This was the first report I watched on this. This one is longer because he tells the whole story and shows clips he took on his phone at the time. The mob was going to kill him after the IDF set the group up to be murdered at the hands of illegal settlers. The military told them to go to the spot where the settlers were hiding. Please watch to see the very illegal and horrific ways Israeli is treat people to simply drive them off of and steal their lands. Hugs
US Embassy ABANDONS Journo After Israeli Mob Attack
A 55-year-old Palestinian woman, Umm Saleh Abu Alia, was hospitalized after being brutally attacked by a masked Israeli settler in Turmus Ayya, West Bank. Captured on video by US journalist Jasper Nathaniel, the unprovoked assault shows the woman struck unconscious and hit again on the ground. Settlers continue to harass Palestinian farmers during the olive harvest, while the Israel Defense Forces claim to have intervened. This horrifying incident highlights escalating tensions and ongoing violence in the occupied West Bank.
Israeli settlers burn trees, assault Palestinians in occupied West Bank olive harvest attacks
In the occupied West Bank, armed Israeli settlers systematically attack Palestinian olive harvesters and farmers, burning trees and beating farmers. These assaults, often protected by Israeli forces, have caused severe injuries. Palestinians, joined by international activists, continue harvesting to avoid surrendering their land, despite the violence and threats aimed at driving them away. For them, this is a fight for their very livelihood and homeland.
Israel’s Next Move: Create ‘Six Little Gazas’ In West Bank | Jasper Nathaniel | TMR
Senators, House members and even a mayor expressed outrage and demanded accountability after our investigation detailed how at least 170 citizens have been held by immigration agents this year.
Democrats in the House and Senate announced plans for a wide-ranging investigation into immigration agents’ detention of citizens after a ProPublica story found that more than 170 Americans have been held by immigration officials this year.
Minority leaders of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said the joint investigation into the detention of U.S. citizens and other allegations of misconduct by immigration agents would include a hearing in Los Angeles.
“Over 170 U.S. Citizens are being arrested. Why? Because they look like me. Because they are of Latino origin. Or because they are suspected to not be a U.S. citizen, or because they are suspected of crimes they have not committed,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the ranking Democrat on the House committee, said during a Monday press conference in Los Angeles with Mayor Karen Bass.
Garcia said the investigators are demanding all records and documents showing how U.S. citizens are treated by immigration officials in Los Angeles and around the country. “We want to understand what they are doing in our neighborhoods, how it is being funded,” he said.
Our investigation found that at least 50 citizens have been detained based on questions about their citizenship as of Oct. 5. They were almost all Latino. Roughly 130 others have been detained after raids or protests on allegations of assaulting officers or interfering with arrests. Many of those cases have wilted under scrutiny.
We found Americans have been dragged, tackled, beaten, tased and shot by immigration agents. At least two dozen citizens have reported being held for at least a day without access to a phone or a lawyer.
Bass and Garcia said the mistreatment of citizens has come amid the arrests of immigrants reporting for check-ins and immigration court, and the administration’s repeated blocking of congressional attempts to visit and conduct oversight in federal detention facilities like the one in Los Angeles.
“It’s important that we say today that what is happening to undocumented residents is also happening to U.S. citizens, which means this can happen to anyone, to all of us, at any period of time,” Bass said.
In one letter sent on Monday to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Garcia and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said citizens in cities like Los Angeles have borne the brunt of the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.
“The impact of these arrests has not been evenly distributed across the country, and cities like Chicago, Portland, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles have been targeted,” Garcia and Blumenthal wrote. “Troublingly, the pattern of U.S. Citizen arrests coincides with an alarming increase in racial profiling — particularly of Latinos — which has been well documented in Los Angeles.”
Asked about the concerns from elected leaders, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin rejected claims that immigration agents have been engaging in racial profiling. She said in a statement to ProPublica that a temporary ruling by the Supreme Court in September had “vindicated” the administration “whether Mayor Bass or Rep. Garcia like it or not.”
