Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax billNew Foto - Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill

WASHINGTON −President Donald Trumpis lashing out at Republican Sen. Rand Paul, saying his own constituents "can't stand him" over the Kentucky senator's continued opposition tohis tax and domestic policy billthat Trump and GOP leaders are trying to push through the Senate this month. Trump targeted Paul in back-to-back June 3 posts on Truth Social, just minutes after Paul discussed his opposition in a morning appearance on Fox Business by arguing the president's so-called "big, beautiful bill" will increase the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. "Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming,"Trump wrote. "He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!" More:Trump's big tax bill moves ahead to potential changes in the Senate Five minutes later,Trump added in a second post: "Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!). The people of Kentucky can't stand him. This is a BIG GROWTH BILL!" The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill, which looks to cement the president's domestic agenda, would add$3.8 trillionto the national debt over the next 10 years. Trump has said he wants Congress to approve the legislation and get it to his desk by July 4after the House voted for the bill along party lineslast month. More:Sen. Rand Paul dismisses GOP budget bill's spending cuts as 'wimpy and anemic' Republican leaders are trying to pass the Senate bill through a filibuster-proof budget process known as reconciliation. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, implement new tax breaks for tipped wages and overtime, overhaul Medicaid and food stamps and put more money toward Trump's immigrant deportation plan. Paul,in the Fox Business interview, pointed to spending proposals for $175 billion on border enforcement and a $150 billion increase for the military. He said it would offset the cutsthe Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiencymade in the group's push to cut the government. "Something doesn't really add up here,"Paul said. "And I can't be on record as being one who supports increasing the debt by $5 trillion. I think that's irresponsible." Trump warned Paul in a May 31 Truth Social postthat he would be "playing right into the hands of the Democrats"if he votes against the bill. Paul, who has also criticized Trump's aggressive use of tariffs,said on CBS' Face the Nation on June 1that he recently spoke to Trump. "I had a very good conversation with the president this week about tariffs. He did most of the talking, and we don't agree exactly on the outcome." Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning Trump can lose no more than three Republican senators to pass the bill if no Democrats cross the aisle to support the legislation. In addition to Republicans like Paul worried about the deficit, Trump must alsoease concerns over potential changesto Medicaid voiced by Republican Sens.Susan Collins of Maineand Josh Hawley of Missouri. The bill would cut $625 billion from the low-income health care program while pushing an estimated 7.6 million Americans off coverage, in part by implementing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without children. Other senators such as Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; John Curtis, R-Utah; and Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, are worried about the package rolling back renewable energy tax credits implemented under Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act that their states' businesses have benefited from. Contributing: Riley Beggin Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to tax bill

Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill

Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill WASHINGTON −President Donald Trumpis lashing out at Republican Sen. Rand ...
Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the statesNew Foto - Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — PresidentDonald Trumpand congressional Republicans have made it a priority this year to require people to prove citizenship before they can register to vote. Turning that aspiration into reality has proved difficult. Trump'sexecutive orderdirecting a documentary,proof-of-citizenship requirementfor federal elections has beenblockedby a judge, whilefederal legislationto accomplish it doesn't appear to have the votes to pass in the Senate. At the same time, state-level efforts have found little success, even in places where Republicans control the legislature and governor's office. The most recent state effort to falter is in Texas, where a Senate bill failed to gain full legislative approval before lawmakers adjourned on Monday. The Texas bill was one of the nation's most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals because it would have applied not only to new registrants but also to the state's roughly 18.6 million registered voters. "The bill authors failed spectacularly to explain how this bill would be implemented and how it would be able to be implemented without inconveniencing a ton of voters," said Anthony Gutierrez, director of the voting rights group Common Cause Texas. Voting by noncitizens is rare Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and punishable as a felony, potentially leading to deportation, but Trump and his allies have pressed for aproof-of-citizenship mandateby arguing it would improve public confidence in elections. Before his win last year, Trumpfalsely claimednoncitizensmight votein large enough numbers tosway the outcome. Although noncitizen voting does occur, research andreviews of state caseshas shown itto be rareand more often a mistake. Voting rights groups say the various proposals seeking to require proof-of-citizenship areoverly burdensomeand threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Many do not have easy access to their birth certificates, have not gotten a U.S. passport or have a name that no longer matches the one on their birth certificate — such as women who changed their last name when they married. Married women who changed names are a particular concern The number of states considering bills related to proof of citizenship for voting tripled from 2023 to this year, said Liz Avore, senior policy adviser with the Voting Rights Lab, an advocacy group that tracks election legislation in the states. That hasn't resulted in many new laws, at least so far. Republicans in Wyoming passed their own proof-of-citizenship legislation, but similar measures have stalled or failed in multiple GOP-led states, including Florida, Missouri, Texas and Utah. A proposal remains active in Ohio, although Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he doesn't want to sign any more bills that make it harder to vote. In Texas, the legislation swiftly passed the state Senate after it was introduced in March but never made it to a floor vote in the House. It was unclear why legislation that was such a priority for Senate Republicans – every one of them co-authored the bill -- ended up faltering. "I just think people realized, as flawed as this playbook has been in other states, Texas didn't need to make this mistake," said Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House elections committee. Bucy pointed to specific concerns about married women who changed their last name. This surfaced in local elections earlier this yearin New Hampshire, which passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement last year. Similar laws have created confusion Other states that previously sought to add such a requirement have faced lawsuits and complications when trying to implement it. In Arizona, a state audit found that problems with the way data was handled had affected the tracking and verification of residents' citizenship status. It came after officials had identifiedsome 200,000 voterswho were thought to have provided proof of their citizenship but had not. A proof-of-citizenship requirement was in effect for three yearsin Kansasbefore it was overturned by federal courts. The state's own expert estimated that almost all of the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote while it was in effect were U.S. citizens who otherwise had been eligible. In Missouri, legislation seeking to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement cleared a Senate committee but never came to a vote in the Republican-led chamber. Republican state Sen. Ben Brown had promoted the legislation as a follow-up to a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, which Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved last November. He said there were several factors that led to the bill not advancing this year. Due to the session's limited schedule, he chose to prioritize another elections bill banning foreign contributions in state ballot measure campaigns. "Our legislative session ending mid-May means a lot of things die at the finish line because you simply run out of time," Brown said, noting he also took time to research concerns raised by local election officials and plans to reintroduce the proof-of-citizenship bill next year. Complications prompt states to focus on other issues The Republican-controlled Legislature in Utah also prioritized other election changes, adding voter ID requirements and requiring people toopt in to receivetheir ballots in the mail. Before Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill into law, Utah was the only Republican-controlled state that allowed all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in. Under the Florida bill that has failed to advance, voter registration applications wouldn't be considered valid until state officials had verified citizenship, either by confirming a previous voting history, checking the applicant's status in state and federal databases, or verifying documents they provided. The bill would have required voters to prove their citizenship even when updating their registration to change their address or party affiliation. Its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, said it was meant to follow through on Trump's executive order: "This bill fully answers the president's call," she said. ___ Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyoming; David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed to this report.

Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states

Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — PresidentDonald Trumpand congression...
Trump's fresh White House portrait sparks interest amid controversy over National Portrait Gallery leadershipNew Foto - Trump's fresh White House portrait sparks interest amid controversy over National Portrait Gallery leadership

Nearly six months into his second term, PresidentDonald Trumphas a new portrait posted to the White House website. White Houseofficials posted an eight-second video to social media on Monday, showing the new portrait being hung on the wall at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House Campus. In his previous presidential portrait, which was unveiled just days before taking the oath of office for his second term, Trump could be seen wearing a blue suit coat, white button-up shirt and blue tie. The president showed no expression in the previous portrait, compared to an official portrait taken of him in 2017, in which he was smiling. Liz Peek: Donald Trump Is Our President And Democrats Have No Idea What To Do In the portrait unveiled on Monday, Trump is wearing a blue suit coat, white button-up shirt and a red tie. In both images, he has an American Flag pinned to his coat. Read On The Fox News App The president also shows little expression in the new portrait. White House officials told Fox News Digital the photo was taken by White House photographer Daniel Torok. Trump Portrait He Claimed Was 'Purposefully Distorted' To Be Taken Down From Colorado Capitol As of Monday evening, the photo is hanging in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, and it will eventually start rolling out to other offices and federal buildings. Trump's new portrait was unveiled just days after he announced that he was firingKim Sajet, the director of the National Portrait Gallery, for being a "strong supporter" of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). He announced Sajet's termination in a post on Truth Social on Friday afternoon. Donald Trump Fires National Portrait Gallery Director For Being 'Strong Supporter' Of Dei "Upon the request and recommendation of many people, I am hereby terminating the employment of Kim Sajet as Director of the National Portrait Gallery," the president wrote. "She is a highly partisan person, and astrong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position. Her replacement will be named shortly. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" A White House official told Fox News Digital that Sajet had donated $3,982 to Democrats, including the presidential campaigns of former President Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Sajet also reportedly donated to other Democrats, including former Vice President Kamala Harris. The White House also pointed to the gallery's photo of Trump, which was curated by Sajet. The caption of the photo reads, "Impeached twice, on charges of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection after supporters attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, he was acquitted by the Senate in both trials. After losing to Joe Biden in 2020, Trump mounted a historic comeback in the 2024 election. He is the only president aside from Grover Cleveland (1837-1908) to have won a nonconsecutive second term." Original article source:Trump's fresh White House portrait sparks interest amid controversy over National Portrait Gallery leadership

