#publictrust — Public Fediverse posts

🚨 Oh no, the Flock cameras were stolen! But fear not, the #WPD decided to "trust" the public instead of replacing them. 😂 Because who needs security when you have blind faith, right? 🙈
https://www.winonapost.com/news/wpd-wont-replace-stolen-flock-cameras-citing-public-trust/article_06a67859-2d97-414b-aa8f-d8751ad214bb.html #FlockCameras #Stolen #PublicTrust #SecurityHumor #BlindFaith #HackerNews #ngated

echoesofgandhiintheanthropocene.blogspot.com/2026/07/acco... #AccountabilityGaps #Anti-Corruption #CivicEmpowerment #Democracy #DemocraticGovernance #Ethics #Evidencebasedpolicy #InstitutionalIntegrity #PublicTrust #Transparency #ChatGPT NOTE: This is not an AI ad.

ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS: An Eviden...

echoesofgandhiintheanthropocene.blogspot.com/2026/07/acco... Accountability Gaps #Anti-Corruption #CivicEmpowerment #Democracy #DemocraticGovernance #Ethics #Evidencebasedpolicy #InstitutionalIntegrity #PublicTrust #Transparency

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4sivhpo2an6off6obxrbc3oo/post/3mqm6n5wsgc2g

ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS: An Eviden...

A quotation from Ambrose Bierce

CORRUPT, adj. In politics, holding an office of trust or profit.

Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?) American writer and journalist
“Corrupt,” “Devil’s Dictionary” column, San Francisco Wasp (1881-10-07)

More about this quote: wist.info/bierce-ambrose/83706…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #ambrosebierce #corruption #office #politicalcorruption #politics #publicoffice #publictrust

Canada’s cloned-food pause is not the same as a green light

Dear Cherubs, the viral version of this story is neat, dramatic, and a little too eager to jump the queue. Health Canada did propose changing how foods from cloned cattle and swine are regulated, but the department later said it had indefinitely paused the update after receiving significant feedback from consumers and industry. As of that Nov. 19 update, cloned-cattle and cloned-swine foods still remain subject to the novel-food assessment, and Health Canada says there are currently no approved cloned products on the Canadian market.

WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED

The proposal came out of a 2023 scientific opinion that concluded foods derived from healthy cloned cattle and swine, and their offspring, are as safe and nutritious as foods from traditionally bred animals. On that basis, Health Canada proposed removing those foods from the “novel food” category, which would have ended the pre-market notification route for those products under the Food and Drug Regulations. In bureaucratic English, that is less “new food on the shelf tomorrow” and more “we may stop treating these items like regulatory special guests.”

The proposal was also described by Health Canada as consistent with the interpretation of other trusted jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Japan, and New Zealand. That matters because food regulators love a good international confidence boost almost as much as they love a consultation document. Still, Health Canada’s current position is the pause button, not the checkout button.

WHY PEOPLE ARE SIDE-EYEING IT

The backlash makes sense. Global News reported that critics worried consumers could end up buying cloned-animal products without labels, while duBreton, a Quebec pork producer, publicly pushed for mandatory labeling and transparency. This is not really a food-poisoning panic; it is a trust-and-choice argument, which is arguably even more awkward for regulators because it cannot be solved with a lab coat and a press release.

Supporters of the proposal have a different line: if the science says the food is as safe and nutritious as conventional meat, then cloned-origin products should not need a separate treatment forever. That position is reflected in Health Canada’s own consultation materials, which say the policy update was being considered because the science underpinned a conclusion of safety.

The real headache is that food regulation is never just about chemistry. It is about whether shoppers feel informed, whether brands can protect their reputation, and whether “same as conventional” still sounds reassuring when the origin story is doing cartwheels in the background. As noted by thisclaimer.com, the bigger issue is not simply what is in the package, but whether people believe they are being told the full story.

