Support Our Journalism

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Politics National News World Economy Lifestyle Store

Tag: assault

Presidential Immunity Plus Pardon Power Equals Absolute Despotism

Donald Trump’s pardons of January 6 insurrectionists on his first day as president in January of this year were an admission that he instigated the assault on the Capitol, and that he approved of the way the assault was carried out, including violent attacks on police officers resulting in at least one death and leaving others with career-ending injuries.

Looked at in a different way, Trump thus pardoned himself, even though such an action was not necessary due to the incredible law-busting fact that the Supreme Court, in United States v. Trump had given him blanket immunity for virtually anything he does or did that could be defined as an “official act.”

Trump has been using the toxic combination of immunity and the pardon power in a crescendo of lawlessness that was unforeseen by the founding fathers at the time they wrote the Constitution. It’s the biggest fuck you to our democracy since its founding. In his disassembly of whole departments of government that were established in laws written by the Congress, Trump is saying to the other two branches of government, “If you don’t like it, come and get me.”

The Republican Congress, at this point a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump and the Trump Organization, has sat on its hands, and individual Republican members of Congress, including the speaker of the House, have endorsed Trump’s rape of the government. Congressional Republicans, as well as conservative members of the judiciary, adhere to a royalist theory of presidential power called the unitary executive, which holds that Trump, as president, has sole authority over the executive branch, including the right to fire all appointees and executive branch officers, with or without cause.

Since taking office for a second time, Trump has tested the limits of his executive power repeatedly, eliminating entire divisions of the government such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and firing directors of Congressionally created agencies that had previously been considered independent of the Executive.

Last week, the Supreme Court adopted Trump’s position on his powers by issuing an order allowing him to fire board members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merits Systems Protection Board. The top court paused lower court orders that had allowed the two board officials to continue to serve while a lawsuit they filed makes its way through the courts. The lower courts observed that under the congressional statute establishing the boards, its members could be fired only for “good cause,” and the administration had not provided such cause.

Trump’s unilateral moves in firing government employees and disestablishing government departments have been stymied by the courts multiple times. A report by Adam Bonica on his Substack, “On Data and Democracy,” found that during the month of May, “federal district courts ruled against the Trump administration in 26 of 27 cases—a stunning 96% loss rate.” Trump lost 76 percent of the cases against him in April, and 74 percent in March.

Yesterday, Trump added to his court losses when he suffered a stinging rebuke by a federal judge who found that his moves to punish the WilmerHale law firm were unconstitutional. Other judges have struck down Trump’s similar moves against Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. Trump had issued orders against the law firms blocking their access to federal buildings and representing clients in lawsuits involving contracts with the federal government. Trump asserted his “right” to punish these law firms and several others because of his absolute control over the federal government.

What Donald Trump has done with his 140-plus executive orders and his attempts to punish law firms and other independent businesses such as CBS and entertainment companies has been to assert authoritarian control not only over the government, but over companies that do business with the government or are subject to government regulation. This is an unprecedented assertion of presidential power. So far, the only check on Trump has been lawsuits filed one after the other by individuals, businesses, and universities affected by Trump’s orders.

Courts have rejected the great majority of Trump’s attempts at absolute control, but as the lawsuits make their way through the courts, they all have one ultimate destination: the Supreme Court. Trump appointed three arch-conservative justices to a court already dominated by Republican-appointed justices. The Supreme Court has gone back and forth with its recent orders on its “emergency docket,” ordering that migrants have rights under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and ordering the return of at least one migrant who was wrongfully deported by Trump’s Department of Homeland Security.

But the court has so far failed to enforce its own order to return the mistakenly deported migrant KIlmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador. So far, no court has found the Trump administration in contempt of court, but legal experts predict that such an order is inevitable in multiple cases because of the Trump administration’s refusal or inability to provide legal justification for many of the moves they have made.

