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
Conservative strategist and co-founder of the Lincoln Project Rick Wilson laid out what a post-Trump world may look like, and what revelations would follow, in a column published Wednesday.
“When Donald Trump dies, the myth will begin to decay almost instantly; his cult will keep the flame alive for a while, but the records will outlive the rally faithful,” Wilson wrote on his Substack “Against All Enemies.“
“History will not remember him as a king, or a savior. History will remember him as a small, ugly, sick man who happened to seize great power, who wielded it recklessly, and who left behind a trail of destruction, corruption and cowardice unmatched in American history.”
Sticking with Trump’s health, Wilson predicted that following Trump’s passing, a trove of documents related to his physical and mental condition would be unearthed, documents that would reveal that his “cardiac and mental decline was charted in careful, hidden memos.”
Wilson also anticipated that revelations around the president’s ties with Jeffrey Epstein – the convicted sex offender who died in 2019 awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges – would come to light, and made several startling predictions about who in Trump’s cabinet may be held to account for potentially covering up those ties.
“Epstein’s web of power, blackmail, and sexual exploitation reached deep into America’s elite, and we’ll learn Trump was in the thick of it,” Wilson wrote. “The [Justice Department’s] illegal Epstein coverup and corrupt pardon of Ghislaine Maxwell will unravel, and by the end, [Attorney General] Pam Bondi, [Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche, [FBI Director] Kash Patel, and [FBI Deputy Director] Dan Bongino will be in prison.”
Details on Trump’s business dealings, many of which have enriched the president to the tune of billions of dollars, would also be laid to bare following his passing, Wilson noted, details that he argued history would not look well upon.
“The Trumpcoin scams, the garbage social media platform, the grifty deals with foreign powers, the bribes for pardons…all of it will be seen for what it is; a criminal enterprise, a mobster bustout of an entire nation,” Wilson wrote.
“History will learn about the shell companies, the overseas accounts, the backroom deals where American policy was auctioned off like a Mar-a-Lago dinner table.”
Ultimately, Wilson argued that through the wave of revelations following the president’s passing, a clear picture of Trump would be painted: that of someone whose “only interest was control.”
So many cowards gave Trump cover at the expense of true, decent Americans and our inclusive, loving sense of family and community.
Anthropic partnered with the US government to create a filter meant to block Claude from helping someone build a nuke. Experts are divided on whether its a necessary protection—or a protection at all.
At the end of August, the AI company Anthropicannounced that its chatbot Claude wouldn’t help anyone build a nuclear weapon. According to Anthropic, it had partnered with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to make sure Claude wouldn’t spill nuclear secrets.
The manufacture of nuclear weapons is both a precise science and a solved problem. A lot of the information about America’s most advanced nuclear weapons is Top Secret, but the original nuclear science is 80 years old. North Korea proved that a dedicated country with an interest in acquiring the bomb can do it, and it didn’t need a chatbot’s help.
How, exactly, did the US government work with an AI company to make sure a chatbot wasn’t spilling sensitive nuclear secrets? And also: Was there ever a danger of a chatbot helping someone build a nuke in the first place?
The answer to the first question is that it used Amazon. The answer to the second question is complicated.
Amazon Web Services (AWS) offers Top Secret cloud services to government clients where they can store sensitive and classified information. The DOE already had several of these servers when it started to work with Anthropic. (snip-MORE on the page. It’s good-read it!)
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.