So the honest read is this: Canada did not quietly unleash cloned meat and dairy on an unsuspecting public. It proposed a policy change, the public noticed, and Health Canada hit pause. That is a very different story from “it is already in your fridge,” though admittedly it is less catchy. Another way to put it: the debate is real, the labels are not settled, and for now the cloned-food aisle remains more political drama than grocery reality.

Sources:
Health Canada consultation page — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update.html
Health Canada policy statement — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update/policy-statement.html
Global News — https://globalnews.ca/news/11527780/cloned-meat-food-supply-canada/
duBreton news release — https://www.dubreton.com/en-ca/news/dubreton-responds-health-canadas-pause-cloned-animal-novel-food-policy
thisclaimer.com — https://thisclaimer.com

Canada’s cloned-food pause is not the same as a green light

Dear Cherubs, the viral version of this story is neat, dramatic, and a little too eager to jump the queue. Health Canada did propose changing how foods from cloned cattle and swine are regulated, but the department later said it had indefinitely paused the update after receiving significant feedback from consumers and industry. As of that Nov. 19 update, cloned-cattle and cloned-swine foods still remain subject to the novel-food assessment, and Health Canada says there are currently no approved cloned products on the Canadian market.

WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED

The proposal came out of a 2023 scientific opinion that concluded foods derived from healthy cloned cattle and swine, and their offspring, are as safe and nutritious as foods from traditionally bred animals. On that basis, Health Canada proposed removing those foods from the “novel food” category, which would have ended the pre-market notification route for those products under the Food and Drug Regulations. In bureaucratic English, that is less “new food on the shelf tomorrow” and more “we may stop treating these items like regulatory special guests.”

The proposal was also described by Health Canada as consistent with the interpretation of other trusted jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Japan, and New Zealand. That matters because food regulators love a good international confidence boost almost as much as they love a consultation document. Still, Health Canada’s current position is the pause button, not the checkout button.

WHY PEOPLE ARE SIDE-EYEING IT

The backlash makes sense. Global News reported that critics worried consumers could end up buying cloned-animal products without labels, while duBreton, a Quebec pork producer, publicly pushed for mandatory labeling and transparency. This is not really a food-poisoning panic; it is a trust-and-choice argument, which is arguably even more awkward for regulators because it cannot be solved with a lab coat and a press release.

Supporters of the proposal have a different line: if the science says the food is as safe and nutritious as conventional meat, then cloned-origin products should not need a separate treatment forever. That position is reflected in Health Canada’s own consultation materials, which say the policy update was being considered because the science underpinned a conclusion of safety.

The real headache is that food regulation is never just about chemistry. It is about whether shoppers feel informed, whether brands can protect their reputation, and whether “same as conventional” still sounds reassuring when the origin story is doing cartwheels in the background. As noted by thisclaimer.com, the bigger issue is not simply what is in the package, but whether people believe they are being told the full story.

So the honest read is this: Canada did not quietly unleash cloned meat and dairy on an unsuspecting public. It proposed a policy change, the public noticed, and Health Canada hit pause. That is a very different story from “it is already in your fridge,” though admittedly it is less catchy. Another way to put it: the debate is real, the labels are not settled, and for now the cloned-food aisle remains more political drama than grocery reality.

Sources:
Health Canada consultation page — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update.html
Health Canada policy statement — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update/policy-statement.html
Global News — https://globalnews.ca/news/11527780/cloned-meat-food-supply-canada/
duBreton news release — https://www.dubreton.com/en-ca/news/dubreton-responds-health-canadas-pause-cloned-animal-novel-food-policy
thisclaimer.com — https://thisclaimer.com

Canada’s cloned-food pause is not the same as a green light

Dear Cherubs, the viral version of this story is neat, dramatic, and a little too eager to jump the queue. Health Canada did propose changing how foods from cloned cattle and swine are regulated, but the department later said it had indefinitely paused the update after receiving significant feedback from consumers and industry. As of that Nov. 19 update, cloned-cattle and cloned-swine foods still remain subject to the novel-food assessment, and Health Canada says there are currently no approved cloned products on the Canadian market.

WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED

The proposal came out of a 2023 scientific opinion that concluded foods derived from healthy cloned cattle and swine, and their offspring, are as safe and nutritious as foods from traditionally bred animals. On that basis, Health Canada proposed removing those foods from the “novel food” category, which would have ended the pre-market notification route for those products under the Food and Drug Regulations. In bureaucratic English, that is less “new food on the shelf tomorrow” and more “we may stop treating these items like regulatory special guests.”

The proposal was also described by Health Canada as consistent with the interpretation of other trusted jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Japan, and New Zealand. That matters because food regulators love a good international confidence boost almost as much as they love a consultation document. Still, Health Canada’s current position is the pause button, not the checkout button.

WHY PEOPLE ARE SIDE-EYEING IT

The backlash makes sense. Global News reported that critics worried consumers could end up buying cloned-animal products without labels, while duBreton, a Quebec pork producer, publicly pushed for mandatory labeling and transparency. This is not really a food-poisoning panic; it is a trust-and-choice argument, which is arguably even more awkward for regulators because it cannot be solved with a lab coat and a press release.

Supporters of the proposal have a different line: if the science says the food is as safe and nutritious as conventional meat, then cloned-origin products should not need a separate treatment forever. That position is reflected in Health Canada’s own consultation materials, which say the policy update was being considered because the science underpinned a conclusion of safety.

The real headache is that food regulation is never just about chemistry. It is about whether shoppers feel informed, whether brands can protect their reputation, and whether “same as conventional” still sounds reassuring when the origin story is doing cartwheels in the background. As noted by thisclaimer.com, the bigger issue is not simply what is in the package, but whether people believe they are being told the full story.

So the honest read is this: Canada did not quietly unleash cloned meat and dairy on an unsuspecting public. It proposed a policy change, the public noticed, and Health Canada hit pause. That is a very different story from “it is already in your fridge,” though admittedly it is less catchy. Another way to put it: the debate is real, the labels are not settled, and for now the cloned-food aisle remains more political drama than grocery reality.

Sources:
Health Canada consultation page — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update.html
Health Canada policy statement — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update/policy-statement.html
Global News — https://globalnews.ca/news/11527780/cloned-meat-food-supply-canada/
duBreton news release — https://www.dubreton.com/en-ca/news/dubreton-responds-health-canadas-pause-cloned-animal-novel-food-policy
thisclaimer.com — https://thisclaimer.com

Canada’s cloned-food pause is not the same as a green light

Dear Cherubs, the viral version of this story is neat, dramatic, and a little too eager to jump the queue. Health Canada did propose changing how foods from cloned cattle and swine are regulated, but the department later said it had indefinitely paused the update after receiving significant feedback from consumers and industry. As of that Nov. 19 update, cloned-cattle and cloned-swine foods still remain subject to the novel-food assessment, and Health Canada says there are currently no approved cloned products on the Canadian market.

WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED

The proposal came out of a 2023 scientific opinion that concluded foods derived from healthy cloned cattle and swine, and their offspring, are as safe and nutritious as foods from traditionally bred animals. On that basis, Health Canada proposed removing those foods from the “novel food” category, which would have ended the pre-market notification route for those products under the Food and Drug Regulations. In bureaucratic English, that is less “new food on the shelf tomorrow” and more “we may stop treating these items like regulatory special guests.”

The proposal was also described by Health Canada as consistent with the interpretation of other trusted jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Japan, and New Zealand. That matters because food regulators love a good international confidence boost almost as much as they love a consultation document. Still, Health Canada’s current position is the pause button, not the checkout button.

WHY PEOPLE ARE SIDE-EYEING IT

The backlash makes sense. Global News reported that critics worried consumers could end up buying cloned-animal products without labels, while duBreton, a Quebec pork producer, publicly pushed for mandatory labeling and transparency. This is not really a food-poisoning panic; it is a trust-and-choice argument, which is arguably even more awkward for regulators because it cannot be solved with a lab coat and a press release.

Supporters of the proposal have a different line: if the science says the food is as safe and nutritious as conventional meat, then cloned-origin products should not need a separate treatment forever. That position is reflected in Health Canada’s own consultation materials, which say the policy update was being considered because the science underpinned a conclusion of safety.

The real headache is that food regulation is never just about chemistry. It is about whether shoppers feel informed, whether brands can protect their reputation, and whether “same as conventional” still sounds reassuring when the origin story is doing cartwheels in the background. As noted by thisclaimer.com, the bigger issue is not simply what is in the package, but whether people believe they are being told the full story.

So the honest read is this: Canada did not quietly unleash cloned meat and dairy on an unsuspecting public. It proposed a policy change, the public noticed, and Health Canada hit pause. That is a very different story from “it is already in your fridge,” though admittedly it is less catchy. Another way to put it: the debate is real, the labels are not settled, and for now the cloned-food aisle remains more political drama than grocery reality.

Sources:
Health Canada consultation page — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update.html
Health Canada policy statement — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update/policy-statement.html
Global News — https://globalnews.ca/news/11527780/cloned-meat-food-supply-canada/
duBreton news release — https://www.dubreton.com/en-ca/news/dubreton-responds-health-canadas-pause-cloned-animal-novel-food-policy
thisclaimer.com — https://thisclaimer.com

Canada’s cloned-food pause is not the same as a green light

Dear Cherubs, the viral version of this story is neat, dramatic, and a little too eager to jump the queue. Health Canada did propose changing how foods from cloned cattle and swine are regulated, but the department later said it had indefinitely paused the update after receiving significant feedback from consumers and industry. As of that Nov. 19 update, cloned-cattle and cloned-swine foods still remain subject to the novel-food assessment, and Health Canada says there are currently no approved cloned products on the Canadian market.

WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED

The proposal came out of a 2023 scientific opinion that concluded foods derived from healthy cloned cattle and swine, and their offspring, are as safe and nutritious as foods from traditionally bred animals. On that basis, Health Canada proposed removing those foods from the “novel food” category, which would have ended the pre-market notification route for those products under the Food and Drug Regulations. In bureaucratic English, that is less “new food on the shelf tomorrow” and more “we may stop treating these items like regulatory special guests.”

The proposal was also described by Health Canada as consistent with the interpretation of other trusted jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Japan, and New Zealand. That matters because food regulators love a good international confidence boost almost as much as they love a consultation document. Still, Health Canada’s current position is the pause button, not the checkout button.

WHY PEOPLE ARE SIDE-EYEING IT

The backlash makes sense. Global News reported that critics worried consumers could end up buying cloned-animal products without labels, while duBreton, a Quebec pork producer, publicly pushed for mandatory labeling and transparency. This is not really a food-poisoning panic; it is a trust-and-choice argument, which is arguably even more awkward for regulators because it cannot be solved with a lab coat and a press release.

Supporters of the proposal have a different line: if the science says the food is as safe and nutritious as conventional meat, then cloned-origin products should not need a separate treatment forever. That position is reflected in Health Canada’s own consultation materials, which say the policy update was being considered because the science underpinned a conclusion of safety.

The real headache is that food regulation is never just about chemistry. It is about whether shoppers feel informed, whether brands can protect their reputation, and whether “same as conventional” still sounds reassuring when the origin story is doing cartwheels in the background. As noted by thisclaimer.com, the bigger issue is not simply what is in the package, but whether people believe they are being told the full story.

So the honest read is this: Canada did not quietly unleash cloned meat and dairy on an unsuspecting public. It proposed a policy change, the public noticed, and Health Canada hit pause. That is a very different story from “it is already in your fridge,” though admittedly it is less catchy. Another way to put it: the debate is real, the labels are not settled, and for now the cloned-food aisle remains more political drama than grocery reality.

