• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Full Measure
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • "Slanted" Preorder here

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Benghazi
    • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
    • Fake News
    • Fast and Furious
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Obama Surveillance TL
    • Obamacare

Sharyl Attkisson

U.S. Space Force launches its first website: Spaceforce.mil

spaceforce.mil government website

The new website for the newly-created military branch The Space Force is live: spaceforce.mil.

Spaceforce.mil went up after President Donald Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act last week.

Approximately 16,000 active-duty soldiers and and civilians who were part of the military's Air Force Space Command have now been assigned to the Space Force.

What will the Space Force uniforms look like? According to administration officials, they haven't yet been designed, but that will come in the near future.

The following information is from the website:

U.S. SPACE FORCE FACT SHEET 
The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces. It was established on December 20, 2019 with enactment of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act and will be stood-up over the next 18 months. The USSF was established within the Department of the Air Force, meaning the Secretary of the Air Force has overall responsibility for the USSF, under the guidance and direction of the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, a four-star general known as the Chief of Space Operations (CSO) serves as the senior military member of the USSF. The CSO will be a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in December 2020. 

Mission 

The USSF is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands. 

Office of the Chief of Space Operations 

The Chief of Space Operations (CSO), U.S. Space Force, serves as the principal uniformed adviser to the Secretary of the Air Force on Space Force activities. The CSO presides over the Office of the Chief of Space Operations, transmits plans and recommendations to the Secretary of the Air Force and acts as the Secretary's agent in carrying them out.  

Space Force Organization 

The USSF Headquarters and Office of the CSO are located in the Pentagon, just like the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.  This staff will focus on establishing a fully-functioning headquarters; preparing to execute the full scope of its organize, train, and equip responsibilities; and, in conjunction with the U.S. Air Force, developing a detailed plan to transfer forces into the U.S. Space Force. As a new military service, the U.S. Space Force will leverage the Department of the Air force for more than 75 percent of its enabling functions to significantly reduce cost and avoid duplication. The DAF will provide support functions that includes logistics, base operating support, civilian personnel management, business systems, IT support, audit agencies, etc. 

People 

Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) was redesignated as the USSF as an initial step in establishing the USSF. Military members that were assigned to AFSPC have now been assigned to the USSF but remain Airmen within the U.S. Air Force.  Appropriate Air Force space-related personnel will transfer into the Space Force and become Space Force service members in a deliberate manner over the next 18 months. Over time, the DoD vision is to consolidate space missions from across the Armed Forces into the USSF, as appropriate and consistent with law. 

Space Capabilities 

The new, independent U.S. Space Force will maintain and enhance the competitive edge of the Department of Defense (DOD) in space while adapting to new strategic challenges. 

Spacelift operations at the East and West Coast launch bases provide services, facilities and range safety control for the conduct of DOD, NASA and commercial space launches. Through the command and control of all DOD satellites, satellite operators provide force-multiplying effects -- continuous global coverage, low vulnerability and autonomous operations. Satellites provide essential in-theater secure communications, weather and navigational data for ground, air and fleet operations and threat warning. 

Ground-based and space-based systems monitor ballistic missile launches around the world to guard against a surprise missile attack on North America. A global network of space surveillance sensors provide vital information on the location of satellites and space debris for the nation and the world. Maintaining space superiority is an emerging capability required to protect U.S. space assets from hostile attacks. 

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

History 

While the launch of the U.S. Space Force propels the United States into a new era, the Department of the Air Force has a proud history and long-standing record of providing the best space capabilities in the world. 

On Sept. 1, 1982, the Air Force established AFSPC, with space operations as its primary mission. Cold War-era space operations focused on missile warning, launch operations, satellite control, space surveillance and command and control for national leadership. In 1991, Operation DESERT STORM validated the command's continuing focus on support to the warfighter through the use of GPS to enable the famous “Left Hook,” proving the value of space-based capabilities.  

In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the president directed military action against Afghanistan and Iraq. AFSPC provided extensive space-based support to the U.S. Central Command commander in areas of communications; positioning, navigation and timing; meteorology; and warning. In 2005, the Air Force expanded its mission areas to include cyberspace. In concert with this, the Air Staff assigned responsibility for conducting cyberspace operations to AFSPC through Twenty-Fourth Air Force, which was activated in August 2009. 

