Right:
Blood libel? Seriously? They act like thugs. Do they expect respect for this behavior? In front of her little kids…
This is happening every single day in cities and towns all over this country. It is depraved.
"what digby sez..."
Digby's Hullabaloo Posts
Who’s minding the store?
The Department of War(?) head Pete Hegseth in an extraordinary development has summoned top U.S. military brass stationed around world by the hundreds for an impromptu tête-à-tête. They’ll gather at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia on Tuesday. No one knows why. Nobody’s talking. You should be worried.
The order “applies to all senior officers with the rank of brigadier general or above, or their Navy equivalent, serving in command positions and their top enlisted advisers,” the Washington Post reports. That’s over 800, although it’s unknown how many must attend in person.
Newsweek adds:
Vice President JD Vance said Thursday the gathering is “not particularly unusual.” Asked about it during an Oval Office appearance, President Donald Trump appeared unaware of the details and said, “I’ll be there if they want me but why is that such a big deal?”
I can imagine apocalyptic reasons why it could be a big deal: a ham-fisted, Trumpy version of the Night of the Long Knives, the Katyn forest, or the Ba’ath Party Purge. But nobody in the Trump administration has the stomach for that, not even Stephen Miller.
What else? In-person loyalty oaths? “I pledge allegiance to Donald Trump and to the Monarchy for which he stands”? In an administration otherwise inclined to fire people by social media post, could an in-person purge of the military be in the offing?
Greg Williams, the director of the Center for Defense Information at Project on Government Oversight, tells The Hill:
“It begs the question of why [Hegseth] would do something on such short notice and require so many people to show up in person,” Williams told The Hill. “The absence of public justification for something so unprecedented is in and of itself, a sort of concern.”
He added that the military normally doesn’t require such large, in-person meetings for a whole host of different reasons, including the disruption of ongoing operations, security and “just the sheer safety concerns of having that large a fraction of our military leadership all in one place,” calling it “really concerning.”
USA Today brings readers up to speed on the former Fox News Weekend host’s Trumpy Pentagon makeover to date:
In February, he fired Air Force General C.Q. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with five other admirals and generals in an unprecedented shake-up of U.S. military leadership.
Last month, Hegseth fired the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency and two other senior military commanders.
In May, Hegseth ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star officers. In that May memo, Hegseth said there would also be a minimum 20% reduction in the number of general officers in the National Guard and an additional 10% reduction among general and flag officers across the military.
“More generals and admirals does not lead to more success,” Hegseth said at the time.
Now, many of those generals and admirals will be in the same room.
Now, isn’t that a rather glaring strategic vulnerability? All the military’s top leadership away from their posts “in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns”? What must be going on in the minds of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping while U.S. generals from around the globe are engaged in a team building (or team eviscerating) exercise in Virginia?
Rumor has it that Hegseth is soon to publish a new defense strategy. That in itself should send shivers down our collective spine (and NATO’s and Ukraine’s). Might top brass be asked to sign on to the U.S. pulling back from strategic defense of key allies and trade routes or else find themselves purged as well?
Worst-worst case? Preparation for Trump invoking the Insurrection Act and declaring martial law, suggests podcaster Jack Hopkins, former Republican. It’s the first time I’ve run across this guy, so take it with a grain of salt, but here’s what he recommends to watch out for:
- Post-Meeting Talking Points lean on “civil order” and “homeland security.”
- National Guard federalization ramps up…governors sidelined.
- Rules of Engagement quietly shift to allow “crowd control” language.
- JAGs excluded from the meeting. (Lawyers in the room = legal brakes. Lawyers out = no brakes.)
And the guest list? “Any White House faces present? That’s an alarm,” warns Hopkins.
No problem. I’m already alarmed.
* * * * *
Have you fought dicktatorship today?
50501
May Day Strong
No King’s One Million Rising movement – Next national day of protest Oct. 18
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense
Pace yourselves
Defeating Trumpism is a marathon, not a sprint.
* * * * *
Have you fought dicktatorship today?
