEN Saudi Arabia have shut the Bushites out…
…Bushiva, L’il Dick, and their remote con’troll’ites are emboldening anti-Bushites domestically AND globally…
…at a pace that the most prolific of rabbits couldn’t keep up with…
…incompetence, corruption, and dishonesty are the Bushites’ “badges of courage”…
Go Abu Go!
…as a political ideology…
…CONNED’SELF-SERVINGISM is dying a slow, painful death…
…for their crimes against humanity…
…let’s hope and pray its adherents/practitioners follow suit…
April 19th, 2007 at 10:08 pmHe’s toast, for sure.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pmBut then what – he will land himself a nice soft cushion in the land of Bush friends, and no consequences other than this temporary humiliation.
I think that’s how this is all going to end. No consequences. No punishment. They will just all fade away into cushy, high paying jobs in the private sector with Bush friends.
Comment by Marie #34
…You’re right…
…If we let them…
…which is why we have to keep message discipline…
…like the Repulsivescum Bushites have taught us how to do…
…TAKE their personal assets…
INVESTIGATE
IMPEACH
INCARCERATE
IMPOVERISH
DEMAND Justice and ACCOUNTABILITY…
…and don’t let them rest until we get it…
..Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink NEED OUR HELP!
…MOVEON.org needs our help…
…ANSWER coalition needs our help…
…and we need theirs!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:37 pmGonzales handled this well. He had two choices for his story line:
(1) The DOJ was out of control and being run by a dishonest political operative named Kyle Sampson who was trying to hoodwink the Senate.
(2) The DOJ was out of control and being run by a dishonest political operative named Alberto Gonzales who was trying to hoodwink the Senate.
Gonzales chose door number 2. Good choice…
April 19th, 2007 at 10:37 pm“I have to know in my heart that I can be effective in running this department. Sitting here today,I can say that I honestly believe that I can. If I didn’t I would resign.”
-Abu Gonzo-
TRANSLATION:
“i still believe I can effectively service my god Bushiva’s every whim. I serve at HIS pleasure, the people and justice be damned.”
April 19th, 2007 at 10:46 pmINVESTIGATE
IMPEACH
INCARCERATE
IMPOVERISH
Big Papa,
April 19th, 2007 at 11:57 pmYou have given new meaning to the old childhood taunt “four eyes”
Yes. We must follow the four eyes.
I’m stunned that not one Senator brought of the FACT that Gonzales (and Bush) had a history of avoiding Senate confirmation. The most heinous example was the appointment of the USA for South Dakota.
Gonzales said again yesterday that he didn’t like the idea of judges appointing US Attorneys. Am I the only one that likens this to a “signing statement”. What kind of state is our democracy in when the Attorney General can not only mock our laws but also cast them aside.
You can find several example of where USA’s received multiple 120-day interim appoints or interim appointments after 210-day acting appointments, or even one case of a whole term unconfirmed, but South Dakota is interesting in the utter contempt it shows.
Faced with an expiring 120-day interim appointment and a court appointment that he and the President didn’t like, Gonzales asked for the resignation of the then appointee. He felt that if he did this, he’d have the authority to make another 120-day interim appointment, although the law doesn’t allow it. The court went ahead with the appointment that by law it was required to make.
Stunned by the court’s actions (they didn’t fall in line), the executive branch took action. The President officially exercised his authority to fire USA’s and fired the court appointee. The AG appointee also resigned his appointment. ( 2 USA’s had been appointed for the same position )
The resignation for the AG appointee didn’t last long. Steven Mullins was recess-appointed during an intra-session recess (Christmas break) as the USA in South Dakota by the President, and he serves to this day unconfirmed.
The whole argument that USA’s were fired for political reasons may be true, but the argument that the executive branch (the AG and President included) unlawfully attempted to expand executive authority through legislatioin and action IS true.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:23 amBush is OUR Saddam. What are we going to do about it?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:24 pmMaybe we can set up an Americani National Council and talk Iraq into invading us and overthrowing our dictator.
I seriously doubt it will happen without some sort of international help/pressure. These guys, witness Al “I can be effective and don’t plan to resign” Gonzales, have no intention of stepping down voluntarily, or even when public opinion is overwhelmingly against them. I think a good number of them qualify as psychotic really, and they seem to be in denial about the fact that they work for us, not the other way around.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pmAny good attorney in different circumstances would have asked the witness what he remembered about his activities during “National Meth Week.” Probably a lot more than about the areas of interest to the questioners.
Sampson wasn’t the only henchman following orders on a wink and a nod. There are plenty still standing.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pmThis is Batman all over.. a cast of pathetic liars and criminals that make Ed Meese and Spiro Agnew look like statesmen. I believe it will all come to a head this summer…. their will be near riots. It is just out of control.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:30 pmMr. Schumer, if you would just stop harping on what Kyle Sampson said (who is that guy, anyway?) and listen to me here, now!!! I didn’t like the idea!! How many times do I have to tell you????
Why would I implement an idea I clearly didn’t like? That would be absurd!
Just because the plan Kyle described in December is what happened, doesn’t mean we were happy about it.
Please just trust me on this.
Sincerely,
April 26th, 2007 at 3:12 amGonzo
To this old man militay retiree type, this is incredulous! It’s more like one on the three stooges (sorry Stooges, no disrespect meant!) acts! Indeed Gonzales IS a stooge…another one of Bush’s “yes” men. After all the obvious lying that’s been done by Bush, should it be any REAL surprise that his minions have learned the lesson well? Well…Idon’t remember…exactly.
May 6th, 2007 at 9:26 amPayday Loans Faxless
Affectionate followers of the reputable Newport News Daily Press will secure fast payday loans faxless for $1200 even with imperfect credit, it is simple to submit your application 24 hours a day for faxless payday loans.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:21 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 7:02 am