In July 2018, the Air Force cyber mission transferred to Air Combat Command, which generated the greatest capacity for an integrated Information Warfare capability within the Air Force. This move allowed AFSPC to focus on gaining and maintaining space superiority and outpacing our adversaries in the space domain. 

With the enactment of the FY20 NDAA, AFSPC was re-designated the U.S. Space Force on Dec. 20, 2019, granting Title 10 authorization to the U.S. Space Force, established under the Department of the Air Force.  

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Sci-fi drinks for New Year's, anyone?

If you're a sci-fi fan, you might have noticed that aliens, humans and hybrids sometimes imbibe intriguing, intergalactic drinks.

New Scientist's Rowan Hooper recently looked at some of the specialities found in popular science fiction movies, such as "Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster," from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy described as "the best drink in existence."

Think of the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, created by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and described as the best drink in existence. No matter that drinking it is said to be “like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick”, I want to try it. Same with the intoxicating ambrosia enjoyed by the ragtag fleet of surviving humans in Battlestar Galactica.

Rowan Hooper, New Scientist

What are your favorite sci-fi food and drinks? Leave your comments below. And read more of the article by New Scientist, which "combines mixology with science fiction to produce recipes for the finest drinks in this – or any other – universe, from Bantha Milk to Ambrosia."

(Subscription to New Scientist required to read the entire article below:)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432611-400-from-star-wars-to-hitchhikers-how-to-make-the-best-drinks-in-sci-fi/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1576758317

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

REPORT: FBI investigating pardons granted by outgoing Kentucky governor

ABC Radio has an interesting report on the controversy over 11th hour pardons given by Kentucky's outgoing governor.

According to ABC Radio, the FBI is looking into the flurry of more than 400 pardons Republican Governor Matt Bevin granted after he was defeated in November before he resigned in December. Among those pardoned were reportedly convicted killers and child rapists.

According to ABC Radio, Bevin defended his pardons during an interview with radio station 840 WHAS: "Bevin said he'd made 'the most informed' decisions that he could after speaking to legal and law experts as well as advocates."

It's interesting when we look at our criminal justice system in America. … I don’t care what your ideology -- whether you're liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat -- we should want there to be integrity in the system."

Matt Bevin, former Kentucky governor

According to AP, after losing the governor's race to Democrat Andy Beshear in November, Bevin gave 428 pardons.

The family of one alleged killer who received a pardon reportedly raised $20,000 for Bevin's campaign, though Bevin says he did not personally know anyone he pardoned. The pardoned man maintained his innocence.

Read the entire article by clicking the link below:

https://talk1370.radio.com/articles/abc-news/former-kentucky-governor-defends-controversial-pardons-amid-news-of-an-fbi-probe

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Following the money with Congressional earmarks

The following is a story from "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson." Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.

Earmarks. Many say it’s a sneaky way Democrats and Republicans in Congress spend taxpayer dollars - on projects that benefit them - but may not be best for all of us. After much criticism, Republicans led the way to a ban on earmarks in 2011. But that doesn’t mean they were gone forever. Joce Sterman talks with Tom Schatz, the head of the watchdog: Citizens Against Government Waste.

Joce: What are earmarks? 

Tom Schatz: Earmarks are spending items added to appropriations bills outside of the normal budget process. An earmark is an item added by a member of Congress to an appropriations bill outside of the normal spending process, generally to help their district or state. Members vote for bills that they ordinarily wouldn’t vote for us so that they can get a small earmark of a few million dollars 

Joce: What do you see as egregious earmarks? Are there any off the top of your head that really stick out? 

Tom Schatz: There is $836,000 to eliminate the brown tree snakes in Guam, which yes it’s a US territory, but it’s really not a problem that affects the entire United States. There’s $9 million for to eradicate and quarantine fruit flies. $13 million for Save America’s treasures, which is used for local museums and theaters and opera houses in the past. Some of that money hasn’t even been used for its intended purpose. 

Joce: What do you see as the real harm of earmarks? 

Tom Schatz: Earmarks corrupted the entire budget process. In the early 2000s, members of Congress went to jail over earmarks. That is what eventually led to the moratorium that was adopted in 2010. $15.3 billion in earmarks in 2018 is more than it has ever been during the moratorium -- so it’s moving in the wrong direction. 

Joce: You talk about this moratorium - obviously there was an effort to eliminate these or at least limit the number of them. Why does it seem like they’re growing? 