Trump’s fresh White House portrait sparks interest amid controversy over National Portrait Gallery leadership

Trump's fresh White House portrait sparks interest amid controversy over National Portrait Gallery leadership Nearly six months into his...
Mikie Sherrill's Narrative FatigueNew Foto - Mikie Sherrill's Narrative Fatigue

As New Jerseybegins early votingfor their gubernatorial primaries, voters are looking for candidates stories to take to the ballot box. This is wherefrontrunnerMikie Sherrill could find herself in trouble. Democratic contender Rep. Josh Gottheimer weaves a tale of hisupbringingin Essex County, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka touts hisrecent arrestat an ICE protest, and Mayor Steven Fulop builds an account of Jersey Citystransformation. Mikie Sherrill has credentials - a current U.S. representative, former Navy pilot, and federal prosecutor - but unlike the others, she lacks a story. This could ultimately spoil her bid. Julie Roginsky, a longtime Democratic strategist,notesthat she cant tell "what [Sherrills] running on right now other than [her resume]." Many of Sherrills policy proposals onhealthcare,cooperative federalism, and housing areextensionsof the incumbent Murphy administration, not transformative new initiatives. In turn, voters aresupporting alternativesto dissent from her unoriginality and"platitudes." The Sherrill campaign refuses to address the tension between her presentation and its relation to voter concerns. Twenty-two percent of New Jerseyansrank the economy as their top issue, followed by immigration (13%) and candidate character (11%). Voters aged 50+ and older, themost powerful electoral blocin the Garden State, prioritize property tax relief, retirement security, and long-term care reform. Military service doesnt automatically make someone better at managing a states economy and services. Sherrill doesnt demonstrate that it can in her marketing, interviews, or speeches, either. Her campaign is betting that this doesnt matter. A 2022 Pew Research pollfoundthat 49% of Americans - and 53% of registered voters - said they like political leaders who are also veterans. Sherrillscampaign websiteis laden with military imagery, with her"about" pagementioning her armed services experience a whopping 13 times. County Democratic committees that endorsed Sherrill, such as Essex, focus onsimilar messaging. Evenrecentadvertisements and herdebate performancespell this background out for viewers. This is thecampaigns core, and theyll mention it whenever possible. Her campaign runs on the assumption that voters will intrinsically admire her credentials without explaining what it means for her home states future. It could be a ploy for cross-party appeal, as Republicans aremore likelythan Democrats to value military experience in candidates. Nevertheless, its an approach that lacks substance, and this could limit voters faith in Sherrill. Even on the rare occasions when she does talk policy, her ideas arent new. She pledges to uphold Gov. Murphys goal ofachieving 100% clean energyby 2035. She echoes Murphys stance on immigration policy bykeepingNew Jerseys "sanctuary" status andlauds his stanceon New Jersey Transit funding. She, like Murphy,seeks to be toughon President Donald Trump and challenge federal law. Garden State powerbrokers love Sherrills continuation of the Murphy regime and have made her theestablishment pick. Yet, todays political climate increasingly rewards candidates who deviate from the status quo, and New Jersey is no exception. Murphys approval rating hassteadily declinedover his governorship, in part due to his lackluster transit funding plan. Only 25% of voters say his policies align with theirs, and60% of state independentswant the next governor to work with President Trump, with state voters evenly split over mass deportations. Sherrill is imitating an already-told story, and its reception is suboptimal. By not staking out positions beyond Murphys agenda, Sherrill lets his achievements and shortcomings speak for her. That might not cut it in an open election. While name recognition, fundraising, and endorsements can render a campaign competitive at the surface level, narratives require ownership. German philosopher Martin Heidegger oncediscussedthe concept ofeigentlichkeit, or authenticity, in which individuals must choose and commit to a meaningful path rather than living passively or according to external scripts. A campaign shouldn't manufacture a persona or copy anothers playbook one-to-one; it must be a genuine and full expression of the candidates beliefs and history. Ownership guarantees coherence because the story arises from the candidate as a lived reality and demands consistency between message and action. Without ownership, campaign narratives become empty spectacle - stories toldaboutsomeone, notbythem. In democratic politics, only those who craft their stories organically with conviction can hope to lead others into a shared and believable future. In the last stretch, other primary candidates can capitalize on Sherrills weakness by anchoring their emotionally resonant narratives in concrete policy perceptions. Former State Senate President Steve Sweeney often invokes his background as aunion ironworkerand raising hisdaughter with disabilities. But he can go further, framing his political journey as a commitment to family and community, and turn it into a bold economic equity agenda that includes expanded labor protections and a state disability benefits overhaul. Baraka can integrate hisfathers legacy as a poetto reinforce his image as a social justice champion, and Gottheimer can applyhis timeat the Federal Communications Commission to push for affordable broadband and infrastructure. Storytelling isnt fluff, but a powerful tool for political persuasion. In New Jersey, the growing desire for outsider energy and policy innovation demands that the next governor inject emotional authenticity into their policy goals and localize their story to build beyond their home base. If they want to beat Sherrill, challengers need to build a narrative that is wholly theirs, inspiring, and implementable. Alex Rosado is a professional programs assistant at the Alexander Hamilton Society. Follow him on Twitter/X at @Alexprosado.

Mikie Sherrill's Narrative Fatigue

Mikie Sherrill's Narrative Fatigue As New Jerseybegins early votingfor their gubernatorial primaries, voters are looking for candidates ...
Firings, pardons and policy shifts have gutted DOJ anti-corruption efforts, experts sayNew Foto - Firings, pardons and policy shifts have gutted DOJ anti-corruption efforts, experts say

For decades, the FBI and the Justice Department have been the main enforcers of laws against political corruption and white-collar fraud in the United States. In four months, the Trump administration has dismantled key parts of that law enforcement infrastructure, creating what experts say is the ripest environment for corruption by public officials and business executives in a generation. Trump aides have forced outmost of the lawyersin the Justice Department's main anti-corruption unit, the Public Integrity Section, anddisbanded an FBI squadtasked with investigating congressional misconduct. They have issued a series of directives requiring federal law enforcement agencies to prioritize immigration enforcement. Andthey have endeda 50-year policy of keeping the Justice Department independent of the White House in criminal investigations. All of that came after Trumpfired most ofthe inspectors general — the independent agency watchdogs responsible for fighting corruption and waste — and the Justice Department dropped a corruption case against the mayor of New York in what a judge said was a "breathtaking" political bargain. And it came after the Trump administration Justice Department pulled back on enforcement of foreign bribery and lobbying statutes, as well as cryptocurrency investigations. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has issued a steady stream ofpardons to allbut one Republican member of Congress convicted of felonies over the last 15 years. "He's dismantling not just the means of prosecuting public corruption, but he's also dismantling all the means of oversight of public corruption," said Paul Rosenzweig, a George Washington University law professor who was a senior homeland security official in the George W. Bush administration. "The law is only for his enemies now." A spokesman for the Justice Department said in a statement, "This Department of Justice has ended the weaponization of government and will continue to prosecute violent crime, enforce our nation's immigration laws, and make America safe again." The White House declined to comment. The Biden Justice Department also came under criticism from groups that considered it soft on white-collar and corporate crime.A reportby the public advocacy group Public Citizen said President Joe Biden's Justice Department successfully prosecuted only 80 corporations last year — a 29% drop from the previous fiscal year and fewer than in any year for the previous three decades. Andan analysispublished last month by the Transactional Records Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, which uses Justice Department records to examine enforcement and sentencing trends, found that white-collar prosecutions have been declining since 2011. U.S. attorneys' offices filed 4,332 prosecutions for white-collar crimes in fiscal year 2024, less than half of the 10,269 prosecutions filed three decades earlier in fiscal year 1994, the report found. But TRAC analysts, other experts and Democrats say the Trump policy changes — coupled with a mandate that FBI agents spend significant time on immigration enforcement — mean corporate fraud and public corruption enforcement is expected to plummet faster and further. "President Trump has ushered America into a golden age of public corruption," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told NBC News in a statement. "Trump quickly cleared out the watchdogs responsible for policing corruption cases at home and abroad by gutting the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section and the anti-kleptocracy teams." Last month, the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, Matthew Galeotti, announced ina memoanda speechthat the Justice Department was "turning a new page on white-collar and corporate enforcement." While he said that "white-collar crime also poses a significant threat to U.S. interests," he said the Biden administration's approach has "come at too high a cost for businesses and American enterprise." Big law firmsinterpreted his messageas saying the Trump administration will still prosecute corporate misconduct, at least under certain circumstances. But three lawyers who represent large corporations in dealings with the Justice Department told NBC News that over the last several months, corporate compliance investigations of their clients have dropped. They declined to be named or to cite specifics, citing client confidentiality. In his memo, Galeotti said the Justice Department will prioritize corporate violations relating to drug cartels, immigration law, terrorism, trade and tariff fraud, and corporate procurement fraud. "Too often, businesses have been subject to unchecked and long-running investigations that can be costly — both to the department and to the subjects and targets of its investigations," he added in a speech at an anti-money-laundering conference. All presidential administrations set broad policy direction for the Justice Department. But more than a dozen current and former Justice Department officials and legal experts said in interviews that the Trump administration has unleashed a revolution in policies, personnel and culture across the department unlike anything in the last five decades, including Trump's first term. Trump, they say, has fundamentally changed the nature of the post-Watergate Justice Department, in the process driving out hundreds of senior lawyers who helped form its backbone. The shift began even before Attorney General Pam Bondi took office, when Trump's acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.,fired several prosecutorswho had worked for Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed now-dismissed charges against Trump. Trump aides said the Smith prosecutors were fired because they could not be counted on to carry out Trump's orders, because they had prosecuted him.Never before, experts said, had so many career civil servants been sacked simply because they worked on a case the president disliked. When Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, a former Trump defense lawyer, was acting deputy attorney general, he ordered federal prosecutors in New York to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, a move that was seen as another signal that the second Trump term would be different. The move triggeredseveral resignationsby prosecutors, and a federal judgeultimately ruledthat there was no evidence to support the reasons the Justice Department gave for dropping the charges. The judge, ultimately, decided he had no choice but to dismiss the charges. Bondi alsopaused enforcementof a law prohibiting U.S. corporate executives from bribing foreign officials, an area of U.S. law so well-developed that major law firmshad entire sectionsdevoted to advising clients about it. She alsodisbanded the FBI task forcedevoted to combating foreign influence and aJustice Department groupthat sought to confiscate the assets of Russian oligarchs. She also ordered apullback on enforcingthe law requiring foreign agents to register with the government and disclose their activities. Several weeks later, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche ended an effort by the Justice Department to police crypto-related violations of banking secrecy and securities laws. Finally, one of the most impactful moves the Trump administration has made was to slash the size of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, which has dropped from roughly 35 lawyers to four to five, according to two former members of the unit. Lawyers who work in the Public Integrity Section consult with U.S. attorneys around the country on official corruption matters. Their role is twofold — to assist in cases when needed or when U.S. attorney's offices' prosecutors faced conflicts of interest and to ensure politically appointed U.S. attorneys followed the rules in some of the most politically sensitive cases the government brings. Some of the corruption cases the section was working on are continuing, former officials said. For example, a retired four-star admiralwas convicted last monthof bribery, but many cases are in limbo, and some have been dropped. And Justice Department officials say a policy that requires the Public Integrity Section to approve corruption charges against members of Congress is under review. They also noted that the policy was not followed when the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba, another former Trump attorney, broughtassault chargesagainst a New Jersey congresswoman last month. The Public Integrity Section has made its share of mistakes over the years, and some Trump supporters wish it good riddance. "President Trump's justice system is focused on protecting the rule of law and combating crime, which is what the American people elected him to do," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement to NBC News. "My public oversight has shown that the DOJ and FBI sections responsible for public integrity inquiries were a hotbed for partisan investigations against President Trump and his allies." But by shrinking the Public Integrity Section, dropping corruption charges against Adams and pardoning political allies convicted of federal crimes, Trump has sent an unmistakable message, current and former Justice Department officials say. "Public corruption investigations are being politicized like we've never seen before," said a former Justice Department official, who declined to be named for fear of retaliation. "What prosecutor or FBI agent is going to want to work on a case they think Donald Trump isn't going to like? To witness the destruction of the institution is just infuriating and disheartening." Rosenzweig, the law professor, said the damage to America's image as a country built on the rule of law is not easily fixable. "Good governance is really a shared myth — it happens only because we all believe in it," he said. "People are good because they share a mythos that expects them to be good. When that myth is destroyed, when you learn that it's just a shared dream that isn't mandatory ... it's really, really hard to rebuild faith." Rosenzweig added, "In 150 days, Donald Trump has casually destroyed a belief in the necessity of incorruptibility built over 250 years."

Firings, pardons and policy shifts have gutted DOJ anti-corruption efforts, experts say

Firings, pardons and policy shifts have gutted DOJ anti-corruption efforts, experts say For decades, the FBI and the Justice Department have...

 

VS POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com