Federal judge halts work on Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization fund’

A federal judge in Virginia has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving ahead with plans to create a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who it says were wrongly targeted by the government in the past.

The brief order from US District Judge Leonie Brinkema says the administration cannot take any action “pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”

She set a hearing for June 12 to hear arguments over whether she should issue a more lasting pause on the government’s efforts to set up the fund, which is being challenged by a diverse coalition of critics and entities who say they’ve been targeted by the Trump administration and are ineligible to receive money from it.

Brinkema, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, said she was pausing work on the fund for now to maintain the status quo while she considers the legal challenge. She pointed to the fact that the Justice Department had not committed to holding off on transferring money into it or processing payments while initial court proceedings played out.

She asked the Justice Department to submit written legal arguments in the case by next Friday.

The case is one of several brought in the last week against the controversial fund, which was unveiled earlier this month after Trump settled an unprecedented lawsuit he had brought against the Internal Revenue Service.

The fund, which will be run by five commissioners selected by the attorney general, will review claims submitted by people who say they were unfairly targeted by previous administrations. The massive pot of money is being drawn from the DOJ’s Judgment Fund, which is taxpayer money set aside by Congress for monetary settlements the government reaches.

Under the terms of the settlement, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was required to appoint the commissioners within 30 days. He told CNN in an interview last week that “a bunch of people” had applied to sit on the commission. But Brinkema’s order appears to put a hold on his ability to search for those commissioners.

In the case at hand, a group of people and organizations — including a former federal prosecutor, a prominent government watchdog group and the city of New Haven, Connecticut — argue the fund is unconstitutional and violates a series of federal laws.

They specifically challenge the Trump administration’s decision to draw from the Judgment Fund for the new program, arguing it’s unlawful because the underlying legal case was “meritless” given the president’s unique role as both a plaintiff and head of the executive branch, which is where the agencies he sued are housed.

Their lawyers told the judge, whose courthouse is in Alexandria, Virginia, that she needed to step in now because they’re “already being irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional and unlawful creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

“And that harm will be permanent if the administration takes action, including by irreversibly disbursing funds, before this court can act,” they wrote in court papers filed Thursday.

They pointed to the fact that under the terms of the settlement and Blanche’s order establishing the fund, much of the program is shielded from public view, making it difficult to know how much work has been done on it and whether any funds have gone out the door.

“Today, a federal court recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the legality of that program can be fully reviewed by the court,” said Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy group representing the plaintiffs in the case.
 

US judge orders removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center

Judge rules that Washington DC performing arts venue cannot be renamed without an act of Congress


A judge on Friday ordered the removal of Donald Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, ruling that the iconic Washington DC venue cannot be renamed without an act of Congress.

US district judge Christopher Cooper in Washington directed the Trump administration to take down all physical signage bearing Trump’s name and to eliminate any references to a “Trump Kennedy Center” from official materials within 14 days.
 
Canada’s Aluminium Is Going to Europe. Brilliant Work, Donald.A 50% tariff on Canadian aluminium, the one country on Earth that was happily selling the stuff at sensible prices, right next door, through an integrated supply chain that took decades to build. And now that aluminium is sailing across the Atlantic to Europe instead.Canadian exports to the EU went from near zero to between 6% and 40% of monthly totals in the space of a year. Just vanished eastward. Extraordinary result.US consumers are now paying $6,200 a ton for aluminium. Europeans are paying $4,300.  American manufacturers taxed nearly two thousand dollars a ton more than their competitors. For beer cans. And car parts. And buildings. Tremendous. Nobody could have seen that coming, except everyone.Meanwhile Europe, which was already scrambling after losing its Middle Eastern supply to the Iran war, now faces a 5.6 million-ton aluminium deficit in 2026. And Canada just filled it. With metal that used to go to America.The head of the Aluminium Association of Canada put it with admirable restraint: the EU option “remains attractive,” adding pressure on the US market. What he meant was: Washington handed Europe a competitive advantage in manufacturing while American industry pays the bill.This is what happens when a trade guru who has spent his career slapping his name on buildings in gold letters decides he understands global commodity flows. No leverage materialises. Just an empty dock in Ohio and a very pleased purchasing manager in Rotterdam.Well done, Donald.
 
