WOW! Bush prevents Justice from Pursuing Contempt Charges

rimrocker · Jul 20, 2007

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625_pf.html

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

insane man · Jul 20, 2007

impeach the b*stard.

mc mark · Jul 20, 2007

I'm sure our esteemed Attorney General; Mr. Gonzales, will disagree with the president's assertion of executive privilege and if compelled by congress, will faithfully execute his duties as required by law.

How can he not?

geeimsobored · Jul 20, 2007

Seriously, wtf is going on... This is almost cartoonish now. I tend to hate the overly-inflated rhetoric of some critics of the administration but no words can describe how ridiculous this has become.

mc mark · Jul 20, 2007

What is going on is we have a president with nothing too lose anymore (19% approval in Wisconsin, the American public turned against him) and will dare congress to do anything to reign in an out of control, rogue presidency.

No Worries · Jul 20, 2007

Nixonian flashback.

I can't see why W is begging Congress to impeach his sorry ass, especially since they most certainly will.

Worst.
President.
Ever.

Ubiquitin · Jul 20, 2007

I wrote Senators Brown and Voinovich this morning. I suggest you guys write your senators. Especially about Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html).

El_Conquistador · Jul 20, 2007

This is the right move. At this point, the Democrats are totally out of control. Bush did the right thing by stopping them in their tracks. Let's get on with the business of running the country. Let's end all of the Democrats' sour grapes initiatives. It's no wonder Congress' approval ratings are in the toilet. No one appreciates their partisan witch hunts. Let's progress forward, not go on wild goose chases for partisan reasons.

mc mark · Jul 20, 2007

Trader_Jorge said:

Let's get on with the business of running the country.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%

And Madam President Clinton will have a hell of a job correcting the mistakes of the last six years.

thegary · Jul 20, 2007

All the President’s Enablers
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 20, 2007

In a coordinated public relations offensive, the White House is using reliably friendly pundits — amazingly, they still exist — to put out the word that President Bush is as upbeat and confident as ever. It might even be true.

What I don’t understand is why we’re supposed to consider Mr. Bush’s continuing confidence a good thing.

Remember, Mr. Bush was confident six years ago when he promised to bring in Osama, dead or alive. He was confident four years ago, when he told the insurgents to bring it on. He was confident two years ago, when he told Brownie that he was doing a heckuva job.

Now Iraq is a bloody quagmire, Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Bush administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate admits, in effect, that thanks to Mr. Bush’s poor leadership America is losing the struggle with Al Qaeda. Yet Mr. Bush remains confident.

Sorry, but that’s not reassuring; it’s terrifying. It doesn’t demonstrate Mr. Bush’s strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality.

Actually, it’s not clear that he ever was in touch with reality. I wrote about the Bush administration’s “infallibility complex,” its inability to admit mistakes or face up to real problems it didn’t want to deal with, in June 2002. Around the same time Ron Suskind, the investigative journalist, had a conversation with a senior Bush adviser who mocked the “reality-based community,” asserting that “when we act, we create our own reality.”

People who worried that the administration was living in a fantasy world used to be dismissed as victims of “Bush derangement syndrome,” liberals driven mad by Mr. Bush’s success. Now, however, it’s a syndrome that has spread even to former loyal Bushies.

Yet while Mr. Bush no longer has many true believers, he still has plenty of enablers — people who understand the folly of his actions, but refuse to do anything to stop him.

This week’s prime example is Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who made headlines a few weeks ago with a speech declaring that “our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests.” Mr. Lugar is a smart, sensible man. He once acted courageously to head off another foreign policy disaster, persuading a reluctant Ronald Reagan to stop supporting Ferdinand Marcos, the corrupt leader of the Philippines, after a stolen election.

Yet that political courage was nowhere in evidence when Senate Democrats tried to get a vote on a measure that would have forced a course change in Iraq, and Republicans responded by threatening a filibuster. Mr. Lugar, along with several other Republicans who have expressed doubts about the war, voted against cutting off debate, thereby helping ensure that the folly he described so accurately in his Iraq speech will go on.

Thanks to that vote, nothing will happen until Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, delivers his report in September. But don’t expect too much even then. I hope he proves me wrong, but the general’s history suggests that he’s another smart, sensible enabler.