Tom Schatz: Congress always finds ways to get around its own rules. Members of Congress are very creative in how they spend taxpayer's money. Joce: Some people would argue that this is what helps legislation get passed, but do you see this as greasing hands between powerful people? 

Tom Schatz: Members of Congress who get the earmarks are disproportionately on the appropriations committee. Members of the appropriations committees in the House and Senate, which comprise about 15% of the entire Congress - they got 51% of the earmarks and 61% of the money. It’s disproportionate, it’s unfair, and it’s corrupted. That's what's wrong with earmarks. 

This year, Republicans in the Senate made their self-imposed ban on earmarks permanent. Over in the House, some Democrats have pushed to restore them but at last word there wasn’t enough support to allow them again in 2020.

Watch the story by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/follow-the-money/follow-the-money-earmarks

POLL: Majority says Electoral College system is fair

The vast majority of respondents in the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com say the U.S. Electoral College system is "fair."

The Electoral College was established under the U.S. Constitution. The system has come under attack by some who say the president of the U.S. should be chosen based on the popular vote, instead. President Trump won an overwhelming electoral victory in 2016, but Hillary Clinton, his Democrat opponent, won the popular vote.

Some argue that if presidential elections were based on popular vote, it doesn't necessarily mean the same candidate would have won a popular vote victory because the candidates would campaign differently, focusing on different states and regions of the country.

Others argue the Electoral College system is outdated.

In our poll, 99% of those who responded would stick with the Electoral College.

Read the full results below. Meantime, be sure and vote in our latest poll at SharylAttkisson.com on the home page. Look for the black box in the right sidebar or scroll way down on the mobile site!

The Electoral College system is:

99% Fair

1% Unfair or outdated

>1% I don't know

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

4th Chicago mass shooting in 2019 (that some media aren't calling a "mass shooting")

There was another tragic mass shooting in Chicago over the weekend; at least the fourth one this year. However, most national media seem to be avoiding using the word "mass" to describe the latest shooting.

And it's part of a trend.

In the latest incident, 13 people were wounded-- four seriously-- at a memorial gathering on Sunday.

That's the most people injured in a single shooting event in the area than any time since at least 2013, according to The Chicago Tribune, when 13 people were shot in Back of the Yards. There were at least three other Chicago-area mass shootings in 2019, according to The Chicago Tribune. Last February, 45-year-old Gary Martin shot and killed five co-workers at the Henry Pratt Company plant in the Chicago area. This past August, there were two mass shootings during the same weekend in Chicago.

A Google search shows that some in the local Chicago news media, including The Chicago Tribune and abc7 Chicago, refer to this past weekend's mass shootings as "mass shootings" in their headlines. However, NPR, CBS News, the Washington Post and CNN omitted the word "mass" from their headlines.

Washington Post headline doesn't refer to "mass shooting."

USA Today referred to the shootings as "mass violence."

Google search shows national media omitting "mass shooting" from headlines.

Last August, many in the national media also omitted mention of two Chicago area "mass shootings" that happened during the same weekend as two non-Chicago mass shootings (for a total of four mass shootings in the same weekend.) In Chicago, dozens of people were wounded in two mass shootings less than three hours apart on August 4. The two non-Chicago mass shootings the same weekend happened in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

Aug. 5, 2019 report in Chicago referring to "two mass shootings."

Most national news media did not count or mention the two Chicago mass shootings when reporting on the two non-Chicago mass shootings.

For example, CNN reported there had been just two mass shootings, instead of four, over that August weekend.

CNN omits mention of two Chicago-area mass shootings the same weekend in August.

NBC also referred to "2 mass shootings in less than a day," leaving out the Chicago mass shootings. Vox and Forbes made the same omission.

The news media does not have a standard definition for what qualifies as a "mass shooting." Some reserve the term for use only when a certain number of people are killed in a shooting event.

CBS Channel 2 in Chicago recently looked into what qualifies as a "mass shooting." The television station reported on the standard used by left-leaning Mother Jones noting, "Mother Jones has been tracking mass shootings for years.  Originally it used the FBI’s standard definition: 'A mass shooting is a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed.” Then a 2013 federal mandate lowered that fatality threshold to three, and Mother Jones adjusted accordingly'."

The memorial service where this past weekend's Chicago shootings happened was being held for a 22-year old man who, himself, was shot and killed during an attempted carjacking last April.