50501
May Day Strong
No King’s One Million Rising movement – Next national day of protest Oct. 18
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense
Trump promised he would get vengeance and he’s getting it. Comey was indicted by a Grand Jury today for lying to Congress and obstructing justice. None of the career prosecutors appeared, it was only Trump’s pageant queen insurance lawyer and one US attorney and that’s because the office knows that this is a bogus case only being pursued because Donald Trump has ordered it. The previous USAT resigned rather than bring it.
Trump is celebrating:
How many will resign over this?
They have a big mission ahead of them:
He’s inciting his rabid followers to attack regular, everyday opponents.
This is where we are people. It’s bad. Very bad.
I don’t know if they realize what they’re saying and are just trolling or if they have really lost touch with reality. They have prepared their MAGA audience to take everything they say at face value and never question the monumental hypocrisy of it all so I would guess they’re probably down the same rabbit hole by now.
It has literally come down to this:
TPM’s David Kurtz has some bracing thoughts about the now thoroughly corrupted DOJ. I felt it fully yesterday when I watched the press conferences about the Dallas shooter and realized that I simply had no faith in what the FBI and DOJ was saying about it. That’s frightening because while it’s always good to maintain skepticism about law enforcement I don’t think I’ve ever just assumed they were operating out of purely partisan motives before. I do now and for very good reason.
Anyway, Kurtz makes an important observation about all this:
The traditional journalistic practices for covering criminal investigations and prosecutions are not up to the task of dealing squarely with a president hijacking the Justice Department and using it to, variously, punish his political foes, reward his allies, and cover up his own corruption and that of those around him…
The key thing to remember is that we’re already well beyond the event horizon in the corruption of the Justice Department. If federal judges, having dispensed with the presumption of regularity in the functioning of the government, no longer give the Justice Department the benefit of the doubt in court, then we shouldn’t either.
The implications of that shift are enormous, but too many editors and producers are not fully grappling with them yet.
I think we all know why, starting with the clown show that is the FBI director. And the news media is inadvertently helping them:
The incremental drip-by-drip news coverage of criminal cases, especially in public corruption cases — a highly competitive news environment that rewards the best access and quickest trigger fingers — now does a public disservice. Continuing to cover bogus prosecutions in the traditional ways gives a veneer of legitimacy to what should be framed instead as illegitimate retribution, abuse of power, and public corruption in its own right.
If for days, weeks, and months in advance of charges being brought, news outlets allow themselves to be used to parcel out each investigative development and procedural step in a politicized prosecution, then they’re letting themselves be co-opted by the bad faith actors in service of smearing the putative target. If the average news consumer is seeing the same old headlines they’ve always seen in the run-up to an indictment, how are they to process it as anything other than a normal prosecution?
When prosecutions are driven by naked political considerations, as they are in the Trump DOJ, then every morsel of information is at risk of being part of the underlying propaganda effort to frame the target as a villain, to tar them as criminal, and to exact maximum extra-judicial punishment in the court of public opinion. Editors and producers had a chance to learn these lessons from, among other examples, the Trump I prosecutions of Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko, who were ultimately acquitted, and the corrupt pardons of those legitimately convicted in the Russia investigation. Distressingly, the lessons didn’t stick.
Kurtz uses the example of John Bolton pointing out that we’ve known he was a Trump target for retribution for a very long time. Kurtz wonders how this case should be covered if it’s determined that Bolton did have some classified documents even in light of the fact that we know he was fingered for being a Trump critic.
The answer can’t be to ignore court proceedings entirely. Those proceedings, more than anything else, may reveal the corrupt nature of the prosecution. And yet, the advantage (as it always has) still runs toward the government in these scenarios. Court filings unsealed this week showed the inventory of things that the FBI recovered from Bolton’s home and office. Among them, allegedly, were documents with classification markings.
You can cover the Bolton case like you might have the Sandy Berger case, another national security adviser involved in unauthorized retention of national security documents. But you would, of course, be mostly missing the point. Or you could cover the Bolton prosecution as corrupt, as it certainly is. Or you could attempt to cover it as both, not an easy choice given the inherent tensions in the framing, the confusion it could create in readers, and the fact that actual wrongdoing by the target doesn’t justify a corrupt predicate to the investigation.