“DHS enforces federal immigration law without fear, favor, or prejudice,” McLaughlin wrote. “Claims by the media, agitators, and sanctuary politicians like Mayor Bass and Rep. Garcia that ICE is targeting U.S. citizens, making unconstitutional arrests, and ‘trampling on civil liberties’ are FALSE.”
White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson told ProPublica in an email that “unhinged rhetoric from activists and Democrat politicians” was responsible for an increase in assaults on ICE officers.
On social media, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller derided Bass’ press conference as “abject lies.”
“Violent leftists have been arrested and charged with illegally obstructing federal law enforcement, a felony,” Miller wrote Monday night on X. “Let that sink in: open borders Democrats have incited leftists to violently attack ICE.”
Of the cases we tracked through Oct. 5, we found nearly 50 instances where charges have never been filed or the cases were dismissed. Our count found at least eight citizens have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors, including for failing to follow orders. Others are still facing charges for more serious accusations, including for allegedly ramming an agent’s car. (The driver has pleaded not guilty.)
Our account did not count citizens arrested later, after some sort of judicial process, or those detained by local law enforcement or the National Guard. That included cases of some people charged with serious crimes, like throwing rocks or tossing a flare to start a fire.
Apparently, Donald Trump felt threatened by a successful, peaceful protest and by seeing millions of us out in the streets protesting against him. Saturday night, he posted a childish, petulant video, portraying himself as the king of sh*t. Then, this morning, he resorted to a temper tantrum, insisting he would use his “absolute power” to invoke the Insurrection Act.
Of course, 50% of presidents have not invoked the Act. Wrong again.
Trump’s renewed focus on the Insurrection Act comes on the heels of a Seventh Circuit decision last week declining to permit Trump to deploy troops to Chicago. “Political opposition is not rebellion,” wrote a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming District Judge April Perry. You can read the court’s order here. The panel consisted of appointees from the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.
That case is not about the Insurrection Act, however. Trump has, so far, stopped short of invoking it, instead using related authority that the administration maintains allows it to federalize National Guard troops, even over a governor’s objection.
The appellate judges in the Chicago case affirmed the portion of Judge Perry’s order that temporarily enjoined the administration from deploying the Guard within Illinois. They held that even affording Trump the substantial deference owed to a president’s decisions, Trump had failed to show he met the predicates for doing so. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, the administration had to establish that there was either (1) a rebellion or a danger of one or (2) that the situation on the ground made it impossible for the President to execute the laws of the United States with regular forces.
Among their justifications for that decision: “Despite President Trump’s federalization of Guard troops as necessary to enforce federal immigration law, DHS and ICE have touted the success of Operation Midway Blitz. In an October 3 press release, DHS stated that ICE and CBP have effected more than 1,000 immigration arrests since the start of the Operation. In a September 26 DHS press release, the Department declared that protests had not slowed ICE down, and, in fact, ICE has significantly increased its deportation and arrest numbers year over year.” The government contradicted its own case in its self-congratulatory press releases.
There is a technical legal point here. Because the plaintiffs had asked the court to prevent Trump both from federalizing the Guard and from deploying them, the panel looked at those two separately. To obtain an injunction, one of the elements plaintiffs have to establish is that they will be irreparably injured without it. The court held that “the administration’s likely violation of Illinois’s Tenth Amendment rights by deploying Guard troops in the state over the state’s objection ‘constitutes proof of an irreparable harm’” and enjoined their deployment. But it made a different finding when it came to Trump’s ability to federalize Guard troops, holding that it would not enjoin that action because the injury “appears to be relatively minimal.” This effectively gives the state the relief it sought, while interestingly, putting federalized state National Guard troops on the federal payroll during the shutdown, perhaps a topic for another day.
A key point we’ve been tracking in these cases reemerged in this one: Trump’s inexorable march towards obtaining more power for himself. The administration argued, as it has before, that a president’s decision to federalize National Guard troops under § 12406 cannot be reviewed by a judge. That really would make Trump a king. But the panel dismissed the argument, at least at this stage in the proceedings, rejecting the administration’s attempt to use an older case, Martin v. Mott, which we’ve discussed here and here, as going too far. That case involved an effort by militia men to override a presidential decision during a time of open war, and the panel said that did not suggest that the judicial branch of government could not review decisions by the executive branch. They concluded that nothing in the statute “makes the president the sole judge” of whether the reason for invoking it passes muster.