Live Updates: Iran state media say talks with U.S. halted, attacks on another key waterway coming

An Iranian news outlet linked to its Revolutionary Guard Corps said Monday that the regime was suspending indirect talks with the U.S. and opening "other fronts" in the war in response to what it considers U.S. and Israeli ceasefire violations, specifically threatening the Bab el-Mandeb strait. President Trump had continued to voice optimism for diplomacy early Monday, saying on Truth Social that, despite another exchange of airstrikes over the weekend, "Iran really wants to make a deal." He urged critics to "sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end." A U.S. official says Israel is not expected to tolerate ongoing Hezbollah attacks on civilians, as fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed group in Lebanon escalates, further complicating efforts toward a U.S.-Iran agreement.

Iran to suspend talks with the U.S. over Israeli actions in Lebanon and Gaza, state media say
Iran's negotiating team will suspend peace talks with the U.S. over Israel's ongoing war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and other perceived violations of the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, according to Iran's semi-official Tasnim news agency. Tasnim, which is close to the country's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said Iran would halt "talks and the exchange of texts through a mediator" given the "continuation of the Zionist regime's crimes in Lebanon." Echoing statements earlier in the day from Iranian officials, Tasnim said Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon was included in the ceasefire, which it said was being violated "on all fronts." The U.N. Security Council is set to hold an emergency meeting Monday on the war in Lebanon, after Israeli forces seized a medieval castle far north of the border between the two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also ordered strikes on what he describes as Hezbollah's "terror headquarters" in Beirut. According to Tasnim, Iran has repeatedly emphasised that Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon must cease, and that its forces must withdraw from Lebanese territory as part of any peace agreement with the U.S.
 

Anti-Trump group can keep flying ‘86-47’ flag near National Mall, judge rules

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss says the banner can’t plausibly be read to threaten violence against President Donald Trump.

A federal judge has ordered the National Park Service not to interfere with a liberal organization’s display of an “86-47” flag at its ongoing demonstration near the National Mall, rejecting the contention that the phrase was meant as a coded call for violence against President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued a two-week restraining order Monday at the request of Accountability Now USA, which has been protesting Trump for months at a site in front of the federal courthouse on Constitution Avenue. Moss concluded that the group intended to advocate for Trump’s removal from office via impeachment, and that “86” is not an unambiguous call to political violence — and certainly not the kind of “imminent” violence that would be necessary to justify restrictions on speech. “The Court does not doubt that political violence is on the rise and that it poses a grave threat not just to the targets of the threats but to the country as a whole. But the enormity of that problem does not change the meaning of Plaintiff’s speech, which by any reasonable measure merely advocated for the President’s impeachment and removal from office — that is, ‘to throw [him] out,’” Moss wrote. The Obama-appointed judge appended a Merriam-Webster definition of the term “eighty-six,” which defines it as a 1930s soda-counter slang meaning “to throw out “ or ”to get rid of.” The ruling doesn’t mention the recent criminal case brought against former FBI director James Comey, accusing him of threatening Trump’s life last year with an Instagram post of a seashell arrangement on a North Carolina beach that depicted the “8647” phrase. But Moss’ determination underscores questions about the genesis of the charges against Comey, who took down the post and apologized and has repeatedly denied that the expression was meant to provoke violence against Trump. An attorney for Comey, Patrick Fitzgerald, declined to comment on the decision. Moss’ ruling doesn’t rule out the possibility that use of “86-47” could be viewed as a threat in some context, and he notes that Merriam-Webster’s discussion of “eighty-six” does mention it is sometimes used to refer to killing someone, although the editors declined to adopt that meaning “due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.” According to court filings, Secret Service agents visited the protest on May 12 and briefly spoke with some people who were participating, who said they wanted Trump out of office but wished him no physical harm. Justice Department attorneys said the flag became more ominous in the wake of the May 24 incident near the White House, where an armed man was shot dead by law enforcement. Accountability Now USA first ran into trouble with the Park Service in April over signs critical of Trump’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, including one sign that said, “Trump raped little girls.” Trump has acknowledged that he knew Epstein but has said he broke off ties with him before he came under scrutiny by law enforcement. The federal government’s files on Epstein contain a smattering of allegations against Trump, but authorities have said they were deemed not credible. Trump has denied wrongdoing in relation to Epstein’s crimes. A Park Service official emailed the protest group in April, alleging that its signs contained “obscenity” not protected by the First Amendment and that the organization could face “further steps” if the signs were not removed. The group took the signs down temporarily before suing, Moss said. His opinion issued Monday does not analyze whether the signs meet the legal definition of obscenity.
The Obama-appointed judge appended a Merriam-Webster definition of the term “eighty-six,” which defines it as a 1930s soda-counter slang meaning “to throw out “ or ”to get rid of.” The ruling doesn’t mention the recent criminal case brought against former FBI director James Comey, accusing him of threatening Trump’s life last year with an Instagram post of a seashell arrangement on a North Carolina beach that depicted the “8647” phrase. But Moss’ determination underscores questions about the genesis of the charges against Comey, who took down the post and apologized and has repeatedly denied that the expression was meant to provoke violence against Trump. An attorney for Comey, Patrick Fitzgerald, declined to comment on the decision. Moss’ ruling doesn’t rule out the possibility that use of “86-47” could be viewed as a threat in some context, and he notes that Merriam-Webster’s discussion of “eighty-six” does mention it is sometimes used to refer to killing someone, although the editors declined to adopt that meaning “due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”
 

