|
|||||||||
|
Thursday, November 20, 2025
"When your company supports Trump, we don’t support you"
"Seditious Behavior Punishable by Death"
President
Donald Trump on Thursday called for the arrest of Democratic
lawmakers who urged service members and intelligence officials to
disobey illegal orders that might be issued by the administration,
calling it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,”
Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
He was referring to half a dozen members of Congress who
previously served in the military or intelligence community who posted a video
on X earlier this week urging the military and intelligence community to
“refuse illegal orders.”
“Their words cannot be allowed to stand - We won’t have a
Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump wrote, going on to add in a
subsequent Truth Social post: “LOCK THEM UP???”
He added “punishable by DEATH!” in yet another post later
Thursday morning, after reposting another user’s post that read: “HANG THEM
GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”
CNN has reached out to the White House and to the
lawmakers who appeared in the video. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and
his leadership team released a sharply worded statement against what they
described as death threats from Trump against the lawmakers.
“We have been in contact with the House Sergeant at Arms
and the United States Capitol Police to ensure the safety of these Members and
their families. Donald Trump must immediately delete these unhinged social
media posts and recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed,”
they said in part.
In the video, the lawmakers said, “No one has to carry
out orders that violate the law, or our Constitution,” adding, “Know that we
have your back. … Don’t give up the ship.” The lawmakers don’t specify which
orders service members have received, or might receive, that could be illegal.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday that
the Justice Department will be taking a “very close look” at those lawmakers’
actions, calling it a “disgusting and inappropriate display of supposed
leadership from the Democrat Party.”
Wednesday, November 19, 2025
"Quiet, Piggy!"
Trump said to Lucey on
Friday, pointing his finger at her, after she asked him why he would not
release material on disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein "if there's
nothing incriminating in the files."
CNN journalist Jake Tapper called Trump's
"piggy" comment "disgusting and completely unacceptable."
On Tuesday, Trump singled out ABC News's Mary Bruce after she asked a series of questions in the Oval Office as the US president hosted the de facto Saudi ruler in a high-profile event. Bruce first asked questions about whether dealings by Trump's family business with the Saudis were a conflict of interest.
She then quizzed Prince Mohammed over the 2018 murder of
dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, saying "US intelligence
concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist, 9/11
families are furious that you are here in the Oval Office. Why should Americans
trust you?"
Trump cut in angrily, saying: "ABC fake news. One of
the worst in the business."
'No more questions'
Trump then said he has "nothing to do"
with the Trump organization, which is currently run by his two eldest sons and
which announced a deal with a Saudi developer for a resort in the Maldives on
Monday.
Trump
also backed Prince Mohammed's denial of involvement in the Khashoggi murder,
despite US intelligence suggesting he approved the operation.
"You don't have to embarrass our guest by asking a
question like that," Trump snapped.
Trump boiled over again when Bruce later asked about the
flashpoint issue of Epstein. Congress voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to order
the release of files about the financier, who died by suicide in 2019 while
awaiting trial for sex trafficking.
"It's not the question that I mind. It's your attitude. I think you are a terrible reporter," Trump shot back at Bruce. Trump said he had "nothing to do" with Epstein and repeated his claim that the scandal is a "hoax." And "your crappy company is one of the perpetrators," he told her.
Trump urged the head of the US broadcast regulator -- who
has previously threatened ABC over its content -- to "look at" taking
away its license. He
then pointed at Bruce: "No more questions from you."
(Except for the headline, this story has not been
edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
It’s particularly galling that the president’s response
to a legitimate question about the matter is “Quiet Piggy.” It tells you all
you need to know about this president’s attitude toward women. Of course, that
hasn’t been in doubt since we saw him on tape saying, “Grab them by the
p*ssy.” He’s
called a stream of women who stood up to him, like Hillary Clinton,
Nancy Pelosi, and Kamala Harris, “nasty women.” In 2014, Trump called New
York Times columnist Gail Collins “frumpy and very
dumb, We could be here all night listing the misogyny, but the sad truth
is, MAGA doesn’t care. The men like it and the women, inexplicably, are willing
to tolerate it.