The Solicitor General filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, which means we’ll spend at least part of the week ahead court watching.
All of that legal wrangling explains why Trump returns to threats to invoke the Insurrection Act whenever courts step in to check his authority. With the National Guard, there are clearly some limits on presidential power. Trump seems to believe none of them come into play when the Insurrection Act is involved. The first parts of the Act became law in 1792. It permits the president to deploy the military on domestic soil and use American soldiers against American citizens, making it the chief exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which would otherwise prohibit that. There are exceptional circumstances where that sort of extreme action is necessary—the opening moments of the Civil War involved President Lincoln using it for just that purpose. But the law has been described by experts as “dangerously overbroad and ripe for abuse.”
Chief among its problems is language that could easily be interpreted as giving the president sole authority to determine when it should be invoked, without resort to the courts for constitutional review. This is why the Supreme Court’s decision about the reach of Martin v. Mott in Chicago and other cases will be so important. Whether the Court will finally take steps to curtail Trump’s attempt to consolidate all power in his own hands remains to be seen.
For the record, even Twitter AI Grok says that Trump got it wrong when it came to the number of presidents who’ve invoked the Insurrection Act: “15 U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act since its passage in 1807, including Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George H.W. Bush. It has been used about 30 times total for events like the Civil War, civil rights enforcement, and riots. That’s roughly a third of presidents, not half as claimed.” And a far better question is, how many times has it been invoked over the objection of the governor, which is a much smaller number.
The most recent use of the Act happened at the request of California’s governor, when sustained riots broke out following the April 29, 1992, acquittal of four Los Angeles police officers who were captured on videotape brutally beating Rodney King, a Black motorist. PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush deployed the National Guard and U.S. troops to restore order after both the governor and the mayor requested federal assistance to help stop the shootings, arson, looting, and other violence in the city that resulted in the deaths of more than 50 people, thousands of injuries and arrests, and property damage of more than $1 billion. That’s the sort of situation the Act is meant for. Not ones where a president trumps up baseless claims of out-of-control crime and violence to serve his own political purposes.
There is no good faith basis underlying Trump’s asserted justification for bringing in the Guard or potentially invoking the Insurrection Act. But that doesn’t matter if you’ve decided you’re a king.
So, when has the Insurrection Act been used absent a request for the governor and local officials? That happened during the Civil Rights Movement in a few extreme situations where the state was interfering with the enforcement of Supreme Court decisions. And in Alabama, George Wallace’s threatened stand in the schoolhouse door to prevent school integration faded away when President Kennedy sent in federal troops using a measure related to the Insurrection Act.
It’s important to understand that Trump is using a fictitious basis for invoking a statute designed for use in only the most serious of situations. There is no rampant crime that local law enforcement can’t handle as well without federal troops as they could with them, and certainly no rebellion. Trump has no plans to use federal forces to enforce Americans’ civil rights. Instead, it’s the same theme we’ve seen since he took office: An effort to seize more and more power and create a lopside executive branch that can rule over the rest of government—and the American people. (snip)
There is more going on this week, although that feels like enough.
The Courts. As the shutdown continues, the federal courts are preparing to run out of funding on Monday. They will maintain “limited operations necessary to perform the Judiciary’s constitutional functions” for as long as the shutdown continues. Constitutional litigation and criminal cases will continue to move forward, but staff will be furloughed and much of the courts’ civil work will slow down to a snail’s pace.
Abrego Garcia. A hearing on Abrego Garcia’s motions for selective and vindictive prosecution in the Tennessee-based criminal case the Justice Department charged him in after his return from deportation has been scheduled for November 4 and 5. In advance, we are learning some information about the evidence he plans to put on.