Scoop: Trump admin plans to drop "weaponization" fund

The Trump administration plans to drop its controversial $1.8 billion "weaponization" fund the president sought to compensate alleged victims of prosecutorial conduct under his predecessor, two senior administration officials told Axios. "It's dead for now," one of the sources said.
 
Appeals court panel rules that transgender troops were illegally barred from U.S. military service | PBS News

A Trump administration policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday. The majority opinion by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit largely upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that President Donald Trump's executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights. The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military. The appeal court's majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those seeking to join. The ruling won't immediately go into effect, allowing the administration time to ask the

full appeals court to hear the case. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the transgender military ban to go into effect last year, as litigation continues to play out. Another lawsuit challenging the ban was filed in Washington state and led to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the policy in that case. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members "conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life" and is harmful to military readiness.In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don't match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts. The policy "appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender," Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker said judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops. "We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief," wrote Walker, who was nominated by Trump, a Republican. Judge Judith Rogers, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, joined Wilkins' opinion but also partially dissented.
 

Hegseth Strikes Female and Black Navy Officers From Promotion List​

The defense secretary’s decision to block the officers’ promotions appears driven by his anti-diversity stance rather than based on merit.

In a move that disproportionately targets women and minority officers, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently blocked the promotions of at least seven Navy officers who had been selected by a board of senior Navy admirals. The net result of Mr. Hegseth’s intervention is a slate of 22 nominees to be one-star admirals that bears little resemblance to the broader force these officers will help lead. At least two of the officers removed by Mr. Hegseth from the promotion list are women and two are Black men. An additional three are white men. Mr. Hegseth’s actions, which appear to violate the rules governing a promotion system that is supposed to be apolitical and merit-based, were described by four current and former defense officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters. No female officers were included on the new one-star list, which was released publicly in late May, despite the fact that women make up about 21 percent of the active-duty Navy. The list appears to include only two nonwhite officers, even though sailors who identify as racial minorities make up about 38 percent of the active-duty Navy. Mr. Hegseth’s removal of the officers from the one-star list is highly unusual, said the current and former defense officials. According to Pentagon rules, the defense secretary is only supposed to pull officers from the list for moral, mental, physical or professional failings that raise questions about the officers’ fitness to lead. Mr. Hegseth’s actions are the latest in a series of firings and personnel interventions that seem to be driven by his anti-diversity politics rather than the officers’ performance. Taken together, they could reshape the military’s top ranks for years to come. Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, declined to say why Mr. Hegseth pulled the officers off the Navy one-star list. “Military promotions are given to those who have earned them,” Mr. Parnell said. “The department will never consider the color of a service member’s skin or their gender as a factor in promotions.” The Navy declined to comment. Since taking office, Mr. Hegseth has fired or sidelined nearly three dozen senior military officers as part of a broader campaign designed to purge the Pentagon of leaders he has disparaged as “foolish,” “reckless” and “woke.” He has consistently refused to explain why he has chosen to fire officers or pull them from promotion lists. His scrutiny has fallen heavily on female and minority officers, who have borne the brunt of the dismissals. Nearly 60 percent of the senior officers Mr. Hegseth has fired are female or Black, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in recent Senate testimony. Women and minorities currently account for fewer than 20 percent of all generals and admirals. “You are hollowing out the military’s bench of experience and highest-performing senior officers, while making young officers wonder if they should continue to serve,” Mr. Reed told Mr. Hegseth at another recent hearing. Among those dismissed were Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the second African American to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy. Earlier this year, Mr. Hegseth also removed four colonels — two