(Bolton’s lawyer said that these documents were very old and had been declassified long ago, by the way.)
He doesn’t have any answers and God knows that I don’t. I think this is the best we can do for the moment but we’d better figure it out:
I hate to urge something as anodyne as greater awareness of the inadequacies of the old way of covering criminal cases, but for now it’s a start. And perhaps it’s less about amorphous awareness and more about basic humility. We’re up against a terrifyingly corrupt president abetted by a deeply compromised Supreme Court. It’s going to take new tools and different applications of the old tools to confront the threat we face. No shame in that.
Not only is there no shame — there is tremendous honor in trying to tell the truth about what’s going on and putting it in context for the American people. I thought that’s what journalism was supposed to be.
You knew they were going here, right?
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Republican states this week that the FDA would conduct a new review of abortion pills, a move that abortion rights advocates say could lead to significant restrictions on the most common abortion method nationwide.
Medication abortion is used in nearly two-thirds of abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group focusing on sexual and reproductive health. It is also the primary way that abortions continue in states where abortion is banned, largely because of telehealth appointments and shield laws, which allow some providers in other states to mail abortion pills to women in states with bans without fear of prosecution.
The Trump campaign told the anti-abortion zealots to keep their mouths shut and they would take care of them later. And that’s what they’re going to do. You saw that Christian Nationalist revival last weekend.
In a typically astute column, Ron Browstein points out something I don’t think I’d fully understood. Trump has a two pronged strategy to dominate America and I think we’ve only focused on the first:
The administration’s moves against Kimmel last week demonstrated both prongs of President Donald Trump’s strategy to undermine opposition. One is a determination to transform every component of federal authority into a lever to punish Trump’s perceived political adversaries and reward his friends. The second is a systematic attempt to enlist people and institutions operating in conservative regions of the country into Trump’s crusade to diminish the political and cultural influence of the Democratic-leaning parts of the country.
Kimmel’s swift fall, after incorrectly suggesting that Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin belonged to the MAGA movement, underscored how much pressure these twin tactics can apply against basic democratic safeguards that many Americans have long considered inviolate.
From one angle, Carr, in his moves against Kimmel, simply extended the playbook the Trump administration has developed to deploy federal pressure against other institutions it considers obstacles.
Carr warned ABC’s affiliated stations that they could face FCC punishment, or even the loss of their license, for failing to uphold the public interest and/or engaging in “news distortion” if they allowed Kimmel to remain on the air. The unspoken blade looming over Carr’s threats was the fact that the Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group, which together own about one-fourth of all ABC affiliates, need FCC approval for an assortment of planned mergers and acquisitions. Soon after Carr’s first Kimmel criticisms, Nexstar announced it would preempt the show, which helped force Disney’s hand; Sinclair soon followed.
With those warnings, Carr was following the familiar strongarm strategy of Trump’s second term. But the Kimmel controversy also illuminated a second strategy the Trump administration is using to consolidate power. Carr not only bullied the local ABC affiliates; he also cajoled them to identify as part of a movement to break the political and cultural influence of blue America.
Carr explicitly urged local stations to reject “the programming that is coming from Comcast and from Disney that’s being generated in New York and Hollywood and has been fed like foie gras to the entire country.”
Carr’s appeal echoed the argument Trump has made to Republican-controlled states to redraw their Congressional district lines, and that Trump’s aides have raised to suggest that red states supply the administration National Guard forces to deploy into blue states.
In each case, the administration is signaling that institutions in red states should view themselves less as a component of a unified nation — or even as individual states with their own priorities — than as a member of a red team. The Trump administration can then call on those “red team” states to use their leverage to entrench the MAGA movement’s national power, which provides it the means to subjugate blue America.
