← Full Measure After Hours
Full Measure After Hours
After Hours: Rep. James Comer on Tackling Govt. Corruption (From the Archives)
00:33:38
The head of the powerful House Oversight Committee, James Comer (R-Kentucky) tells about epic battles going on right now between the “Deep State” and Trump agency heads. He also gives a rundown on key oversight priorities, shrinking government, wobbly fellow Republicans, and a razor thin majority. Order Sharyl’s new bestselling book: “Follow the $cience.” Subscribe to my two podcasts: “The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast” and “Full Measure After Hours.” Leave a review, subscribe and share with your friends! Support independent journalism by visiting the new Sharyl Attkisson store. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Loading summary
Transcript65 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Hi, everybody. Cheryl Atkinson here. Welcome to another edition of Full Measure After Hours today, the House Oversight Committee and ongoing deep state resistance to the Trump agenda and Trump's appointees. This week I speak with the powerful Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer of Kentucky. I really feel like I got some fascinating insight. We talk about the fight between Trump's Cabinet level appointees, including Pam Bondi at DOJ and Kash Patel at the FBI and what he calls the deep state resistant to the new agenda. We touch upon the fight over releasing all of the classified JFK files and the Epstein files. And at the time of this interview, the Trump DOJ was still withholding the Epstein files from the Oversight Committee, just as the Biden administration had done before it. We're also going to talk about the IRS and FBI whistleblowers and their fate. The committee's Act Blue investigation, Hunter Biden and basically a federal government adjusting to and largely doing combat with the Trump agenda in his second term. Here's Congressman James Comer.
- [01:25]
B
Yeah, if you compare this Trump administration to the first one, he was, he was, he's clearly prepared. This time he had an agenda. They were very quick to do their executive orders. They've been very calculated in how they've done the executive orders. A lot of the executive orders, they anticipated court challenges and they're lawyered up and ready to go. So I think that the progress that the President has made coming out of the gate is unprecedented. I'm very satisfied with that. He's put some Cabinet secretaries in and as we all knew, they're going to face a lot of deep state opposition from within. You've got every government agency from the Department of Justice to the EPA that is fully employed by left wing activists that are going to do everything in their ability to obstruct and to slow down all the progress and momentum that President Trump has coming out of the gate. So I think the president's done a tremendous job. I think a lot of his Cabinet secretaries have done a really good job and a lot of them are unfortunately facing a lot of internal battles that I'm optimistic will win at the end of the day.
- [02:37]
A
Is the Oversight Committee following any of these issues, such as release of these documents, including the Epstein documents. And do you know what's going on with that?
- [02:44]
B
Yeah, absolutely. I appointed a task force led by Anna Paulina Luna, who's very persistent and we're trying to follow through on the President's directives to release certain classified documents, what we call our American Secrets if you'll remember, when President Trump ordered the declassification of the JFK files, we found out a few days later that the bureaucracy only released a handful of documents. They still kept thousands of pages. So our task force is trying to reach out and question the bureaucrats, figure out which bureaucrat didn't comply with the orders. Same thing happened with the Epstein files. When Pam Bondi thought she was releasing the Epstein files, it really wasn't the Epstein files, obviously. So that task force is kind of working very hard behind the scenes to identify which bureaucracies and which bureaucrats are not complying with the President's orders. And that's a common battle that a Republican president faces in this town. You've got when a Republican wins the White House, they come in and they appoint Republicans to be Cabinet secretaries. But then they have thousands of employees that are protected by the civil service system, protected by merit or tenure, whatever you want to call it, that just will not follow orders. That's why we want to reclassify a lot of the federal employees to what's called a Schedule F employee, which means if you don't follow the orders from your Cabinet secretary or division manager, then you can lose your job, which is what would happen in the private sector. So the task force is going to try to follow through, because you're just dealing with a lot of bureaucracies. There's a reason the government doesn't want to turn over all the JFK files. There's a reason the government doesn't want to turn over the Epstein files. So hopefully our task force in the Oversight Committee can push these agencies and these bureaucrats to do what they're supposed to do.
- [04:50]
A
Do you anticipate that the task force or the committee will have hearings and we'll actually have names named and there'll be accountability to that?