I keep coming back to the Joseph McCarthy moment where
the red-baiting senator was finally asked, “Have you no decency,” and his cult
of personality burst. “Quiet, Piggy.” We shouldn’t forget that the president of
the United States uttered those words in this moment. At a time when women were
fighting for justice, the man who cut himself out of the investigation into
wrongdoing had that to say about a woman who was simply trying to do her job.
Portland has reclaimed the frog as a symbol of its
resistance to Trump’s efforts to militarize the city. Perhaps women should
claim the glamorous, sassy Muppet Miss Piggy, a known diva with a fierce karate
chop, as their own symbol. Call a woman a piggy, and see how that goes for you,
Mr. President. Enough demeaning of women. Signing the Epstein Files bill when
it hits his desk, which Trump has promised to do, won’t be enough. The files
have to be released, no excuses. It’s time to emulate the great Miss Piggy, who
has never stayed quiet in the face of those who don’t respect her.
We’re in this together,
-Joyce Vance
The Comey Prosecution: What Happens When the U.S. Government Loses Its Credibility
It’s been a day of ping-pong in court in the Comey case,
with pleadings and rulings volleying back and forth all day long concerning
whether the government is required to turn over transcripts from grand jury
proceedings. Grand jury transcripts are sealed to protect the integrity of
investigations, and it’s extremely rare for a judge to make them available to a
defendant. But that’s exactly what’s happening in the prosecution of the former
FBI director. That’s because there are credible allegations of misconduct
before the grand jury.
Misconduct is a word that can cover a lot of ground.
We’ve been discussing some of it, like vindictive or selective prosecutions,
which violate constitutional guarantees of due process. Prosecutors possess
enormous power over people’s lives, and that power is too great to allow abuse
of it to go unaddressed. People’s lives hang in the balance—if prosecutors can
abuse their powers, innocent people can go to prison. Now, amplify the idea of
abuse of power with a president who is directing the Justice Department to
punish his enemies and reward his friends, and you have a sense of just how
serious this moment is.
So, the issues involved here are incredibly important for
the future of our democracy, but it becomes something of a muddle when the news
reports you see are about dueling pleadings. A critically significant situation
starts to feel picayune. We can’t afford to let that happen, so tonight,
we’ll spend our time together dissecting what’s happening and its meaning. Last
week I wrote to you that “there are strict rules governing
prosecutors’ interactions with grand jurors and it’s not beyond the realm of
possibility that someone with no prosecutorial experience could have
transgressed them.” That turns out to have been on point.
The verdict is in on the maiden grand jury performance of
Lindsey Halligan, the insurance lawyer Trump picked to replace an experienced
prosecutor who refused to indict the Comey case because there wasn’t evidence
to support it. The Judge found plenty to find fault with.
To understand what happened today, we need to know how we got here. The government wanted to use evidence from another proceeding in this case, but some of that evidence was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The government asked the Judge to permit them to use a “filter team” to evaluate the evidence to decide what the prosecutors in this case could use without violating the privilege. There are two judges involved: District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is hearing the case, and Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who is hearing some of the discovery disputes.
In the course of
the proceedings before Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick, problems came to light
involving Halligan’s presentation to the grand jury and Comey’s lawyers filed a
motion asking for disclosure of the grand jury minutes, in part because “the
agent who served as a witness in the proceedings may have been exposed to Mr.
Comey’s privileged communications with his attorneys and thus may have conveyed
that information to the grand jury.” (If you want to know more about the filter
team dispute after you’ve read tonight’s post, the dense procedural
history of the case is laid out here).
As the questions about the proceedings before the grand
jury became more complicated, the government suggested that Judge Fitzpatrick
could review the grand jury materials privately to assist him in making a
decision about whether they needed to be disclosed to the defense. He reviewed
them, along with the parties’ briefs and oral arguments. Monday morning,
he issued his decision.
