Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link
A segment on MSNOW’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell focused on yet another missed deadline for the release of the Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. O’Donnell noted that Friday, 01/16/26, was the date by which Trump’s Department of Justice was required either to release the documents or explain to a federal court why it could not do so. Even as he laid out the requirement, O’Donnell expressed skepticism that the administration would comply.
#BREAKING: Lawrence: "Tomorrow is the deadline for Donald Trump's justice department to explain to federal judge Paul Engelmayer why they are in violation of the #EpsteinFiles Transparency Act law that required the justice department to hand over all of the #Epstein files to the… pic.twitter.com/fkRMIHRMOg
That skepticism proved well founded. The DOJ did not release the Epstein files by the deadline, nor did it offer a straightforward justification for continued secrecy. Instead, it submitted a filing advancing a far more provocative claim: that the federal court itself lacks the authority to impose disclosure deadlines on the DOJ under the transparency law. In effect, the department argued that judicial oversight does not extend to enforcing Congress’s mandate for public release.
The filing struck many observers as both evasive and revealing. The DOJ had no shortage of familiar excuses it could have relied upon. It could have requested additional time, citing the need to review millions of Epstein-related files it now claims to have “discovered” years after Epstein’s death—an explanation that few in the public find credible, but one that would have followed the well-worn script of bureaucratic delay. Instead, the department chose to challenge the court’s authority outright, a move that signaled a deeper resistance to transparency rather than a temporary logistical problem.
That posture stripped away any remaining doubt about the administration’s intentions. From the beginning, critics warned that Trump’s DOJ would engage in procedural gamesmanship—offering symbolic compliance while ensuring that the most consequential material never sees the light of day. The latest filing suggests those warnings were prescient. By disputing the court’s power to impose deadlines, the DOJ is effectively asserting the right to delay disclosure indefinitely, regardless of statutory language, judicial orders, or public demand.
At this point, what once sounded like cynical speculation is hardening into an unavoidable conclusion. Despite sustained public outcry, congressional action, and repeated court-imposed deadlines, less than one percent—one percent—of the Epstein files have been released. That figure alone tells the story. At this pace, full disclosure is not merely delayed; it is effectively being denied. The administration appears content to manage optics rather than deliver transparency, releasing token material while the core of the record remains sealed. With each missed deadline, the promise of accountability fades further, leaving the public with a grim realization: the dream of a full Epstein files release may never be realized, and the cynics may have been right from the very beginning.
Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link
A recent segment on MSNBC’s Weeknight featured Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who joined the program to discuss his ongoing efforts to force the release of the Epstein files. What he revealed caught many viewers off guard. Despite the passage of the Epstein Transparency Act, Garcia said the Department of Justice has released less than one percent of the total body of material related to Jeffrey Epstein. For an audience that assumed the law had jump-started a meaningful disclosure process, the figure landed like a gut punch.
#BREAKING: Rep Garcia: “People should be reminded that we have ONE PERCENT, one percent of the files that DOJ has in their possession, have actually been sent to the U.S. Congress. 99% of the documents are sitting at DOJ, and the one percent that we have received are OVERLY… pic.twitter.com/GbhqaibtUH
While few people believed the government had released anything close to half of the files, most assumed the number was at least significantly higher than one percent. Garcia clarified that even within that already minuscule fraction, extensive redactions further limit what the public can actually see. In other words, the amount of usable, unredacted information is effectively even smaller. The disclosure process, far from accelerating, appears to be stalled almost entirely, raising serious questions about whether the law is being honored in anything more than name.
The segment also revisited Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent appearance before the U.S. Senate, including pointed questioning from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Bondi’s posture during the hearing was notably defiant, offering little indication that the Justice Department feels compelled to move faster or provide fuller transparency. If that testimony is any guide, expectations for a voluntary release of the Epstein files remain exceedingly low, regardless of statutory requirements.
Garcia noted that House Democrats are now planning to call Bondi before the House Oversight Committee to explain why the DOJ continues to withhold the vast majority of the files despite the clear intent of the Epstein Transparency Act. That hearing could become a pivotal moment, not only in determining whether the law has any real enforcement power, but also in testing whether congressional oversight will be allowed to function at all. The looming question is whether Bondi will bring the same combative resistance to the House—and whether House Republicans will once again enable stonewalling rather than demand answers the public has been waiting years to hear.
Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link
The fatal shooting of a 37-year-old American woman in Minneapolis by an ICE agent has once again thrown a harsh spotlight on a problem that has increasingly defined Trump administration 2.0: a deepening credibility crisis. What began as a disturbing law-enforcement encounter quickly metastasized into something larger—another episode in which the public was asked to accept an official account that appeared to conflict with what many people could see with their own eyes.
#BREAKING: Lawrence opener: "First, they LIE. I say this from long, weary experience with the subject. After most unjustifiable shootings by law enforcement officers, first, they lie…"😳 pic.twitter.com/tei85Xo11E
This credibility gap did not emerge overnight. Over the past year, Americans have grown increasingly skeptical of information coming from the administration, including economic data once treated as authoritative, public-health guidance from HHS, representations made in court filings, and on-the-record statements from senior officials. Americans have always practiced a degree of “trust but verify” when it comes to government pronouncements, but the level of doubt now surrounding official statements is markedly different—more pervasive, more reflexive, and more corrosive.
In the Minneapolis case, video of the encounter circulated quickly on social media, allowing the public to assess the incident independently. To many observers, the footage appeared to show a verbal confrontation between the woman and ICE agents, followed by her attempt to leave the scene in her vehicle. Based on the available video, critics argued that the use of deadly force was unnecessary and disproportionate, raising immediate questions about judgment, training, and accountability.
Those questions intensified when DHS Secretary Kristi Noem addressed the incident publicly. Her description of events sharply diverged from what many believed the video showed. She claimed the woman had “run over” an ICE agent, sending him to the hospital, and went further by characterizing the incident as an act of domestic terrorism. These assertions were widely challenged and fueled accusations that the administration was misrepresenting the facts rather than awaiting a full investigation. President Trump later echoed the secretary’s account on social media, amplifying a narrative that many Americans had already begun to doubt.
While the president relied on information provided by his cabinet, the responsibility for accuracy rested squarely with the Department of Homeland Security. It is the job of senior officials to verify facts from agents on the ground before presenting a definitive account to the public—particularly in cases involving lethal force. When that process fails, the damage extends far beyond a single incident.
As a result, what might have remained a grave but contained use-of-force controversy instead became another data point in the administration’s broader credibility problem. MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude captured this sentiment on Deadline: White House, noting that the administration now faces a public conditioned to doubt its word. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz echoed similar concerns, emphasizing the importance of transparency and factual accuracy as the situation unfolded.
#BREAKING: Eddie Glaude: “There is no reason for me to trust ICE or the FBI or the federal government to investigate itself in this regard. The president of the United States already described this as an act of self defense without knowing the specifics of the event. @Sec_Noem… pic.twitter.com/FYBlSz9jub
If this were an isolated misstatement—an early briefing that later required correction—the public might have been more forgiving. But because the Minneapolis shooting followed a series of prior episodes in which official accounts were revised, contradicted, or quietly abandoned, skepticism hardened almost instantly. Each incident compounds the last, reinforcing a perception that truth is being shaped to fit political needs rather than facts.
In a democratic society, credibility is not a cosmetic asset; it is foundational. When government officials lose the public’s trust, even accurate statements are greeted with suspicion, and accountability becomes harder to achieve. The Minneapolis shooting underscores how urgently the Trump administration must confront this problem. Leveling with the public is not optional—it is essential to restoring confidence in institutions meant to serve, protect, and answer to the people.
Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) increasingly looks like a man who has surrendered not only the institutional muscle of the speakership but even the pretense of independence from the president of his own party. The speakership historically has been an office defined by its willingness to challenge the White House when necessary—Sam Rayburn, Tip O’Neill, Newt Gingrich, Nancy Pelosi, and even John Boehner all asserted the House’s prerogatives when they believed a president, Democrat or Republican, had crossed a line. The job demands that a Speaker defend the House as a coequal branch of government, not serve as an extension of the Oval Office. Johnson’s conduct has prompted growing skepticism that he understands, or even values, that obligation.
#BREAKING: Lawrence: "Last night we showed you video of a childishly petulant [Speaker] Mike Johnson running through the halls of the House of Representatives saying that he was disappointed in the Republican Senate and [Majority Leader] John Thune, although he didn't dare say… pic.twitter.com/IC7UwMJ3Vb
Lawrence O’Donnell seized on this erosion of authority during a blistering segment on The Last Word, calling Johnson “pathetic” for repeatedly lowering the speakership to the status of Trump’s legislative errand boy. O’Donnell’s critique did not rest on ideology but on the abandonment of basic separation-of-powers expectations—what he framed as Johnson’s refusal to act like the leader of an independent branch of government. When the Speaker of the House won’t defend the House’s own jurisdiction and moral authority, O’Donnell argued, the institution itself becomes weaker, and Johnson seems almost proud to preside over its diminishment.
The latest and clearest example came with Johnson’s handling of the Epstein files, a matter where moral clarity should have superseded political loyalty. Many House Republicans, echoing survivors and transparency advocates, pushed for the full release of the unredacted files. Yet, according to multiple reports, the Trump team made it clear that it did not want that transparency, and Johnson dutifully complied. Instead of defending the bipartisan House vote for disclosure, he attempted to pressure Senate Republicans into adding anti-transparency amendments—effectively rewriting a unanimously passed House measure to align with Trump’s wishes. This was precisely the moment when a strong Speaker would have demonstrated independence, asserting that the House’s overwhelming vote reflected a moral imperative that transcended the president’s concerns.
What happened next exposed the extent of Johnson’s weakness. Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, refused to go along. Thune brushed off Johnson’s push and let the bipartisan transparency bill stand as written. The moment was striking not only because Senate Republicans broke with Johnson, but because they did so with such ease. It showed how little weight Johnson’s requests carry even within his own party’s congressional leadership. It was the kind of public sidelining that previous Speakers would never have tolerated because they would never have allowed themselves to be put in that position to begin with.
Johnson, embarrassed by the rebuff, then claimed that Democrats—specifically Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—had somehow duped Thune into ignoring Johnson’s demands. It was an explanation that strained credibility. The idea that seasoned Senate Republicans were outmaneuvered by Schumer into doing the morally obvious thing, rather than following Johnson down the rabbit hole of suppressing sensitive documents, only underscored how deeply unserious Johnson’s defense was. This evasiveness was precisely what triggered O’Donnell’s sharpest criticism: that a Speaker reduced to blaming phantom Democratic trickery to justify his own impotence has forfeited the dignity of his office.
Seen in this light, Johnson’s speakership increasingly appears not merely weak but historically weak—a surrender of institutional power at exactly the moment when Congress should be asserting its independence. The Founders designed the legislative branch to check the executive, not to take instructions from it; the Speaker of the House, more than any other congressional figure, embodies that constitutional balance. By repeatedly deferring to Trump, even on issues where morality, transparency, and bipartisan consensus align against him, Johnson is not just weakening himself. He is weakening the House of Representatives. And that is why the charge that he may be the weakest Speaker of all time can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole. It is becoming a plausible assessment of a man who seems unwilling to use the authority of an office that demands far more than passive obedience to presidential preference.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is under growing fire after a tense exchange with Senator ___ (D-AZ), who publicly accused him of deliberately refusing to swear in newly elected Democratic Representative Adelita Grijalva. The senator alleged that Johnson’s delay is a calculated move to stall an upcoming House vote on whether to release the long-suppressed Epstein files—documents that could expose the full extent of Jeffrey Epstein’s powerful network of associates.
#BREAKING: Hayes: "That was @SpeakerJohnson insisting three times in the past 24 hours, that he is not holding off on swearing in a duly elected Democratic Congresswoman [@AdelitaForAZ] to avoid a vote on releasing the #Epstein files. I'm not sure he's really helping his case…" pic.twitter.com/mP40Fl6kCx
The confrontation reportedly took place during a joint leadership meeting on Capitol Hill, where the Arizona senator pressed Johnson on the delay. Witnesses say Johnson attempted to deflect, citing “procedural timing issues,” but the senator shot back that the Speaker was “weaponizing procedure to shield the guilty.”
Johnson, who has cultivated an image as a devout Christian and moral conservative, now finds himself in an increasingly awkward position—forced to reconcile his public faith with what critics see as a willingness to protect the powerful at the expense of truth and transparency. “You can’t claim to walk in the light while covering for people who trafficked in darkness,” one Democratic aide remarked after the exchange.
The late financier Jeffrey Epstein was famously connected to some of the most influential figures in politics, business, and entertainment. Among them was Donald Trump, then a New York real estate mogul and now President of the United States. The Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files has only fueled suspicion that critical evidence—particularly anything implicating high-level figures—is being withheld from public view. Officials have repeatedly promised a “measured” release, but months of delays have left watchdogs, journalists, and victims’ advocates convinced the White House is hiding something.
Privately, some insiders suggest that Speaker Johnson may personally favor full transparency. However, given the Trump administration’s well-documented record of punishing perceived disloyalty, Johnson is said to be under immense pressure to toe the line. The Speaker, they claim, fears political retaliation—or worse, a full-scale MAGA backlash—if he defies the administration’s wishes and allows the House to move forward on the Epstein vote.
For now, the standoff continues. Representative-elect Grijalva remains in limbo, waiting to be officially sworn in while the partisan tug-of-war plays out behind the scenes. Whether Johnson’s delay is a procedural quirk or a deliberate act of political obstruction, one thing is certain: the issue isn’t going away. At some point, Speaker Johnson will have no choice but to seat the incoming Democrat from Arizona—and when he does, the House may finally be forced to confront the explosive truth behind the Epstein files.
MSNBC’s Legal Analyst Lisa Rubin appeared on the 09/19/25 edition of Deadline White House show where she made a compelling argument as to how Congress can and should go about getting Jeffrey Epstein-related information from former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta.
#BREAKING: Lisa Rubin re #AlexAcosta: "There are a BUNCH of documents that Alex Acosta saw, and or was involved in creating, that could be released by DOJ tomorrow, but also, some of them might still be in Alex Acosta's own possession. I just want to detail THREE of them…[1]… pic.twitter.com/lZgmUL9X8i
Rubin said that there are a bunch of Epstein-related documents that Acosta either saw, or was involved in creating. This, she argued, meant the said documents were either currently in the possession of the Department of Justice, or even by Acosta himself.
The first question Congress needs to ask Acosta is about the 60-count federal indictment drafted by prosecutor Ann Marie Villafaña in 2007. DOJ definitely has this document, and the allegations therein, may shed a lot of light as to Epstein’s illicit operation, and potentially, the actions of his his co-conspirators, most of who were later granted immunity.
The second question regards the lengthy prosecution memo that aforementioned Villafaña wrote regarding the federal case re Epstein. Rubin says this can shed a lot of light as to the evidence the feds had against Epstein to support the 60-count indictment
Finally, Rubin says Congress should ask Acosta about his own interview transcript from the office of professional responsibility investigation that was conducted at DOJ in 2020. That was an investigation started at the instigation of Republican Senator Ben Sasse. Rubin argues that Acosta must have that transcript in his possession because he and his lawyers were given an opportunity to review it and suggest any corrections.
Long story short, the lingering questions about Jeffrey Epstein and his child sex trafficking operation must be answered, and key players like Acosta must not be allowed to come before Congress and just gaslight the public. These crucial documents are currently in the possession of the DOJ and/or Acosta, and the public deserves to see them.
An alternative route would be to have Ann Marie Villafaña testify before Congress. Who knows, she might have “kept receipts”.
As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal continues to heat up, new questions are being raised about the infamous 2008 sweetheart plea deal he received from then U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, who later joined the Trump administration as Labor Secretary in 2017
#BREAKING: 🔥Kristy: "A week later after #Epstein is arrested, Acosta resigns and Trump gave a statement saying how great Acosta was…even when he found out that Acosta was connected with this kind of sweetheart deal, he didn't seem to care."🤦♀️ pic.twitter.com/X00jq28KEK
The running narrative thus far, has been that after details of the sweetheart plea deal started getting a lot of media coverage, the Trump administration was forced to cut ties with Acosta—he became a liability, if you will.
However according to Kristy Greenberg, herself a former federal prosecutor, President Trump might have known all along about Alex Acosta’s shady Epstein deal when he made him his labor secretary. As Greenberg further put it, “he [President Trump] didn’t seem to care.”
If Greenberg’s account holds up, it would reflect very poorly on the president as America’s moral leader. Republicans have for decades, put a premium on moral values, so it will be interesting to see how they navigate this Trump-Acosta relationship.
House Speaker Mike Johnson appeared on CBS’ Face The Nation (05/25/25) to discuss among other things, the recent House passage of the Trump administration’s budget bill—dubbed “Big Beautiful Bill”. The Bill’s fate now lies with the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.
#BREAKING: 🔥Margaret to @SpeakerJohnson : "You are eliminating subsidized federal student loans…$500 billion in clean energy subsidies…alongside that, you are carrying out about a trillion in reductions to Medicaid and food stamps…we looked at your home state and the… pic.twitter.com/14q7WpquTz
Among the issues raising concerns with the budget bill, is that it is projected to increase the national debt significantly, something Republican lawmakers lamented throughout the Biden administration. The bill also makes significant cuts to Medicaid and food stamps(SNAP), programs crucial for working families generally, and specifically, the working poor.
Speaker Mike Johnson’s Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the nation, so cuts to Medicaid and food stamps are bound to have relatively more disastrous effects on families there. Asked by host Margaret Brennan how he can justify pushing such cuts knowing full well that his state is one of the poorest in the nation, Speaker Johnson responded that all the bill cuts is waste, fraud and abuse.
It will be interesting to see how Speaker Johnson and other House Republicans use this excuse once their poor constituents start complaining about the cuts. Even more interesting, will be the way Republicans defend this tricky position as we approach the 2026 midterm elections.
For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the CashApp “tip jar” below on your way out.
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) appeared on CNNSOTU (022825) where he dropped a bombshell, telling host Dana Bash that the shouting match we recently witnessed at the White House between President Trump, his VP Vance, and the President of Ukraine, was not an anomaly, but rather, a conscious effort by Trump-Vance to steer America towards kleptocracy.
#BREAKING: Sen Murphy: "It is absolutely SHAMEFUL what is happening right now. The White House has become an arm of the Kremlin…"😳 pic.twitter.com/47YwD25K1o
The characterization by the mainstream media thus far, has been that the confrontation at the White House was just an unfortunate case of a good meeting gone bad—something that happened out of happenstance.
What Sen Murphy is saying however, is markedly different, and that is, this was a pre-meditated, conscious effort by Trump-Vance to humiliate the President of Ukraine for the benefit of Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, Sen Murphy adds that this is part of their larger effort to align America with dictators around the world, so as to make it easier for them to transform America into a kleptocratic oligarchy like Russia.
For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the CashApp “tip jar” below 👇
Bombshell testimony at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing (05/08/24) regarding Havana Syndrome, opened up new leads for investigators to follow up on. The unmistakable message from all the three witnesses however, all of whom have deep experience/ties to the U.S. intel community, was that U.S. intel agencies, and the CIA in particular, were not leveling with the American public as to the cause of these ailments. More importantly, that the continued coverup threatens our national security because it provides an incentive for Russia and our other adversaries to ramp up the attacks.
The expert witnesses at the 05/08/24 hearing were Retired Army Lt. Colonel Gregory Edgreen (led DIA’s probe into havana syndrome), leading National Security Attorney Mark Zaid and award-winning journalist currently working for The Insider, Christo Grozev
We are not going to focus here on the technical/scientific issues surrounding havana syndrome but rather, the bombshell coverup allegations made by all the three expert witnesses. Reasonable people will agree that this by itself–a national security compromising coverup–should be sufficient cause for President Biden to do some “housecleaning” at the top echelons of our intel agencies.
Lt. Col Edgreen began by putting out some important context, and that is, the U.S. government has a long history of slowly responding to emergent national security threats, adding that the lax havana syndrome response “is nothing new”.
Edgreen(10:16): “As a country, we have been here before. Most people think this all started in Havana in 2016, the wildly reported Havana Syndrome…but before Havana Syndrome, there was the Moscow Syndrome. Soviet intelligence bathed the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with microwave transmissions. The health effects were similar to what we see today. There are many examples of syndromes and ailments from Americans injured in the line of duty, that the government did not recognize for many years, which were eventually proven. Agent Orange used in Vietnam, the Gulf War Syndrome, Burn Pits during the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all of these examples, America took too long to acknowledge these injuries, and our service members languished without care. Havana Syndrome is no different. The gaslighting of AHI survivors continues to this day, as history repeats itself.”
Regarding documented reports of CIA officers being harassed overseas. Lt. Col Edgreen said(13:26): “There were reports of CIA incidents which included harassment, room intrusions, houses being defiled, tossed, pets poisoned, assaults on our personnel, and diplomats being drugged, doxxing, families harassed and attacked via directed energy, a red line to many because of the debilitating nature of these weapons…” Notice that these are the exact same complaints raised by targeted individuals in the United States, only to be summarily dismissed by the mainstream media as some form of “mass paranoia”.
Regarding the coverup, Lt Col Edgreen said(15:50): “I think the bar for AHI attribution was set so high because we do not, as a country and a government, want to face some very hard truths: Can we secure America? Are these massive counterintelligence failures? Can we protect our people on American soil? Is this an act of war?” Edgreen added, “It’s time to take action. This is a nonpartisan issue which has spanned several administrations. Let’s start to get this right with executive and legislative action…most importantly, pressure the government to fight back.”
Award-winning Journalist Christo Grozev testified that he had initially relied on information from U.S. government officials in his Havana Syndrome reporting, but was approached by an intel official in Europe, and advised to seek independent sources–Exhibit A as to a coverup, and a sad state of affairs indeed.
Attorney Mark Zaid testified(27:00): “A recent investigation by 60 Minutes, Der Spiegel and The Insider identified potential credible links between AHIs and alleged Russian operatives for military unit 29155. This included activities within the United States. What was the government’s response? CIA doubled down that there’s nothing to see, and that it knew of, and had already ruled out the same evidence. That is blatant falsehood that has infuriated many serving members of the intelligence community because so much of the evidence, to the contrary, is available to them in reports, briefings and cable traffic. Of course, this evidence is classified.”
Zaid added that regular law enforcement officials should be allowed to pursue investigations into Havana Syndrome rather than maintaining the status quo, where the CIA hogs such probes.
During the question and answer session, Christo Grozev said(29:59): “One of the most disturbing denials that I’ve seen in some of the publications leading up to our findings being published, was an attempt to create the impression that no technology would allow this impact on the human brain. That is provably untrue…There is sufficient evidence that it’s possible.” Grozev added that a Russian intelligence official told him that the Russians were doing this because America has been doing it to their intel officials as far back as the 80s. So this idea that AHIs are some mysterious occurrences requiring “new research” is highly questionable.
The biggest bombshell during the question and answer session came from Attorney Mark Zaid, when he was asked whether he believed the government was blocking some information. Zaid responded(37:44): “Information is absolutely being blocked from one agency to the other, particularly at the CIA. I mean, that’s who we’re going to point to the most, of information that the CIA has, that its sister intelligence agencies it hasn’t been shared with, and I can identify a number of specific classified documents in a proper setting.”
Bottom line folks, there’s no way to sugar coat this. Three esteemed expert witnesses testified in Congress on 05/08/24 that our intel agencies, and the CIA in particular, are not only engaged in a coverup when it comes to Havana Syndrome, but that the coverup threatens our national security because it provides an incentive for further such attacks. Heads must roll!!
For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App
Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com
Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More
