Henderson-based conservative social media app Parler is fighting to get back online after Amazon Web Services removed it from its platform Sunday night.

American democracy, always perhaps less sturdy than we imagined, has shown itself of late to be alarmingly fragile. Its survival depends on a number of elements currently in short supply: elected officials who abide not just by the law but by long-observed Constitutional principles and norms of behavior; a body politic animated more by the better angels of our nature than by our baser instincts or a cynical grasping after power; and, finally, on some minimum number of agreed-upon facts, and a shared sense of reality, among the citizenry.

As states certify their official election results, many questions linger about this unprecedented race for the U.S. presidency.

The arrival of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report Friday ended one guessing game in Washington and around the country (when will it drop?), but it immediately prompted a pressing new question: After waiting nearly two years, how much of the actual report, if any, will lawmakers and the public be allowed to see?

After a Carson City judge handed down a goofy decision about Nevada’s shield law, I decided to do a little research. What I found was both exhilarating and infuriating.

As special counsel Robert Mueller prepares a final report on his investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible Trump campaign complicity, two historic presidential inquiries offer distinct -- and clashing -- models.

UNLV professor Stephen Bates is one of three legal experts who filed a petition in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday asking for a decades-old Watergate document to be made public.

A question has loomed over Washington: What will the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, do when he wraps up his investigation into whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia and whether President Trump obstructed justice?