- [04:57]
B
I do. I do. And Anna Paulina Luna's chomping at the bit to bring some of these people in. So, you know, there aren't many people in this town that want to come in front of the House Oversight Committee. I mean, you can ask NPR and PBS about that yesterday, or the four mayors of the sanctuary cities, and the list goes on and on and on. The former Secret Service director. If you come in front of the House Oversight Committee and you've been behaving badly, it's not going to end well for you. So hopefully we'll see some more movement on these documents. But again, it's just a perfect example of what Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, Brooke Rollins, whoever Lee Zeldin, doesn't matter. Whoever the head of a cabinet or agency is, they're going to face internal opposition on a daily basis.
- [05:45]
A
Have you gotten any top line information on specifics of the documents being withheld, particularly on the Epstein case, from the FBI office in New York?
- [05:53]
B
No, I have no idea. You know, the excuse they always use, and I dealt with this in the Biden investigation was there's an ongoing investigation. There's an ongoing investigation. Well, there's always an ongoing investigation. There's probably been an ongoing investigation of the Kennedy assassination since the 60s, and I'm sure there's an ongoing investigation in the Epstein drama. But at the end of the day, the President's ordered the release of these files. There has been enough time passed where the American people deserve to know that. Who at the very least was on that list.
- [06:29]
A
Do you think we now have all the JFK files or they're in the process of being posted and so on, or is there still more to come?
- [06:36]
B
Well, I would say that we've probably gotten pretty much what we're going to get. You know, the question I have is were there documents that have disappeared over the last four decades? And that's probably a possibility. You know, I find it hard to believe that if the government was involved in some type of role in the Kennedy assassination that they would say, okay, let's keep this file in this safe here. And, you know, I would think that file would disappear very quickly.
- [07:05]
A
Well, I've said much the same about the Epstein files. Certainly if there are bad actors, they weren't holding the documents under a glass dome waiting for Trump to be reelected so that they could be released.
- [07:15]
B
You know, the thing that worries me about the Epstein files, and I've read a lot about it, like most Americans have, is, was our government involved in this? Were they potentially blackmailing some of the most influential people in the United States or in the world? If you go into Britain and other countries where we know there were very high profile people that were going to the Epstein island or whatever you want to call it, and if so, the government knew that there was possibly human trafficking, that there was sex with minors and things like that, what were they doing? What were they, what role were they playing in this? What was their motive? And if that was the case, I find it hard to believe that any type of evidence of that would still be in existence.
- [08:06]
A
Including videos?
- [08:07]
B
Including videos. Because there's a lot of liability there for the government. You know, I think at the very least there are two questions most Americans have who is on the list and did the government, our government, play any role in evaluating that or spying on that, or were they involved in any type of blackmail attempts or anything to get information? I mean, there's a lot of questions that people have that I think the government should answer. Now, enough time has passed, but we're still battling that battle.
- [08:49]
A
The administration, one official, stated on the record that they're working very hard to prepare for prosecutions, that they're looking for these documents. Is there also a role for the Oversight Committee in this?
- [08:59]
B
Yeah, I mean, we want to. We want to work with the administration any way we can. And I've delivered that message to Pam Bondi. I've had, you know, a couple of good conversations with Kash Patel and John Radcliffe. We've been on the front lines of battling the deep state. We believe our government has been involved in a lot of things that they shouldn't have been involved in. We believe that the government has provided information that was incorrect from a national security standpoint dating all the way back to George Bush, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it's been a credibility crisis at our intelligence communities. And obviously we fought with the Merrick Garland Department of Justice. We have a long list of things that we would like to see accomplished in the Department of Justice. We have a deep state list that we believe these employees need to be deposed at the very least, to see, you know, to answer basic questions. Why did you cover this up? Why did you provide this statement? Why did you sign the letter saying that laptop was rushing to when you knew darn well it was not Russian disinformation? So there's a lot of questions that we have, a lot of people that we believe need to be held accountable. And we're willing to offer our services. We'll work in depositions, we'll have public hearings, we'll do whatever. But we need to work with the Department of Justice.
- [10:28]
A
Are you waiting for the green light from them or are you working to schedule hearings on this?
- [10:32]
B
We're waiting for the green light.
- [10:33]
A
And why haven't you gotten it yet?
- [10:35]
B
Well, I don't know. I mean, there's a lot to do. And Pam Bondi is walking into an agency that's hostile towards her. There's no question about it. I mean, you've had a few people like Leslie Wolf that resigned before Pam Bondi took office that were involved in a lot of high profile government coverups, but there's still a lot of people in that Department of Justice. So she's having to battle within and hopefully she'll win that battle and we can see some accountability.
- [11:07]
A
Just a side story, when Jeff Sessions became Trump's attorney general for a short period of time, very good sources, firsthand sources, said he would whisper in his own office.
- [11:18]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [11:19]
A
Did you hear that, too?
- [11:20]
B
Well, yeah, absolutely. And I've had conversations with Bill Barr and look, you know, Bill Barr was getting, if you go back to the Biden investigation, Bill Barr was, was told things by his intelligence officials at the highest level that just weren't true. And, you know, Bill Barr, you would think could believe what his FBI director says or what his CIA director says. And you know, what the higher ups in the FBI and CIA and the Department of Justice would have to say about certain high profile cases. But in the end, they weren't being truthful with him. And some people say, well, Barr should have done this or Barr should have done that. Well, it's very difficult when you have all these people around you that are, that are just not honest. And I think that Bondi, to her credit, realizes that coming in. So, you know, it's going to take a while to put your people in place there because you've got all these career employees that you can't terminate. That's something that needs to be changed. And that's a role the Oversight Committee will play. Hopefully we can get legislation passed that will reclassify some higher level career employees to where you have to follow orders. I mean, if a president's elected by a mandate and let's use the epa, for example, I'm good friends with Lee Zeldin, who's the EPA administrator. I knew Scott Pruitt, who was Trump's first EPA administrator. He was from Kentucky. You put these administrators in and they have a mandate. And the president campaigned and said, we're going to drill, we're going to frack. But then they order the epa. Okay, we're reversing course. We now want people to drill. We want people to frack. And the EPA employees say, no, no, no, we're not going to approve any permits. We're going to fine the coal companies. We're going to do everything we can to put the coal companies out of business and to make sure the oil companies can't drill and get any new permits. So what's the repercussions of that? There's nothing. The way that the, the personnel laws are and the labor laws are in the federal government, it's impossible almost to fire these people, even though they're directly disobeying an order from the newly elected president, who received a mandate and campaigned on changing the energy policy, for example. So all of these Cabinet secretaries, whether it's Brooke Rollins at AG or Pam Bondi at Department of justice, they're having to fight a lot of internal battles that really haven't made it into the mainstream media yet.
- [13:55]
A
And you know this because you've talked with them. They're already facing.
- [13:58]
B
I've talked to some of the Cabinet secretaries.
- [14:00]
A
What are Oversight Committee's top priorities?
- [14:03]
B
Well, from an investigation standpoint, which is what most people keep up with, we're very into the Act Blue investigation. I hope to be able to share some new information very soon on that.
- [14:16]
A
What is the Act Blue investigation?
- [14:17]
B
ActBlue is the Democrat platform that they just raised hundreds of millions of dollars in this last election cycle from all these anonymous donors, which you can only get donations from people in the United States. So these donations had to be from people in the United States. But because of campaign finance laws, you don't have to disclose who a donor is if they donate less than $200. So all these $150 donations, $175, $199 donations, just miraculously coming in every day. And, you know, the Republicans, we have a platform, too, called Win Red, but Act Blue outraged when read like 7 or 8 to 1.
- [15:03]
A
And this is money that went to political campaigns.
- [15:05]
B
Went to political campaigns. Not just political campaigns, but a lot of the protests. You know, ActBlue is a platform for Democrats that want to have town hall protests and, you know, just disrupt lives in congressmen, protesters and things like that. Outside groups that, you know, have campaigns to promote the Green New Deal and things like that. This, this Act Blue is very suspicious that they've raised this much money from this many people. If it was, say, okay, the Democrats outraged the Republicans 10 to 1, I would possibly believe that if you disclose who the donors were.
- [15:44]
A
But you think there's foreign money in there?
- [15:47]
B
I think there's probably foreign money in there. I think there's a lot of money laundering that potential there. So we're following the money in the same manner we followed the money in the Biden family investigation and trying to trace the money back to where the original source is. We know there are people whose names were used in making donations that have already come out and said, we weren't. We never made this donation. Or we made one donation, not 5,000 donations. So someone was using the names.
- [16:21]
A
Did someone use the name 5,000 times?
- [16:23]
B
Someone's used a name many times on donations. And I think that it's just a matter of putting it all together. And that's what we're in the process of doing.
- [16:33]
A
What's next on that? What do you expect, hearings or just deposition hearings?
- [16:37]
B
But here's the where I know we're hitting a nerve is I think the top five people at ActBlue have all resigned in the last three weeks. That's always a good sign because why would they resign? They raised a record amount of money. I mean, everything should be, you know, hunky dory over there, but yet they're all heading for the exit. So it'll also be interesting to see if did the Department of justice in the Merrick Garland administration know what was going on at ActBlue? I think that's going to be another question because what I always said about the Biden family influence peddling investigation, there were two crimes. There were the crimes the Biden family committed, the financial crime, and then there was the crime that the government knew what the Bidens were doing, but yet they covered it up because there were four agencies investigating the Biden. There was a Department of justice, there was the FBI, the securities and Exchange Commission and the irs. And yet every time they were told to stand down by a deep state bureaucrat. And what I think will be interesting, act blue. Did the Department of Justice know about this and intentionally withhold it, hoping that if the Democrats had won the House and Harris had won the presidency, you could have just swept this under the rug.
- [18:08]
A
To the Biden family investigation, the book that you wrote and the investigations that you did, from what I saw and from what I looked into myself, really uncovered incredible detail about what happened and how much money came to the Biden family. Clearly. And I don't think even the Bidens denied in many cases that it was only because of the influence that Joe Biden was perceived to have. And there was so much detail in there about, as you said, the government agencies being told to stand down on certain investigations, particularly the IRS whistleblowers who wanted to follow the trail all the way to Joe Biden but were told they were not allowed to. In the end, after all of this, nothing much came of that. Nothing was done with it? Hardly.
- [18:53]
B
Well, Joe Biden pardoned his entire family on the way out. But with respect to the whistleblowers, Jim Jordan and I have really been pushing the whistleblowers to be promoted in this new administration. And fortunately they were they're going to be very high up at the IRS now. So we're excited about that. That's going to bring credibility back to the Internal Revenue Service. And then you've got the people at the Department of Justice. We've had a couple that have resigned. Leslie Wolf was one of the people that were was involved in the COVID up of the Biden crime family schemes, but there are others. So hopefully, you know, this is one of the lists that we've given Patel and the Department of Justice. We hope that some of these employees that were involved in these cover ups are brought in in question because they need to be held accountable. And with respect to the Bidens, look, we believe that those pardons would not hold up in court. You can't pardon your entire family preemptively for an 11 year period for crimes that according to Joe Biden, they never committed. Well, if they never committed any crimes and they've never been charged for any crimes, then why are you pardoning your entire family?
- [20:10]
A
Who says you can't do that? I guess there's not a precedent. But has it been challenged?
- [20:15]
B
There's no precedent. It's not been challenged. The, the entity that needs to challenge it is the Department of Justice.
- [20:22]
A
Two more areas and then if there's anything you want to speak to people who have blown the whistle inside federal agencies are looking for redress. I guess the IRS whistleblowers have been taken care of.
- [20:34]
B
Yes.
- [20:34]
A
What about some of the FBI whistleblowers? There's Stephen Friend, there are others who spoke out from inside and I think people are waiting to see and hear what happens with them.
- [20:44]
B
Yeah, I don't know what's happening. The process is ongoing with the FBI whistleblowers. Jim Jordan dealt more with them in the Judiciary Committee. I dealt with the IRS whistleblower Shapley and Zeigler and I think they're very, very satisfied. And I think we sent a message to whistleblowers across the federal government. If you come forward and blow the whistle and what you say is true now sometimes people blow the whistle and what they're accusing doesn't always pan out. If you blow the whistle and what you said is true, then you're going to be rewarded. At the very least, you're not going to be retaliated against. And Shapley and Ziegler were retaliated against at the irs. So, you know, we've got a Treasury secretary and a soon to be IRS commissioner that know full well what Shapley and Zigler went through. Jim Jordan and I made sure of that. And I think they're Going to be rewarded, and they should be rewarded. Those are the type of government employees we need. They risked it all to do the right thing.
- [21:50]
A
As you know, government is littered with stories like theirs. Things never turn out well for the whistleblower. It would not be hard, it seems to me, but for the fact that there's not enough support for Congress to pass a law that designates special status for whistleblowers who tell the truth, where they are encouraged to come forward and provide it. Not the whistleblower laws on the books, which are not helping them, but where there's not this upside down dynamic where they are punished and faced retaliation. Even if their jobs are protected, they're still kind of ruined. Seems like there would be a way to flip that in government and say these are the kind of employees we want to reward them to hold them out.
- [22:25]
B
I agree. And one of the upcoming hearings that we're in the process of talking about is one that deals with whistleblowers just to have people come forward that blew the whistle and tell their story. And what advice do you have for other whistleblowers? What can we do to protect whistleblowers and ask them questions about how were you retaliated against? So I think that's going to be a good hearing because if you're doing oversight like my committee does, you have to have whistleblowers. We can't make it without whistleblowers because anytime we request information, if you've got a hostile administration like the Biden administration was, and a hostile attorney general like Merrick Garland, they're going to say, well, we can't provide that because there's an ongoing investigation. I said that earlier in the interview. I heard that 10,000 times over the past two years. Well, we can't turn that over. There's an ongoing investigation. We're hearing that with the Epstein files now in this administration.
- [23:21]
A
So who's telling you that?
- [23:23]
B
Well, that's what they. I mean, that's the. When we request information, if they don't provide it, that's what to say. There's an ongoing investigation.
- [23:31]
A
Some liaison to Congress tells you that, well, whoever.
- [23:34]
B
Whoever replies to our letter or subpoena, that's what they say. There's an ongoing investigation.
- [23:39]
A
So even now they're citing.
- [23:40]
B
Well, we've been real careful to try to let you know, some of these cabinet officials get established and things like that. The task force has asked for the Epstein list and things like that, and that's been the reply thus far. But they still say we're going to release it. We're in the process of releasing it. We just got to make sure nothing is released that compromises the ongoing investigation.
- [24:06]
A
And then the last area I wanted to talk about was the efforts to shrink government. Maybe Donald Trump is the first one that can kind of do this in a meaningful way in a long time, because as members have told me for many years, you don't win votes or make friends by cutting, ultimately cutting jobs and cutting grants and money going out the door. So how is that going? And what role does the Oversight Committee have in all of that?
- [24:30]
B
We're going to play a big role in this reduction in force that is clearly in our jurisdiction. When you look at a government agency, most government agencies, the biggest expense in their budget is personnel. We have too many federal employees, and there are some great federal employees. There are some employees that are working hard, and there are some employees that are probably working hard in agencies that we don't need. But at the end of the day, we can't continue to spend $2 trillion a year more than we take in. We can't afford the size of the federal government that we. And there's an opportunity to eliminate a bunch of unnecessary federal agencies like the US Department of Education and return the power back to the states. There's an opportunity to eliminate FEMA and let the states administer that. That would solve a lot of bureaucratic nightmares that we deal with in our office every day. One of the biggest things I do from a casework standpoint, not being chairman of the House Oversight Committee, but being a U.S. representative for Kentucky's 1st congressional district, is help people navigate the federal bureaucracies. If you can eliminate the bureaucracies and let the states make education decisions based on curriculum, for example, let the states make decisions on how do we pay for debris removal after our storm, then I think that solves a lot of problems and it eliminates a lot of unnecessary waste. The spending for these federal employees, salary and benefits and office space is enormous. And it's not just an annual thing. It's for life. If they, you know, when they retire, you're paying, you know, the pension for the rest of life, the health insurance for the rest of life, and, you know, for better or worse, we can't afford that anymore. And to Donald Trump's credit, he is stepping forward and saying, look, we're going to eliminate a bunch of agencies, we're going to eliminate a bunch of positions. You just look at the dei. I mean, it's illegal to discriminate. So Democrats are saying, oh, you're going to eliminate dei, you're going to discriminate? No, no. It's already illegal to discriminate. If someone gets fired because of their race, they can go to the personnel Cabinet, the personnel office. Every government agency has a personnel office. This DEI was an unnecessary added layer of bureaucracy that was used just to harass people in hiring. And we can get rid of that DEI and save a lot of taxpayer dollars and still protect workers from being discriminated.
- [27:05]
A
But does Congress have to. And will they be doing things like passing a law that eliminates the Department of Education? So on top of the executive order, as there are legal challenges, I think that would make some of them go away. Right.
- [27:17]
B
I've got a bill in the House and Mike Lee has one in the Senate that that's going to help expedite some of these executive orders and allow Congress to do an up or down vote on things. I think the public's gonna support a lot of what President Trump's doing. So we're trying to do everything in our ability from a congressional standpoint to follow through on these executive orders and try to make them permanent.
