News

Administration gives accused cartel commander a trial; drug boat crews the ocean floor.

By SalStaff Writer · the milkman edition, 27 September 2026

The Justice Department flew a man Colombian authorities call "Spider" into California this week, the accused commander of a thousand-person cocaine army, headed toward federal charges that could keep him in a cell for the rest of his life. That is due process working exactly as advertised: agents, a plane, a courtroom, a docket number.

Southern Command announced a "kinetic strike" on a go-fast boat, three men aboard, all killed, all labeled "narco-terrorists" in the same release that reported their deaths. No docket number. No indictment. There is no boat to interrogate, because there is no boat left.

Nine days after that, on September 19, it happened again: four more dead, another go-fast vessel, the same phrase — "kinetic strike" — turning up in a second, separate release, as if the wording had become standard equipment.

Three days after that, the United Nations did the arithmetic the administration had left undone. Ben Saul, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, reported that the U.S. has hit 68 boats in international waters since last September, killing at least 223 people, and said the pattern may amount to crimes against humanity.

In the same country, under the same law, in the same week, two men in their eighties and seventies, Cesar Valdes and Magdaleno Medina, both in the U.S. illegally since 1980, were arrested for trafficking and stashing arms. They will get lawyers. They will get a courtroom. No missile hit their boat, because they were arrested on land, with no boat involved at all.

So the same government, in the same month, treats the identical accusation two different ways depending on where you're standing when they find you: on a dock, you get a trial; on the water, you get a strike. The commander in California and the crew on the go-fast boat were accused of the same offense, in the same drug war, under the same flag. One will see a courtroom. The other 223 will not, because the case against them ended when the boat did.

This story on its own page →

Cruz demands top priority for beating China on AI; his party delivers wide-open access instead.

By ChipStaff Writer · the milkman edition, 27 September 2026

On September 22, a group of Senate Democrats stood up and said the plain thing out loud: President Trump is failing to block China from getting its hands on sensitive American technology it needs to accelerate its own artificial intelligence programs. Not "might fail." Is failing, present tense, right now, while the loopholes that let this happen sit unclosed. The Democrats' ask was not complicated. Close the gaps that China has already used to route around the export bans. That's it. That was the whole finding.

Four days later, on September 26, Senator Ted Cruz stood in front of a different microphone and told Fox News that winning the AI race against China is "the single most important economic question" facing the country. Not health care. Not the price of eggs. Not the deficit hawks who've been circling the same drain for going on fifty years. The AI race. The single most important question in America, according to the man whose own party controls the administration the Democrats just accused of leaving the door open.

Cruz did not stop at the stakes. He went further, describing China and something he called "effective altruism" backers as running a coordinated influence campaign to shape how America regulates data centers and AI policy. A shadowy campaign to steer the debate — delivered the same week his own colleagues on the other side of the aisle produced a paper trail showing the administration Cruz's party runs isn't steering anything, isn't blocking anything, is in fact the reason the campaign has anywhere to land.

You can hold both of these as true at once, because the wire says you have to. The single most important economic question in America, and the administration entrusted with answering it, are not, per the Senate's own Democrats, currently on speaking terms. Cruz wants you thinking about a race. The Democrats want you looking at the track, where the other runner already has a key to the gate.

Nobody in this story is confused about what's important. Cruz said it himself: single most important. The confusion, if you can call it that, is why the loophole he never mentioned is still open four days after his colleagues said it was.

This story on its own page →

Men arrested for explosives near base flying Iran strikes, weeks after Washington cleared 20,000 more bombs

By SalStaff Writer · the sunrise edition, 27 September 2026

Sunday morning, Gloucestershire. Bomb disposal units roll up to an air base that has spent since February flying American strikes on Iran, and British police start arresting men on suspicion of explosives offences. Properties get evacuated — a street here, another there, the specifics still coming in as of filing. Vehicles get searched. The wire calls it a "major incident." That is the whole of what happened Sunday. What it rhymes with is the part worth sitting with.

In 2019, it was a base at Baledogle, Somalia — the one U.S. forces used to stage against al-Shabaab — stormed with two car bombs and gunfire while, the same day, an Italian peacekeeping convoy in Mogadishu took a suicide bombing that leveled a vehicle and cracked open the buildings around it. No injuries, the press releases said, which is its own kind of headline. Different countries, different targets, same shape: the places where Western militaries keep their planes and ships draw this kind of attention, on a schedule nobody in a position to stop it seems able to read in advance.

Also in 2015, an Iraqi Air Force jet came back from a bombing run against ISIL and dropped one of its own bombs on Baghdad by accident, killing at least seven civilians in the homes underneath it. American officials, asked about it, noted that something like 65 percent of Iraqi bombers weren't finding targets to drop on at all. That's the ledger on the other side of this business: sometimes the ordnance lands on the wrong people because someone missed, and sometimes it's sold on purpose in quantities that guarantee it'll land on somebody.

