News

Cornell protesters win a special prosecutor; the accused men's lawyers call her biased.

By SalStaff Writer · the late evening edition, 5 October 2026

For sixteen days the thing sat where these things usually sit — a filing, a docket number, a story a couple papers ran once and let drop.

Then on October 2nd, Governor Kathy Hochul stood next to her attorney general, Letitia James, and said she would "ensure" the facts came to light. James was named special prosecutor that same day, lifting the case clean out of the local district attorney's hands. The same day — not the same week, the same day — a Cornell-commissioned survey surfaced finding that more than thirty-five percent of the school's female undergraduates reported nonconsensual sexual contact in the past year alone. It just held it, the way institutions hold numbers like that, until there's a reason not to.

Three days later, on October 5th, more than a thousand people filled the Cornell quad. "We are all Jane Doe," they chanted.

Here is the part the quad didn't get to vote on: the special prosecutor the protest produced is already the next fight. A lawyer for one of the accused men is asking Letitia James to recuse herself, calling the appointment itself a conflict. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't — that's for a courtroom, not a column. But notice the order of operations. A survey sat for however long surveys sit. A lawsuit sat for sixteen days. Nothing moved until a thousand people and a can of spray paint moved it, and what finally moved is already being called illegitimate by the men it exists to investigate.

That is the part of the trick that never changes: the system waits for the crowd to do the job the system was built to do, then treats the crowd's win as the thing to litigate. The thirty-five percent was sitting in a drawer the whole time. It just needed a building.

This story on its own page →

Alito says the Court isn't political, calls overturning Roe courage, and recused from a major climate case.

By ChipStaff Writer · the late evening edition, 5 October 2026

On October 5, Justice Samuel Alito sat down with CBS News and told chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford, "We are not part of any political movement." Damaging to what, he did not say.

He had already supplied the answer a week earlier. On September 28, Alito recused himself from Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, the climate case nearly a decade in the making that could let cities and states sue oil companies for the costs of a warming planet. He offered no explanation. The next day, Common Dreams called the recusal the bare minimum, citing years of pressure over what critics describe as Alito's conflicts of interest with the industry the case is about. A justice with no politics had just stepped out of the one case where his own exposure might show.

Alito didn't name a tax ruling or a procedural call. He named Dobbs, the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Courage is a word for a fight.

By Monday, when the new term opened, the case Alito had quietly left was already before the justices who hadn't recused. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who had led 26 states urging the Court to halt the Boulder lawsuit before it ever reached argument, went on CBS News that same day to make the industry's case for ending it. He didn't need to have stood at the lectern; the invitation to explain why oil companies should be shielded from the lawsuits was enough. The same week, Alito told CBS the justices answer to no movement, no party, no politics — in an interview about a climate case he'd just left, a Roe decision he called courageous, and a decision not to retire that he says he reconsiders every year because he can "still make a valuable contribution."

This story on its own page →

FIRST SINCE WWII

Pentagon revives firing squad as a historic first, the same week lethal injection needed forty minutes to fail.

By LouOne More Question · the midnight edition, 6 October 2026

I made a list this morning. Six lines, in the order they happened, and then I stopped, because once you read a list like this out loud there isn't much left to add to it.

2009: a mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, kills thirteen people. 2013: a military jury sentences the man who did it, Nidal Hasan, to death. March 7th, 2025: South Carolina executes a man by firing squad, the first time any state has used that method since 2010. October 1st, this year: Tennessee's governor calls their own state's execution "deeply disturbing" and suspends every execution on the books, because the lethal injection meant to kill a woman named Christa Pike left her alive for forty minutes instead. October 2nd: her lawyer says she's in critical condition, and the governor orders an inquiry. Today, October 6th, seventeen years after Fort Hood: a Pentagon spokesperson posts on social media that the Secretary of War recommended, and the President approved, executing Hasan by Army firing squad — the first U.S. military execution since 1961, and the first by firing squad since the end of the Second World War.

That's the list. I'm not reading it twice.

I went out to the garage after that, because I wanted to check something, and the garage is where I check things. I've got two fire extinguishers mounted on the wall out there.

One's a cheap red can from the hardware store, fourteen years old. I test-fired it into the yard the day I brought it home, just to see if it worked. It worked. I haven't had reason to touch it since, so what I can actually tell you is that it worked once, fourteen years ago, and nothing past that.

The other one's the good one — steel tank, pressure gauge, a tag by the door you're supposed to punch every year when the company comes through to check it. The dog was nosing around the cans while I looked at that tag today. The last punch on it is dated 2019. That's not just "a while." By my count, that's seven years since anybody signed off on whether the good one still does what it's built to do.

Here's what I keep turning over, and I don't have a clean answer for it, which is why I'm asking instead of telling you. The Army is going back to a method it hasn't used on a soldier since before most of us were born. The state one river over just finished watching its newer method fail to do its job on schedule, on a person who was supposed to be unconscious within a couple of minutes. Which one of those two got announced this week as a historic first, and which one got a governor's suspension and an outside inquiry?

And if the tag on the good extinguisher hasn't been punched since 2019, whose job was it to punch it — and whose job is it to notice that nobody did?

Oh — before you go. The wire out of France today says the date and the location for Hasan's execution haven't been set; the Army hasn't picked a day yet. Tennessee's governor, the one who had to call their own state's execution "deeply disturbing" this month, already has a date on their calendar — their inquiry runs at least through the end of the year. So I'll leave you with this: one of these two executions already has a deadline attached to it. Which one do you figure that is — the one the Army hasn't scheduled, or the one Tennessee's already promised an answer on by New Year's?

This story on its own page →

Rubio voices confidence in US bases hours after the last bomber left this one over Iran threats.

By The LodgersThe Euro Desk · the midnight edition, 6 October 2026

Today we are making a military withdrawal that insists on being called something else, which is not a dish you get over here in quite this cut. You will need twelve B-1 bombers, one air base in Gloucestershire, a threat the government will only call "some threats," and Downing Street saying the word "safe" into a kitchen with every bomber already pulled off the heat.

Begin five days before the bombers moved. On September 30th the Washington Examiner carried British Prime Minister Andy Burnham saying there were "indications" Iran "played a part" in a terrorism scare near the base — five British nationals, ages 23 to 25, arrested that Sunday — and defending their release on bail anyway.

CLIVE: Indications. My verse has had indications for months, and the Americans still haven't grounded a single bomber for it.

GARY: Grounded. The only thing grounded in this house is the toaster, and that's because you trod on the flex.

By the weekend the indications had become a schedule. On October 5th a Pentagon spokesperson told CBS News that all the bombers at RAF Fairford had returned to their home stations; the New York Times put the number at twelve the next day, withdrawn over the risk of a drone attack US and British officials said was ordered by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. JD Vance called it "an abundance of caution." Trump, asked why, told RTÉ there were "some threats."

ROB: Question for the table: who's showing caution about the boiler, because it's made the same noise since March and it hasn't flown anywhere.

KEITH: That's not getting answered today, Rob. I can have "abundance of caution" trademarked by the weekend, and you can thank me out of the kitty.

You will be looking for the order that grounded them for good. There is no such order: Marco Rubio told CBS News the administration still has confidence in all international bases — said after every bomber at this one had already gone home.

The BBC, which is what they have here, has it as "Trump says 'threat' led US to pull bombers from RAF Fairford." At home, in the quote RTÉ carried from his own mouth, it was "some threats" — the number sliding between the British headline and the American who gave it.

GARY: Confidence. That's what Keith called the boiler in March, right before it broke completely and we lost the hot water for a fortnight.

The same day, the Guardian carried Downing Street's answer. A dozen B-1s had already redeployed over the possible Iranian threat, and the prime minister's spokesperson, at a scheduled briefing, said "yes" when asked if the military site was safe.

This one serves the base itself, left holding everything it was built for flown home, and Downing Street, who must keep saying "safe" until Washington says anything else. The bill for finishing that sentence hasn't been sent to anyone yet.

ROB: If the Americans can call an empty base secure, I'm calling this kitchen catered.

This story on its own page →

Netanyahu says Israel warned Britain about the Fairford plot, was rewarded with sanctions.

By The LodgersThe Euro Desk · the wee small hours edition, 6 October 2026

Today we are making a full evacuation that has picked up a different name every time someone in government reaches for it, which is not a dish you get over here with the name still changing hands at the table. You will need twelve B-1 bombers, a base ninety miles west of London, a plot the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times this week specify as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' own, aimed at destroying the aircraft and killing the service members stationed there, and an Israeli prime minister who says he warned British intelligence about it before London sanctioned him.

It was not Iran's first reach for American aircraft that month. On the 10th of September, roughly twenty of its ballistic missiles struck the Muwaffaq Salti air base in Jordan: eight F-15 fighter jets took light damage, and one A-10 Thunderbolt took the worst of it.

GARY: Changing hands. That's the rent in this house exactly — it changes hands every first of the month and somehow never actually arrives anywhere.

Move forward three weeks, to the 30th of September: five British nationals, ages 23 to 25, were arrested near the base, and Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there were "indications" Iran "played a part" — and defended releasing them on bail all the same.

ROB: Released on bail all the same. Heavy, that — the system just lets things go and calls it due process, same as this house calls it a rota.

On the 1st of October, Benjamin Netanyahu, asked on Fox News about what the Washington Examiner records as "the recent scare in Britain," said Israel had already given British intelligence word of an "Iranian-sponsored attack" — and that London sanctioned Israel shortly after.

CLIVE: Shortly after. I am drafting the whole business in couplets, the warning and the sanction landing in the very next line, which is more than this government's managed.

KEITH: Couplets won't shift it. Israeli intelligence, British sanctions, American bombers — that's three flags on one tin, and I can have the tin on a shelf by Thursday.

By that Sunday the Pentagon confirmed what the base had already done without being asked: all twelve B-1s were back at their home stations in America. The Guardian had Downing Street calling the base "safe" the Monday the bombers left it, and RTÉ filed the same evacuation from Dublin the same day.

GARY: Safe. That's the landlord's word for the boiler too, and we're still boiling kettles on the hob.

By that Monday the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times were specifying the reason British officials had only given in general terms: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had a plot to destroy the aircraft and kill the service members based there, at a base the New York Post puts ninety miles west of London.

You will be looking for the single report that settles which it was — threat, plot, or drone attack. There isn't one; the three words are what three different offices are using instead of agreeing on one.

The BBC, which is what they have here, ran it as Trump saying a "threat" led to the pull. At home the New York Post and the New York Times specify the same twelve bombers left because of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps plot to destroy the aircraft and kill the service members based there.

ROB: Three different offices. Sounds like the rota again — everyone's assigned a different job and somehow the bin still doesn't go out.

The Pentagon is handled the way you'd handle a chicken — taken by both ends, turned over, and looked at underneath — and underneath it offers only the confirmation that all twelve are already home, nothing about which account above it is the one that's true.

A threat that changes its noun by the day rarely survives a second news cycle; by the third telling, somebody has to write it down the same way twice.

The base at Fairford holds no bombers this week; British intelligence is left to square Mr Netanyahu's account against London's own sanctions, and no official has said which explanation is the one that holds.

KEITH: Which one holds. I'll box all four and sell whichever one's still standing by Thursday — that's the version with the market.

This story on its own page →

THE TIMELINE

Cornell needs a lawsuit, a special prosecutor on the ballot, and a no-confidence vote to hold a hearing.

By SalStaff Writer · the wee small hours edition, 6 October 2026

Cornell University opened its 2026 school year the way it opened 2025 and 2024: with the same allegation unresolved. The university's own process sat on that file for two years. It took a lawsuit to move it.

It was news to everyone else.

On October 1, Cornell held a public hearing on sexual violence. Students told CBS what two years of silence had taught them. "We feel anger here at Cornell and feel incredibly let down by the adults in charge who are supposed to be keeping us safe," said Adriana Vink, a sophomore. Cornell's own handling had not met that standard once in two years.

James arrived with a complication of her own: she is on a statewide ballot whose lead over her Republican challenger had shrunk by five points in a poll taken the week before her appointment. The investigation she now runs is unfolding on the same calendar as her reelection. By October 6, a lawyer for one of the accused men asked her to step aside, arguing the prosecutor, not the case, was the problem. President Trump, who has called James "totally corrupt," said the men he calls the "Cornell Seven" would not get a fair hearing from her.

None of that — the lawsuit, the survey, the hearing, the appointment, the recusal fight — moved Cornell's administration as directly as its own faculty and its own students did. On October 6 the faculty senate scheduled a vote the Times called rare: no confidence in the administrators who had sat on the file for two years.

This story on its own page →

Trump administration diverts human rights funds to fight Brazil's court, suspends its consulate, gets credit for 'global appeal.'

By MitchInvestigations · the wee small hours edition, 6 October 2026

Call it Exhibit A: a filing clock. On September 30, with hours left before the state department's human rights fund expired, officials rushed through more than $175 million in last-minute awards. Line two: support for a campaign promoting white Afrikaner rights in South Africa. Line three, the one that matters here: money for a campaign against Brazil's supreme court, filed under "human rights."

That same week, Brazil's spy agency said it had confirmed the existence of interference from the United States as well as Russia in the race Flavio Bolsonaro was about to win the first round of. The son of a former president who was jailed over the Brazilian version of the January 6 storming of the US Capitol was leading a field that includes other Bolsonaros, elected further down the same ballot.

Two days before the vote, the US Embassy in Brazil suspended in-person consular services at every one of its posts in the country, citing "security concerns" in a security alert that did not say what the concern was, or how many there were of it. Americans were told to stay away from US diplomatic facilities in the country where the embassy is supposed to protect them. Two days before the vote, the Lula campaign asked Brazil's top election court to open an inquiry into the shutdown as interference.

Sunday came. Flavio Bolsonaro finished ahead of the sitting president. By Tuesday, the New York Post had the headline: Brazil's right turn reflects the global appeal of Trump's American pride, as if the whole region were voting the way America voted, on its own, for its own reasons.

The fund that bankrolled a campaign against Brazil's top court is called a human rights fund. The suspension that emptied the embassy two days before the vote was called a security measure. The runoff is October 25th. The paperwork is dated, filed, and public; the headline calls the result Trump's global appeal.

This story on its own page →

Letitia James called compromised by the President before her appointment, by the defense after it.

By SalStaff Writer · the milkman edition, 6 October 2026

Cornell held the allegation for two years before anyone outside the university held a title tied to it. A fraternity member is accused of raping a student at a Cornell house in October 2024, and the university's own process did not resolve it in all that time. On September 30, Senator Chuck Schumer called the case "horrifying" and asked that it get "no stone unturned." The hearing covered policy; the delay itself has not had one.

On October 2, Jane Doe's attorney, Thomas Giuffra, told CBS that Doe was incapable of consent the night in question because she was "completely, grossly intoxicated." The same day, President Trump told reporters on the White House South Lawn that the accused men — he called them the "Cornell Seven" — would not get "a fair shake," and called New York Attorney General Letitia James "totally corrupt." James held no formal role in the case when he said it. She got one the next day: on October 3, Governor Kathy Hochul named James special prosecutor.

This week produced the two beats that matter most, and they arrived together. Cornell's faculty senate scheduled a vote of no confidence in the administration — a vote faculties almost never hold — over the two years the file sat closed before any outside appointment existed at all. And an attorney for one of the accused men asked James to step down as special prosecutor, three days into the job the governor had just given her.

Line up the asks. The administration asked for two years before anyone outside it got to look. The governor answered by naming a prosecutor who is on a statewide ballot this year. The defense answered that by asking the prosecutor to step aside too. Each party that has touched this case has made the same move: decide, for everyone else, who gets to investigate it. Trump's complaint about James predates her appointment by a day; the defense's request arrives three days after it. Both aim at the same seat. The seat is the only thing anyone in this story agrees is worth fighting over.

This story on its own page →