- [27:41]
A
Back to a question from earlier, though. It's not a popular thing when you have to go out and raise money as a member of Congress to be reelected every couple of years to make cuts. So is there pushback behind closed doors from other Republicans who don't wanna do some of this?
- [27:55]
B
Oh, yeah. I mean, we've got some guys that'll never be in a book called Profiles of Courage, if you know what I mean. I mean, you've got members of Congress.
- [28:06]
A
That.
- [28:08]
B
Their number one priority, in my opinion, is self preservation. And that's unfortunate because this is a once in a decade opportunity, maybe a once in a lifetime opportunity, where you've got a Republican president that actually wants to do something, a Republican House and a Republican Senate. So, you know, the reconciliation bill is vital because we don't have to get 60 votes in the Senate. Anything that can be put on that reconciliation bill needs to be put on it. It needs to be one bill it never needed. You know, it was pretty frustrating me sitting back watching members of the Senate and a few members of the House, the ones that would be the ones that you just described, that didn't want to do anything, say, oh, well, let's do two bills. Let's do two bills. They do two bills because they don't want to have to vote because it's a tough vote when you vote to eliminate somebody's position. Someone in your district loses their job, they're going to be mad at you. They're not going to vote for you, more than likely, and their family is going to be mad at you. So at the end of the day, it's a tough job, but you signed up for it. You know, this is the job we signed up for.
- [29:14]
A
Do you have enough of a margin, Republicans in the House to overcome that because it's so narrow?
- [29:20]
B
Well, there's one thing in our favor on that. If you ask me that, and we've got a common Republican president, I would say no, there's no way we'll pass it. But President Trump's so popular with the Republican base that I think that he can push it over the line because there's always going to be 10 or 12 members. I don't care what the bill is. They want to be holdout, they want to get on tv, they want to tweet. And what I've told Mike Johnson, just let Trump deal with it. Do the whip count, put it on the floor for a vote, and if somebody votes against it, let them have to take a phone call from Trump. That's what happened with Victoria Sparks. That's what happened with Joni Ernst. I mean, I could start naming names of people that said they're not going to vote for President Trump's nominee for this or they're not going to vote for the blueprint for the reconciliation bill. Let President Trump talk to them, because if you go against the mandate that President Trump received, now, there are things that a lot of us wouldn't do just because President Trump asked. But if President Trump asked to do something that he campaigned on, that he's been transparent about, that is clearly part of his agenda. That's a different deal. I think my people, I won my last district, my last race, my last four races, by 50 points. 75. 25. But if I start going against President Trump's agenda, people will be mad at me in my district. So I support the president's agenda, the agenda that he campaigned on. If something pops up, a grievance or something, that's a whole different scenario. But if he talks. He campaigned about eliminating the Department of Education. He campaigned on reducing the size of the government. That's his agenda, and I'm going to support it.
- [31:19]
A
You can see the interview on the next upcoming episode of full measure, Sunday, April 27th. You can find a list of stations and times by going to Cheryl Atkison.com and clicking the Full Measure tab. But if you happen to be listening to this after April 27th. No worries. You can find the full measurement YouTube channel and we are posting the program there and the segments there pretty quickly after the program airs on TV on Sunday. So again look for our YouTube channel for full measure with Cheryl Atkison and you can also check out all of our stories at FullMeasure News. I hope you enjoyed the podcast and that if you did, you'll check out my other podcast, the Cheryl atkison Podcast, and I hope you consider subscribing to this one, sharing it with your friends and and leaving us a great review. Also, Visit the Cheryl Atkison store by going to Cheryl Atkison.com and clicking the store tab for some exclusive items made just for independent thinkers like you, with proceeds going to independent reporting causes. I have all kinds of cool products, including some great stuff coming up for summer like beach towels and great mugs that you can bring to the beach and so on. Great gift ideas there. And speaking of that, if you haven't already checked out my five star bestseller, Follow the Science How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails. That's a great gift for somebody who cares about their health and would appreciate insight on the deep corruption inside our medical establishment, scientific journals, medical schools, and among our doctors without some of them even understanding or knowing that they're subject to so much corruption. But it tells us a lot about why we're in this situation we're in today, with so many chronic health disorders exploded out of control as our doctors and public health officials in many cases seem almost not to notice. That's Follow the Science available everywhere. Do your own research, make up your own mind, Think for yourself. Sa.