Read full declassified whistleblower complaint about Trump and Ukraine

Read full declassified whistleblower complaint about Trump and Ukraine

The whistleblower complaint lodged by an intelligence official in August that has since engulfed the White House in controversy and led to an impeachment inquiry against US President Donald Trump was declassified on Thursday.

The compliant makes a series of allegations, including that White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s president and they believe they saw Trump “abuse his office for personal gain” on the call.

The White House released a memo detailing the call on Wednesday, which showed showed Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden — one of Trump’s election rivals — and help discredit the Russia probe.

Read more:Whistleblower says White House officials were ‘deeply disturbed’ by Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president, and worried they ‘had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain’

The whistleblower also alleged that Senior White House officials tried to “lock down” all records the call, especially the transcript, and that officials told the whistleblower that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system they’re usually stored in. The version of the call that was released on Wednesday was not a full transcript.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump meet at in New York on Wednesday. It was their first meeting.
Volodymyr Zelensky

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump on Tuesday, citing the whistleblower complaint— with a majority of the House supporting the inquiry.

Read more: Trump is facing impeachment over a whistleblower complaint and a phone call with Ukraine’s president. Here’s what we know.

The full complaint was released to the intelligence committees in both the House and Senate earlier Wednesday. It is now public.

Here are the key points in the complaint:

  • Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was a “central figure” in Trump’s effort.
  • Attorney General William Barr “appears to be involved as well.”
  • The whistleblower wasn’t a direct witness to the conduct described but heard various facts related to it from more than half a dozen US officials. Multiple officials “recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.”
  • The whistleblower reported Trump’s conduct because they believed it constituted “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order” and met the definition of “urgent concern” under the law.
  • Trump used his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and help discredit the Russia probe.
  • He also asked Zelensky to meet or speak with Giuliani and Barr, whom Trump referred to “multiple times in tandem.”
  • White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by the phone call, and officials told the whistleblower White House lawyers were already discussing how to handle the call because they believed they’d just witnessed Trump “abuse his office for personal gain.”
  • A State Department official also listened in on the call.
  • Senior White House officials tried to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the transcript.
  • White House officials told the whistleblower they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system they’re usually stored in.
  • The transcript was instead put on a separate electronic system used to store classified information of a sensitive nature.
  • The day after the call, two US officials — US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker and US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland — met with Ukrainian leaders to help them “navigate” Trump’s demands.
  • Giuliani met with one of Zelensky’s advisers, Andriy Yermak, on August 2 as a “direct follow-up” of Trump’s call with Zelensky about the “cases” they had discussed.
  • Giuliani also reached out to several other Zelensky advisers, but it’s unclear if they ultimately met or what was discussed. But multiple US officials told the whistleblower that at least two of Zelensky’s aides planned to travel to Washington, DC, in mid-August.
  • The whistleblower pointed to several articles published in March 2019 detailing how several Ukrainian officials, including then Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, alleged that other Ukrainian officials had meddled in the 2016 US election with the Democratic National Committee. Lutsenko also alleged that the US embassy in Kyiv — which had criticized Lutsenko’s office — had obstructed Ukrainian corruption cases, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the US specifically to prevent them from delivering their “evidence” about the 2016 election. And he alleged that Biden pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire then Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in 2016 in order to squash a criminal investigation into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas extraction company whose board Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on.
  • The whistleblower also highlighted how Lutsenko said publicly that he wanted to discuss the matter with Barr.
  • Giuliani met with Lutsenko at least twice: once in late January and again in mid-February. Giuliani also spoke to Shokin in late 2018.
  • Trump called Lutsenko’s claims “big” and “incredible” in an April 25 interview on Fox News and said Barr “would want to see this.”

You can look at the original document here.Here’s the full text of the complaint:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

  • Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
  • I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.

I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute a serious or grant problem, abuse, or violation of law or “Executive Order” that “does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.” consistent with the definition of an “urgent concern” in 50 U.S.C. I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.

  • I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government’s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.

To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classification standards outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classified for national security purposes. 1

  • If a classification marking is applied retroactively, I believe it is incumbent upon the classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which specific information it pertains.