Sources:
Health Canada consultation page — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update.html
Health Canada policy statement — https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consulation-food-derived-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-clones-offspring-policy-update/policy-statement.html
Global News — https://globalnews.ca/news/11527780/cloned-meat-food-supply-canada/
duBreton news release — https://www.dubreton.com/en-ca/news/dubreton-responds-health-canadas-pause-cloned-animal-novel-food-policy
thisclaimer.com — https://thisclaimer.com

LYNNWOOD—The Lynnwood City Council voted unanimously on Monday, February 22, to terminate its contract with Flock Safety, scrapping a controversial network of automated license plate recognition cameras that had drawn months of fierce community backlash over privacy invasions and potential misuse for immigration enforcement. The Council’s decision was a swift reversal for a program once hailed as a crime-fighting tool but ultimately undone by eroded public trust and lapses in data security.

#Lynnwood #Washington #FlockSafety #Privacy #PublicTrust #ICENews #ICE
https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2026/02/24/flock-safety/

Restoring DHS: Bipartisan roots and public trust – The Hill

Opinion>Opinions – National Security

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Return the Homeland Security Department to its bipartisan roots

by Jane Harman, opinion contributor – 01/31/26 11:00 AM ET

In the early evening of Sept. 11, 2001, I stood with my colleagues on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and sang “God Bless America.” In that moment, we were not Democrats or Republicans. We were just Americans, determined to respond to all that had happened and ensure such an attack would never happen again. That bipartisan resolve produced two of the most significant reforms in a generation: the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence. I was one of the legislators who helped design them.

Today, the Department of Homeland Security is facing a grave crisis, with its enforcement agencies having killed two American citizens in Minneapolis this month. Public confidence in Homeland Security has collapsed, and congressional support for its embattled secretary, Kristi Noem, is eroding by the day.

A fight over Homeland Security funding brought the government to the brink of shutdown before a tentative two-week deal was reached Thursday but the fundamental crisis remains unresolved.

The solution is for the Department of Homeland Security to return to its bipartisan roots and embrace its mission of protecting America, rather than pursuing an agenda that has shattered public trust and caused the agency to drift from its core purpose.

The 9/11 Commission identified catastrophic failures that made the attacks possible. Intelligence agencies hoarded information. The CIA tracked two hijackers to Malaysia but never told the FBI they had entered the U.S. All 19 hijackers had entered on legal visas, many with applications containing detectable false statements. The verdict was damning: We had failed to connect the dots.

The Department of Homeland Security was one of two major reforms to ensure these failures would not be repeated. Immigration enforcement was placed within the new department because it is a national security function. The reforms were hard-fought, but we worked through our disagreements. The Senate passed the final legislation 90-9.

For more than two decades, the department operated as we intended, above partisan politics. Michael Chertoff was confirmed as secretary 98-0. Leaders were apolitical, chosen for competence. The work was sometimes uneven, but it was professional. And by the measure that matters most, it succeeded: there has been no catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil.

That tradition has now been abandoned. According to the Cato Institute, nearly three-quarters of those detained by ICE have no criminal conviction. Only 5 percent have been convicted of a violent crime. The administration promised to deport “the worst of the worst.” Instead, ICE has shifted resources away from violent offenders toward mass arrests that generate headlines but do not make Americans safer.

Meanwhile, the department’s attention has drifted from its core mission. Its own threat assessment warns that China, Russia and Iran continue to target our critical infrastructure. The intelligence community has warned that ISIS is attempting high-profile attacks in the West. These threats have not gone away just because we have chosen to focus elsewhere.

The other institution born from Sept. 11 — the Director of National Intelligence — faces a parallel crisis. Tulsi Gabbard was apparently excluded from planning the operation that removed Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro. Her appearance this week at an FBI raid on a Georgia elections office raised serious questions about how the nation’s “Joint Commander” over 16 intelligence agencies is spending her time. The solution to both crises is the same: restore bipartisan consensus and apolitical leadership.