This part of the strategy acts as a force multiplier for Trump’s overt transformation of the federal government into a vast machine to reward friends and punish opponents. On this score, Trump has already far surpassed President Richard Nixon, who privately raged against many of the same targets (the media, universities, the “eastern establishment”) and ultimately prompted his aides to compile a White House “enemies list” of individuals he wanted to harass through IRS audits or other federal enforcement. Trump has gone further, repeatedly seeking to coerce other perceived adversaries by subjecting them to direct federal pressure — cutting off research grants for universities, barring law firms from federal contracts, withholding federal dollars from blue states and cities, and conditioning business deals (like the Paramount sale to Skydance Media) on adoption of policies the administration demands. Federal investigations disappear for allies and descend on adversaries.
We knew they had weaponized the federal government. I don’t think I had fully understood how they were working with the red states and conservative institutions within them to advance his agenda.
Just look at Texas and Florida. At every step they’re pushing the MAGA agenda, working as force multipliers. How does Blue America fight that? I haven’t the vaguest idea. But I would guess that in the case of both Texas and Florida there is a substantial threat to business if people start voting with their feet.
I have to have faith that the worm is going to turn at some point or I just won’t be able to get out of bed. The destruction of our institutions that literally threaten our lives and livelihoods has to start becoming dire for many people, even MAGA true believers. It’s clear we won’t be able to do much until Trump is gone because his hold on the cult is just too strong. But if we can hang on until that happens (thank God he’s so old) we might be able to start anew. To do that we’ll need to be aware of where the landmines are and there are many of them being laid in red states around the country as we speak.
President Trump has had a tumultuous week so far, what with his strange, inappropriate remarks about hating his opponents at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service to the bizarre press conference denouncing Tylenol and vaccines and then the downright unhinged speech before world leaders at the United Nations. He seems to be losing all inhibitions and can no longer read a room which were never his strong suits to begin with. But he did get some good news from his staunch allies on the Supreme Court. They once again used the so-called “shadow docket” to allow him to fire someone the law says he should not be allowed to fire. No doubt that felt very soothing. He is, after all, the man who ran for office shouting his reality show tag line, “you’re fired!”
Last March, Trump had fired two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya without cause. They sued the government on the basis of a landmark 90 year old Supreme Court case involving the firing of an F.T.C. commissioner called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. That precedent had stated that when the Congress created the agency it intended that the president not to have the right to fire commissioners for any reason he chose and that ruling has held for nearly a century.
Bedoya dropped out of the case last June in order to seek other employment leaving Slaughter to carry on alone with the suit which demanded that she be given her job back. The lower courts all sided with her, citing the clear precedent in Humphrey’s Executor but this week the Supreme Court conservative majority accept Trump’s emergency appeal, ignored those lower court’s orders and instead ordered that Trump could fire her for now and they would hear the case on an accelerated timetable in December.
I don’t think you need to be a Supreme Court insider or a psychic to figure out which way they are going to go. After all, they couldn’t even bring themselves to allow the precedent to stand for a few more months until they could hear the case. They had to step in on an emergency basis to give President Trump the desperate relief he needs to be able to fire this woman.
Justice Elana Kagan, writing for the minority, pointed out that this is only the latest in a series of cases in which the majority has “has handed full control of all those agencies to the president…He may now remove — so says the majority, though Congress said differently — any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all. And he may thereby extinguish the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence.”
There is no other way to interpret their behavior so far and it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. Being believers in the Unitary Executive theory, they have all been champing at the bit for years for a president to aggressively push the boundaries so they could break all the pesky precedents that their predecessors had created to stifle the full measure of presidential power. Led by his legal handlers of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, Trump has been more than happy to oblige.
The Trump team may be ramshackle and chaotic in most ways but they know what they’re doing when it comes to their legal strategy. The timing and the choice of cases to push on an emergency basis has been meticulously planned to bring to the Supreme Court majority the cases they know they want to hear. Since they are all on the same page to begin with, it’s created a serendipitous synchronicity that has the White House feeling “ecstatic,” according to NBC News.
And why wouldn’t they be? Of the twenty eight cases on which the administration has asked the Court to rule on an emergency basis, they’ve only lost two. There are still a few pending and three have resulted in no decision. But all in all it has been almost a clean sweep.