I. The 25 July Presidential phone call

Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. I do not know which side initiated the call. This was the first publicly acknowledged call between the two leaders since a brief congratulatory call after Mr. Zelenskyy won the presidency on 21 April.

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:

  • initiate or continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;
  • assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the networks in 2016; and
  • meet or Speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.

The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr. Lutsenko made a series of public allegations — many of which he later walked back — about the Biden family’s activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian officials’ purported involvement in the 2016 US. election, and the activities of the US. Embassy in Kyiv. See Part IV for additional context.)

The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a discussion ongoing with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.

The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of 25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):

  • “Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine’s image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States.”

Aside from the above-mentioned “cases” purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 US election, I was told by White House officials that no other “cases” were discussed.

Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who listened to the call — a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a “routine” call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call.

  • In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call.
  • I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Department and Intelligence Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call as outlined above.

II. Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple US. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced “as is customary” by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

  • White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.
  • Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.

III. Ongoing concerns

On 26 July, a day after the call, US. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker visited Kyiv and met with President and a variety of Ukrainian political figures. Ambassador Volker was accompanied in his meetings by US. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me by various US. officials, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to “navigate” the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy.

I also learned from multiple US. officials that, on or about 2 August, Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Madrid to meet with one of President advisers, Andriy Yermak. The US. officials characterized this meeting, which was not reported publicly at the time, as a “direct follow-up” to the President’s call with Mr. Zelenskyy about the “cases” they had discussed.

  • Separately, multiple US. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov.4
  • I do not know whether those officials met or spoke with Mr. Giuliani, but I was told separately-by multiple US. officials that Mr. Yermak and Mr. Bakanov intended to travel to Washington in mid-August.

On 9 August, the President told reporters: “I think [President Zelenskyy] is going to make a deal with President Putin, and he will be invited to the White House. And we look forward to seeing him. He’s already been invited to the White House, and he wants to come. And I think he will. He’s a very reasonable guy. He wants to see peace in Ukraine, and I think he will be coming very soon, actually.”

IV. Circumstances leading up to the 25 July Presidential phone call

Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian officials — most notably, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko — made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian officials and current and former US. officials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:

  • that they possessed evidence that Ukrainian officials — namely, Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine Artem and Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko — had “interfered” in the 2016 US. presidential election, allegedly in collaboration with the DNC and the US. Embassy in Kyiv.5
  • That the US. Embassy in Kyiv — specifically, US. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had criticized Mr. Lutsenko’s organization for its poor record on fighting corruption — had allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies’ pursuit of corruption cases, including by providing a “do not prosecute” list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their “evidence” about the 2016 US. election6 and
  • that former Vice President Biden had pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 to fire then Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in order to quash a purported criminal probe into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company on whose board the former Vice President’s son, Hunter, sat.7

In several public comments 8, Mr. Lutsenko also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters. 9

The allegations by Mr. Lutsenko came on the eve of the first round of Ukraine’s presidential election on 31 March. By that time, Mr. Lutsenko’s political patron, President Poroshenko, was trailing Mr. in the polls and appeared likely to be defeated. Mr. Zelenskyy had made known his desire to replace Mr. Lutsenko as Prosecutor General. On 21 April, Mr. Poroshenko lost the runoff to Mr. by a landslide. See Enclosure for additional information.

  • It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had met on at least two occasions with Mr. Lutsenko: once in New York in late January and again in Warsaw in mid-February. In addition, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani.10
  • On 25 April in an interview with Fox News, the President called Mr. Lutsenko’s claims “big” and “incredible” and stated that the Attorney General “would want to see this.”

On or about 29 April, I learned from US. officials with direct knowledge of the situation that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department officials for “consultations” and would most likely be removed from her position.

  • Around the same time, I also learned from a US official that “associates” of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.11
  • On 6 May, the State Department announced that Ambassador Yovanovitch would be ending her assignment in Kyiv “as planned.”
  • However, several US officials told me that, in fact, her tour was curtailed because of pressure stemming from Mr. Lutsenko’s allegations. Mr. Giuliani subsequently stated in an interview with a Ukrainian journalist published on 14 May that Ambassador Yovanovitch was “removed. . .because she was part of the efforts against the President.”

On 9 May, The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani planned to travel to Ukraine to press the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations that would help the President in his 2020 reelection bid.

  • In his multitude of public statements leading up to and in the wake of the publication of this article, Mr. Giuliani confirmed that he was focused on encouraging Ukrainian authorities to pursue investigations into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US. election and alleged wrongdoing by the Biden family.12
  • On the afternoon of 10 May, the President stated in an interview with Politico that he planned to speak with Mr. Giuliani about the trip.
  • A few hours later, Mr. Giuliani publicly canceled his trip, claiming that Mr. Zelesnkyy was “surrounded by enemies of the of the United States.”

On 11 May, Mr. Lutsenko met for two hours with President-elect according to a public account given several days later by Mr. Lutsenko. Mr. Lutsenko publicly stated that he had told Mr. that he wished to remain as Prosecutor General.

Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple US officials that they were deeply concerned by what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani’s circumvention of national security decision-making processes to engage with Ukrainian officials and relay messages back and forth between Kyiv and the President. These officials also told me:

  • that State Department officials, including Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, had spoken with Mr. Giuliani in an attempt to “contain the damage” to US. national security; and
  • that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland during this time period met with members of the new Ukrainian administration and, in addition to discussing policy matters, sought to help Ukrainian leaders understand and respond to the differing messages they were receiving from official US channels on the one had, and from Mr. Giuliani on the other.

During this same timeframe, multiple US. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to “play ball” on the issues that had been

publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. (Note: This was the general understanding of the state of affairs as conveyed to me by US. officials from late May into early July. I do not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.) See Enclosure for additional information.

Shortly after President Zelenskyy’s inauguration, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani met with two other Ukrainian officials: Ukraine’s Special Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar and a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko. Both Mr. and Mr. Telizhenko are allies of Mr. Lutsenko and made similar allegations in the above-mentioned series of articles in The Hill.

On 13 June, the President told George Stephanopoulos that he would accept damaging information on his political rivals from a foreign government.

On 21 June, Mr. Giuliani tweeted: “New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 and alleged Biden bribery of Poroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Clinton people.”

In mid-July, I learned of a sudden change of policy with respect to US. assistance for Ukraine. See Enclosure for additional information.


1. Apart from the information in the Enclosure, it is my belief that none of the information contained herein meets the definition of classified information outlined in E0 13526, Part 1, Section 1.1. There is ample open source information about the efforts I describe below, including statements by the President and Mr. Giuliani. In addition, based on my personal observations, there is discretion With respect to the classification of private comments by or instructions from the President, including his communications with foreign leaders; information that is not related to US. foreign policy or national security such as the information contained in this document, when separated from the Enclosure Is generally treated as unclassified. I also believe that applying a classification marking to this information would violate EO 13526, Part 1, Section 1.7, which states: “In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: (I) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; [or] (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency.”

2. It is unclear whether such a Ukrainian investigation exists. See Footnote #7 for additional information.

3. I do not know why the President associates these servers with Ukraine. (See, for example, his comments to Fox News on 20 July: “And Ukraine. Take a look at Ukraine. How come the FBI didn’t take this server? Podesta told them to get out. He said, get out. So, how come the FBI didn’t take the server from the DNC”)

4. In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelenskyy adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.5. Mr. Sytnyk and Mr. Leshchenko are two of Mr. Lutsenk’s main domestic rivals. Mr. Lutsenko has no legal training and has been widely criticized in Ukraine for politicizing criminal probes and using his tenure as Prosecutor General to protect corrupt Ukrainian officials. He has publicly feuded with Mr. Sytnyk who heads Ukraine’s only competent anticorruption body, and with Mr. Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist who has repeatedly criticized Mr. Lutsenko’s record. In December 2018, a Ukrainian court upheld a complaint by a Member of Parliament, Mr. Boryslav Rozenblat, who alleged that Mr. and Mr. Leshchenko had “interfered” in the 2016 US. election by publicizing a document detailing corrupt payments made by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych before his ouster in 2014. Mr. Rozenblat had originally led the motion in late 2017 after attempting to flee Ukraine amid an investigation into his taking of a large bribe. On 16 July 2019, Mr. Leshchenko publicly stated that a Ukrainian court had overturned the lower court’s decision.

6. Mr. Lutsenko later told Ukrainian news outlet The Babel on 17 April that Ambassador Yovanovitch had never provided such a list, and that he was, in fact, the one who requested such a list.

7. Mr. Lutsenko later told Bloomberg on 16 May that former Vice President Biden and his son were not subject to any current Ukrainian investigations, and that he had no evidence against them. Other senior Ukrainian officials also contested his original allegations; one former senior Ukrainian prosecutor told Bloomberg on 7 May that Mr. Shokin in fact was not investigating Burisma at the time of his removal in 2016.

8. See, for example, Mr. Lutsenko’s comments to The Hill on 1 and 7 April and his interview with The Babel on 17 April, in which he stated that he had spoken with Mr. Giuliani about arranging contact with Attorney General Barr.

9. In May, Attorney General Barr announced that he was initiating a probe into the “origins” of the Russia investigation. According to the above-referenced OCCRP report (22 July), two associates of Mr. Giuliani claimed to be working with Ukrainian officials to uncover information that would become part of this inquiry. In an interview with Fox News on 8 August, Mr. Giuliani claimed that Mr. John Durham, whom Attorney General Barr designated to lead this probe, was “spending a lot of time in Europe” because he was “investigating Ukraine.” I do not know the extent to which, if at all, Mr. Giuliani is directly coordinating his efforts on Ukraine with Attorney General Barr or Mr. Durham.10. See, for example, the above-referenced articles in Bloomberg (16 May) and OCCRP (22 July).

11. I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.

12. See, for example, Mr. Giuliani’s appearance on Fox News on 6 April and his tweets on 23 April and 10 May. In his interview with The New York Times, Mr. Giuliani stated that the President “basically knows what I’m doing, sure, as his lawyer.” Mr. Giuliani also stated: “We are not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do … There’s nothing illegal about it … Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”


Additional information related to Seciton II:

According to multiple White House officials I spoke with, the transcript of the President’s call with President Zelenskyy was placed into a computer system managed directly by the National Security Council (NSC) Directorate for Intelligence Programs. This is a standalone computer system reserved for codeword-level intelligence information, such as covert action. According to information I received from White House officials, some officials voiced concerns internally that this would be an abuse of the system and was not consistent with the responsibilities of the Directorate for Intelligence Programs. According to White House officials I spoke with, this was “not the first time” under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the propose of protecting politically sensitive — rather than national security sensitive — information

Additional Information related to Section IV

[Note: This section begins with a still-classified body of text, and associated classified footnote.]

I would like to expand upon two issues mentioned under Section IV that might have a connection with the overall effort to pressure the Ukrainian leadership. As I do not know definitively whether the below-mentioned decisions are connected to the broader efforts I describe, I have chosen to include them in the classified annex. If they indeed represent genuine policy deliberations and decisions formulated to advance U.S. foreign policy and national security, one might be able to make a reasonable case that the facts are classified.

  • I learned from US officials that, on or around 14 May, the President instructed Vice President Mike Pence to cancel his planned travel to Ukraine to attend President Zelenskyy’s inauguration on May 20; Secretary of Energy Rick Perry led the delegation instead. According to these officials, it was also “made clear” to them that the President did not want to meet Mr. Zelenskyy until he saw how Zelenskyy “chose to act” in office. I do not know how this guidance was communicated, or by whom. I also do not know whether this action was connected with the broader understanding, described in the unclassified letter, that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to “play ball” on the issues that that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani.
  • On 18 July, an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official informed Departments and Agencies that the president “earlier that month” had issues instructions to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine. Neither OMB nor the NSC staff knew why this instruction had been issued. During interagency meetings on 23 July and 26 July, OMB officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistance had come directly from the President, but they were still unaware of policy rationale. As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukranian officials might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned from it.

Related posts

German government expands subsidies for electric cars | DW | 05.11.2019

admin2 admin2

Former federal prosecutors explain where the Epstein investigation goes now and dismiss ‘far-fetched’ conspiracy theories

admin2 admin2

Ted Cruz Outraged as Nike Yanks Controversial Flag Sneaker

admin2 admin2

Leave a Reply