If and when such a contempt order is issued against one or more of Trump’s departments, we have been told that the United States will be in the first real constitutional crisis of its history. In the past, as in the Pentagon Papers case, and in the Watergate case in which Nixon was ordered by a federal judge to produce the White House tapes, the president then in power capitulated to the court orders and a crisis was avoided.

But this time, the president in office enjoys something Nixon and other presidents never had: absolute immunity from prosecution from his acts as president. Trump also enjoys the power given him under the Constitution to pardon anyone for committing any crime. Last Friday, Trump issued a full and unconditional pardon to a man who had been convicted of several tax crimes that charged him with using his unpaid taxes to finance a lavish lifestyle and buy luxury goods, including a $2 million yacht.

The pardon was issued after the man’s mother attended a $1 million-a-head Mar a Lago fund raiser at which she spoke to Trump personally. She had been a major Republican fund raiser in the past and had contributed to Trump’s election effort in 2024, co-hosting at least three fund-raisers for Trump. In a very real sense, the mother of this tax-cheat bought a pardon for her son by paying Donald Trump directly.

Yesterday, Trump pardoned a Virginia sheriff who had been convicted on multiple counts of bribery for accepting “cash-stuffed envelopes” from wealthy people he provided with badges. appointing them as bogus “auxiliary sheriffs,” that allowed them to break the law. Along with other sheriffs, he had formed a “Protect America Now PAC” to support Trump. The sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for his crimes. The pardon was overseen by Ed Martin, newly appointed as Trump’s “pardon attorney” in the Department of Justice in addition to being put in charge of the DOJ office of “weaponization,” intended to undo actions by the Biden administration the DOJ sees as unfairly punishing MAGA supporters of Trump.

Pardoning random MAGA supporters and people Trump wants to reward for giving him money is the least of it. The real problem is Trump’s ability to pardon anyone he orders to commit a crime in his name. For example, if a judge ends up finding an assistant U.S. Attorney in contempt of court and orders him or her fined, Trump can issue a pardon and negate the contempt finding. This will allow the Trump DOJ to go into court and lie to judges with impunity, knowing that they will suffer no consequences as long as the lies they tell are in support of Trump’s illegal actions being challenged in court.

The same would go for anyone working for Trump in his administration. If Trump orders one of his cabinet secretaries to defy a court order, or to execute an illegal act such as administratively fining a government employee for some imagined crime such as signing a document refusing to carry out an illegal order, he can simply order Pam Bondi and his DOJ not to prosecute whoever is involved. At the end of his administration, Trump can issue blanket pardons that will prevent a new administration from prosecuting crimes carried out under Trump’s orders today.

Trump’s pardons are being called “get out of jail free” cards, but they’re worse than that. By preemptively ordering that certain people not be prosecuted, they will never be charged, much less come to trial and be convicted. As he has shown with his two most recent pardons, Trump can nullify prosecutions which predated his return to office, turning the Department of Justice into an office of revenge and retribution unseen before in American history and certainly not contemplated by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, who asserted in the name of the 13 colonies and their citizens that the corruption of royal rule was being thrown off in contemplation of something better.

Speaking of the rights of “the people,” the signers declared that “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We have entered into a new age of “absolute Despotism.” Whether we will throw off those who would impose upon us such “abuses and usurpations” as we have endured for the last four months remains to be seen.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

Monsters Inc.: The Unconscionable White House Assault On Abrego Garcia

Passover began this past weekend with the traditional meal and discussion known as the “seder.”

“Seder” means order, and the meal requires a precise liturgy unchanged for thousands of years. (The English translation has undergone a few rewrites to soften up the edges of what is a fairly martial story.) I was struck, as I hadn't been previously, by the following line recited during the breaking of the middle matzoh: “For the sake of our redemption, we say together the ancient words which join us with our people and with all who are in need, with the wrongly imprisoned and the beggar in the street.”