From a pure accuracy standpoint, it's hard to argue that 13 people being shot does not qualify as a "mass shooting," even if nobody dies.

Read the story in Chicago Tribune by clicking the link below:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-englewood-11-wounded-shooting-20191222-mrad2j42ffenpawbh5yo4adzba-story.html

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

The Senate's "Secret Holds"

The following is a story from "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson." Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.

In the odd inner workings of Congress, there’s something called a “legislative hold.” It gives any individual senator the power to stop a nominee or a bill— put a hold on them. The idea is to encourage negotiations between those for and against. But sometimes the Senator making the hold keeps his name secret. Senator Chuck Grassley tells why he’s been trying for a decade to stop the secrecy.

Sen. Grassley: So why do you put a hold on? Lot of times, people put a hold on because they want to negotiate something, or they want to use it as a lever to get something else. So I use holds, but I've always put a statement in the record of why I'm putting a hold on an individual nominee or a bill. So people know who it is, come and talk to Chuck Grassley and I'll tell you what the problems is I've got. And you can negotiate then, whatever you want to negotiate.

Sharyl: What is a secret hold? 

Sen. Grassley: Well, a secret hold is when you put a hold on, you don't want anybody to know about it. So don't you think the public's business ought to be public? Well, if it's going to be secret, how's anybody know why you're holding it. Maybe they do it for a reason that's not a very good reason. So it's secret. 

Some important secret holds have gotten a lot of attention over the years. One senator’s secret hold killed a new Whistleblower bill to protect federal employees reporting corruption. And an unnamed senator temporarily blocked a cost of living increase for disabled veterans and their survivors. With the names of the holding Senators kept anonymous, it’s impossible for other Senators know their reasoning or negotiate a compromise. 

So in 2011, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden successfully led a bipartisan effort to ban secret holds —starting in 2013. A new rule said that all Senators must disclose their names and reasoning in the Congressional record within two days of making a hold. 

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): The fact is that this resolution deals with a sweeping, almost unparalleled power. If you want to exercise that extraordinary power, you ought to do it in the sunlight.

But Grassley says after all this time, Senators today are routinely ignoring the ban on secret holds. 

Sen. Grassley: Eight years later, it happens every day that people put a hold on a bill or a nominee and don't put their statement in the public record. We need these rules enforced in the leadership of the Republican and Democratic Party ought to be enforcing these rules. 

Grassley has gone so far as to chide the secret holders on the Senate floor. 

Sen. Grassley: The rules of the senate require all senators that put a hold on a nomination or a bill within 2 days after doing that to put something in the record, and most Senators aren’t following that rule of the Senate. If you’ve got some disagreement about something and you put a secret hold on and somebody ought to sit down and wants to talk to you and see what’s wrong, how are they gonna know who it is? 

Senators Grassley and Wyden have now issued a letter to colleagues reminding them they’re required to identify themselves if they hold up a nomination or a bill. 

Sharyl: Why does that matter to the American public? 

Sen. Grassley: It ought to matter to the American public because, number one, the public's business ought to be public. And when you're trying to pass legislation and it's not getting passed, and somebody's holding it up, and you don't even know who's holding it up, then really the public's business isn't public. Just people to sit down and talk to each other is a very necessary process of getting the United States functioning as a legislative deliberating body it has a reputation for being.

By the way, only four senators, all Republicans, originally voted to keep secret holds back in 2011.

In the odd inner workings of Congress, there’s something called a “legislative hold.” It gives any individual senator the power to stop a nominee or a bill— put a hold on them. The idea is to encourage negotiations between those for and against. But sometimes the Senator making the hold keeps his name secret. Senator Chuck Grassley tells why he’s been trying for a decade to stop the secrecy.

Sen. Grassley: So why do you put a hold on? Lot of times, people put a hold on because they want to negotiate something, or they want to use it as a lever to get something else. So I use holds, but I've always put a statement in the record of why I'm putting a hold on an individual nominee or a bill. So people know who it is, come and talk to Chuck Grassley and I'll tell you what the problems is I've got. And you can negotiate then, whatever you want to negotiate.

Sharyl: What is a secret hold? 

Sen. Grassley: Well, a secret hold is when you put a hold on, you don't want anybody to know about it. So don't you think the public's business ought to be public? Well, if it's going to be secret, how's anybody know why you're holding it. Maybe they do it for a reason that's not a very good reason. So it's secret. 

Some important secret holds have gotten a lot of attention over the years. One senator’s secret hold killed a new Whistleblower bill to protect federal employees reporting corruption. And an unnamed senator temporarily blocked a cost of living increase for disabled veterans and their survivors. With the names of the holding Senators kept anonymous, it’s impossible for other Senators know their reasoning or negotiate a compromise. 

So in 2011, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden successfully led a bipartisan effort to ban secret holds —starting in 2013. A new rule said that all Senators must disclose their names and reasoning in the Congressional record within two days of making a hold. 

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): The fact is that this resolution deals with a sweeping, almost unparalleled power. If you want to exercise that extraordinary power, you ought to do it in the sunlight.

But Grassley says after all this time, Senators today are routinely ignoring the ban on secret holds. 

Sen. Grassley: Eight years later, it happens every day that people put a hold on a bill or a nominee and don't put their statement in the public record. We need these rules enforced in the leadership of the Republican and Democratic Party ought to be enforcing these rules. 

Grassley has gone so far as to chide the secret holders on the Senate floor. 

Sen. Grassley: The rules of the senate require all senators that put a hold on a nomination or a bill within 2 days after doing that to put something in the record, and most Senators aren’t following that rule of the Senate. If you’ve got some disagreement about something and you put a secret hold on and somebody ought to sit down and wants to talk to you and see what’s wrong, how are they gonna know who it is? 

Senators Grassley and Wyden have now issued a letter to colleagues reminding them they’re required to identify themselves if they hold up a nomination or a bill. 

Sharyl: Why does that matter to the American public? 

Sen. Grassley: It ought to matter to the American public because, number one, the public's business ought to be public. And when you're trying to pass legislation and it's not getting passed, and somebody's holding it up, and you don't even know who's holding it up, then really the public's business isn't public. Just people to sit down and talk to each other is a very necessary process of getting the United States functioning as a legislative deliberating body it has a reputation for being.

By the way, only four senators, all Republicans, originally voted to keep secret holds back in 2011.

Watch the story by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/secret-holds

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

FBI official gets short jail sentence for spying on U.S. citizen

Former FBI analys Mark Tolson
From: Facebook

An FBI official who illegally spied on a political rival to Special Counsel Robert Mueller will serve a week in jail.

The sentence came Friday after 60-year old Mark Tolson, then an FBI analyst, admitted illegally accessing the computer of a political rival of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in October 2018 during the investigation into President Trump. That rival was a Washington lobbyist Jack Burkman.

Tolson also admitting sending the victim's personal information to a journalist, who did not act on it.

Tolson argued he was motivated to conduct the illegal act because he wanted to protect Mueller. Burkman was said to be planning a news conference to raise sexual harassment allegations against Mueller.

However, prosecutors took issue with Tolson's claim that he was just trying to protect Mueller from what he thought were false accusations. They argued that if Tolson had simply wanted to protect Mueller, he would have brought the information he retrieved from spying on Burkman to the FBI first; not a reporter.

Tolson's wife also helped in the scheme by providing some information. She had conducted work for Burkman in the past.

Tolson's wife was not charged.

This is actually a very serious offense. You’re lucky. Your wife is lucky. The government could have prosecuted her as well.

Leonie Brinkema, U.S. District Court Judge, speaking to Defendant Tolson

Burkman claims that "others at the FBI" used the material Tolson turned over to obtain wiretaps against Burkman and blogger Jacob Wohl. Burkman says he plans to file suit against Tolson in federal court.

What a disgrace our judicial system is. Mark Tolson gets 7 days. Can you imagine the jail time he would have gotten if I were a liberal?

The good news is that we will be suing him in federal court for extensive damages.

— Jack Burkman (@Jack_Burkman) December 20, 2019

Read more in the Washington Examiner by clicking the link below:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/20/mark-tolson-former-fbi-analyst-sentenced-for-acces/

Read more in a Politico article by Josh Gerstein by clicking the link below:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/20/ex-fbi-official-mark-tolson-jail-088787

Thank you to the thousands who are supporting the landmark case of Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Comments

  • Mickey Pullen on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Mike Marinak on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Debunking “The Hotchkiss Republicans Report” - The Hotchkiss Record on "Collusion against Trump" timeline

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Subscribe to SharylAttkisson.com

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Ad

Ad