WASHINGTON — A special counsel investigation looking into the current president. A special counsel investigation looking into a former president. Congressional inquires into Afghanistan and the southern border.

Less than three weeks into the new year, all these investigations are starting to stack up in Washington.

So which ones should you be paying attention to? And which investigations could have the support of both parties?

INVESTIGATIONS GALORE

It's becoming increasingly hard to keep track of all the investigations unfolding in Congress.

When Republicans took over the House, some inquiries, like the committee that looked into the January 6th attacks, went away. However, new committees, like the "Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government," have formed in their place.

Indeed, investigations are only just beginning in Washington.

The probes range from inquiries into President Joe Biden and his family's business dealings to Biden's use of classified documents in the years after he left the White House as vice president.

There are inquiries into the spike in migrants at the southern border, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and political bias at the Department of Justice.

Another folder on social media companies and their influence has been created too.

WHY THEY MATTER

These investigations will be some of the most newsworthy events that come out of Washington these next few years.

With Democrats controlling the Senate and Republicans over the House, issuing a subpoena and forming a select committee will be easier than passing major pieces of legislation.

So which ones should you pay attention to?

While it may be easy to dismiss many of the probes as too political, new information can emerge from them, since Congress has the power to subpoena, and lying can result in jail time. One investigation you may want to watch is the one into social media companies.

Democrats and Republicans have been trying to better understand, for years, what makes it onto someone's news feed.

Republicans have already written to former executives at Twitter looking into whether some stories involving Biden's son, Hunter, were censored. Democrats, meanwhile, are interested in why hate speech can so easily spread online.

One social media site in the U.S., TikTok, is facing even more scrutiny, with Democrats and Republicans worried it is too closely connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Several states have already banned state employees from using TikTok on official devices and Congress is mulling over the idea of even more restrictions.

Of course, all these inquiries are merely investigations led by Congress.

The attorney general is leading other, less public, inquiries as well. Chief among them is the special counsel investigations into Biden, as well as former President Donald Trump.

Those cases could be concluded by the end of this year.

OVERLAND PARK, Kans. — A man fighting for the return of his late wife’s service dog encountered a setback in his case in a Maryland courtroom on Thursday.

The central issue of the court battle is the question of who owns the service dog, Tootsie.

Although a judge did not rule on that matter, he decided the sheepadoodle should remain with Starfleet Service Dogs, Inc. until a trial is held to determine the final outcome in the case.

Paul Marinsky’s late wife Brittani got Tootsie from Starfleet in May 2019 to help her manage daily life with a chronic illness. Brittani Marinsky died in Aug. after a battle with stomach cancer. Before she passed, she asked Paul Marinsky to promise that Tootsie would stay with him.

The couple paid monthly fees of $140 to Starfleet for a wellness plan for Tootsie. In the nearly two years the couple had the dog, Paul Marinsky said he and his late wife spent thousands on training and care.

However, during Thursday’s hearing, a judge pointed to the fact that Starfleet had initially purchased the dog for $800 from an online ad.

There was no receipt showing the Marinskys paid a lump sum to purchase or adopt Tootsie.

An attorney for Starfleet said in court the Marinskys did not pay thousands for training. Rather, the monthly fees were only for reimbursement for vet care and insurance for Tootsie. The attorney also said the Marinskys did not always pay those bills on time.

In her argument, the attorney leaned on the fact that Tootsie’s microchip was registered to Starfleet, which is why the dog’s vet called the organization and arranged for her return.

In his decision regarding possession, the judge did not weigh in on whether or not Starfleet’s taking of Tootsie was lawful.

Starfleet’s attorney said when the dog was picked up, she “had sores all over her body,” was unbathed, had overgrown toenails and an ear infection.

Paul Marinsky has rejected those allegations and said he took Tootsie to the vet because she was having ear problems.

Although the judge decided Tootsie should remain with Starfleet for now, he acknowledged ambiguities in the paperwork Brittani Marinsky signed.

“I wish the contract was clearer,” Judge John Moffett said Thursday morning.

Sean Day, Paul Marinsky's attorney in Maryland, argued Tootsie had graduated with his wife from Starfleet’s program. One of the documents Brittani Marinsky signed said that Starfleet was “willing to accept responsibility for graduated service dogs in the event of a graduate’s death.”

Day says that language in the contracts implies Tootsie became property of the Marinskys.

However, Starfleet’s attorney countered by saying the dog's graduation did not trigger an ownership transfer. She argued the phrase being questioned for its ambiguity was required by the Assistance Dogs International (ADI).

ADI is the worldwide authority that sets standards for service dog programs. Starfleet Service Dogs is not an ADI accredited member, nor is it a candidate program.

During the hearing, the attorney for the Starfleet confirmed Tootsie is in Maryland at this time. Although the judge indicated his preliminary belief Starfleet is likely to prevail, Paul Marinsky and his attorneys plan to keep fighting for the sheepadoodle’s return.

"I can't just walk away and let things be as they are without trying to do the right thing for myself, for my late wife and for Tootsie," Marinsky said in a previous interview with the 41 Action News I-Team.

Paul Marinsky's attorney said the hearing will strengthen his case before trial, since the judge didn't point out any weaknesses in their argument.

A trial date has not yet been set.

This article was written by Cat Reid for KSHB.