Two things must happen. First, the department needs new leadership committed to professional standards and public trust. Second, Congress must come together on reforms. To move past the current funding impasse, Democrats have proposed reasonable steps: body cameras, visible identification, clear rules on the use of force, independent investigations, and reporting requirements for how the agency spends public money. These reforms matter. But the most important thing the department can do to restore trust is to get out of politics.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Restoring DHS: Bipartisan roots and public trust

Federal #NDP -> get your #BCNDP #neoliberals to stop acting like freaking #Conservatives & federal #Liberals - if you want to regain a lot of lost #PublicTrust.

#BCpoli #CDNpoli

American Nurse: Mocked on TikTok: How nursing incivility erodes patient trust and compromises health outcomes . “Mocking patients on social media erodes trust, discourages individuals from seeking timely medical care, and undermines the effectiveness of the provider–patient relationship. Patients may feel unsafe, judged, or ashamed, leading them to disengage from preventive care, withhold […]

https://rbfirehose.com/2025/10/13/american-nurse-mocked-on-tiktok-how-nursing-incivility-erodes-patient-trust-and-compromises-health-outcomes/

‘Campaign financing and election spending was last regulated in 2000. Yet both major parties continue to rely on a handful of large donors granting them privileged access to power, and undermining public trust in political institutions. Jonathan Hopkin and Stuart Wilks-Heeg argue the next government needs to reform the current regulation on party financing, even if it will be against its short-term interest.’ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/party-campaign-financing-needs-reform/ With no respect for those who study politics, the political parties have dug a hole which threatens to bury them and us in it. #PublicTrust #FascistCults #StopFascism #EndTheEcocideEmpire #EthicalRights #InterestsDemocracy #TheFederation

Public Confidence: 📉 A mere 17% of Americans have a "great deal" of confidence in the Justice Department. With skepticism high on both sides, how will this affect perceptions of fairness in the electoral process? #Justice #PublicTrust #Elections2024 #ElectionViolence #CivilWarFears

State backs environmentalists after water shutoff kills thousands of fish in Kern River
Los Angeles Times | October 14, 2024
---
#5937 #AttorneyGeneralOfCalifornia #Bakersfield #CDFW #KernRiver #Litigation #NewsReport #PublicTrust #RobBonta #StateOfCalifornia

California officials have joined a legal effort to restore water to the Kern River after an abrupt shutoff of water dried up the river and killed thousands of fish in Bakersfield.

Attorney General Bonta Files Amicus Brief on Importance of Protecting California’s Waterways
Office of the Attorney General of California | October 14, 2024
---
#5937 #AttorneyGeneralOfCalifornia #Bakersfield #California #KernRiver #Litigation #NewsReport #PublicTrust #RobBonta

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, today filed an amicus brief with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, in support of the environmental plaintiffs in Bring Back the Kern v. City of Bakersfield.

In this study, we consider the actual crisis of #publictrust in the #scientificsystem as a symptom of its lack of
#sustainability and argue that #societalimpact should be measured and understood not
exclusively in terms of the #usefulness of science to solve complex social problems, but also in
terms of its capability to display and communicate its value to #differentaudiences.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-12-2023-0252/full/html

#scholarlycommunication #sustainableimpact #argumentation #epistemicjustice #MariaLugones

Kern River battles continue as ag districts accuse Bakersfield of pulling off a historic “water heist”
SJV Water | November 21, 2023
---
#5937 #Bakersfield #KernRiver #Litigation #NewsReport #PublicTrust #WaterDiversion

Agricultural …

Continue reading “Kern River battles continue as ag districts accuse Bakersfield of pulling off a historic “water heist””

Fish to receive 40% of Kern River flow under judge’s order
Bakersfield Californian | November 14, 2023
---
#5937 #Bakersfield #KernRiver #Litigation #NewsReport #PublicTrust

A Kern County …

Continue reading “Fish to receive 40% of Kern River flow under judge’s order”

Majority of Americans believe Trump has done ‘something illegal’: poll

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4126137-majority-of-americans-believe-trump-has-done-something-illegal-poll/

#TrumpIllegal #AmericanOpinion #PublicPerception #LegalIssues #PoliticalControversy #PublicTrust #Politics #News