2017 | XLVI-3

For Fairness, Balance and Accuracy in News Reporting

Once again the dominant media narrative has shifted overnight. Last week the media exploded with stories about Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ admitted

contacts with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., the latest attempt to somehow derail and delegitimize the Donald Trump presidency. It is part of the narrative concocted by the Democrats and their allies in the media to claim that Trump won the election thanks in part to help from Russia. Collusion has been the word of choice, though no evidence has surfaced to support it.

The narrative changed when President Trump sent out a series of tweets asserting that former President Barack Obama had wiretapped him “during the very sacred election process,” and that it was “Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

It turns out that the Obama administration, according to reports, did go to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court to gain permission to spy, or electronically eavesdrop, or wiretap some members or elements of Trump’s campaign. They apparently were turned down back in June, and approved in October, after taking Trump’s name out of the request.

Former federal prosecutor and journalist for National Review Andy McCarthy examined how disingenuous the denial coming from an Obama spokesman was. In essence, it comes down to, “It depends on what the definition of ‘surveillance’ is,” and who is a “White House official.”

The media called foul after Trump’s tweets, and the word of the day became “baseless,” as in baseless accusations by Trump.

They said he had “no evidence” to support these very serious charges against his predecessor, Barack Obama.

But the allegations of Russian influence were largely orchestrated by the Obama administration, and were ramped up when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in November. That is when he decided to impose new sanctions and expel Russian diplomats, which never would have happened if Hillary had won.

Now, using his group Organizing for Action (OFA), Obama intends to continue influencing the political scene with a shadow government apparatus. OFA has been coordinating with groups such as the Soros-linked Indivisible. “Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account,” writes Paul Sperry for the New York Post. “Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show ‘nonpartisan’ OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide.” It has also raised over $40 million, according to Sperry.

The New York Times recently reported that Obama’s intelligence agencies kept documents related to the alleged Russian influence operation “at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government—and, in some cases, among European allies.’” 

In other words, President Obama wanted information potentially damaging to his successor kept at the forefront of the national discussion whenever possible. It could be even better for Obama if there were Congressional investigations; that might distract Trump from rolling back Obamacare or the unsigned Iran deal. The Times also reports that the administration “sent a cache of documents marked ‘secret’ to Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland days before the Jan. 20 inauguration.” These documents were shared with Congressional Republicans, as well.

It should come as no surprise that the Obama administration would be aggressive, since the Obama administration waged a war on leakers, prosecuting more cases than all previous administrations combined, while harassing numerous media figures.

But while Trump appears to have stumbled by not

AIM in the News

page 2

Broadcast Networks Have Lost Over One

Million Viewers Since February

page 6

Media Collusion with the

“Espionage Establishment” page 3

continued on page 3

By Roger AronoffInvestigate This: Russia, Obama, Trump and Hillary

2 June-B 2011

Editor’s Message

in the News

A twice-monthly newsletter published by Accuracy in Media, Inc.

Editor: Roger Aronoff

4350 East West Highway #555Bethesda, MD 20814202-364-4401 | www.aim.orgPlease remember AIM in your will.

Your LettersTo the Editor: If the Liberal Establishment wins, Amer-ica is toast. They will ruin our strength, our resolve, and, our Greatness. That leaves the World in the most dangerous time in their History as well. Why you might ask? Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and even Mexico. Why Mexico? Cartels would set up shop right here in America.John C.

Please send Letters to the Editor to:Accuracy in MediaAttn: Letters to the Editor4350 East West Highway #555Bethesda, MD 20814or email to info@aim.org

Please keep your submissions to 50 wordsor less. Letters may be edited for length.

AIM was cited in The New Yorker magazine in an article focused on President Donald Trump, Demo-cratic pollster Patrick Caddell, and a New York billionaire.

“The White House declined to divulge what Trump and Caddell discussed in North Charleston, as did Caddell. But that afternoon Trump issued perhaps the most in-cendiary statement of his Presiden-cy: a tweet calling the news media ‘the enemy of the American peo-ple.’ The proclamation alarmed lib-erals and conservatives alike. Wil-liam McRaven, the retired Navy admiral who commanded the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, called Trump’s statement a “threat to democracy.”

The President is known for tweet-ing impulsively, but in this case his words weren’t spontaneous: they clearly echoed the thinking of Cad-dell, Bannon, and Mercer. In 2012, Caddell gave a speech at a confer-ence sponsored by Accuracy in Media, a conservative watchdog group, in which he called the me-dia ‘the enemy of the American people.’ That declaration was pro-moted by Breitbart News, a plat-form for the pro-Trump alt-right, of which Bannon was the execu-tive chairman, before joining the Trump Administration.”