I like a judge who clarifies both the issue and the
decision they’ve reached (called “the holding”) in the first paragraph of an
order, instead of making you work for it or wait until the concluding sentences
to figure out where this had been headed all along. This Judge does not
disappoint. The bottom line is in the first paragraph of Judge Fitzpatrick’s order.
The issue, the Judge explains, is: “whether there are …
grounds to justify the disclosure of grand jury materials to the defense.” He
concludes that “the record in this case requires the full disclosure of grand
jury materials.” He goes on to clarify that while “this is an extraordinary
remedy,” Comey’s “factually based challenges … to the government’s conduct and
the prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury
proceedings” mean the government is required to turn over grand jury materials
to the defense “under these unique circumstances” in order to “fully protect
the rights” of the defendant.
|
|
The burden a defendant in a criminal case has to meet for
a judge to make an order like this one is very high, because protecting grand
jury secrecy is essential to protecting the integrity of the process. The Judge
notes that a defendant has to show that “‘particularized and factually based
grounds exist to support the proposition that irregularities in the grand jury
proceedings may create a basis for dismissal of the indictment,’” and that the
“‘burden [cannot] be satisfied with conclusory or speculative allegations of
misconduct.’” That suggests that Comey’s lawyers came forward with information
of compelling significance.
The order traces the history of the “other investigation”—the one prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia apparently wanted to use in the Comey case, and which led to the filter team proceedings. It was called Arctic Haze and took place back in 2019 and 2020. It involved Comey’s friend Daniel Richman, whom Comey hired as one of his lawyers after Trump fired him, and allegations that government property in the form of classified information was stolen and then provided to journalists by Richman.
It
turns out that the Judge found evidence that the government violated the
attorney-client privilege when it executed search warrants in that case, and
that the government violated a fundamental requirement of the Fourth Amendment,
that agents executing a search warrant only seize materials that the warrant
authorizes them to take away. That case did not result in any indictments, and
the search warrants were never tested in court.
Fast forward to 2025, when the government decided to
“rummage through” the Arctic Haze evidence to see if it could help with the
Comey prosecution. The Judge writes, “Inexplicably, the government elected not
to seek a new warrant for the 2025 search, even though the 2025 investigation
was focused on a different person, was exploring a fundamentally different
legal theory, and was predicated on an entirely different set of criminal
offenses.” It should have been routine for the government to do that, but as the
Judge notes, that would have taken time, and the government only had 18 days
left before the statute of limitations lapsed when it took up the old file.
|
|
It was during that new review of the evidence that an agent realized there were potential attorney-client privilege problems with what he was seeing and what the team was using. He advised an FBI lawyer and the agent who ultimately went before the grand jury to testify when the indictment was obtained about that problem.
But the agent who testified,
instead of removing himself from the case because his knowledge was tainted by
the exposure to potential attorney-client communications, went in and testified.
The Judge calculates that the government, “for reasons that remain unclear,”
waited for 31 days from the date it began reviewing the old materials and 18
days after the FBI lawyer was advised there was a problem, to ask the court for
permission to review the evidence using a filter team. That left the court with
the “prospect that privileged materials were used to shape the government’s
presentation and therefore improperly inform the grand jurors’ deliberations.”
There’s more, though, in the form of improper statements
the prosecutor—Trump’s handpicked loyalist Lindsey Halligan—made to the grand
jury. These are the kind of errors that, in a normal Justice Department, would
lead to a review by the Office of Professional Responsibility and sanctions
against the prosecutor who behaved in this manner if it was determined that she
violated the law, Department rules, and a defendant’s rights, as the Judge
suggests she may well have. There are two problematic areas, slightly obscured
by redactions. But we can read the tea leaves:
Halligan may have misled the grand jury about the
strength of the evidence against Director Comey by making serious errors when
she advised them about his Fifth Amendment rights. She may have left grand
jurors with the impression Comey had to prove his innocence, rather than the
actual burden of proof in a criminal case, which requires the government to
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Judge called what happened here “a disturbing pattern
of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a
prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding”
and granted Comey’s request for access to all of the grand jury proceedings. He
ordered the government to turn over those materials by 3 p.m. on Monday.
Predictably, the government pushed back.
The government asked District Judge Nachmanoff for an emergency stay.
They wanted at least a week. The Judge gave them until 5 p.m. Wednesday to
file their objections to the magistrate judge’s order. The defense has
until Friday to respond. Judge Nachmanoff indicated he would decide
the matter based on those pleadings, in other words, without any oral argument.
Whether Comey will ultimately get access to the grand jury materials is now up to Judge Nachmanoff. The larger issue that looms is whether this situation (independent of the motions for selective and vindictive prosecution we have previously discussed, along with one regarding the propriety of Halligan’s appointment as U.S. Attorney) will provide a basis for dismissal of the indictment.
Judge Fitzpatrick suggested that it might: “The
Supreme Court has recognized that a district court may use its supervisory
power ‘to dismiss an indictment because of misconduct before the grand jury’ …
The Supreme Court has also recognized that this supervisory power of federal
district courts should be used ‘to implement a remedy for violation[s] of
recognized rights, to preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction
rests on appropriate considerations validly before the jury, and finally, as a
remedy designed to deter illegal conduct.’” He concluded, “Accordingly, when
prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury prejudices a defendant and
threatens the defendant’s right to fundamental fairness in the criminal
process, a district court may exercise its supervisory authority to dismiss the
indictment.”
This is about Jim Comey and whether the case against him will be dismissed or whether he will go to trial. But it’s also a tragic example of what has happened to the Justice Department, which is exposed as a political tool for the president to wield against his enemies when he wants to. Across the country, prosecutors and agents are working hard every day to protect the American people. They are capably pursuing bank robberies, drug trafficking, cybercrime, and many other cases.
What is happening here dishonors
their commitment and is a disservice to the American people. Being aware is
necessary to demand better, and to understand that this ping pong game of a
case is among the essential reasons we cannot give up. If Donald Trump can
abuse the criminal justice system like this, democracy is not safe, and we are
not safe.
We’re in this together,
Joyce Vance
Tuesday, November 18, 2025
"As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.’s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children"
“We are now witnessing what the historian Richard Rhodes termed “public man-made death,” which, he observed, has been perhaps the most overlooked cause of mortality in the last century. Brooke Nichols, the Boston University epidemiologist and mathematical modeler, has maintained a respected tracker of current impact. The model is conservative, assuming, for example, that the State Department will fully sustain the programs that remain.
As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.’s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children.
The toll is appalling and will continue to grow. But these losses will be harder to see than those of war. For one, they unfold slowly. When H.I.V. or tuberculosis goes untested, unprevented, or inadequately treated, months or years can pass before a person dies. The same is true for deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses.
Another difficulty is that the
deaths are scattered. Suppose the sudden withdrawal of aid raises a country’s
under-five death rate from three per cent to four per cent. That would be a
one-third increase in deaths, but hard to appreciate simply by looking around.
The Administration, for its part, has denied causing widespread harm, even as it has made the scale of the damage harder to measure—halting data monitoring and dismissing the inspectors general who might have documented it.
This is common in cases of public man-made death. During
Mao Zedong’s disastrous Great Leap Forward, from 1958 to 1961, the Chinese
government released no accurate mortality data. Observers abroad understood
that a hunger crisis was under way when China began importing grain, but the
scale of the catastrophe was not known until the mid-nineteen-eighties, when
the first reliable census allowed historians to calculate that between
twenty-three and thirty million people had died.”
Read more: https://www.newyorker.com/.../the-shutdown-of-usaid-has...
Monday, November 17, 2025
Epstein, Epstein, Epstein...
Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. Rather than rehash the
horrifying and disgusting details we’ve read in the news so far or debate the
political consequences that may or may not come for our national sexual abuser
in chief, I want to zero in on what the hell is actually happening
legislatively. So for this week's newsletter I’m going to try to break it down:
What is the legislation that would release the Epstein
files? This legislation is called the “Epstein Files Transparency Act”
(H.R. 4405). In short, it directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release
files they have relating to Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, related investigations,
immunity deals struck, internal DOJ communications, and other information. It’s
a long, specific list, but the bill itself is pretty straightforward and just
about 3 pages long (you can read it here).
I don’t know how else to say this, so I’ll just say it:
This bill is not just a political game. There are actual, real-life victims
directly, personally impacted by this legislation and the cover-up that
preceded it. The press often treats the bill as a political inconvenience for
Trump and his coalition. And that same press often ignores Trump’s conviction
for sexual assault just two years ago in the same articles
that treat the trafficking and rape of young girls as a mere political
football.
Shouldn’t we be worried that some Democrats are
implicated? It’s so weird to me that people ask this question as some
sort of gotcha. I don’t care what political party a person belongs to -- anyone
who trafficked and/or sexually assaulted children should face removal from
office, public excommunication, prosecution, and serious prison time. That’s
easy for me to write because I’m not in a cult. That’s one key difference
between us and Trump’s MAGA fanatics. Back to the legislative process.
Is this thing actually going to pass the House? Yes, this bill will pass -- likely with unanimous backing from Democrats and even a sizable number of Republicans. Squeaker of the House Mike Johnson tried burying it by shutting down the House for 6 weeks and refusing to swear in Adelita Grijalva, but it’s not going away. The votes are there. That’s why, after spending weeks campaigning against it, Trump himself saw he was going to lose the House fight and posted Sunday night encouraging House Republicans to vote for the bill.
Does this mean it will pass the Senate? We
don’t know. Senate Majority Leader John Thune could decline to schedule a vote
or draft his own weaker bill. For an Epstein bill to pass the Senate, 13
Republican senators will have to join every Democrat. Under normal
circumstances, that’d be nearly inconceivable for legislation opposed by Trump.
But pressure is already building from many Epstein survivors and even from some conservative senators.
My guess is that if it comes to the floor and we keep the
heat on, the votes are there for Senate passage, but that’s just a guess.
If it passes the Senate, do we get the files
then? Again, we don’t know for sure.
Trump could still veto the legislation, and if he does,
it would take 2/3 of the House (~290 votes) and Senate (~67 votes) to override
that veto. So one thing to pay close attention to is whether the bill achieves
veto-proof support in the House this week. If it does, Trump might not be able
to pull off a veto strategy.
Trump could also sign the bill but then simply refuse to
release the files anyway -- or withhold and redact so much information that
we’re still left with more questions than answers. The bill is very specific
about what needs to be released and when, but we know better than to assume
this regime will follow the law.
In any case, the more House members vote for the bill and
loudly call for transparency this week, the weaker Trump’s position becomes,
and the more likely it is that the full truth comes to light.
So what does that mean for all of us? As you
can see, there are a lot of things we just don’t know because this is a live
fight -- one in which constituent pressure could truly sway the outcome. Every
House and Senate Dem is going to support the legislation; the question is how
much the Republicans fracture over it. If you’ve got a Republican representative, now’s a good time to
give them an earful about this.
Our opponents are disgusting, cruel, and craven. They
have real power to do real harm, but they are not inevitable or unstoppable.
They are not the majority. We are. And we will defeat them with acts of
solidarity small and large in defense of justice and truth. That’s how we win.
In solidarity,
Ezra Levin
Co-Executive Director, Indivisible
Your weekly to-dos
If you have a Republican representative, send them an email
to demand full release of the Epstein Files. The House is readying
a vote to obtain the FULL Epstein Files this Tuesday, and although it
looks likely to pass, the threat of a Trump veto is real. To notch a
veto-proof majority and max out our chance of uncovering the truth, we
need mass defections by Republicans -- and that starts by turning the heat up.
If you have a Democratic senator, demand that they call for
Chuck Schumer to step down as minority leader. Last week’s total
surrender shows, once again, that Chuck Schumer is not the right leader for
this moment. Senate Dems need bold new leadership to effectively fight the
Trump regime, and that starts by convincing Schumer to step aside.
Cancel your Spotify Premium subscription until Spotify stops
running ICE ads. Spotify is running ads recruiting more ICE agents
to infringe our rights and terrorize our communities, so we’re calling on users
to stop paying for or using the app until Spotify stops streaming
fascism. Don’t use Spotify? Support the campaign by spreading the word on social media.
Sign up to call voters and get out the vote for Aftyn Behn
-- a former Indivisible running to flip a red congressional seat! Our
next chance to stomp the regime at the ballot box is in Tennessee, where Aftyn
Behn can flip a district Trump won by double-digits if we turn enough voters
out. You can call voters from anywhere. All you need is a phone and
computer, and we offer live training before the shift!
Upcoming events for you
These nationwide events, calls, and training sessions are coming up soon. For even more Indivisible happenings, check our national calendar and get in touch with Indivisible groups near you!
This week, we’ll be keeping our eyes out for developments in a number of different areas by Joyce Vance
National Guard Cases
SCOTUS has no scheduled arguments this week, but that
doesn’t mean there won’t be activity there. With the Chicago National Guard
case already before the Court, on Friday, the administration appealed the
Oregon decision that permanently enjoined the president from deploying National
Guard troops to Portland. And on Monday, all parties in the Chicago case
will file their final briefs.
The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled the Chicago case
itself for oral argument. The emergency appeal, an effort by the administration
to end the lower court stay that prevents Trump from deploying troops while the
litigation is underway, could be decided this week, after the briefs are in.
The underpinning of the White House’s argument in both
Chicago and Portland is that the troops were being sent to “protect federal
assets and personnel,” pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the
president to federalize troops under certain designated circumstances. The
White House argues that the courts may not review the president’s decision to
deploy. Reporting last week suggested that only 2.6% of 614
people arrested during “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago had criminal
histories, per DOJ records. If statistics like that are reflected in the record
when the Court considers the case, it would undercut Trump’s argument that
federal property had to be protected from attack by dangerous criminals.
The Epstein Files
In a dramatic Sunday night reversal,
Trump wrote on Truth Social that Republicans in Congress
“should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide.”
Of course, if that were true, he wouldn’t have been
fighting the release for months. Which leads us to wonder, what changed? Was
Trump’s dramatic Twitter breakup with Marjorie Taylor Greene, whom he
alternately dubbed Marjorie Treason Green and Marjorie Taylor Brown, all for
nothing?
Perhaps Trump is just caving into the inevitable.
It seems likely that a big tranche of Republicans is set
to vote for the release measure, whether he wants them to or not. Or perhaps
it’s the knowledge that with DOJ having opened a new investigation, albeit only
into Democrats, there is reason to withhold at least some portion of the
documents. It was only two days ago that Trump called on the Justice Department to investigate the
connection between prominent Democrats named in Epstein’s text messages and the
convicted sex offender, as well as the role of financial institutions. DOJ
routinely delays release of evidence involved in a criminal investigation until
it is complete. Trump could have the best of both worlds—supporting release
while knowing his lawyers would object.
We’ll have to watch to see how it all plays out this
week.
Pardons
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the revenge
prosecutions, like those against Jim Comey and Letitia James that the DOJ has
launched, the rewards Trump is handing out—pardons for those he favors. That’s
what happened last week in the case of Dan Wilson, who received a second pardon
from Trump. Wilson, a militia member who participated in the January 6 insurrection,
had been previously pardoned for that offense. But he also stood convicted of
illegal firearm possession in Kentucky. Trump, the man who is so outraged by
what he claims is crime driven by “illegal aliens,” used his pardon power to
erase the gun charge for Wilson, too.
The message couldn’t be more clear. Trump is reminding the MAGA-faithful about the value of loyalty to the cult leader. He doesn’t care about people who put our communities at risk of violence, the rationale he’s trotted out in Portland and Chicago. It’s a disgraceful exercise of the power the Founders entrusted to presidents so that they could do justice. There could be more this week.
Book Tour Note
If you’re in Birmingham, Alabama, I’ll be signing books at the Barnes and Noble at The Summit from 6:00 PM -8:00 PM. I’d love to get to see you!
We’re in this together,
-Joyce Vance