Immunity Impunity | Talking Feds Podcast

Подписаться 185 тыс.

Просмотров 14 тыс.

50% 1

We add a special episode this week to tackle the Supreme Court argument on immunity. A great group of court experts - Emily Bazelon, Leah Litman, and Mark Stern - join Harry to add the feds voices to a robust debate in the wake of the argument about the sky is falling, the gang breaks down the questions and a parent fault lines in the court to weigh in on whether the argument augurs the end of any possible trial this year and a ruling that provides a measure of kingly immunity to the President.
-
TALKING FEDS PODCAST is a roundtable discussion that brings together prominent former government officials, journalists, and special guests for a dynamic and in-depth analysis of the most pressing questions in law and politics.
New episodes every week! Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/57MG7Rv...
Make sure to SUBSCRIBE!
/ @talkingfeds
FOLLOW US
Website: www.talkingfeds.com/
Twitter: / talkingfedspod
Harry’s Twitter: / harrylitman
Instagram: / talkingfedspod
Facebook: / talkingfeds
TikTok: / talkingfedspod
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER: www.talkingfeds.com/contact
BECOME A PATREON MEMBER: / talkingfeds
CONTACT US
Contact forms: www.talkingfeds.com/contact
Email: talkingfedspodcast@gmail.com

Опубликовано:

1 май 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 190

@HeidiSchwendeWSI 17 дней назад

Well AOC is drafting articles of impeachment for a second impeachment of Thomas. At least someone is trying to do something .

@dfuher968 17 дней назад

Unfortunately, it wont go anywhere. Republicans put him on the court for exactly the reasons, he shouldnt be there, and they will protect him no matter what, until they can get some1 in the WH to replace him with some1 much worse and 40 years younger.

@notthatdonald1385 15 дней назад

I didn't know that. Thank you!

@imirim 17 дней назад

Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and even Roberts appear to be transferring their own feelings of being persecuted to empathy for Trump which is totally obliterating their judgment in this case.

@lyncaubin2814 17 дней назад

Thank you. We absolutely have to right size SCOTUS to say 13 and impeach 2-3 SCOTUS justices

@emiliog.4432 17 дней назад

The arrogance from these right wing justices is astounding.

@njosborne6152 17 дней назад

Absolutel power corrupts, Absolutely👁️🔔👁️

@user-cr9kj7cn4d 17 дней назад

@@njosborne6152 Supreme power corrupts supremely.

@ttacking_you 17 дней назад

Fox news made them ignorant.

@MarvinBartlett-lj5sh 17 дней назад

This panel provides the deepest and most disturbing analysis of the case Jack Smith brought against Donald Trump that I have heard. The unasked (and unanswered) question is, “How do the male justices of the Supreme Court sleep at night?”

@user-cr9kj7cn4d 17 дней назад

The Leonard Leo / Federalist Society corrupt antidemocratic judicial fix is in; Leo's crooked judges will do anything they can to favor Trump and other Republicans, preventing Trump's disqualification and delaying Trump's prosecutions, to keep Trump from being convicted before the general election and to maximize the chances of the election of Trump and other Republicans, to perpetuate the cycle of corrupt antidemocratic Republican elected officials appointing and confirming corrupt antidemocratic Republican judges.

@audreywellham2413 17 дней назад

Honest to God, I really worry about that. Once corrupt, the law no matter applies - apparently. 🙏🏻🇺🇸⚖️💙🗽🩺

@LiamRappaport 17 дней назад

@@audreywellham2413that brings to mind a quote of Kavanaugh from the hearing, “Nobody knows what corrupt intent means.” Truly frightening.

@mistiecantey1 17 дней назад

I’m am so depressed after listening to this.

@LiamRappaport 17 дней назад

“The Supreme Court has already ruined the country, don’t let it ruin your weekend as well.”😂 Spot on. I listened to the whole hearing and was gobsmacked through the majority of it, having mostly the same interpretations of the Justices as you 4 here.

@davidligon6088 17 дней назад

Excellent Podcast!! This is your best so far, and your guests were superb.

@maryreeves357 17 дней назад

Although I'm not a lawyer and many terms and references are only vaguely understood, I still get a lot out of your discussions and believe it's worthwhile to listen. We voters should have as much information as possible inorder to make their decisions. Thank you for being here.

@medic1073 17 дней назад

Only common men fall under the law, money and power walk.

@audreywellham2413 17 дней назад

So we now know it’s true. 🙏🏻🇺🇸⚖️💙🗽🩺

@bradholten 17 дней назад

A dark episode but a bright and lovely panel!

@maxquackmedia1290 17 дней назад

Thanks Harry. I'm listening now. You continue to bring the best conversation. Thanks for all you do.

@AlfCalson 17 дней назад

👍 HARRY LITMAN 👍

@timothyross7822 17 дней назад

Yeah, all this Ftrumpft BS is unbelievable! Hold your voting rights tight, vote Blue!

@erickborling1302 17 дней назад

11:10 Leah Litman hit the ball not just out of the park but into the ocean.

@mary-smz 17 дней назад

@TalkingFeds - A related question: Why can't Justice Thomas be impeached by the House of Representatives, then convicted by the Senate for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"? Forget the political problem with the make-up of Congress at that moment (but I am suggesting possibly after the Nov. election) ... he has accepted bribes clearly and with his wife supported an insurrection (treason) because he did not recuse himself in these Trump Jan. 6 cases at SCOTUS. It's incredibly rare (I think just once with Samuel Chase in 1804), but isn't he a good candidate for impeachment? At least an inquiry in the Senate?

@NoSacredCowFla 17 дней назад

Thanks Harry! This one was fun. I actually laughed a few times. Harry: "Yeah!" 😂🤣😂

@peppermintpoppy 17 дней назад

Harry, as always thank you for these informative conversations any your daily videos.

@futureglobal7258 17 дней назад

It doesn’t matter whether the election interference case wraps up before early voting begin. It’s only important that the prosecution be able to make its case before voters decide. The defense’s case can wait until after the election. So too can the decision & any sentencing that may result. Jack smith must have every opportunity to make his case before early voting begins.

@LarryKach 17 дней назад

You would suffer less shock and confusion and make better predictions about the Court if you accept that four, maybe five, justices are fascists who relish desecration of the Constitution. The Constitution Article III, Sect 2 limits the Court's jurisdiction to cases and controversies. The hypotheticals in US v Trump are not cases properly before the Court. The Court's dalliances with them were therefore flagrantly unconstitutional just like its groundless undermining of state application of the 14th Amendment, Sec 3 in Trump v Anderson (2024) was unconstitutional. At least 4 justices on the Supreme Court have for the first time in American history entertained favorably the idea that a president can be held to be above the law in United States v. Trump (2024). This is the "Führerprinzip," a core fascist concept that the “dear leader” can commit crimes with absolute impunity. No judge is known in American history to have ever considered this to be anything but a ridiculous anti-American proposition suited to the royal regime overthrown by the Revolution,

@rjdankert 17 дней назад

Add four new justices to the SCOTUS asap

@manuelhe46 17 дней назад

This is the correct answer. The corneas shown it is more interested in philosophical hypotheticals while ignoring a clear and present danger from an actor with evil intent.

@rev5774 17 дней назад

Thanks for all you do, Harry.

@dexter_gd3478 17 дней назад

How do you hold people with lifetime appointments accountable?

@audreywellham2413 17 дней назад

Exactly. 🙏🏻🇺🇸⚖️💙🗽🩺

@njosborne6152 17 дней назад

Term limits 👍🏾

@gustavderkits8433 17 дней назад

Can’t finish. Too depressing

@michaelstiller2282 17 дней назад

Courts going to rule that there isn't enough clarity on the law and pass the immunity to Congress. The case will be delayed indefinitely, as congress won't act on the courts ruling. So there will be no decision on immunity. Its how they dealt with removing Trump from rhe Colorado ballot case. Call it a loop hole.

@cuffy6322 17 дней назад

Kafkaesque?🤔

@user-cr9kj7cn4d 17 дней назад

The Justices in the corrupt antidemocratic majority in SCOTUS became aiders and comforters of the oath-violating former President and his accomplices in Congress, ruling Congress must pass a law to impose disqualification, and, by the same ruling, protected the corrupt antidemocratic Justices themselves. They abused their supremacy to protect their favored traitors, including themselves. The perfect crime. The corrupt antidemocratic majority in SCOTUS is wrong to say that Congress must pass a law enforcing Amendment 14 Section 3. The Constitution is law. There is no law needed to repeat what the Constitution already says. What part of "No person shall” does the corrupt antidemocratic majority in SCOTUS not understand?

@ttacking_you 17 дней назад

I'm really really goddamn sick of trump!

@user-nq1fm7xs2f 17 дней назад

A couple of things: is he still President until the moment the VP ratifies the vote? On Jan 6, did he get the morning list of security briefings etc? Still had a Chief of Staff? And while Alito is so freely hypothesizing, ask him to hypothesize the scenarios where a sitting president could use immunity to eliminate opponents.

@LiamRappaport 17 дней назад

US presidents remain president until the new one is sworn in on January 20th.

@brianjennings7644 17 дней назад

I'm just here to hit "like",..I have to listen to the podcast, for "a Spirited Debate."..it makes me chuckle. Nice crew today, Harry..you're the best.

@NickGodwin 17 дней назад

Enabling fascism in slow motion

@erickborling1302 17 дней назад

Superb! Always happy to hear Emily Bazelon and your varied panels!

@oapster7963 17 дней назад

No one is above the law. 🗽

@user-cr9kj7cn4d 17 дней назад

The reasoning that an ex-president can be prosecuted for a crime because it is a crime, which so bothers Chief Justice John Roberts, is just a consequence of saying the president is not above the law. Why does Roberts want presidents to be above the law?

@njosborne6152 17 дней назад

Right. . .

@oapster7963 17 дней назад

@njosborne6152 At least shouldn't be.

@carleenmulloy481 17 дней назад

Love you All

@jannettebeatsonberger2516 17 дней назад

I concur Mark Stern.

@bend3rbot 17 дней назад

OMG - SO MUCH MEAT TO THIS WILD BEAST you dissect with such deliberated but clearly no manual to reference the anatomy! Three listens this week so far! Soo many "ah-hah" moments, it tickles my brain. ❤😂❤😂 Brilliant debate. Thank you - each and all!!

@rossvoss5408 17 дней назад

The mental acuity of Justices Alito and Thomas is on display for the entire nation. They have been an embarrassment for decades but their positions entitle them to immunity and all we can do is hope that someday soon they will retire.

@susanhemmingsen9168 17 дней назад

Thanks Harry and guests. Great show. Recommend to explain to others what's going on with the supreme court.

@amydavid1111 17 дней назад

Can this SCOTUS decision be vacated later on since it will possibly be insane?

@JinxGarza 17 дней назад

This was excellent. Thanks for gathering 4 of my faves together. 👏👏👏👏

@kathyd9324 17 дней назад

Thank you for another great episode.

@hopsandbarley3 16 дней назад

Thanks for a great panel discussion

@fredfreddy8684 17 дней назад

Bloody hell. The GOP has gone mad.

@marthaalarcon6104 17 дней назад

Thank you!!!

@chrisqueen3118 17 дней назад

I'm with Harry and Emily. The Conservatives, to use the kindest term possible, are not addressing the case before them--they're playing make believe. In truth, they never should have taken this case, says this not-a-lawyer.

@jkotsche7035 17 дней назад

The Court has dropped into the rabbit hole of Alice In Wonderland. Thomas will never recuse, if he did he would be admitting Ginni's guilt.

@SMF314 17 дней назад

No President is above the law - when the Court is above politics!

@ddieter603 17 дней назад

Thanks again, Harry, for having stellar people on your podcast. Shut me down if I'm getting too personal, but is Leah related to you? Many legal analysts are feeling the same consternation as all-y'all. I hope-hope-hope that the Supremes will make the right decisions in this case.

@douglasash586 17 дней назад

Good show, but I am still crying inside!

@stevendaleschmitt 17 дней назад

Analysis Paralysis. Immunity and equal justice cannot co-exist.

@BeaPawlin-re9tj 17 дней назад

Excellent program, Harry - - but very disconcerting, unfortunately. Thanks for your guest commentary and all the work the Sanity Brigade is doing.

