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
Former Porn Star Stormy Daniels recently appeared to testify at former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial currently playing out in Manhattan, New York. As was expected, a lot of juicy details came out of her testimony, some previously known by the public, and others totally new. Trump’s supporters have predictably sought to downplay, even totally disregard Daniels’ testimony, but as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow recently said on her colleague Nicolle Wallace’s show, we cannot/must not forget the fact that the person at the heart of this sordid affair, is someone who could potentially end up as U.S. president again. Put another way, this is, as Maddow would put it, “a big freaking deal”.
Maddow said(5:55): “The very big picture here is, we are thinking seriously as a country, about putting somebody back in the White House, who mounted a violent effort to overthrow the government the last time that he was voted out, who says that parts of the constitution should be terminated, who says he wants to put the U.S. military in American cities, he wants to build camps for tens of millons of people. That’s what we’re thinking about doing. There’s like this huge yikes factor when it comes to him.”
Maddow adds(6:43): “On top of the scariness about what he’s offering us as a political figure, on top of his likely criminal liability in his multiple criminal trials, we also then just get this yuck factor stuff[with the porn star].”
Maddow then lists the yucky stuff
“She’s doing a porn company promotion at a golf tournament.”
“His infant son is four months old.”
“He has his bodyguard ask her if she’d like to have dinner, so she goes to his room. There is no dinner. He’s wearing satin pajamas. She says get dressed.”
“He tells her I’ll get you under my reality competition TV show and I will help you cheat at it. I’ll give you advance notice on the challenges on the show, and that will help you.”
“He tells her me and my wife don’t sleep in the same room.”
“He asks her when she was last tested for sexually transmitted diseases.”
“He tells her she reminds him of his daughter.”
“She goes to the bathroom, she comes out of the bathroom, and he’s stripped down to his underpants.”
“She tries to leave, and he steps between her and the door. She doesn’t want to do it. She says she doesn’t feel threatened but he says to her, I thought you were serious about what you wanted. If you ever want to get out of that trailer park…”
“They have sex. She’s not into it. He does not wear a condom. That is particularly concerning to her, and he should know that it is because she has just explained to him about her work in the adult film industry.”
“They meet several more times, he makes more sexual advances, they never have sex again, and ultimately it is only when he finally says no, I’m not putting you on my TV show, that she stops picking up his calls.”
Maddow then bottom lines it perfectly saying, “[President]Jimmy Carter almost lost in 1976 because he said he had committed lust in his heart, but this is who we are thinking about putting back in the White House right now, along with what he has threatened to do to the country, in part out of anger for the criminal liability that he has brought on himself by trying to cover up things like this, behavior like this, character like this.”
Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) appeared on CNN’s The Source show (07/12/23) where she discussed among other things, her questioning of FBI Director Christopher Wray about warrantless searches at a recent House hearing. Specifically, Rep Jayapal wanted to know why the FBI and other federal agencies are buying vast quantities of personal data from data brokers, and how the agencies use this warrantless search data.
Rep Jayapal dropped a bombshell during her interview, telling host Kaitlan Collins that if the FBI doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer to this important question, she will have no other choice but to vote against reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) when it expires later this year–a very big deal.
What makes this a very big deal, you ask? Well, Rep Jayapal heads the House Progressive Caucus. If she decides to vote against reauthorizing FISA, you can rest assured that nearly all House Progressives will vote with her, killing FISA.
Asked by host Kaitlan Collins whether she was satisfied by the answers she got from FBI Director Wray, Rep Jayapal said she wasn’t, adding( 1:29), “We do have significant concerns, It’s not just I. The Office of Director of National Intelligence(ODNI) is where the report came from, that said that the FBI is purchasing large amounts of data from these data brokers, and that information contains everything, from your location information, your medical information, it could contain information about all kinds of private things that American people understandably don’t want the FBI to have…These are warrantless searches…they are backdoor searches. The information is used in ways we don’t know…”
Bottom line folks, Rep Jayapal is absolutely correct that warrantless surveillance by the FBI and other federal agencies is out of control, and in serious need of a fix. We’ve become accustomed to hearing members of Congress threatening to block FISA reauthorization over the same surveillance abuses, only to have them cave at the end due to pressure from the national security establishment. Something however tells me (not exactly sure what that is), that 2023 may be the year members of Congress finally drop the hammer on FISA, or as legal eagle Jonathan Turley puts it, the year they decide against being “chumps”.
US will become 'nation of chumps' if Congress allows FBI's warrantless surveillance of Americans, Turley warns https://t.co/NX1ZlY9nQB
— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) July 15, 2023
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
On 12/9/21 Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY) introduced an amendment(Amendment 148 to H.R. 5314–Protect Our Democracy Act), that would have restored the oversight powers Congress always intended the Government Accountability Office(GAO) to have, including over our intelligence agencies. Our intelligence agencies, as everyone knows, are notoriously impervious to any Congressional oversight, and often hide behind a vague 1988 Department of Justice opinion to justify their need for secrecy. Rep Ocasio-Cortez’s amendment would have taken away that cover, ensuring much-needed transparency from our intelligence agencies. Surprisingly, 23 Centrist Democrats voted with House Republicans to kill her amendment.
As Rep Ocasio-Cortez correctly pointed out on the House floor, given the kinds of abuses we’ve witnessed during Trump’s presidency, it is only prudent that we restore GAO’s oversight powers over all federal agencies, including our intelligence agencies. Any reasonable person would agree, that it is foolhardy to assume that former President Trump abused all other federal agencies for his selfish political interests, except our intelligence apparatus, the easiest ones to abuse given the secrecy with which they are allowed to operate.
.@USGAO has the authority to conduct oversight of all federal agencies. However, most U.S. intelligence agencies don't fully cooperate.
Today, we introduced an amendment to put that to an end. GAO should be able to fulfill its mission of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. pic.twitter.com/7lOl9E3Zwb
Rep Ocasio-Cortez said on the House floor: “Since it’s creation in 1921, the Government Accountability Office(GAO) has had the purview to conduct oversight of all federal agencies with the goal of reducing waste, fraud and abuse, and holding accountable bad actors. However and unfortunately, most of our intelligence agencies today are not fully cooperative with the GAO, pointing to an outdated and vague 1988 Department of Justice opinion. Our amendment would allow the GAO to act as a check on this behavior, not creating new powers, but restoring the power Congress always intended the GAO to have. This amendment is welcomed by many in the intelligence community, who want to protect their important work and resources from abuse, particularly after the last presidency we just endured. We drafted this amendment in partnership with the community and I’m proud to have the support of Representative Adam Schiff who serves as the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In fact many of my colleagues have already taken a stand in support of this legislation because in 2010, the House passed a virtually identical amendment.”
The amendment failed with a final tally of 233 nays, 196 yeas, with 4 members not voting. Among the 233 nays were 23 Centrist Democrats who Yours Truly is compelled to name. The nay Dems included Reps Cynthia Axne(IA), Cheri Bustos(IL), Matt Cartwright(PA), Angie Craig(MN), Antonio Delgado(NY), Val Demings(FL), Jared Golden(ME), Josh Gottheimer(NJ), Chrissy Houlahan(PA), Conor Lamb(PA), Susie Lee(NV), Elaine Luria(VA), Tom O’Halleran(AZ), Chris Pappas(NH), Kurt Schrader(OR), Kim Schrier(WA), Terri Sewell(AL), Mikie Sherrill(NJ), Abigail Spanberger(VA), David Trone(MD), Filemon Vela(TX), Jennifer Wexton(VA), Susan Wild(PA).
Ever since the Patriot Act was enacted after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, there have been growing calls from civil libertarians and others, for there to be some checks on the almost absolute powers we granted our intelligence agencies after the 9/11 attacks. The reasoning behind this is pretty simple–power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fast forward to the Trump administration and the abuses we witnessed occurring across all federal agencies–(DOJ being used for the Big Lie, Military on Black Lives Matter protesters in DC, numerous abuses of DHS, “failure” by our intel agencies to anticipate Jan 6th insurrection)– and the need to look into our intel agencies becomes an absolute necessity. It’s against this backdrop that Rep Ocasio-Cortez, with the support of many in the intel community, are pushing for more transparency. One would assume given these set of circumstances, that more oversight would be a no-brainer for Democrats, but apparently not.
Concerns about possible abuses of our intel agencies run the gamut, from the mundane warrantless snooping of our electronic communications (emails, texts, voicemails, etc), to much more serious allegations that if proven, constitute serious violations of our commitments under the United Nations Conventions Against Torture(CAT). These include allegations of 24/7 organized stalking, non-consensual for-profit human experimentation on people entered on terrorism watchlists by weapons manufacturers and others in Big Tech(remote neuromonitoring), militarized attacks on civilians(usually watchlisted) with directed energy weapons, manufactured terrorism cases, etc. These are serious human rights violations that can only come to light through proper oversight. It also bears pointing out that similar egregious abuses have in the past been attributed to our intel agencies, a recent good example being the non-consensual experimentation on U.S. civilians using radiation. President Clinton in 1995, did the just and moral thing by not only exposing this inhumane conduct, but also making whole the surviving victims. The same can be done today.
Is this happening again? Or are PRIVATE military corporations doing this now unbeknown to most in Washington? This was 1995. 👇🏻
Bottom line folks, Rep Ocasio-Cortez deserves a lot of praise for pushing for reform on a topic most politicians, and quite frankly the mainstream media, have been terrified to venture into. One only hopes that she musters the courage to push on with it, despite the recent setback on the House floor. Simply put, time has come for our intel agencies to be subjected to some real oversight.
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
CNN’s Brianna Keilar did an interesting segment on her New Day show (10/21/2021), where she explored Rep Jim Jordan’s very shifty answers to questions about his conversations with then President Trump on January 6th 2021. It appears Rep Jim Jordan’s accounts of his conversations with Trump on that fateful day appear to be changing with every subsequent interview, meaning he may be hiding, or attempting to hide some details about his interactions with Trump on that day.
After stating categorically in previous interviews that he spoke to Trump on January 6th, but only after the insurrection, the Ohio Congressman appears to be changing his tune lately, suggesting that he spoke to Trump on January 6th, but he doesn’t know “when those conversations happened.” Basically, he now doesn’t remember whether he spoke to Trump before or after the insurrection.
Any reasonable person presented with Rep Jim Jordan’s conflicting statements as to whether he spoke to Trump before or after the January 6th insurrection will arrive at the same conclusion, and that is, Rep Jim Jordan is attempting to hide details of his January 6th conversations with Trump from the public. Rep Jordan’s phone records on January 6th can solve this mystery instantly.
Bottom line folks, one doesn’t have to be an experienced investigator to deduce from the CNN segment that Rep Jordan should be a person of interest for the January 6th Commission. Maybe, just maybe, he’ll remember the exact time he spoke to Trump on January 6th, if he is forced to testify under oath.
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