Dear Fellow Media Watchdogs: The Trump presidency hit a few bumps in its second month

of existence. Some were of the self-inflicted variety, while others were incoming fire. The situation with Mike Flynn, for example, appears to have resulted from a failure to properly vet him. Flynn, a retired Lt. General who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency for a couple of years under Barack Obama, was reportedly asked to resign after revealing that he had failed to accurately tell Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations. But it later turned

out that Flynn had also been doing paid public relations for the Turkish government. Whether Team Trump knew about that is unclear, but they certainly should have, since it was in the public domain. The Russian collusion story collapsed when Obama’s appointed top intelligence officials all acknowledged that they found no evidence of any collusion between Trump campaign staffers and the Russians regarding the election. And Trump’s imprecise tweet about Obama “wiretapping” him proved problematic, since The New York Times and others in the corrupt, establishment media had already spoken of wiretaps that revealed Team Trump contacts with Russians. So it came down to specifics. Did Trump really mean Obama personally? Or was he referring to the Obama administration? And was Trump personally wiretapped? Or were some members of his team surveilled before or after the election? Those issues were discussed at a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee on March 20. But what we mainly learned was that the investigation by the FBI had begun last summer, and was continuing on, with no end in sight. Those two narratives appeared to clash. If the Obama administration was investi-gating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and The New York Times and other publications referred to wiretaps as part of the investigation, then perhaps Trump was right, generally speaking, that he was being surveilled. Leaks of transcripts of phone conversations would seem to support that. James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, the former CIA director, both acknowledged that they had no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. But the investigation continues. One area of concern regarding Trump are his choices regarding foreign policy and national security. On first look, he has picked some tough military men to head up the Department of Defense and the National Security Council. But a closer look reveals that both Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMasters have views on radical Islam that are more at home in the Obama administration than what we believed were the America First views of Trump. While Nikki Haley has shown what an American ambassador to the United Nations should be, Trump has turned over key policy decisions on Israel and Iran to Obama holdovers with disastrous track records. We can only hope that Trump will get some better advice.•

For Accuracy in Media Roger Aronoff

2017 | XLVl-3

June-B 2011 3

producing evidence to support his claim, in fact his move may result in changing the narrative once again. Now the investigation could include Obama’s and Hillary’s ties to the Russians. After all, the same Russian ambassador who met twice with then-Senator Sessions visited the Obama White House at least 22 times during Obama’s presidency, including four times in 2016. Were any of those meetings about presidential politics? Hillary’s ties to the Russians have been well documented, including the Uranium One deal and Skolkovo, the Silicon Valley of Russia that provided them with dual-use technology and handed millions of dollars to Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) argued on Fox News Sunday that based on statements from Trump’s Cabinet appointments, they will be much tougher on the Russians than the Obama administration, including Hillary. Cotton said:

“If you want to know what a pro-Russia policy would look like, Chris, here’s some elements of it. You’d slash defense spending. You’d slow down our nuclear modernization. You’d roll back missile defense systems. You would enter a one-sided nuclear arms control agreement. And you’d try

to do everything you could to stop oil and gas production. That was Barack Obama’s policy for eight years. That’s not Donald Trump’s policy.”He might have added that you

empower Russia’s ally Iran with more

than $100 billion dollars, and a pathway to becoming a nation with nuclear weapons, to go along with its current status as the number one state sponsor of terrorism.  

We at Accuracy in Media find the allegations of Russian interference in the election to be flimsy at best.

And as Andy McCarthy points out in another piece, the new Obama/media narrative that his administration was never surveilling the Trump campaign for ties to Russia, cuts against what they have been arguing for months now:

“Now that we’re supposed to believe there was no real investigation of Trump and his campaign, what else can we conclude but that there was no real evidence of collusion

between the campaign and Russia…which makes sense, since Russia did not actually hack the election, so the purported objective of the collusion never existed.”ABC’s Nightline picked up on this

theme, with reporter David Wright stating that “It’s important to note that there’s an equally outlandish narrative on the other side [besides Trump’s claim about Obama]. The other narrative, also in the mix, is that the Trump campaign may have colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election. Again, allegedly. No proof of that either. No smoking gun of collusion.”

Brian Ross then added that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he had seen no evidence of collusion when he left the government in January. With the Republicans contr-olling every committee in Congress, as well as the executive branch, they should be able to shape the scope of the investigations. We hope they are just and honest, as well as tough and fearless.•

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

continued on page 4

continued from page 1

2017 | XLVl-3

But while Trump appears to have stumbled by not producing evidence to support his claim, in fact his move may result in changing the narrative once again.