@gsherlock 17 дней назад

You touched on everything I felt and heard during this hearing, to me the argument distinguishing between official and unofficial acts without motive was just wild.

@paulasharp4475 16 дней назад

Thanks!!

@gc4847 17 дней назад

This was an excellent, albeit depressing, episode.

@onlykarlhenning 17 дней назад

Great work! But a bummer.

@user-mc2ph1ne1v 17 дней назад

As depressing as this was it was a great episode & I laughed at the end when u couldn’t end in positivity even after trying a couple times.

@bpsychoz 17 дней назад

Loving the content ❤

@jannettebeatsonberger2516 17 дней назад

Intuitively...is Aleto vying to be smarter than established law as enshrined by the founding fathers? Are we witnessing 'wanna be judgement' here. Sickening.

@teresajohansen2589 17 дней назад

The Bulwark is awesome too with Tim Miller and Charlie Sykes

@mikedr1549 17 дней назад

This was terribly depressing... :)

@zainab58 17 дней назад

All this time I thought it was safe to assume that, if nothing else, at least eight of the nine justices have the rudimentary common sense to see that it is not in their own interest to declare that the president is above the law.

@lucyflanagan3628 7 дней назад

It’s a disaster this bifurcation of the presidential immunity issue, this crime official vs crime unofficial. Criminal is criminal. Laws are needed defining what a president may not do, while president. Same the Supreme Court judges. So presidents and Supreme Court justices have to obey the same laws everybody else does with further restrictions considering the power the individual wields.

@rudycandu1633 17 дней назад

I love listening to Talking Feds, but 11 minutes in I had to stop listening because the discussion about the Supreme Court discussion was too upsetting. And I'm not even an American.

@ntaylo6299 17 дней назад

This court needs help. We the people are not listened to only wealthy donors have a voice. What they did to Al Gore should not be forgotten. And here they are, little change in attitude but huge treat to our republic form of democracy. The time is now. Change must happen soon.

@theh.o.p.e.channelwhoyouar7614 17 дней назад

Grim. Grim. Grim

@SkatingErinsMom 17 дней назад

It is definitely grim, but thanks for giving me a reality check, that I'm not the only one that feels the same way..

@MamaTfromMN 17 дней назад

I dont understand either! Lets stay shocked! Its necessary!

@MamaTfromMN 17 дней назад

Harry!❤

@amiensarabellis8391 17 дней назад

This only motivates me to fight even more by voting, as with the abortion issue Biden alluded to in the State of the Union address. We can't just observe democracy going down the toilet.

@mdeliam39 17 дней назад

What I heard was that if there was a mix of personal acts with presidential acts they could not separate the personal acts. Therefore the personal acts would also be immune.

@kathyd9324 17 дней назад

It would be awesome if you could record your Talking San Diego show and upload it to RU-vid. 💙🤗🗽⚖️🌊

@dianedelello5906 17 дней назад

Just a question… whatever the court decides, can we expect President Biden to take advantage of the new findings?

@cdubya3071 17 дней назад

He should put on his Dark Brandon sunglasses and threaten to. He’s too damn honorable IMO to actually do it. We will see.

@qwadratix 17 дней назад

They're not going to make a decision. That's the whole point of taking the case in the first place.

@dianedelello5906 17 дней назад

@@qwadratix I agree but don’t you think that they will have to provide some resolution?

@michaelstiller2282 17 дней назад

@@qwadratix Yeah they won't decide, leaving Biden unsure about it. Much like how congress refused to select a supreme court justice until the election was over. Didn't matter if the seat was vacant. But if Trump win be sure the rules change to prosecute Biden for what ever.

@qwadratix 17 дней назад

@@dianedelello5906 I don't think so. It really is just about delaying these cases until the election. If Trump wins, it won't be necessary to make him 'officially' immune since he'll have absolute power anyway. (He might insist they still declare him untouchable anyway) If Trump loses, I think this time it will end him politically and SCOTUS will probably just quietly forget the whole thing as profitless speculation.

@rockercover 17 дней назад

Official acts of inciting violence? Wow.

@rosem5060 17 дней назад

I did some very brief research on absolute constitutional presidential immunity in other countries and found an article. It does exist in Nigerian, here is the summary of the article. Immunity clause as enshrined under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has generated protracted controversies for and against its inclusion in the rubrics of Nigerian constitutional laws. This paper considers widespread corruption by Nigerian leaders, shielded by the immunity clause. It explains the need for reform to curtail the anomaly wherein absolute executive immunity is provided for leaders in Nigeria. The paper maintains that there should be equality before the law, hence, the possible prosecution and appearance of a sitting President, Vice President, Governors and Deputy Governors in some criminal and civil matters drawing from other jurisdictions. Maybe America could learn something from the real experience in other places.

@gwick358 16 дней назад

He's not going to go to trial. There will be endless appeals until the hamberders catch up with him. Welcome to endless lawfare.

@lindae2524 17 дней назад

It seems to me that this SCOTUS gets upset (up on their high horse) whenever anyone attempts to make a point about the law. Like "how dare they say that to US?" Look at all the Amicus (sp) briefs that have been sent to them from Jack Smith, Judge Luttig, that group that were well respected sources of Civil War law. (14th ammendment part 3) other well respected groups or individuals. They take offense & take the opposite view. Not to say they weren't leaning that way anyway but it might come down to one halfway reasonable Justice. It sounds childish, I know, but I keep thinking about Roberts response when the Senate asked him to appear during the Thomas graft & non-recusals. After hearing Roberts response to the Senate, it came across as just that. How dare you? WE can police our own court. (but then did nothing. Squat as we say in NJ)

@nahomie 17 дней назад

❤❤❤❤ Love Beyoncé… the episode was also goo😂d

@GandalfThePlaid 17 дней назад

"It's not conservative!" Sounds like someone hasn't yet grasped the reality that the GOP has been shifting away from conservatism to fascism. Also just how comfy people been with some of its common traits throughout our history.

@EricSmith-wt2qu 17 дней назад

The court needs an infusion of common sense.

@robph8421 17 дней назад

If there can be silver lining, the ruling that’s coming will be, like Dobbs, more fuel to boost Democrats’ vote turnouts in November.

@AlfCalson 14 дней назад

NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW! But maybe POTUS shouldn't be in court then in office?

@jeremiahchamberlin4499 17 дней назад

I listen to a lot of these legal/political commentaries and discussions, and I often find them edifying; but not this time! Despite listening to every word for nearly an hour, I could never figure out what the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks you all were talking about! What are the two options you were discussing? I have no idea! I don’t know what will be decided, how it will be decided, what the future implications will be, etc. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? SAY IT - DON’T CODE IT.

@cynthiastandley5742 14 дней назад

Ugh!

@jonathanrossddsmhs1271 17 дней назад

Alito is so corrupt he is willing to look stupid in public.

@grant50 17 дней назад

Is Leah related to Harry? Litman isn't exactly a common name. Edit: So, Harry and Leah are _not_ related, and the name Litman _is_ uncommon. In fact, only 1 person in 158,348 have that name.

@melvinpjotr9883 17 дней назад

Why would immunizing "official acts" help? Official acts arguably are actions that a private person cannot do, e.g. actions that only the president can do. Actions that carry the awesome and unmatched power of the presidency. Such as: - Ordering a nuclear strike (on a perceived enemy, on a US ally, on a "corrupt" American city, like Portland or Miami) - Ordering a military strike to kill a person or group of persons (a terrorist abroad, a "corrupt" political rival, a "corrupt" supreme court justice, the entire supreme court) If you take out motive (such as Gorsuch seemed to suggest), the most egregrious acts, that are done with corrupt intent using the full power of the presidency, will be immune

@ChangcoLLC 17 дней назад

Sad for the country, but democracies don't typically last more than a couple hundred years, so not really a surprise.

@PolitiekGeneuzel-xr3yl 17 дней назад

Geez Harry! You need not ever buy a DNA test my man!

@katemcbride8715 17 дней назад

On the bright side he might just leave the living.

@aasotih 17 дней назад

It is sad to think of it, but the inescapable reason as to why the court has gone off on a kind of moot court exercise, is that the Court is trying it's mightiest to ensure that Trump becomes the next president. It is a legal crisis IMHO. This immunity issue as it exists in Trumps matter, is not reasonably subject to widely differing judicial conservative/liberal opinions. And yet.