The reference to the "wrongly imprisoned” this weekend of course brought immediately to mind Kilmar Abrego Garcia, now residing in a hellhole gulag due entirely to his wrongful, mistaken deportation by the United States. I have previously analyzed the rank lawlessness and unconstitutionality of his abduction by the Trump Administration. And last Thursday, a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed that the Constitution requires the government to facilitate his release from custody in El Salvador

The Administration filed its latest response in the case on Sunday. It is a model of disingenuousness and arrogant contempt. The response simply ignores Judge Paula Xinis’s demand to explain what steps the government has taken—or contemplates taking—to reverse the deep injustice. It goes on to misconstrue the Supreme Court order, replacing the Court’s affirmation of Judge Xinis’s command to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return with a made-up distinction between 1) steps to remove domestic obstacles that impede his return (there are none), and 2) any efforts whatsoever to effect Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.

The supposed distinction tracks neither what the Supreme Court ordered nor the law. On the contrary, it mangles the Court’s opinion in what could only have been a purposeful way. The DOJ filing asserts that the Court ordered it to take “all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia.” But in fact, the Court expressly held that Xinis’s order “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.” It would have been a cynical and empty judicial command had it been limited to removing domestic obstacles to his return—whatever that even means.

Yes, there must be limits to the judiciary’s ability to nudge the Executive where the commands transgress demonstrable national security prerogatives, and those limits could be reached if El Salvador flatly refused to cooperate. Here, though, nobody with any sophistication doubts that El Salvadoran President Bukele will leap to do exactly what he thinks will please the U.S. president.

(In fact, an easy face-saving way out of the Abrego Garcia mess for the United States would be for President Bukele to announce today that, in his sovereign mercy, he is returning Abrego Garcia to the United States. If that happens, no one should be fooled: Bukele is a two-bit dictator who will do exactly what he thinks—or is told—Trump wants.)

The Administration’s filing sets the stage for a showdown with Judge Xinis on Tuesday, when she can be expected to excoriate DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign and demand actual answers and a good-faith showing that they’ve tried to comply with the order the Supreme Court affirmed.

But I want to focus today not on the patent lawlessness of the Department’s response but on its monstrousness. From the moment this grievous mistake was revealed, the Administration’s prevailing view about the ultimate Kafkaesque nightmare they have imposed has been a mixture of indifference and enthusiasm.

Thus, Trump, Attorney General Bondi, Vice President Vance, and immigration czar Homan have all trotted out versions of the argument that the "administrative error” is insignificant because Abrego Garcia belongs in the El Salvador Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) anyway.

Vance argued, completely falsely, that Abrego Garcia was a “convicted MS-13 gang member,” when in fact he has never been convicted of that crime or any other in the United States. We’ve learned Vance was jumping to conclusions based on a stray suggestion from a confidential informant.

Bondi tried to deflect responsibility for the mistake onto immigration authorities. When a DOJ attorney acknowledged in court that the detention was an error—which was the only answer the attorney could have given consistent with his duty of candor to the court, and an answer the U.S. had already acknowledged—Bondi placed him and his supervisor on administrative leave for failing “to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States.”

Trump most recently has asserted that Abrego Garcia is in the "sole custody of El Salvador" and that his return is therefore "up to President Bukele and his government.”

This contention is at best highly misleading, and designed to frustrate Judge Xinis, who has current control of Abrego Garcia's case with the support of a unanimous mandate from the Supreme Court to “require” the Government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release.

It is preposterous to argue—and the Administration has done nothing to show—that it would be anything other than a light lift to secure Abrego Garcia's release with a simple request to Bukele, who is due to visit the White House today. And the Court, in effect, has required the Administration to undertake that light lift, and not to try to play games with national security assertions that are really beside the point.

Again, though—bogus legal assertions aside—it is stunning that the Administration remains so committed to not remedying its own grave error. Its bullheaded, reflexive position is basically: “Oh well, so we made a mistake, but there’s nothing to be done about it.”

This stance is a grotesque rejection of the most fundamental axiom of the rule of law and civilized society.