Black men and two women — from the Army’s list of nominees for one-star general over the objections of Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll. Mr. Driscoll insisted that the officers had a long history of exemplary service and had done nothing wrong. Officers selected for one-star rank are picked by a board of admirals or generals who review hundreds of personnel files over the course of meetings that can span two weeks. Only about 5 percent of those eligible for promotion to one-star are chosen, making it the most competitive board in the U.S. military. The lists are then reviewed by the service secretaries and the defense secretary, who under Pentagon rules may strike names in limited circumstances, like the emergence of new information that raises questions about the officers’ qualifications for service. The unpredictability of Mr. Hegseth’s interventions has created an atmosphere of anxiety and mistrust among the military’s top ranks, military officials said.
The lack of information has exasperated Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike. In April, Representative Austin Scott, Republican of Georgia, pressed Gen. Christopher C. LaNeve, the acting Army chief of staff, on whether Mr. Hegseth had pulled the names of officers from that service’s one-star list as first reported in The New York Times. “I’m less worried about the race and the gender than if he did or he didn’t do it,” Mr. Scott said. “Did he pull four names from the list, as has been reported?” General LaNeve, who had taken over after Mr. Hegseth fired his predecessor, Gen. Randy George, said that the congressman would have to ask Mr. Hegseth. “Well, if I could get anybody over there to respond, I would,” Mr. Scott replied.
Two weeks later, when Mr. Hegseth appeared before the House Armed Services Committee, he acknowledged that he had pulled names from the Army one-star list, but declined to explain the specific grounds for their removal. “We don’t talk about that out of respect for those officers,” he said. Instead, he spoke broadly of the need to correct for years of “gender and demographic engineering” that he asserted had blunted the effectiveness of U.S. troops on the battlefield. In a break with protocol, Mr. Hegseth also urged senior Navy officials to include Capt. William Francis Jr., a Navy SEAL who serves as Mr. Hegseth’s special assistant, on the one-star list, current and former Navy officials said. Captain Francis’ lack of command experience made him ineligible for promotion under the board’s rules and he was not selected, officials said. At a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing, Representative Chrissy Houlahan, Democrat of Pennsylvania and an Air Force veteran, asked Mr. Hegseth whether he had ever ordered the Navy to add a special operations officer who lacked the necessary command time to the Navy’s promotion list for admiral. “I’m not aware of what you’re referring to,” Mr. Hegseth replied. His response was, at best, misleading.
The officers struck from the Navy one-star list seem to have been targeted because they took part in some diversity-related event years or even decades earlier, current and former Navy officials said. One highly respected officer whose promotion was pulled had served as a surface warfare officer, completed the Navy’s advanced nuclear power school and was selected to be a top aide to a four-star admiral in the Pentagon. She was singled out by Mr. Hegseth shortly after her name appeared on a website that said it was working to purge “woke” military officers. The site noted that the officer had worked as a “diversity liaison officer” two decades ago, responsible for helping the Navy recruit and retain women and minorities. Another female officer targeted by Mr. Hegseth served as a Navy pilot and foreign area officer, interacting with militaries around the world. Before he was selected by President Trump to serve in the Pentagon, Mr. Hegseth had opposed the inclusion of women in combat jobs. Since then he has moderated his position, arguing that women should be able to serve in combat roles, as they have since 2013, if they can meet the same physical standards as men. Still, his actions have raised questions about whether he believes that female officers are fit to serve at the most senior levels of the U.S. military, his critics said. In late May, Jessica Ruttenber, who retired as a lieutenant colonel and flew Air Force refueling tankers in Iraq and Afghanistan, noticed the striking absence of any women on the Navy’s one-star list. She did not know that Mr. Hegseth had pulled female officers off the list. “The military I left in 2021 feels very different from the one we are watching today,” she wrote in an online essay. “In some ways, it feels like we are watching hard-won progress move backward in real time. That is the part I cannot shake. Because if I am honest, I now find myself wondering: Would I want my own children to enter a system like this?”
 
Trump appoints a guy in the Epstein files to be an ambassador:

Screenshot 2026-06-01 162808.png
 

Trump appoints Bill Pulte, unqualified loyalist who targeted his foes, as acting intel chief

President Donald Trump tapped loyalist Bill Pulte, a top housing official, to serve as acting director of national intelligence (DNI), a cabinet position tasked with overseeing the U.S. intelligence community.

The appointment, announced Tuesday, was unusual because Pulte currently leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and has no known experience in intelligence.