@jonathanrossddsmhs1271 17 дней назад

This case is blowing holes through the fallacy of “originalism” and “textualism”. These hypocrites are using it to legislate right wing policy.

@vstvicina 17 дней назад

Unbelievably depression analysis. I wish you guys are wrong but doubt it.

@Canoe64 17 дней назад

Why wasn't Trump charged with insurrection?

@-Gramps 17 дней назад

Plz stop with the “Talking Feds San Diego” promotions. Can’t you just advertise it in southern California? I’m in Texas, love your podcast, but am old & grumpy & don’t like the San Diego specific delay of your podcast. Thanks for considering my request.

@dfuher968 17 дней назад

Just the fact, that its been over 3 years since an attempted coup in ur country, and u guys have still been unable to handle it or even come to terms with it, is insane. That the coup maker is still running free and a friggin presidential candidate again is beyond insane. That ur Supreme Court is debating, whether or not he can even be indicted, let alone prosecuted, for, again, an attempted coup, is so beyond insane, I dont even have words for it. Considering the sorry state of ur justice system, it was always eyerolling and vaguely insulting, when u guys came lecturing us in Western Europe about our justice systems, which are not perfect, but far far FAR better than ur sh*tshow. After the way, u failed as a country, justice system and ppl alike, to handle a friggin coup, dont ever come talking to us about justice systems or democracy again. At best we would be polite and just laugh in ur face. At this point, ur best case scenario is being a total joke. And thats if u finally manage to prosecuted, convict and incarcerate the guy, we all saw doing a coup live on tv. If u fail to do that, nobody will ever take u seriously again, u wont even be able to lecture a banana republic about justice.

@catbranchman01 17 дней назад

“U” are very rude. You act as if every American supports this state of affairs and you’re listening to the podcast of four smart legal analysts who clearly don’t like what’s happening. Why are “u” giving them a hard time. You are full of resentment and your comment stinks. I am British, by the way. So I’m an outsider too. Every country has its problems, and the US is no different. Either say something helpful or understand that nothing you said achieved anything except point out to the world how obnoxious you are

@k_m_SFbay 17 дней назад

Fantastic show, all. Btw, to Guest Mark: Ty for sharing @ the end of the show the sage piece of advice [that you share w friends who text you in distress re. SCOTUS] ie. that they “are already ruining the country, don’t let them ruin your week/end as well…” 🫡 Noted. Cuz tbh, this is *so depressing…* (and terrifying, infuriating, etc…) BUT it is obv necessary info nonetheless, so thx again to the panel!🙏🏼😊👋🏼

@BeatlesBowieKrimson 17 дней назад

You're promoting alcohol? The biggest killer recreational drug on Earth? Shame ...

@suntzu5836 17 дней назад

President TRUMP deserves the same protections all other presidents have had!......TRUMP 2024

@NickGodwin 17 дней назад

Exactly, NO protection against prosecution for insurrection and conspiracy to falsify electors.

@njosborne6152 17 дней назад

No tweeting!! No Put him in the courthouse basement for his own safety, he can spend the night, take a cold shower, dress in orange, while his suit’s out being pressed and be refreshed in the morning, so he doesn’t fall asleep during his court

@johnkeegan8770 17 дней назад

I knew in 2015 during the primaries that he wasnt going to leave peacefully , remember only if win !!!!!!!😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠

@heatherpagan4840 17 дней назад

Good evening Harry, Australian here. 2252 hours 2 May. A bit late but just like to say that I appreciate you and your guests common sense and just the way it is attitude. No BS. If I might ask a question? What would happen if the Defendant is incapable (not of sound mind) of standing trial or finishing the trial ? Does the trial continue or is the Defendant "restricted" in other ways? Thank you . 🧐👋👣🦘🦘🦘🦘

@johnkeegan8770 17 дней назад

I meant " ONLY IF I WIN " .😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠

@johnkeegan8770 17 дней назад

Yah dont even be a democrat ,and do even a fraction of what teump did .😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮

@AlfCalson 14 дней назад

👍 HARRY LITMAN 👍