Here is how one eminent American jurist put it: “[i]f the rule of law is not the same for everyone, then it is not the rule of law.” His colleague echoed the sentiment when he proclaimed that equal justice under law “means that every person, regardless of wealth or power or station, is entitled to the same fair process.”

As the passage in the Seder makes plain, this recognition—far more than a precept of American law—is an axiom in the Judeo-Christian tradition, central to the rule of law everywhere it exists. It is firmly endorsed in the writings of the Founders. Ben Franklin is the source of the famous maxim: better one hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.

Consider that idea, and the recognition of the ultimate horror of punishing the innocent that it encapsulates. Franklin is asserting—and his assertion has become talismanic—that a high cost to public safety and justice is better than the conviction of a single innocent. How much worse, then, is the summary delivery to barbaric life imprisonment of a man who should never have been rounded up in the first place?

The Administration has stood the Franklin adage on its head, changing it to something like: it is great that 100 persons we think are guilty should suffer, but greater still that 100 guilty persons and one innocent person suffer.

The U.S. government is ostensibly our government—a government of the people. Exercising power in our name, the president has brought shame upon all Americans with his embrace of a paradigmatic injustice, coupled with the lie that letting an innocent man rot in prison is a foreign policy imperative against which the law, the Constitution, and fundamental morality all must give way.

The coming test in the Supreme Court will pit first principles of justice and human decency against an arid claim that the intonation of the words “foreign affairs” or “national security” is a license for evil. As it did unanimously last week, the Court must stand firm against that grotesque assertion.

By the way, the names of the eminent jurist and colleague who so firmly recognized the principle that requires the return of Abrego Garcia: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice (and Trump appointee) Brett Kavanaugh.

Talk to you later.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Would-Be Despot Trump Renews His Assault On Press Freedom

"The press freedom fire is at our door step now," said one Washington Post journalist on Thursday night after news broke that two months before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office, he has already begun to wage legal warfare against on the news media.

The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) reported that days before the election, a lawyer for Trump, Edward Andrew Paltzik, sent a letter to The New York Times and Penguin Random House demanding $10 billion in damages for publishing articles and a book that were critical of the president-elect, who was convicted of 34 felony counts earlier this year.

Trump's legal team took issue with a book by Times journalists Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner titled Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. They also said they were demanding damages over "false and defamatory statements" in the October 20 article "For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment" by Peter Baker and the October 22 piece "As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator" by Michael Schmidt.

The former article covered numerous wrongdoings by the president-elect and accusations against him, pointing out that he "is the only president in American history impeached twice for high crimes and misdemeanors, the only president ever indicted on criminal charges, and the only president to be convicted of a felony (34, in fact)," and that he has also boasted about sexually assaulting women and spearheaded numerous businesses that went bankrupt.

The latter article detailed comments by Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly, who told the Times that the definition of fascism accurately describes Trump.

The president-elect himself said while campaigning that he planned to govern as a dictator only on "Day One" of his term in office.

"Governments and powerful figures threatening journalists and media outlets with costly legal battles and bankruptcy is a common tactic against press freedom in repressive countries."

Paltzik told the newspaper that the articles demonstrate the Times' "intention of defaming and disparaging the world-renowned Trump brand that consumers have long associated with excellence, luxury, and success in entertainment, hospitality, and real estate, among many other industries, as well as falsely and maliciously defaming and disparaging him as a candidate for the highest office in the United States."

The CJR reported that the Times responded to Paltzik's letter, telling him the newspaper stood by its reporting on Trump.

As Barry Malone, deputy editor-in-chief of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, said on social media on Friday, Trump's legal threats may be designed not to actually win billions of dollars in damages but "to tie the media up with time-consuming and often prohibitively expensive cases."

The Times and Penguin Random House threats were reported two weeks after Trump suedCBS News for another $10 billion, claiming an interview with Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost the November 5 election, was unfairly edited to present her in a positive light and qualified as "election interference."