The NBC report notes that there have been more that 300 cases filed against the administration so far which they believe indicates that the Trump’s team has been careful not to push the conservative court majority to take up cases they could conceivably see as a bridge too far. I really doubt that’s going to be a problem. If I had to guess I’d think a couple of them might nod weakly toward American ideals and uphold birthright citizenship since it’s so clear in the text of the 14th Amendment, but I suspect they will generally rule with Trump on even the most draconian authoritarian policies.
They haven’t seemed even remotely interested in the findings of the lower courts and even less interested in giving them any guidance as to how they are supposed to carry on. A good case in point is Justice Kavanaugh’s fatuous opinion that citizens need not worry that unidentified masked men under color of law demand they prove their citizenship because they will only be briefly inconvenienced. It just shows that in his cushy Supreme Court bubble he has no idea what is actually taking place in the streets of America. (Either that or he does know and just chooses to ignore the truth in order to advance a policy preference for deportations without the normal constitutional constraints.)
Trump’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, yet another of his personal lawyers elevated to a top job in the government, is a former law clerk of Justice Antonin Scalia and clearly has the conservative majority’s number. (For all we know he has their cell phone numbers too.) He’s actually very competent, having argued the immunity case that has given Trump pretty much free rein to openly conspire with his Justice Department to persecute his political enemies.
Some of the biggest cases are yet to come and they may be a little bit harder for the court to justify. They have agreed to hear the big tariffs case next month and if the speculation is correct that the Trump team has only brought the cases they are pretty sure the Court will decide in their favor, that’s bad news for the world economy. The Court had shown in an earlier case that they considered the Federal Reserve to have special status apart from other quasi-independent agencies which may indicate that they are less likely to rubber stamp the president’s assertion of an obscure emergency power to justify his extreme tariff policies. They may not be as enthusiastic about letting Donald Trump mess with rich people’s money as they are about usurping people’s civil liberties and the constitutional balance of power.
But for the most part, there is no longer any doubt that the Supreme Court is working hand in glove with the administration to expand the power of the president to something more akin to a king’s or a dictator’s. Whether they’re prepared to accept that those powers might one day be in the hands of someone with whom they are not so ideologically aligned is another story. If we’re lucky we will find that out in the not too distant future.
If the Democrats manage to win back power in the next couple of elections they must understand that “guardrails” are insufficient. We’re watching what happens when we rely on the good faith of extremists with lifetime appointments to guard our rights and freedoms. They must build a big, beautiful, legal wall to prevent this from happening in the future— and make MAGA pay for it.
“We are living in an authoritarian state”
Add George Packer to the prominent commentators like Mona Charon, David French, and Michael Tomasky who believe that we are as Tomasky put it, “no longer a democracy.” Or else we are damned close.
“We are living in an authoritarian state,” Packer writes with conviction. On the surface of things, nothing looks any different, as I noted in April. “Yet it’s true,” Packer concludes. What makes it less recognizable for those raised in the 20th century is the lack of authoritarian trappings familiar from movies, black-and-white photos, and history books. There are no jackboots or firing squads, no “giant portraits of the leader, secret opposition meetings in basements,” etc. Nevertheless.
“Opposition parties, the judiciary, the press, and civil-society groups aren’t destroyed, but over time they lose their life, staggering on like zombie institutions, giving the impression that democracy is still alive,” Packer continues. We strive to name authoritarianism in the 21st century. It’s the same beast by other names: illiberal democracy, competitive authoritarianism, right-wing populism. But its features are the same (The Atlantic, gift link):
The blurred line between democracy and autocracy is an important feature of modern authoritarianism. How do we know when we’ve crossed it? These sorts of regimes have constitutions, but the teeth are missing. Elections take place, but they’re no longer truly fair or free—the party in power controls the electoral machinery, and if the results aren’t desirable, they’ll be challenged and likely overturned. To keep their jobs, civil servants have to prove not their competence but their personal loyalty to the leader. Independent government officers—prosecutors, inspectors general, federal commissioners, central bankers—are fired and their positions handed to flunkies. The legislature, in the hands of the ruling party, becomes a rubber stamp for the executive. Courts still hear cases, but judges are appointed for their political views, not their expertise, and their opinions, cloaked in neutral-sounding legal terms, predictably give the leader what he wants, endorsing his most illiberal policies and immunizing him from accountability. The rule of law amounts to favors for friends and persecution for enemies. The separation of powers turns out to be a paper-thin gentleman’s agreement. There are no meaningful checks on the leader’s power.