Host Chris Wallace of “Fox News Sunday” spent most of a recent show on the subject

of whether there is any evidence of Trump officials colluding with Russia to affect the 2016 presidential election. “On the Russian collusion, there’s a lot of smoke, no evidence,” said panelist Bob Woodward of Washington Post Watergate fame.

But we do have substantial evidence of media collusion with the U.S. intelligence community.

“Few understand the CIA and espionage culture as well as [David] Ignatius,” Woodward once said of his colleague, a foreign affairs columnist for the paper. These comments are significant. Ignatius is the Post journalist who received an illegal leak of classified information regarding Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s conver- sations with the Russian ambassador.

The disclosure led to Flynn’s resignation as Trump’s national security adviser.

The leak and its publication on January 12 were both illegal actions under the law.

Attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch tells Accuracy in Media that Ignatius is not alone. “What you see in these leaks—David Ignatius of The Washington Post and others—are the intelligence agencies being manipulated by the left to destroy the Trump

presidency and everybody around him.” Ignatius openly boasts of his contacts in the intelligence community, especially the CIA.

Woodward was a guest on the Sunday edition of “Fox News Sunday,” but was never asked about his colleague receiving illegal leaks of communications intelligence information.

Instead, the major issue on the show was whether President Trump has made charges about wire-tapping his administration without proof. “NO EVIDENCE CITED FOR ‘WATER-GATE’ PLOT” was one of the front-page headlines in the Post covering President Trump’s charges that former President Obama was behind the wiretapping.

The media were unanimous. “Trump’s baseless wiretap claim” was the headline over a CNN story.

While Trump’s tweet alleging

Media Collusion with the “Espionage EstablishmentBy Cli� Kincaid

4 June-B 2011

The media continue to publish and broadcast stories about how Donald Trump won the

election with the help of the Russians, calling this “collusion,” though no such evidence has surfaced. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has stated that he had “no knowledge of evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.” Assertions of Russian influence have been latched onto by Democrats and a liberal media with the sole intention of delegitimizing the Trump administration.

After all, the media, and Democrats, clearly would prefer to return to the age

of Obama. While hearings are planned for March 20 by the House Intelligence Committee to look into the issue of Russian influence in the presidential election, as well as President Trump’s claim that Obama ordered wiretaps and surveillance on parts of his campaign—charges that have repeatedly been called “baseless”—there are other tracks that I have suggested that investigators and journalists should probe.

If Congress is looking for something to investigate, it should perhaps start first with the shadow apparatus that Obama has erected for himself after leaving office. Our former president has set up shop just a couple of miles from

the White House, and brought along his top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, who has reportedly moved into the Obama’s new home. Obama is continuing to influence Washington, D.C. and nationwide

continued on page 5

continued from page 3

2017 | XLVl-3

Obama’s personal role seemed like a stretch, some reported “facts” already in the media put some substance behind what the President was trying to convey in a few words and phrases. For example, the British Guardian reported on January 11:

“The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (FISA) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.”Regarding the alleged personal

involvement of former President Obama, the left-wing publication The Intercept reported on January 13:

“With only days until Donald Trump takes office, the Obama administration on Thursday ann-ounced new rules that will let the NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorization with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security.”

The conservative Wall Street Journal reported:

“Only days before the inauguration, President Obama also signed an executive order that allows the National Security Agency to share raw intercepts and data with the 16 other agencies in the intelligence community. NSA analysts used to filter out irrelevant information and minimize references to Americans. Now such material is being leaked anonymously.”The new rules and procedures,

which were promulgated pursuant to a presidential executive order, were signed by Obama Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch on January 3 and reported under the innocuous New York Times headline, “N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications.”

As the Journal suggests, what Obama’s administration did was to set the stage for the leaks through David Ignatius of the Post and others. You don’t have to be Bob Woodward to suspect something is going on here.

“The people that report on national intelligence at all the networks, including Fox—and I love Fox News—are scared of taking on the intelligence agencies because their sources will be cut off and they won’t have a profession anymore,” Larry Klayman tells Accuracy in Media.

Interestingly, the personal website of David Ignatius features a laudatory review of one of his books, The Director, about a fictional director of the CIA. This is the context in which Bob Woodward

said of Ignatius, “Few understand the CIA and espionage culture as well as Ignatius.” Another reviewer, Philip Kerr, also of The Washington Post, says, “I strongly suggest you read The Director. It makes Tom Clancy look like an episode of Get Smart.”