What Pulte does offer is loyalty. Known in MAGA circles as “Little Trump,” he has used his relatively minor federal housing post — and his chairmanship of mortgage groups Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — to help target a swath of the president’s enemies.

Pulte, a former private equity CEO and heir to a construction empire, will replace outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who announced last month that she will resign from her post later this summer to care for her husband while he undergoes treatment for bone cancer.

“William has deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America, the safety and soundness of the Markets,” Trump said in a social media post, adding that Pulte will remain FHFA director and chair of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as he serves as acting DNI.

Last year, Pulte set in motion criminal investigations against several of Trump’s political enemies by obtaining their mortgage documents and submitting them to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as alleged evidence of fraud.

Through these referrals, Pulte helped spur criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), both of whom led investigations into Trump. The DOJ’s mortgage fraud case against James in Virginia ultimately failed, while its Maryland-based probe into Schiff has not yet resulted in criminal charges.

Pulte also helped initiate the DOJ’s mortgage fraud probe into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee whom Trump attempted to fire last year as part of his bid to assert control over the central bank.

Pulte’s work at the FHFA has been indicative of how the Trump administration has weaponized even the most peripheral parts of the federal government to go after the president’s opponents.
 
Lol, yeah right... :rolleyes: I swear, the un-woke brigade is about 100x more insufferable than the people they constantly lament.
They're both insufferable and the loudest talking heads are usually grifters.

Ah yes the tolerant woke left calling someone they disagree with a troll. You guys are almost as bad the maga morons. p.s. your profile pic is giving ick
The latest MAGA / neocon lie is that apparently Trump's Iran War is going swimmingly.
-------------------------------

When people are overly-focused on the perceived plight of minorities despite not even being a minority. Yes, that's annoying. @Jolene
 

Dr. Oz ducks questions​

'Out of my lane.' Dr. Oz ducks questions during his turn in the White House briefing room​

He spoke fast, hammering through the Trump administration's efforts to lower prescription drug prices, combat health care fraud, and curb the spread of Ebola overseas. But when reporters tried to ask Dr. Mehmet Oz about the most-pressing issues of the day — the point of the White House briefing where he was speaking for the administration — the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had little to offer, and said so again and again. Oz’s appearance showcased how the White House can struggle to respond to major news that breaks on any given day — a telling weakness as public sentiment has increasingly turned against the president. And it comes as President Donald Trump himself has spent more time than usual out of reach of reporters' questions. Pressed on why Trump tapped Bill Pulte to be the acting director of national intelligence, despite the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency having no clear national security credentials, Oz said he trusted the president's judgment while also offering, “I think Bill's a great guy. I know him socially.” Asked on the same topic again, he said, “Ma'am, you’re asking me a question that’s out of my lane." When a reporter said that the White House had given so little information on Pulte's nomination that there was no choice but to seek answers from Oz during the briefing — despite it not being his area of expertise — Oz acknowledged, "I appreciate you want an answer. I’m not not going to be the one giving it to you.” Still another attempt finally prompted him to exclaim, “I don’t know anything more about Bill Pulte than you do. I did not think that the questions would even come up here. I hadn’t even heard the news when I walked out.” The administration has invited some of its most camera-ready voices to brief reporters while White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is on maternity leave. It started with Vice President JD Vance and then featured another possible 2028 White House hopeful, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had his turn. “I did watch them all, by the way," Oz said, explaining it helped him prepare for the experience. “I’m a doctor. I try and do my homework. I prepped for the case.” Vance, Rubio and Bessent each fielded questions about the war in Iran and other topics. But Oz, an unsuccessful former Senate candidate in Pennsylvania and onetime prominent TV physician, stuck mostly to health care. The White House said Oz was there to announce that 160 new medications are being added to the government’s discounted-drug website TrumpRx, bringing the total number of drugs on the site to more than 750. “Dr. Oz authoritatively and articulately discussed the latest updates on several key Trump administration priorities, from lowering prescription drug prices to rooting out pervasive fraud in federal programs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai, said in a statement that also chided reporters for asking about “topics that President Trump himself has already weighed in on.” Oz was also asked several times about Trump having undergone four publicly disclosed health screenings since returning to the White House and gave various answers, including, “I think he likes the results,” while piling on the praise about his boss, who turns 80 this month. “That amount of energy, and that amount of mental acuity does not exist in a vacuum," Oz said. “You have to have a vessel to carry it.”
 

Back
Top