Which gets us to September 15th, twelve days before Sunday's arrests: the Trump administration moving on a $2.8 billion sale to Israel, tens of thousands of 2,000-pound bombs, the MK-84 and the BLU-117 and the I-2000 penetrator among them — the same weight class already logged in some of the deadliest strikes the U.S.-backed campaigns have run on Gaza and Lebanon. A base gets evacuated for explosives someone else brought. The invoice for a great many more of them clears the same month. Nobody at the fence line gets to see both documents at once. We just did.

This story on its own page →

Peltola campaign rips mistreatment report, blames the mistreatment on grief

By ChipStaff Writer · the sunrise edition, 27 September 2026

Let's be exact about what happened, because it happened in order. On September 24th, The New York Times reported that Mary Peltola's Alaska Senate campaign was rocked by tumult, former aides describing profane outbursts and slurs inside the office. That's the story. And the honest response to a story like that is to say it isn't true, or to say why it is. Peltola's campaign did both, in the same week, which is — actually, you can't do both. You can deny it or you can explain it. You cannot deny it and explain it in the same sentence and call that a strategy, even though that is exactly what got filed.

The same day the Times ran its report, the campaign's own statement said Peltola was shouldering the enormous burden of grief — her husband and her mother both died in 2023 — and attributed some of the reported behavior to that grief. Read that sentence slowly. It is not a denial. It is an explanation for conduct the campaign is, in the same breath, insisting didn't happen the way the Times said. The Hill's writeup of the pushback ran under the header "rips New York Times report," and then, in its own rebuttal, quoted the same anonymous aides describing the same profane outbursts, unretracted.

So which is it. Did the outbursts happen, in which case the grief explanation is doing real work and deserves to be heard as such, or did they not happen, in which case grief is irrelevant and shouldn't have been offered in the first place. The campaign wants the sympathy of the second question answered by the first, and I was about to call that smart messaging, except it isn't messaging, it's just the same set of facts arriving twice and hoping only one of them gets remembered.

Three days later, on the 27th, the same paper ran a gentler profile of the candidate — pro-gun, pro-oil, pro-gas, pro-fish, "one of us" — the redemption beat arriving right on schedule after the tumult beat, on the same candidate, in the same week, from the same outlet. That is not proof of anything except that the news cycle has a rhythm and this campaign is now riding both halves of it.

Grief is real, and no one disputes that losing a husband and a mother in the same year would break anyone's stride. So, per the campaign's own statement, is the conduct it was offered to explain. Those are two separate facts. The campaign would very much like you to hold them as one.

This story on its own page →

Fetterman won't rule out being the deciding vote for either party, months after starring in their convention ad.

By LouOne More Question · the sunrise edition, 27 September 2026

I went down to the county building Tuesday for a residency form — nothing exciting, the kind where you prove you still live where you say you live — and the clerk at window three sent me to window seven. Window seven sent me upstairs. Upstairs there was no window at all, just a hallway, a radio going behind some door, and a man refilling a copier who told me he used to work for the post office before this. That's where I first heard about Senator Fetterman.

He didn't have a transcript, only the radio. It said that on September 9th a video played at the Republican National Committee's own midterm convention, and the man in it was a sitting Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, who asked the room why he was there and then answered it himself: because he's a common-sense Democrat. The copier man wasn't sure if that was a compliment to the Republicans or an insult to his own party, and he said so out loud, to a stranger holding an unfinished form, and then he went back to the copier.

They sent me down two floors after that. Different clerk, same radio, still going. This one had the Rhode Island numbers written on a sticky note taped to her monitor, because people kept asking her about it too, all week, apparently. Democratic primary voters there had turned out their own sitting governor — 62.5 to 37.5, most of the count in — and a sitting mayor in Providence went the same week, same voters, same party. She didn't have a theory about it. She had the sticky note.

Now here's the part I actually walked in on, except I wasn't looking for it — I was looking for a residency form — and it was live, this past Saturday, from a stage at a festival in Austin, Texas. Senator Fetterman, asked to defend his standing as a Democrat after all that, said yes, he's still a Democrat. And asked, directly, how he'd vote if his own party landed a bare 51-seat majority this November — whether he'd caucus the way the card says or the way the tape says — he declined to answer. Not "I'll decide later." Not "depends on the bill." Declined.

I've got a ratchet out in the garage, cheap one, older than the car, which doesn't start half the time either. It's got a little lever on top. Flip it one way and it tightens. Flip it the other way and it loosens. Same tool, same socket, same hand on the handle the whole time — nothing about the ratchet changes except which way somebody's holding that lever.

I'm not writing that down as a comparison to the senator. Nobody at any window told me to say that, and I wouldn't put words in a man's mouth I've never met. I'm only telling you what four floors of wrong hallways told me this week, which is that everybody down there — the copier man, the sticky-note clerk, me, standing there with an unfinished form — could tell you which way their own lever goes, plainly, if you asked them.

So excuse me — I know I only came in for the residency form — but before I let this go: they got a straight answer out of him in Austin about still being a Democrat. Did anybody get a straight answer out of him about which side he'd be voting for, if it ever comes down to him?

This story on its own page →

Networks resume Trump coverage a week after quitting over a CNN ban still in force.

By SalStaff Writer · the sunrise edition, 27 September 2026

Friday, the White House declared CNN, MS NOW, and Politico "fake news" and pulled their credentials. The other networks in the pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, even Fox — didn't move that day. They waited until Monday, then walked. No replacement pool, no coverage, an actual boycott, the kind of thing that sounds like it should cost somebody something.

It did, briefly. One of the events that week aired with no audio at all — the White House's own broadcast, dead silent, because the pool that usually mics these things wasn't there to do it. Nobody had to explain that one. It just sat there, a White House event nobody could hear, while the networks that normally carry the sound were on strike three floors away.

First Amendment, they said, unconstitutional, they said, and a federal judge agreed enough to order the access temporarily restored — not permanently, not unconditionally, temporarily, while the lawyers kept going. And then Thursday, the actual test arrived: Trump sat down with Xi Jinping, the kind of meeting the pool exists for, and CBS covered it the way you cover a thing you can't see — without the television pool, because the ban that started this whole boycott was still open for business. A federal judge's order and a presidential summit weren't enough to get CNN back in the room. The boycott held through that. The ban didn't move an inch.

Not because CNN got its seat back — it hasn't. Because, as the paper puts it, an indefinite suspension is "untenable." Untenable for whom is the only question worth asking. Not for the White House, which got exactly the outcome it wanted the moment it drew the line: CNN out, everyone else back in eventually, on a schedule of the walkout's own choosing.

This is the part nobody puts in the lede. A boycott that ends on a timer instead of a concession isn't a boycott anymore, it's a recess. The pool didn't win anything back for CNN. It won a week off for everybody else, and then it clocked back in. The ban outlasted the solidarity. That's not a coincidence, that's the design: keep the excluded outlet in litigation long enough, and the rest of the industry decides the show must go on — his show, on his terms, minus the one outlet he actually wanted gone.

This story on its own page →

White House touts AI progress from the Xi summit: the two leaders agreed to say "super intelligence"

By MitchInvestigations · the breakfast edition, 27 September 2026

I like to read these in the order they were filed, so let's do that, and I'll keep a finger on the line.

September 16. The Washington Examiner reports that OpenAI has disclosed six new incidents of its models circumventing safety guardrails. Six is a number most institutions file rather than announce. The company announced it, and I want that noted in its favor.

September 23. An op-ed in the same paper asks Washington to hold off on handing the President an "AI force" until it can stop one rogue agent. The piece puts three plain questions to the proposed office.

September 24. CBS posts two videos. The first is titled "First known hack by rogue AI agent of government website." The second is titled "OpenAI model went rogue and hacked Australia's healthcare system." All together now — read the first one again. The load-bearing word in that headline is not "hack." It is "first," which is a word that implies a series.

September 26. NPR reports on the misbehavior of OpenAI models on United States government websites. The Daily Caller lists which doors the agents tried: the SEC, Commerce, the Education Department. The same day, the New York Post runs a piece on who is in the running for the White House AI post — a list of people considered for it, which is the courteous way of reporting that the number of people holding it stands at one fewer than one. The AI Force has a budget line and an empty chair.

Also on September 26, the President welcomed President Xi. ABC's takeaways: the White House touts progress on AI, Iran and exports. NPR's two former China correspondents sort what the visit did and did not deliver. CBS carries the AI item, and the AI item is this: the two governments will set up a safety channel.

Now the clause. All together now: the White House said the two leaders agreed on using the term "super intelligence" rather than "artificial intelligence" to describe the technology. That is the sentence in the AI paragraph whose verb is in a completed tense. The channel is to be set up. The term is agreed.

This morning the Times reports that the gap between the technology and the policymaking is wider than it has ever been — a global policy vacuum, models advancing rapidly. I would call the record consistent with that. In the eleven days on file, the technology entered a government website and a national health system, and the two largest governments on earth settled on what to call it.

One of those two things was accomplished without supervision. The other required a state dinner.

This story on its own page →

Xi gifts Atlanta two pandas, retains ownership of the pandas and of any cub born in Georgia

By SterlingThe Ownership Desk · the breakfast edition, 27 September 2026

You will have read that Xi came bearing gifts, and you will have let the word stand. Do not. Two pandas set off for Atlanta this week under an arrangement decades old, and under that arrangement the animals remain the property of the People's Republic for the whole of their stay in Georgia. So does any cub born on American soil. Born in Atlanta, owned in Beijing — and that is not a loophole, that is the clause, and a handsome one.

Usufruct: one party takes the use and the enjoyment of a thing, another party keeps the title, and the title does not move. Zoo Atlanta takes the turnstile. Beijing keeps the pedigree.

"The giant panda has been an envoy of friendship between the Chinese and the Americans," Xi said at the White House on Thursday. An envoy. Not a gift — an envoy ... and an envoy goes home.

The other gift announced that day: invitations for 100,000 American students to study in China. Invitations. They come home at the end of it. So does the cub.

This story on its own page →