“Get Smart” was the comedy show about a bumbling secret agent who had a phone in his shoe. Ignatius clearly understands the nature of the intelligence business and doesn’t joke around.

But most of the media won’t raise the obvious question: who is Ignatius collaborating with and why? The answers suggest actual collusion and even criminal conduct.

Woodward said on “Fox News Sunday” that “you’ve got to understand that as President Trump has this vast espionage establishment as his disposal, $50 billion a year plus, even in the CIA they call him the First Customer. So he can get the information he wants. He’s the only one in the government.”

But is he really a customer? Or is he in this case a victim?

If the intelligence community is trying to bring down a duly elected government of the United States, it is a story that must be told. Will the media tell this side of the story, or will they protect their anonymous sources and a $50 billion espionage establishment they collude with to make a living?•

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Obama’s Role in Undermining Trump’s PresidencyBy Roger Arono�

June-B 2011 5

continued from page 4

2017 | XLVl-3

politics through the mobilization of tens of thousands of volunteers under the umbrella of Organizing for Action (OFA). Oddly, on Twitter, Obama continues to identify himself as president, rather than as a former president.

“Unbeknownst to most Americans, Barack Obama is the first ex-president in 228 years of U.S. history to structure and lead a political organization, a shadow government, for the explicit purpose of sabotaging his successor—duly elected President Donald Trump,” writes Scott S. Powell for American Thinker. Obama’s group, OFA, has been organizing with the Soros-linked Indivisible.

Powell writes that “The modus operandi of OFA comes right out of Obama’s support and sympathy for Marxism and his background as a left-wing community organizer. It’s a combination of agitation and propaganda—much like old-style Soviet agitprop, and Saul Alinsky’s  Rules for Radicals.”

Indivisible’s tactics are designed to thwart the democratic process. One Louisiana chapter, Indivisible Acadiana, run by James Proctor, attempted to override the input of district residents at a local town hall organized by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA). According to Breitbart, local radio station KPEL captured audio of Proctor saying, “Game plan number one is to fill as many seats as we can, right? If it’s all of us in there and the poor people of Breaux Bridge are sitting behind us, well then tough luck for them.”

“If we can arrange it so he doesn’t hear one sympathetic question—great. That only magnifies our impact,” he said. In other words, the protestors want to drown out local residents’ voices in favor of pushing a radical agenda.

“The [Indivisible] manual…advises protesters to go into halls quietly so as not to raise alarms, and ‘grab seats at the front of the room but do not all sit together,’” writes Paul Sperry for the

New York Post. “Rather, spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposes the Republican host’s positions. ‘This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.’ It also urges them to ask ‘hostile’ questions—while keeping ‘a firm hold on the mic’—and loudly boo the GOP politician if he isn’t ‘giving you real answers.’”

OFA endorses similar tactics. According to Powell, “A week before the town halls started, OFA released its ‘Congressional Recess Toolkit;’ a training manual for activists and demonstrators, invoking them to go in groups and get to meeting halls early and ‘spread out…throughout the front half of the room, [which] will make the perception of broad consensus a reality for your member of congress.’”

“So perception drives fake news which is intended to drive reality,” writes Powell. This type of astroturf feeds the liberal media narrative that Trump has no mandate and is opposed by the public.

Although not as serious, these tactics are reminiscent of the “bird-dogging” tactics which Project Veritas connected to Democratic operative Robert Creamer. “Creamer was exposed by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas  as the key figure in a complex scheme involving a tactic called ‘bird-dogging,’ which involved planting trained activists at Donald Trump’s campaign rallies and other Republican events,” reports Breitbart. “The activists were trained to provoke members of the audience into reacting violently, and to provide footage to the media.”

Creamer is a convicted felon, and husband of Democratic congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (IL). He visited the Obama White House 340 times, including 45 visits with Obama himself. By comparison, and an indication of priorities, Obama’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) director of two years, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), never met once with Obama.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has

argued that some of the protesters are being paid to disrupt town halls. “Unfortunately, at this time there are groups from the more violent strains of the leftist ideology, some even being paid, who are preying on public town halls to wreak havoc and threaten public safety,” he said. Politifact ranked this assertion as “false,” but that misses the big picture. Similarly, Politico printed the story, “No evidence town hall protestors are being paid.”

The big picture is that these groups are organizing together, both paid and unpaid.

Politico’s and Politifact’s assertions may not be the whole story. According to a 20-minute documentary by Trevor Loudon, “America Under Siege: Civil War 2017,” Scott Foval, National Field Director for Americans United for Change, said, “I’m saying we have mentally ill people, that we pay to do s--t, make no mistake.”

Similarly, Foval said, “The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the s--t on the ground.”

It is unrealistic, then, to assume that all of the organized protestors are unpaid.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the Capital Research Center, has noted that “At least three of the group’s [Indivisible’s] five principals…have ties to organizations funded by George Soros.”

“He’s [Obama is] working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular ‘America First’ agenda,” asserts Sperry of the New York Post.

As the media continue to obsess about the Russians, and what influence they may have exerted during the presidential campaign, few reporters are taking a hard look at Obama’s continued political influence over organized protests meant to undermine Trump. As Loudon explores in his documentary, the protests are being organized by members of the Workers World Party and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. If the press wants to investigate subversion, it should refocus its sights on these organizations, as well as Organizing for Action, not bogus claims about Russian influence.•

Although not as serious, these tac-tics are reminiscent of the “bird-dog-ging” tactics which Project Veritas connected to Democratic operative Robert Creamer.

6 June-B 2011

In an effort to unite Democrats ahead of the 2020 presidential election, the left-wing think tank Center for

American Progress is going to hold the Ideas Conference in Washington, D.C., hoping it will energize the party like CPAC does for conservatives. According to Politico:

“’So much of our time right now is engaged, and rightfully so, in fighting Trump. On any given day, he issues one affront to progressive values after another,’ said CAP President Neera Tanden. ‘It’s obviously critical that we provide a positive alternative of how we’re going to address the country’s challenges.’”

Confirmed speakers include Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)—both mentioned as potential 2020 presidential candidates—Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

Maybe President Trump’s policies are an affront to “progressive values,” as Tanden stated, but voters rejected those values in November and appear to be pleased overall with what Trump has managed to accomplish in less than 50 days in office. That doesn’t bode well for the Democrats in 2018 or 2020.

On the other hand, they are sure to get favorable coverage from the liberal media, which have shown a big anti-Trump bias in their reporting on the new administration.

The conference is scheduled to take place on May 16, at the St. Regis hotel in Washington, D.C.•

NBC News chairman Andy Lack said the network plans to make significant changes in how it

covers future elections after the failure of state polls in the 2016 election.

Lack made his remarks during an interview at the IESE Business School in New York on Wednesday:

“We didn’t get this election right, news organizations, we didn’t know that night how wrong or how close it was. I don’t know anyone who thought at 6 o’clock in the evening it was going to go down that way. Democracy is messy, our relationship to the free and independent

press that we cherish is messy, and we forget about that too often. It is not clean, it is not perfect, we make mistakes, we screw up, but we fix that and are open about that. Embarrassed, humbled, yes, but not shy about saying we didn’t get that right.”

Lack cited the network’s over-reliance on polls during the election as one of the reasons they missed the Trump victory:

“We have to make some big changes in that area [polling]. I think we have to get out in the county more, and live in these states more, and that will take a bigger commitment from us going in. I think we relied too much on polls, and not enough on our own good reporting inside Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio.”

Trump was the beneficiary of a majority of late deciders in Wisconsin (59-30 percent), Michigan (54-37 percent) and Pennsylvania (52-37 percent), something that couldn’t be caught by the polls—which are a lagging

indicator—but might have been detected if the network had more reporters in those battleground states that gave Trump the presidency.•

It looks like the surge in cable news ratings has come at the expense of the big three broadcast networks,

as the latest ratings report shows that ABC, CBS and NBC have lost more than  one  million viewers on their morning shows and their evening news broadcasts in the last year.

In February 2016, the morning shows on the big three networks averaged 13.903 million viewers. That dropped to 12.766 million for the same period this year. That’s a loss of 1.137 viewers, or eight percent.

The combined evening newscasts averaged 25.843 million viewers in 2016, which dropped to 24.695 million this year for a loss of 1.148 million viewers, or 4.4 percent.

That is still a substantial number of viewers when compared to cable, but the momentum is clearly with Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, which can and have devoted large chunks of their news coverage to Donald Trump. That is something the broadcast networks can’t replicate due to programming and time constraints.

As long as Trump remains a hot news topic, further erosion of the broadcast news audience is a strong possibility.•

Don Irvine Chairman of

Accuracy in Media

2017 | XLVl-3

Broadcast Networks Have Lost Over 1 Million Viewers Since February

By Don Irvine

Liberals Planning Alternative to CPAC to

Unite Democrats

NBC News Chairman Vows “Big Changes” in

Use of Polling for Future Elections

By Don Irvine

By Don Irvine