The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether baby-formula makers colluded on bids for lucrative state contracts.

The agency, in documents posted to its website, said it is looking into whether Abbott Laboratories and other formula manufacturers have “engaged in collusion or coordination with any other market participant regarding the bidding” for state contracts.

When the federal government gets together with social media giants to censor critics of the government, is that free speech or censorship?

A case moving its way through the federal court system argues it’s censorship — a violation of Americans’ First Amendment right, not only to free speech but also to hear differing arguments.

A federal judge set up an “expedited discovery schedule” Friday.

A Washington attorney who specializes in cybersecurity issues has been indicted for allegedly lying to the FBI ahead of the 2016 election in a conversation about possible ties between Donald Trump and Russia.

Michael Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who had worked at a law firm with longstanding links to the Democratic Party, is the second individual to be charged in special counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe.

Top U.S. intelligence officials were so concerned heading into the 2016 election that the Russians were aware of and potentially manipulating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s plans to smear Donald Trump as a Russian agent that they personally briefed President Barack Obama on the matter, newly declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents show. CIA officials also requested that the FBI investigate Russian knowledge of the Clinton campaign’s collusion smear operation.

WASHINGTON — A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s 2016 election interference laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russian government officials and other Russians, including some with ties to the country’s intelligence services.

It turns out Christopher Steele wasn’t 007.

For years, the media assured Americans that the dossier alleging treasonous collusion between Donald Trump and Russia was based on the scrupulous work of a mastermind British ex-spy and his vast network of credible and well-connected sources spread throughout Europe. It wasn’t true.

Four years ago this week, the leftists at Wikileaks tried to ruin the Democrat convention by posting a trove of emails exposing the Democratic National Committee blatantly favored Hillary Clinton and tilted against Bernie Sanders. But even then, the media downplayed the juiciest tidbits for conservatives: emails in Clinton aide John Podesta’s account that demonstrated how shamelessly reporters and Democrats work hand in hand to shape the “news.” Some might even say it sounds “fake.” For example:

In his first public comments on the transaction since it was revealed by U.S. prosecutors this week, the Dubai-based lawyer, Ralph Isenegger, said in an emailed statement to Reuters that the interest-bearing loan was a personal business transaction.

“The funds were entirely mine and I was not acting in this matter at the request of or on behalf of any of my clients or indeed anyone else,” he said in the statement.

The New York Times allegedly “colluded, collaborated, and conspired” with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) to leak false information from a closed-door deposition to harm President Donald Trump and advance the “impeachment inquisition, according to claims contained in a defamation lawsuit filed Wednesday by a senior Trump White House official.

A probe by Attorney General William Barr into the origins of the Russia investigation has changed from an administrative review into a criminal investigation, a person familiar with the review confirmed to NBC News.

The review is being conducted by Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham. The New York Times first reported Thursday that the administrative review has turned into a criminal investigation.

It’s not clear when the change occurred, but the probe began in May as an administrative review.