Abrego Garcia wants to call at least seven witnesses to testify. The government is apparently preparing to attempt to quash subpoenas for high-level officials at DHS and DOJ, and possibly someone from the White House. Abrego Garcia has also identified a series of emails between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and main Justice that he requests access to, to see if they shed any light on the decision to indict him for old crimes, which required obtaining the cooperation of a more culpable individual by promising to terminate his deportation proceedings. Abrego Garcia complains that he’s received very little information from the government in discovery because the local U.S. Attorney believes what he has requested is protected by a number of government privileges including deliberative process and attorney work product. This case, which has dropped off the radar screen in recent weeks, is about to return in a big way, setting the stage for similar motions in the Trump revenge cases as well.
Comey Motions. This case is still scheduled for trial on January 5, 2026, because the Eastern District of Virginia is the rocket docket. Comey’s first round of motions are due on Monday. The government will have two weeks to respond. It’s unclear which motions we will see, but there will likely be several to dismiss the case entirely, including ones arguing the U.S. Attorney was appointed improperly, rendering the indictment invalid, along with selective and vindictive prosecution motions.
Book tour. Also, this week I’m off on my book tour. Giving Up Is Unforgivable will officially be on sale on Tuesday. If you haven’t already, grab your copy here. If you’re in New York City, Preet Bharara and I will be at the 92nd Street Y, and they’ve moved us to a larger space, so there are more tickets available, if you weren’t able to get them earlier. I’d love to get to see you!
There may be lighter posting than usual this week and next while I’m traveling, but I’ll be here for all the important developments, and I’ll try to share pictures from the road with you too! Please make sure you say hi if you’re able to join me at one of our other tour locations.
October 20, 1947 The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) opened public hearings into alleged Communist influence in Hollywood. To counter what they claimed were reckless attacks by HUAC, a group of motion picture industry luminaries, led by actor Humphrey Bogart and his wife, Lauren Bacall, John Huston, William Wyler, Gene Kelly and others, established the Committee for the First Amendment (CFA). Read more
October 20, 1962 A folk music album, “Peter, Paul and Mary,” hit No. 1 on U.S. record sales charts. The group’s music addressed real issues – war, civil rights, poverty – and became popular across the United States. The trio’s version of “If I Had A Hammer” (originally recorded by The Weavers, which included the song’s composers, Pete Seeger and Lee Hays) was not only a popular single, but was also embraced as an anthem by the civil rights movement. About Peter, Paul and Mary
October 20, 1967 The biggest demonstration to date against American involvement in the Vietnamese War took place in Oakland, California. An estimated 5,000-10,000 people poured onto the streets to demonstrate in a fifth day of massive protests against the conscription of soldiers to serve in the war. [see October 16, 1967] Read more
October 20, 1973 In what was immediately called the “Saturday Night Massacre,” President Richard Nixon’s Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler, announced that Special Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox had been dismissed. Cox had been investigating Nixon, his administration and re-election campaign. Nixon had demanded that he rescind his subpoena for White House recordings. Archibald Cox Richard Nixon Earlier in the day, Attorney General Elliot Richardson had resigned, and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus had been fired, both for refusing to dismiss Cox. Solicitor General Robert Bork, filling the vacuum left by the departure of his two Justice Department superiors, fired Cox at the president’s direction.
I think I remember an ABC Movie of the Week back in the 70s, about something like this. I’m not rooting for bad acts, and this is a bad act. But what an entertaining story: man, oh, man!
PARIS (AP) — In a minutes-long strike Sunday inside the world’s most-visited museum, thieves rode a basket lift to the Louvre, forced a window into the Galerie d’Apollon — while tourists pressed shoulder-to-shoulder in the corridors — smashed display cases and fled with priceless Napoleonic jewels, officials said.
It was among the highest-profile museum thefts in recent memory and comes as Louvre employees have complained of worker and security understaffing.
One object was later found outside the museum, according to Culture Minister Rachida Dati. French daily Le Parisien reported it was the emerald-studded crown of Napoleon III’s wife Empress Eugénie — gold, diamonds and sculpted eagles — recovered just beyond the walls, broken.
The theft unfolded just 250 meters (270 yards) from the Mona Lisa, in what Dati described as “a four-minute operation.” No one was hurt.
Images from the scene showed confused tourists being steered out of the glass pyramid and adjoining courtyards as officers closed nearby streets along the Seine.
Also visible was a lift braced to the Seine-facing facade near a construction zone — an extraordinary vulnerability at a palace-museum.
A museum already under strain
Around 9:30 a.m., several intruders forced a window, cut panes with a disc cutter and went straight for the vitrines, officials said. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said the crew entered from outside using a basket lift.
The choice of target compounded the shock. The vaulted Galerie d’Apollon in the Denon wing, capped by a ceiling painted for Louis XIV, displays a selection of the French Crown Jewels. The thieves are believed to have approached via the riverfront facade, where construction is underway, used a freight elevator to reach the hall, took nine pieces from a 23-item collection linked to Napoleon and the Empress, and made off on motorbikes, according to Le Parisien.
Daylight robberies during public hours are rare. Pulling one off inside the Louvre — with visitors present — ranks among Europe’s most audacious since Dresden’s Green Vault museum in 2019, and the most serious in France in more than a decade.
It also collides with a deeper tension the Louvre has struggled to resolve: swelling crowds and stretched staff. The museum delayed opening during a June staff walkout over overcrowding and chronic understaffing. Unions say mass tourism leaves too few eyes on too many rooms and creates pressure points where construction zones, freight routes and visitor flows meet.
Security around marquee works remains tight — the Mona Lisa is behind bulletproof glass in a bespoke, climate-controlled case.
It’s unclear whether staffing levels played any role in Sunday’s breach.
The Louvre has a long history of thefts and attempted robberies. The most famous came in 1911, when the Mona Lisa vanished from its frame, stolen by Vincenzo Peruggia and recovered two years later in Florence.
Today the former royal palace holds a roll call of civilization: Leonardo’s Mona Lisa; the armless serenity of the Venus de Milo; the Winged Victory of Samothrace, wind-lashed on the Daru staircase; the Code of Hammurabi’s carved laws; Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People; Géricault’s The Raft of the Medusa. More than 33,000 works — from Mesopotamia, Egypt and the classical world to Europe’s masters — draw a daily tide of up to 30,000 visitors even as investigators now begin to sweep those gilded corridors for clues.
Politics at the door
The heist spilled instantly into politics. Far-right leader Jordan Bardella used it to attack President Emmanuel Macron, weakened at home and facing a fractured parliament.
“The Louvre is a global symbol of our culture,” Bardella wrote on X. “This robbery, which allowed thieves to steal jewels from the French Crown, is an unbearable humiliation for our country. How far will the decay of the state go?”
The criticism lands as Macron touts a decade-long “Louvre New Renaissance” plan — about €700 million to modernize infrastructure, ease crowding and give the Mona Lisa a dedicated gallery by 2031. For workers on the floor, the relief has felt slower than the pressure.
What we know — and don’t
Forensic teams are examining the site of the crime and adjoining access points while a full inventory is taken, authorities said. Officials have described the haul as of “inestimable” historical value.
Recovery may prove difficult. “It’s unlikely these jewels will ever be seen again,” said Tobias Kormind, managing director of 77 Diamonds. “Professional crews often break down and re-cut large, recognizable stones to evade detection, effectively erasing their provenance.”
The Louvre closed for the rest of Sunday as police sealed gates, cleared courtyards and shut nearby streets along the Seine.
Key questions still unanswered are how many people took part in the theft and whether they had inside assistance, authorities said. According to French media, there were four perpetrators: two dressed as construction workers in yellow safety vests on the lift, and two each on a scooter.
Investigators are reviewing CCTV from the Denon wing and the riverfront, inspecting the basket lift used to reach the gallery and interviewing staff who were on site when the museum opened, authorities said.
___
Associated Press writer Jill Lawless in London contributed to this report.
Scottie's Playtime 