CBS said it would "vigorously defend" its journalistic practices and called the lawsuit "completely without merit"—a similar response to the one by The Washington Post, which was accused by Trump on the same day of making an illegal in-kind donation to Harris.

Anne Champion, an attorney who has represented several journalists and CNN in legal cases initiated by Trump, told the CJR that the legal threats will likely have "a mental chilling effect" on reporters and news outlets in the United States as Trump prepares to take office.

"It is both conscious and unconscious," said Champion. "Journalists at smaller outlets know very well that the costs for their organization to defend themselves could mean bankruptcy. Even journalists at larger outlets don't want to burden themselves or their employees with lawsuits. It puts another layer of influence into the journalistic process."

Trump has a longstanding disdain for the media, saying numerous times during his first term that journalists were the "enemy of the people." During one campaign rally just before the election he said he wouldn't "mind" if reporters at the event were shot, and he called the media the "enemy camp" during his victory speech last week.

During his first term he also threatened to "take a strong look at our country's libel laws"—which are actually controlled by states, not the federal government—and ensure that "when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts."

The American Civil Liberties Union pointed out at the time that the First Amendment and the lack of federal libel laws would stand in Trump's way, but on Thursday Lachlan Cartwright wrote at CJR that "the drumbeat of legal threats signals a potentially ominous trend for journalists during Trump's second term in office."

As Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah noted on the social media platform Bluesky, "governments and powerful figures threatening journalists and media outlets with costly legal battles and bankruptcy is a common tactic against press freedom in repressive countries."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

The RNC's Impending Coronation Of Trump Reveals Its Degeneracy

Donald Trump does not have to be the Republican nominee for president of the United States.

No, the man who has been found guilty of 34 felonies in New York state, a twice-impeached former president, liable for a multimillion-dollar judgment for sexually assaulting and defaming a woman, who has placed retribution at the top of his agenda for a second term and promises to be a dictator on Day 1, doesn’t have to be a lock for the top spot as the GOP tries to recapture the White House.

But he is.

There is no suspense, even though there is more than a month before the Republican convention begins July 15 — just days after the world hears Trump’s sentence on July 11 for those felonies, and not long after a June 27 debate in which Trump, based on past performance, will spend a fair amount of time insisting without evidence that he won in 2020.

But his fans are loud and proud of their guy, no matter what 12 ordinary Americans and anyone else have decided. Heck, do they even consider Manhattanites American?

Donald Trump and the person Trump chooses for the second spot — someone who has debased himself or herself the most in the humiliating veepstakes now underway — will take the stage at that Milwaukee convention to thunderous applause.

On that, I will bet the house. That’s because the Republican Party has already made its choice — a man instead of a country.

The traditions Americans profess to hold dear, including respect for the rule of law, apparently mean nothing if they stand in the way of him taking control. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden can head straight to jail, no trial needed.

One incident embodies the party’s transformation.

In the not-that-long-ago past, a statement from former Maryland governor and current GOP Senate nominee Larry Hogan would have been the template for anyone from any party. Before the verdict in Trump’s New York state trial was announced, Hogan posted on X: “Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. … We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.”

The answer from Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign: “You just ended your campaign.” Lara Trump, Republican National Committee co-chair, Trump daughter-in-law and someone with some control over RNC purse strings, added her own comments on CNN: Hogan “doesn’t deserve the respect of anyone in the Republican Party at this point and, quite frankly, anybody in America, if that’s the way you feel.”

With others in his party denouncing the U.S. justice system and repeating every Trump lie about how he wasn’t allowed to testify in his trial and more, Hogan’s hardly incendiary words did indeed register as an outlier.

That Trump acolytes left someone who could swing party Senate control hanging out to dry is telling. That some of the former president’s supporters are already making threats against the jurors, the judge and district attorney is dangerous.

It didn’t have to be this way.

All those Republicans who made a case against the president, who tried to take the lead and perhaps lead the party away from someone who elevates strongmen in North Korea and Hungary as role models, did not have to just give up.

Where did they all go — Nikki Haley, who was getting votes in primary races long after she dropped out, or Sens. Tim Scott and Ted Cruz, former Trump opponents who once promoted a different way forward? Back to Trump, of course. Risking the support of a base that goes along with whatever Trump plans to do became a step too far for anyone who wants a future in that Republican Party.

I wonder what those veterans traveling this week to Normandy to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landing think of a U.S. contemplating giving up on allies, as Trump and several congressional Republicans repeating his bad-mouthing of NATO threaten to do. The right to criticize is one thing they fought for — but abandonment?

One of them, D-Day veteran Harold Terens, told NBC, “I believe that freedom and democracy are definitely under threat.” Now, why do I think that at 100 years old, he would be a more reliable defender of democracy than someone who has disparaged military veterans with nary a peep from party members?

What won’t we hear at the July convention?

Congressional Republicans won’t be able to crow about bills passed, since committee meetings to bark accusations at Attorney General Merrick Garland or Dr. Anthony Fauci are the only agenda items that matter. Eleven senators have signed a letter promising to obstruct bipartisan progress because of the New York state case against their leader. And Speaker Mike Johnson is leading calls for the Republican House majority to investigate Trump’s investigators.

Nothing new there.

What we haven’t heard many people say is that he didn’t do it — whatever he is accused of doing. It’s usually just excuses that whatever it was, it wasn’t that bad, or someone else did worse.

In his post-trial press conference, the one where he did not take questions but ranted about being a victim, Trump gave a preview of what is to come. That alone should have triggered some self-reflection: Is this the guy we want to represent us? Is this the America we want to see?

Will Democrats ask themselves similar questions at their own Chicago gathering in August before their inevitable nomination of the incumbent, with some having doubts? Of course. But neither President Biden nor any candidate from any party has ever made denying the result of an election or attacking the U.S. justice system a litmus test.

This summer, one convention will more closely resemble a coronation in a country that overthrew its king, with party members who hedge when asked if they will accept the results in November, for whom the Constitution is a mere suggestion.

Who knew “Mad” King George III would get the last laugh?

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call.

Mary C. Curtis has worked at The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, The Charlotte Observer, as national correspondent for Politics Daily, and is a senior facilitator with The OpEd Project. She is host of the CQ Roll Call "Equal Time with Mary C. Curtis" podcast. Follow her on X @mcurtisnc3.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

World

        About The National Memo
    
The National Memo is a political newsletter and website that combines the spirit of investigative journalism with new technology and ideas. We cover campaigns, elections, the White House, Congress, and the world with a fresh outlook. Our own journalism — as well as our selections of the smartest stories available every day — reflects a clear and strong perspective, without the kind of propaganda, ultra-partisanship and overwrought ideology that burden so much of our political discourse.
TAGS

Created By

RebelMouse

About Masthead Terms of Service Privacy Statement Advertise Contact

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Presidential Immunity Plus Pardon Power Equals Absolute Despotism

Monsters Inc.: The Unconscionable White House Assault On Abrego Garcia

Would-Be Despot Trump Renews His Assault On Press Freedom

The RNC's Impending Coronation Of Trump Reveals Its Degeneracy

Shop our Store

Constitution Cork Coaster

Democracy Mug

Make America Think Again Hat

Constitution Rocks Glass

Headlines

Fox News Ignores Trump Bill's Threat To End Health Care For Millions

Elon Dumping Don Dumping Elon: Unseemly Or Delicious?

Bannon Urges Trump To Investigate, Defund And Deport Musk

New Data Show Trump Tariffs Are Ruining Job Market

Editor's Blog

Besides Food Dyes, What Endangers Children's Health? Bobby's Hypocrisy

At First HHS Press Conference, Kennedy Enrages Autism Families With Falsehoods

Brilliant Tariff Strategy Or Market Manipulation? We Report, You Decide

In Trump's Hands, Absolute Power Brings Inevitable Catastrophe

Corona Virus