I don’t know why the op-ed article that General Petraeus published in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasn’t gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I don’t think it’s standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election.

In the article, General Petraeus told us that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously.” And those security forces were doing just fine: their leaders “are displaying courage and resilience” and “momentum has gathered in recent months.”

In other words, General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner. And the best guess has to be that he’ll do the same thing three years later.

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation’s security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/opinion/20krugman.html

Sishir Chang · Jul 20, 2007

I don't see how this can be Constitutional. I can understand citing Executive Privelage over turning over material but to say that Congress can't even issue charges.

Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."
Click to expand...

That's sayign that the Executive Branch can control the decisions of the two other branches which is clearly overstepping seperation of powers.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."
Click to expand...

This seems crazy too. The Federal Prosecutors swear an oath to uphold the law and not be "emmanations of the President's will." I don't like to use the rhetoric that we are heading towards dictatorship but if law enforcement officers are reduced to being servants of the President's will then that is where we are headed.

Sishir Chang · Jul 20, 2007

Trader_Jorge said:

This is the right move. At this point, the Democrats are totally out of control. Bush did the right thing by stopping them in their tracks. Let's get on with the business of running the country. Let's end all of the Democrats' sour grapes initiatives. It's no wonder Congress' approval ratings are in the toilet. No one appreciates their partisan witch hunts. Let's progress forward, not go on wild goose chases for partisan reasons.
Click to expand...

Consider this though. If Bush's assertions of a unitary executive hold out then a Democrat president will have the same power too.

ymc · Jul 20, 2007

Sishir Chang said:

Consider this though. If Bush's assertions of a unitary executive hold out then a Democrat president will have the same power too.
Click to expand...

Why? The Republicans will then take away such power by arguing in the same way you are arguing.

The problem with the Democrats is that they are weak and disorganized. That's why they don't even have the balls to push for a frivolous impeachment like what the Republican did to Clinton.

In politics, sometimes you need to get your hands dirty to get what you want.

insane man · Jul 20, 2007

ymc said:

Why? The Republicans will then take away such power by arguing in the same way you are arguing.

The problem with the Democrats is that they are weak and disorganized. That's why they don't even have the balls to push for a frivolous impeachment like what the Republican did to Clinton.

In politics, sometimes you need to get your hands dirty to get what you want.
Click to expand...

well they aren't gaining back the congress in 08. so at least for two years hillary will have plenary powers. and frankly i sure as hell dont want that.

rimrocker · Jul 20, 2007

Greenwald...

Friday July 20, 2007 09:27 EST
Bush's magical shield from criminal prosecution
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

The Bush administration decided to announce to Washington Post reporters Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein its view that it has the power to block the Justice Department, and its U.S. Attorneys, from criminally prosecuting Executive Branch employees who refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas, notwithstanding a statute enacted by the American people through their Congress requiring such prosecution where Congress issues a contempt citation. We do not know who specifically in the administration announced this obviously radical position because the Post courteously granted them a shield of anonymity to hide behind.

The administration's position is grounded in a 1984 Reagan administration memo (.pdf) written by then-OLC official Ted Olson which made the same claim. Back then, the EPA refused to turn over to Congress subpoenaed documents as part of a Congressional investigation into Superfund enforcement, causing Congress to cite the EPA officials for criminal contempt. The conflict was never resolved because the EPA ultimately agreed to turn over the demanded documents.

There are several points worth noting here:

(1) What is most significant is, as always, the underlying theory on which this claim is based. From the Post article:

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

Just contemplate what that actually means. One of the primary, defining attributes of a civilized society that lives under the rule of law is prosecutorial independence. Without that, political opponents of those in power can be prosecuted for political rather than legal reasons. And worse still, our most powerful political leaders are free to break the law with impunity because they control the prosecutorial process, which -- in this warped view of our republic -- means that presidents have an absolute power to block criminal prosecution of their subordinates who break the law, provided it was done at the President's behest.

The administration's theory is an absolute denial of prosecutorial independence. It means that federal prosecutors are nothing more than obedient servants of the President. They are not merely appointed by the President, but their specific decisions about whether to prosecute executive branch officials for criminal acts are controlled and dictated by the President. They are nothing more, as Rifkin said, than "emanations of the president's will."

It is hard to overstate how threatening that posture is to the defining attribute of a government that lives under the rule of law. As the Supreme Court said in 1974 in U.S. v. Nixon, when recognizing the validity of Executive Privilege in some cases but ordering President Nixon to turn over tapes of his private conversations with his aides (emphasis added; brackets in original):

This presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that "the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer."

The administration's position is a direct assault on prosecutorial independence, and an attempt to vest the President with the unchallengeable power to block criminal prosecutions of anyone in the Executive Branch who breaks the law at the President's direction.

(2) What the Bush administration is doing here is not merely defying (another) Congressional statute, but -- as usual -- also denying the power of the judiciary to interpret the law and compel adherence to the mandates of law. The great unanswered question of the Bush administration has been, and continues to be, whether, upon losing a judicial battle, they would explicitly claim the right to defy the judicial order on the ground that the order exceeds proper judicial authority.

In the typical Bush signing statement, the President emphasizes that he will execute laws not only consistent with his claimed executive power (meaning he will ignore the parts of the law which he thinks unduly restrains him), but will also execute the law "consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." Always lurking at the core of these radical assertions of executive power is the belief that they can defy court orders due to the claimed "constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

The Olson Memorandum on which they are relying specifically emphasizes the following:

The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual.

That means that if Congress and the administration end up in court over enforcement of the criminal contempt statute, and the court rejects the administration's theory and finds that Congress does have the authority to compel the U.S. Attorney to present its contempt citations to a Grand Jury, the administration would be free to defy that judicial finding, and continue to block its U.S. Attorneys from prosecuting, since -- they claim -- courts lack the authority to "require or implement the prosecution" of an Executive Branch employee who defies a Subpoena at the President's direction.

The theory they are touting places criminal Executive Branch employees beyond the reach of courts, and means that they would have the right to defy any court which rejects their theory and rules against them. Though they have not yet explicitly exercised that court-defying power, they clearly believe they possess it.

(3) It is important to note, as the Olson Memorandum did, that even if Congress cannot compel the U.S. Attorney to present the contempt citation to a Grand Jury, there are other Congressional mechanisms to test the validity of the President's executive privilege theory, and presumably, the administration is not (at least not yet) contesting those. Former OLC official Marty Lederman described those options several weeks ago here. Aside from the "inherent contempt" power which the Post highlights -- whereby Congress can literally just convene its own trial and even forcibly arrest those who are guilty -- there is also a civil mechanism whereby it can commence a lawsuit in a federal court seeking a ruling on the validity of the Executive Privilege claims from the president.

Not every questionable assertion of Executive Privilege should be resolved in the context of a criminal prosecution because not every refusal to comply with a subpoena is criminal or even wrong. There is such a thing as "Executive Privilege," and -- like all other privileges, such as attorney/client or doctor/patient -- it does sometimes entitle defiance of a subpoena. It happens all the time in judicial proceedings that subpoenas are issued, the subpoenaed party claims a right not to comply, and both sides then present their arguments to a court, which resolves the dispute.

But refusals to comply with subpoenas become criminal where they are grounded not in good faith (even if questionable) assertions of privilege, but where, instead, a contempt for the rule of law is evidenced because one party abuses legitimate privileges in order to shield itself from investigation and accountability.

What the Bush administration is asserting here is the power to abolish that distinction, to immunize itself completely from the threat of criminal prosecution in those cases where it plainly abuses the assertion of privilege (as it is undoubtedly doing now) in order to immunize itself from accountability under the law. It removes completely the specter of criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with lawful investigations by vesting in the President an absolute, unchallengeable power to defy all subpoenas even where it has no arguable basis for doing so, by vesting in him the power literally to order federal prosecutors not to pursue an indictment.

(4) I confess some difficulty here in becoming particularly outraged over this latest theory. There is nothing new here. As has long been known, this administration believes themselves to reside above and beyond the reach of the law. What else would they need to do in order to make that as clear as can be? They got caught red-handed committing multiple felonies -- by eavesdropping on Americans in precisely the way the law we enacted 30 years ago prohibited -- and they not only admitted it, but vowed to continue to break our laws, and asserted the right to do so. And nothing happened.

This latest assertion of power -- to literally block U.S. Attorneys from prosecuting executive branch employees -- is but another reflection of the lawlessness prevailing in our country, not a new revelation. We know the administration breaks laws with impunity and believes it can. That is no longer in question. The only real question is what, if anything, we are willing to do about that.

Yes, it is true that, as various Democratic statements are claiming, this theory poses a constitutional crisis since, yet again, the President declares the other two branches of government impotent and himself omnipotent. But we have had such a crisis for the last five years. We have just chosen to ignore it, to acquiesce to it, to allow it to fester.

There is no magic force that is going to descend from the sky and strike with lightning at George Bush and Dick Cheney for so flagrantly subverting our constitutional order. The Founders created various checks for confronting tyrannical abuses of power, but they have to be activated by political will and the courage to confront it. That has been lacking. Hence, they have seized omnipotent powers with impunity.

At this point, the blame rests not with the Bush administration. They have long made clear what they believe and, especially, what they are. They have been rubbing in our faces for several years the fact that they believe they can ignore the law and do what they want because nobody is willing to do anything about it. Thus far, they have been right, and the blame rests with those who have acquiesced to it.

It has been six months since the Democrats took over Congress. Yes, they have commenced some investigations and highlighted some wrongdoing. But that is but the first step, not the ultimate step, which we desperately need. Where are the real confrontations needed to vindicate the rule of law and restore constitutional order? No reasonable person can dispute that in the absence of genuine compulsion (and perhaps even then), the administration will continue to treat "the law" as something optional, and their power as absolute. Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice.

-- Glenn Greenwald
Click to expand...

NewYorker · Jul 20, 2007

Sishir Chang said:

Consider this though. If Bush's assertions of a unitary executive hold out then a Democrat president will have the same power too.
Click to expand...

He doesn't care about the country or anything. If Bush was found collaborating with Bin Laden, Trader Jorge would say Bin Laden was an American Patriot. Trader Jorge thinks Bush is the 2nd coming of Christ.

Deckard · Jul 20, 2007

Ok, I've been against doing this, but at some point you just have to draw a line in the sand and take a stand. That time was passed long ago. Political expediency for the sake of the greater good only holds if the country's institutions hold firm. They are not. George W. Bush should be impeached, as should Vice-President Cheney, for crimes against the Constitution. Like, yesterday. That's as simple as I can put it. I'm sure the actual language and charges will be of greater complexity.

D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.

thegary · Jul 20, 2007

Deckard said:

D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Click to expand...

finally you've come to your senses

El_Conquistador · Jul 20, 2007

Deckard said:

George W. Bush should be impeached, as should Vice-President Cheney, for crimes against the Constitution. Like, yesterday. That's as simple as I can put it. I'm sure the actual language and charges will be of greater complexity.
Click to expand...

So basically you admit that you don't really know what you are talking about. "Crimes against the Constitution?" Nice.

Deckard · Jul 20, 2007

Trader_Jorge said:

So basically you admit that you don't really know what you are talking about. "Crimes against the Constitution?" Nice.
Click to expand...

If you could see farther than the end of your nose, you might be concerned about this as well. Revel in your myopic paradise.

D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.

Forums

WOW! Bush prevents Justice from Pursuing Contempt Charges

rimrocker Contributing Member

insane man Member

mc mark Contributing Member

geeimsobored Contributing Member

mc mark Contributing Member

No Worries Contributing Member

Ubiquitin Contributing Member
Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
Supporting Member

mc mark Contributing Member

thegary Contributing Member

Sishir Chang Contributing Member

Sishir Chang Contributing Member

ymc Member

insane man Member

rimrocker Contributing Member

NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

thegary Contributing Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

WOW! Bush prevents Justice from Pursuing Contempt Charges

rimrocker Contributing Member

insane man Member

mc mark Contributing Member

geeimsobored Contributing Member

mc mark Contributing Member

No Worries Contributing Member

Ubiquitin Contributing Member Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking Supporting Member

mc mark Contributing Member

thegary Contributing Member

Sishir Chang Contributing Member

Sishir Chang Contributing Member

ymc Member

insane man Member

rimrocker Contributing Member

NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

thegary Contributing Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

Share This Page

Ubiquitin Contributing Member
Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member