Twenty-first century authoritarianism doesn’t require sacrifice for the Fatherland. It has no guiding philosophy beyond securing power and riches for the ruler and his court. Open repression is unneeded in the digital age. Modern authoritarianism’s “dominant emotions aren’t euphoria and rage, but indifference and cynicism…. The most effective tools of control are distraction, confusion, and division.” Do it effectivley enough, Packer argues, and “the public throws up its hands and checks out.”
The U.S. under Trumpism bears all the hallmarks of an authoritarian state. He and his cronies take bribes. He works to cow the media. “He sends masked police to pick people off the streets without probable cause for arrest, disappear them into secret prisons, and ship them off to random countries. He fires experienced, patriotic civil servants and replaces them with unqualified toadies.” This you know.
After some anecdotes, Packer adds;
Today, in public life, and especially in the hellscape of social media, our habits of the heart tend to be unrestrained, intolerant, contemptuous. With the help of Big Tech’s addictive algorithms, we’ve lost the art of self-government—the ability to think and judge; the skills of dialogue, argument, and compromise; the belief in basic liberal values. Five years ago, in the midst of the George Floyd protests, I helped write a rather anodyne statement in defense of open inquiry, signed by more than 150 writers, artists, and intellectuals. Without using the phrase, it criticized cancel culture. Almost immediately upon its publication in Harper’s, the statement became the “notorious” Harper’s Letter—the object of furious condemnation by journalists and academics as the pearl-clutching of elites and an excuse for bigotry. This torrent of abuse came from the left, which no longer believed in open inquiry. Those on the right raged against left-wing puritans and declared themselves militants for free speech, even—especially—hatred and lies.
Since Trump’s return, Packer believes, those roles have reversed. “Free-speech hypocrisy is a symptom of the democratic decay that makes authoritarianism possible.”
But Packer’s assessment that, as Shakespeare wrote, the fault lies “not in our stars, but in ourselves,” is too one-dimensional. He acknowledges the “help” of social media and “Big Tech’s addictive algorithms” without laying enough blame there. Or rather on our insistence that any check on technological development is a crime against capitalism and freedom as Milton Friedman would see it. Packer gives too little credit to the toxic impacts of technological developments like social media and artificial intelligence, and even TV which gave us Donald Trump, and the personal automobile which gave us bedroom communities that aren’t. We set them loose on society like DDT or “forever chemicals” to meet a perceived need without a fleeting thought for longer-term consequences for society and the body politic for which we blame eash other.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.
Our way of life and our sense of ourselves is upended as much by avarice and royalist backlash as by our inventions. We create labor-saving devices that simply make possible more labor. We create online “communities” that instead erode them and our national sense of self.
Podcaster Joe Rogan “floated the idea of an AI president” and thought, “That’s awesome.”
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that’s how it always starts. Then later there’s running and screaming.
Packer laments:
The philosopher John Dewey believed that democracy is not just a system of government but a way of life, one that allows for the fullest realization of every human being’s potential. I was granted more than half a century to benefit from it in the country that practically invented democracy. It makes me heartsick that my children might not have the same chance. What can we do to prevent authoritarianism from becoming our way of life? How can we change the habits of our heart and our society?
I don’t know. But I’m not done fighting for it.
“We are living in an authoritarian state.” Get busy fighting it or get used to being crushed by it.
* * * * *
Have you fought dicktatorship today?
50501
May Day Strong
No King’s One Million Rising movement – Next national day of protest Oct. 18
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense