My point- not well made I will grant you- is that a workable penis is not needed in order to engage in sexual assault of a minor. Otherwise, women could never be guilty of such.
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
My point- not well made I will grant you- is that a workable penis is not needed in order to engage in sexual assault of a minor. Otherwise, women could never be guilty of such.
I'm watching Golf too. So are you saying the book is a lie relative to what Mike told your dad and dranov. Posnanski is a pretty famous and credible writer. Dranov is quoted - not paraphrased or surmised.
This is all very simple. If Mike saw a crime, especially perpetrated against a kid - he should have helped the kid. He didn't.
The next step is to call the police. He didn't do that either. And based on what he told dranov and your dad they didn't think he should go to the police either.
Actions tell the story of what Mike saw and what he reported. You all can delude yourself until the cows come home and sit back and let Joe take all the blame.
I think that's disgraceful too but that path is equivalent to slamming the locker shut while a so-called child rape is going on.
Last edited:
Dukie - I wholeheartedly disagree. You and your brother-in-law's posting styles are as different as night and day imo. While you may share similar opinions, I have never seen Towny show an ounce of empathy, whereas I see it from you all the time. In addition, I have seen you respond to some tough questions; something I have never seen Towny do.
..... who has said he was aware of the incident the Saturday morning when MM went to see Joe and Never reported it to police. By my standard that makes him a pedophile enabler.
He did. He spoke with the head the University Police Department, which was Paterno, er I mean Schultz. You won't get an answer to that question, but the answer is obvious. He didn't see much of anything, but heard some things, and that bothered him so much that his brain couldn't process that is was sexual abuse until 10 years or so later.
Again it is pretty obvious Dranov was trying to help MM as much as he could. In the trial, he seemed to push what MM told him further than he had done before, but still didn't equal anything sexual enough to warrant reporting. The problem is that MM's memory became much more vivid over time and Dranov couldn't keep up.
I understand MM was confused and concerned. I don't believe he really "saw"anything. I base this on the layout of the locker room and the likelihood that the little boy in the shower was close to 14 years old. I agree he was largely an ear witness. Which is precisely why no one could really do anything. The only way The Commonwealth could protect its dreadful LE and Child Protective Services was to make the case about PSU. For whatever reason, Mike allowed Eshbach to print lies and inaccuracies that destroyed Joe and sent Tim and Gary to prison.
V6 had access to the Freeh files. He got 1.5 mill which is sizable but nothing like V9
I’ve said it many times before and I will say it again...with the benefit of hindsight others could have handled things differently and better, but after Sandusky, nobody is more responsible for the harm that fell upon Penn State than Mike McQueary. Nobody.
What really happened with Mike and Dranov is hard to believe -
The lead investigator in the Jerry Sandusky case said Mike McQueary was “the linchpin,” in the investigation and that the former Penn State wide receivers coach has been “consistent from day one.”
Testifying on the third day of trial in McQueary’s lawsuit against Penn State, investigator Anthony Sassano described McQueary as a crucial figure leading to the arrest of Sandusky in 2011 on child sexual abuse charges. Sassano said McQueary played a similar key role in the charges against two former Penn State administrators for their alleged concealment of Sandusky’s abuse.
A family friend, meanwhile testified about what McQueary told him the night he saw Sandusky and a boy in a locker room shower, a somewhat different story than what McQueary has testified to in the past.
After McQueary was revealed in November 2011 as being the unnamed graduate assistant in the Sandusky grand jury presentment who witnessed Sandusky with a boy in a locker room shower, McQueary became the subject of national media attention for the perception that he should have done more to stop him. He also received threats.
Penn State attorney Nancy Conrad seized on those two points during Sassano’s testimony. She sought to show that it was McQueary’s own actions or perceived inactions, not Penn State’s, that harmed his reputation and that the university was justified in placing McQueary on administrative leave for his own safety.
McQueary claims Penn State retaliated against him for cooperating with investigators and defamed him in statements from former Penn State President Graham Spanier. He says he unfairly lost his job and has been unable to find work in coaching because of Penn State’s actions.
In emails to former chief deputy attorney general Jonelle Eshbach and Sassano, McQueary said that “national media and public opinion has totally, in every single way ruined me. For what?” He expressed concerns about media reports that suggested he should be charged with a crime, which Sassano reassured him would not happen.
He also forwarded an anonymous email he received that said, “I want to KILL you you [expletive] piece of [expletive].” Sassano said he and the attorney general’s office did not view threats against him as being serious.
“We assessed it, did not believe it was real and took no further action,” Sassano said.
On Tuesday, former Penn State general counsel Cynthia Baldwin testified that Penn State Police and the athletic department had received threats against McQueary that played into the decision to place him on leave.
Later on Wednesday, Erikka Runkle, the athletic department human resources manager in 2011, testified that McQueary’s assistant, Bill Kavanaugh, came to her and said that the Lasch Football Building “was being bombarded,” and that he was concerned for the safety McQueary and McQueary’s family.
Sassano testified that Penn State never contacted the attorney general’s office about the threats. He added that “numerous barriers were placed in our way by Penn State throughout the investigation.”
McQueary also wrote in an email that his words “may have been slightly twisted” in the grand jury presentment, which summarized his testimony as saying he had witnessed Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a boy in a Lasch Football Building shower in February 2001. McQueary wrote that he knew what he witnessed was sexual but that he couldn’t say he was “1000 percent sure it was sodomy.”
Sassano said that McQueary’s testimony remained consistent since he was first interviewed in 2010 and that it was reasonable to conclude he had witnessed intercourse.
“He said the same thing exactly since day one,” Sassano testified. “From day one he believed he saw sodomy. He saw what he believed to be penetration from 20 feet away. He believed he saw an act of sodomy. He couldn’t say 100 percent because he did not see insertion. He said that from the get-go.”
In 2012, Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts related to child sexual abuse. The jury found Sandusky not guilty of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in the case of Victim 2, the unidentified boy McQueary saw in the shower with Sandusky. In that case, Sandusky was convicted of four other counts, including indecent assault.
McQueary told his father, John, and family friend Dr. Jonathan Dranov, about the incident the night it occurred in February 2001. Dranov testified on Wednesday, as he did to the grand jury and at Sandusky’s trial, that McQueary told him that he had heard “sexual sounds” but did not describe seeing a sexual act.
He said McQueary told him he saw a boy in the shower and then a man’s arm come around the corner to pull him back in. After McQueary slammed his locker, he saw Sandusky come out in a towel. Dranov said McQueary was visibly shaken and when Dranov asked multiple times what he had seen, McQueary became more upset but only discussed the sounds he heard.
“[McQueary] was quivering, choosing his words. He was obviously visibly upset,” Dranov said Wednesday.
Dranov testified that he and John McQueary later met with then-Vice President Gary Schultz, one of the two administrators to whom Mike McQueary had reported the shower incident, to work out an affiliation agreement between his medical practice and Penn State. After the meeting, John McQueary asked where the investigation stood.
Dranov said Schultz told them there were “rumors” of a previous incident in the 1990s that was investigated by police. He said Schultz told them no charges were brought and the board of Sandusky’s The Second Mile charity for at-risk youth was notified. Dranov said Schultz indicated similar actions were being taken with Mike McQueary’s report, but did not say other agencies were involved.
An allegation of abuse was made against Sandusky in 1998. The case was investigated by Penn State Police but the Centre County District Attorney declined to prosecute. Investigations have shown Schultz appeared to be aware of the 1998 case.
Dranov said that John McQueary told Schultz, “This was a potentially serious incident with serious repercussions and he wanted to be sure it was being attended to in an appropriate fashion.”
Conrad questioned Dranov about his status as a mandated reporter of suspected child abuse because he is a physician. Dranov said because of what McQueary described and because he was not a witness to it, the incident was not a mandated report.
Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.
“I don’t want to give the implication I didn’t think it was a serious incident,” Dranov said. “I did. I followed up to make sure he reported it.“
Dranov urged McQueary to report the incident to his supervisor, which he understood to be Penn State’s procedures.
McQueary reported the incident to Joe Paterno the next morning, and Paterno reported it to then-Athletic Director Tim Curley and Schultz, who spoke with McQueary but dispute that he told them anything sexual had occurred. Among McQueary’s lawsuit claims is that Curley and Schultz misrepresented what they would do with the information he gave them.
Both Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury (since dropped) and failure to report suspected child abuse based on McQueary’s testimony and their denials that he had told them of anything sexual. A later charge of child endangerment also remains and they still await trial.
In an email to Sassano and Eshbach, McQueary said the AG’s office had made no statement of support for him and asked about whether he could make a public statement of his own. On Monday, Eshbach testified that she told him not to because she did not want him to give a statement that could be used in cross-examination. Sassano said that McQueary was free to respond, but that he didn’t think he should.
“You don’t respond to these kooks and nuts,” Sassano testified.
Administrative Leave and Severance
Earlier Wednesday, Joe Doncsecz, Penn State’s corporate controller, testified about severance payments to McQueary after his contract expired on June 30, 2012 as well as a bonus and raise he did not receive while still on paid administrative leave.
A clause in the contract of Penn State’s assistant coaches called for 18 months of severance if they lost their jobs as a result of a coaching change. Other assistants who lost their jobs when Bill O’Brien took over as head coach in January 2012 began receiving their severance after termination.
McQueary, however, remained employed though on leave until the end of June 2012. When McQueary’s contract expired, Doncsecz said, there had been no instruction to begin severance payments for him and that it would have been normal course of business for payments to stop at the end of a contract.
Under questioning from McQueary attorney Elliot Strokoff, Runkle, the athletic department HR manager at the time, said that it would have been general practice for a staff member whose employment was ending to be notified in advance. McQueary has claimed he did not know he was no longer employed by Penn State until he saw media reports in July of 2012.
In a deposition read into the record, former Athletic Director Dave Joyner said he was unsure if McQueary had received notice, but that he would have expected McQueary to show some curiosity about his contract status as its end neared
In September 2012, Doncsecz testified, McQueary’s severance payments began, including back payments for July and August. Severance payments were made in full through December 2013. Joyner said there had been a “mix-up” that delayed payment and that it was Joyner who authorized for the severance payments to begin.
Strokoff also questioned Doncsecz about cost of living increases received by other assistant coaches in January 2012, as well as bonuses they received for coaching in the Ticket City Bowl.
Doncsecz said McQueary did not receive the raise on instruction from the University Budget Office because of his status as being on leave with pay. He called it “a gray area.”
He added that the athletic director, Joyner, submitted the names of coaches to receive the bowl game bonus and McQueary was not among them. On questioning from Conrad, Doncsecz said due to McQueary’s status he would not have coached in practices or the bowl game.
The OAG literally put Mike's life at risk. "For what??"
Would've been so great to see Mike team up with Tim and Gary to bodyslam the OAG.
Tough one.
The A.G.'s office wanted to make sure no further documents were released.
"Initially, it must be understood that the investigation of Sandusky PSU and TSM [The Second Mile] was done through two Statewide Investigating Grand Juries," Selber wrote. "As such, all of the materials gathered by the OAG and provided to your Office were subject to grand jury secrecy."
Under Pennsylvania law, the state is allowed to turn over records from an investigation "only if the agency is investigating a crime within its jurisdiction and the person to whom disclosure is made are sworn to grand jury secrecy," Selber wrote. She asked that the records turned over to the feds under an FOI request remain secret and "confidentiality be maintained."
Bagwell says he's determined to see this battle through to the end, "no matter how long it takes."
"There's virtually no public access to records from police investigations in Pennsylvania," Bagel said. "They're not used to the idea of having their investigations scrutinized."
Bagel says if the records are eventually released, they "might reveal some interesting things that suggest the original grand jury presentment should have never been written in the way it was."
As previously reported on this blog, the grand jury report on Sandusky was built around an event that didn't happen, an anal rape of a naked 10-year-old boy by Sandusky, supposedly witnessed by Mike McQueary in the Penn State showers back in 2001.
However, four men who interviewed McQueary said he didn't witness a sexual attack. Even McQueary agrees he never saw an anal rape, as he stated in writing in an email to the state attorney general's office.
A federal official, former Special Agent John Snedden, also investigated the alleged shower rape as part of an investigation of former Penn State President Graham Spanier. Snedden concluded in a recently declassified 110-page report done in 2012 that McQueary was not a credible witness, no sex crime was committed at Penn State, and hence, no cover up, since there was nothing to cover up.
During the state attorney general's investigation, a couple of state troopers were caught on a tape recorder lying to an alleged victim of sex abuse about hearing the same story from several other alleged victims, even though it wasn't true.
"Obviously the AG is doing everything it can to make sure that people don't have the opportunity to review the facts versus the presentment," Snedden said.
V6 received relatively so little because he looks like he was the only accuser to tell the truth. I don’t think he ever acknowledged anything other than being lifted up in the shower in 1998
He’s a POS for sure, but even he couldn’t have “penetrated” Penn State without the actions/inactions of the big red headed dope.
I’d like to see Mike come clean, but the money he was awarded in his whistleblower lawsuit against PSU may be at risk
Actually, in November 2011, when biographer Joe Posnanski asked Paterno about what McQueary told him back in 2001, Paterno told him, “I think he said he didn’t really see anything. He said he might have seen something in a mirror. But he told me he wasn’t sure he saw anything. He just said the whole thing made him uncomfortable.”
If McQueary had told Paterno, Curley or other administrators that he had seen Sandusky in such a sexual position with the boy, it is inconceivable that they would not have turned the matter over to the police.
This was not a “cover-up.” Sandusky didn’t even work for Penn State by the time of the incident, so what was there to cover up? Paterno and Sandusky had never really liked one another, and Paterno was famed for his integrity and honesty. If he thought Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower, he would undoubtedly have called the police.
It is clear that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier took the incident for what it apparently was – McQueary hearing slapping sounds that he misinterpreted as being sexual.
McQueary gave five different versions of what he heard and saw, but all were reconstructed memories over a decade after the fact. They changed a bit over time, but none of them are reliable.
I agree that MM gave a soft story to JM,Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Shultz. It's unlikely that they all lied.
I also don't think MM saw anal intercourse. MM testified that the boy was not distressed. Of course it's possible that MM said that because he didn't want to be accused of doing nothing to intervene.
I believe that MM was troubled by what he experienced but he couldn't be sure and didn't want to make a false accusation. Then he succumbed to pressure from the AG and started to embellish his story.
Still a very poor job by C&S. No coverup but lack of documentation is inexcusable.
One thing I don't begrudge to McQ is the whistle blower suit money he got. Imo, calling it a whistle blower suit is the wrong term, though. PSU (Joyner) screwed up the severance payment, and McQ was right to pursue it. If PSU didn't come through upon request, he needed to sue to get the money due him per his contract. Maybe his attorney decided to call it a whistle blower suit to make sure it got the attention of the media. It wasn't a big stretch to claim that PSU screwed it up intentionally because of McQ's involvement in the JS saga, whether truly accurate or not. Once they treated him differently than the other assts., PSU was in the wrong.
My guess is that Joyner bullied his way through the process, didn't/wouldn't listen to anyone who knew what they were doing, and screwed up the whole deal. If he really said that he didn't initiate the severance because McQ didn't show curiosity about his status, as indicated in the bot's article.... wow. What a maroon. An HR person would know that the communication has to occur and the severance process begin when the contract is up. Joe had set up all the assistants with generous severances, and a good number had already been triggered, so I have little doubt that HR (Erica Runkle) knew what to do. I'd guess she was overruled by Joyner da Jenius wrt McQ. They treated him differently, and they paid out a lot more than the severance would have been because of it.
I don't know this for sure, but in my experience, coupled with the stories heard about Joyner's general hubris and mismanagement, this is the most likely scenario imo.
My guess is that Joyner bullied his way through the process, didn't/wouldn't listen to anyone who knew what they were doing, and screwed up the whole deal. If he really said that he didn't initiate the severance because McQ didn't show curiosity about his status, as indicated in the bot's article.... wow. What a maroon. An HR person would know that the communication has to occur and the severance process begin when the contract is up. Joe had set up all the assistants with generous severances, and a good number had already been triggered, so I have little doubt that HR (Erica Runkle) knew what to do. I'd guess she was overruled by Joyner da Jenius wrt McQ. They treated him differently, and they paid out a lot more than the severance would have been because of it.
I don't know this for sure, but in my experience, coupled with the stories heard about Joyner's general hubris and mismanagement, this is the most likely scenario imo.
Eshbach was definitely a hazard that ended up hurting many.
In a second email , McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.
"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."
That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.
The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."
But McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."
"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."
McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.
"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"
Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.
"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "
The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.
Another POS who is on the list, but again one who could not have done anything to PSU without the actions/inaction of MM.
Corbett was all about politics, anything else didn't matter.
To some, Corbett relished the opportunity and had even planned to play a role in managing the crisis. Eight days before the Sandusky grand jury presentment was released this past November, Corbett's staff booked hotel rooms in State College. Becoming governor had made Corbett a trustee, and he had decided to attend his first board meeting, after missing the first four. During those days of crisis in State College, he lobbied for the ouster of Paterno and Spanier, ending with that conference call on Nov. 9. And when he was on campus the next day, after Spanier's resignation and Paterno's firing, he celebrated the leadership changes. "Throughout this whole process, I felt he had some ulterior motive," a trustee says of Corbett. "Most trustees felt uncomfortable with his role. It was odd for him to be there and participate the way he did. Very odd."
Corbett declined repeated interview requests for this story. But on Wednesday his spokesman, Kevin Harley, issued a statement to PennLive.com: "ESPN's report from the grassy knoll merely adds another chapter to the growing list of conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandusky case. It is a disappointment to read something so long, filled with so many errors, that offers so little by way of new or even real fact. The fact remains that Jerry Sandusky is charged with serious crimes of sexually abusing children and that the evidence against him is overwhelming." Harley had previously referred "Outside the Lines" and ESPN The Magazine to several recent local TV interviews in which Corbett explained what he described as the minor role he played in the trustees' deliberations regarding Paterno and Spanier.
"This was their discussion," Corbett said in a Feb. 8 interview with WJAC-TV. "The only thing I said is that they have to remember the children. People may have different memories, but I remember exactly what I said."
To some, Corbett relished the opportunity and had even planned to play a role in managing the crisis. Eight days before the Sandusky grand jury presentment was released this past November, Corbett's staff booked hotel rooms in State College. Becoming governor had made Corbett a trustee, and he had decided to attend his first board meeting, after missing the first four. During those days of crisis in State College, he lobbied for the ouster of Paterno and Spanier, ending with that conference call on Nov. 9. And when he was on campus the next day, after Spanier's resignation and Paterno's firing, he celebrated the leadership changes. "Throughout this whole process, I felt he had some ulterior motive," a trustee says of Corbett. "Most trustees felt uncomfortable with his role. It was odd for him to be there and participate the way he did. Very odd."
Corbett declined repeated interview requests for this story. But on Wednesday his spokesman, Kevin Harley, issued a statement to PennLive.com: "ESPN's report from the grassy knoll merely adds another chapter to the growing list of conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandusky case. It is a disappointment to read something so long, filled with so many errors, that offers so little by way of new or even real fact. The fact remains that Jerry Sandusky is charged with serious crimes of sexually abusing children and that the evidence against him is overwhelming." Harley had previously referred "Outside the Lines" and ESPN The Magazine to several recent local TV interviews in which Corbett explained what he described as the minor role he played in the trustees' deliberations regarding Paterno and Spanier.
"This was their discussion," Corbett said in a Feb. 8 interview with WJAC-TV. "The only thing I said is that they have to remember the children. People may have different memories, but I remember exactly what I said."
It’s not speculation. Spanier lied to Snedden and Schultz exposed it on the stand.
L.T. - Please tell us the exact lie that Spanier told Snedden and how Schultz exposed it on the stand.
I think McQueary is referring to Joe being out of town, not his father. The incident was originally thought to have occurred on March 1, 2002 and there is an article online that Joe Paterno attended a banquet in Philly on that date.
It's proof that McQueary used Google, and not his own memory, to concoct much of his story.
http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/022802aaa.html
JVP was not out of town that night, so MM must have been referring to his Father. If he was referring to his Father, then his story has some glaring inconsistencies.
Who was out of town the night before? Joe or your dad? If it was your dad, why would that be a reason for him not going with Mike? Mike and John obviously met with each other that night right?
edit: I guess I dont understand his reasoning for even mentioning it as to why/proof it was just Mike and Joe. Its like saying my Dad wasnt with me because he was out of town. That would make sense if Mike never met with his dad that night.
On the other side its like saying my dad wasnt with me because joe was out of town. Neither make any sense but there hasnt been much of anything that has made sense.
edit #2: The only way this comment makes sense is if Mike is referring to his Dad being out of town the night before. Getting in late then having the phone call and meeting with mike and just being too tired to go with mike in the morning. If that was the case, I would think the situation that was described would be a little higher up on the priority list than getting some rest.
Last edited:
There’s no speculation involved. Schultz did in fact testify that he personally told Spanier about the 98 incident more than once.
They asked Schultz those questions for a reason. Putting Snedden on the stand would have ended in total embarrassment.
Snedden is baffling, and the reason why the trial was a farce.
And what did Snedden find?
"There was no coverup," Snedden flatly declared on Ziegler's podcast. "There was no conspiracy. There was nothing to cover up."
The whole world could have already known by now about John Snedden's top secret investigation of Spanier and PSU. That's because Snedden was scheduled to be the star witness at the trial last week of former Penn State President Graham Spanier.
But at the last minute, Spanier's legal team decided that the government's case was so lame that they didn't even have to put on a defense. Spanier's defense team didn't call one witness before resting their case.
On Ziegler's podcast, "The World According To Zig," the reporter raged about that decision, calling Spanier's lawyers "a bunch of wussies" who set their client up for a fall.
Indeed, the defenseless Spanier was convicted by a Dauphin County jury on just one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. But the jury also found Spanier not guilty on two felony counts. Yesterday, I asked Samuel W. Silver, the Philadelphia lawyer who was Spanier's lead defender, why they decided not to put Snedden on the stand.
"No, cannot share that," he responded in an email. "Sorry."
On Ziegler's podcast, Snedden, who was on the witness list for the Spanier trial, expressed his disappointment about not getting a chance to testify.
"I tried to contact the legal team the night before," Snedden said. "They were going to call me back. I subsequently got an email [saying] that they chose not to use my testimony that day."
You are entitled to your own interpretation of the testimony and are allowed to extrapolate on how un-heard testimony (Snedden) would have been received. I disagree with you on both points.
He denied ever being told about 98 repeatedly. Do you think he told Snedden something different than the GJ, Freeh, and the New Yorker?
Schultz testified he personally told Spanier more than once about it. The prosecution wasn’t asking those questions for shits and gigs.
Similar threads
