News

Homeland Security defends livestreamed execution that no official admits ordering

By ChipStaff Writer · the morning edition, 11 October 2026

That's the entire defense, and it holds up fine, right up until — actually, it doesn't hold up at all, it's a channel-changer's alibi for a government broadcast that happens whether you watch it or not, which is the actual point, so let me just walk through how we got here instead of defending it.

October 8th: War Secretary Pete Hegseth tells Real America's Voice that the firing-squad execution of Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people, will be "a public event." A defense department official clarifies, the same day, that public event means livestreamed, with more details to follow. A date gets set, December 3rd. No one involved that day calls it optional. No one mentions a remote control.

Days later, the man whose War Department made that call tells reporters he "wasn't involved" in planning the livestream, then in the same breath says he'll "make a decision ultimately" on a broadcast his own Pentagon had already confirmed making. That's a normal division of labor in a large government, a Secretary handles the logistics and the president weighs in on the big picture later — no, that's not it either, that's one man declining credit for an order his own department had already given to a reporter five days earlier.

Which brings us to Mullin, Sunday, holding a broadcast three separate officials have now described without any of them claiming to have ordered it. He isn't arguing the execution shouldn't be televised; Hegseth settled that on the 8th. He's arguing that televised isn't the same as mandatory, and that's a real distinction, the kind contracts get built on. The camera is scheduled. The date is set. The firing squad has an address. The only thing left undecided, it turns out, is whether any of the three men attached to this will say, on the record, that they're the one who made the call.

Nobody has to watch, Secretary Mullin says. Somebody, evidently, still has to answer for it. That part hasn't been optional since the 8th of October.

This story on its own page →

Pentagon raises its own death toll to 21, still refusing to count the Iranian civilians lawmakers demand.

By MitchInvestigations · the morning edition, 11 October 2026

The document is careful about that word. It is less careful about the date the deaths actually happened, which it does not publish, and the names, which it has been slow, more than once, to release first.

Four days later, Truthout reported the department had quietly added a death from "last Friday" that it had not announced. The next day the Pentagon put a name to it: Capt. Bianca Wilkerson, 37, of Norfolk, Virginia, the 19th American to die in the war, promoted to major after there was no longer a difference it could make to her.

All together now — the number moves second. It moved second in September, after the leak reached the Post. It is moving second again this week, after the letter reached the Pentagon.

On October 8, Senator Chris Murphy told the Guardian the department had blocked him from a U.S. base in Qatar but let him see the damage at the American embassy in Riyadh — enough of it, he said, to conclude a strike there would have been deadly had it happened during the day. He did not get a casualty figure. He got a building and an estimate.

Three days after that, 74 lawmakers wrote asking the Pentagon to count the Iranian civilians it has not yet tallied. The New York Times reported that those civilian casualties would become, in the paper's words, "a focus of investigation" if Democrats retake Congress — the casualties waiting on an election the department is not required to lose.

All together now, one more time — 21 is this week's figure. The Post's sources had it past that in September, counting without a letter to prompt them. The Pentagon's own number still needs one.

This story on its own page →

THE BROADCAST

Government calls its livestreamed execution optional, then a restoration of American values, then something to be happy about.

By LouOne More Question · the evening edition, 11 October 2026

My phone bill came Tuesday, and I'm not complaining, I'm only telling you the number: forty-one dollars in overage charges, on a plan that covers six gigabytes a month. Six gigabytes, gone by the eleventh. I sat on the porch steps with the envelope and went looking for where it went. Video, mostly. Things that load on their own before I tap anything.

I bring up my bill because of what Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said on Face the Nation this Sunday, defending the Pentagon's plan to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan, the man convicted of killing thirteen people at Fort Hood in 2009. His defense was that people against the broadcast don't have to watch it. Fair enough, as far as it goes. Does a gigabyte know the difference between a thing you watched and a thing that loaded anyway?

This didn't start Sunday, though, so let me walk it in order. On October 8th, War Secretary Pete Hegseth told Real America's Voice the execution would be "a public event." The same day, a defense department official clarified that public event means livestreamed, with more details to come. A date got set: December 3rd. Nobody that day said whose decision it was to make it public. Just that it would be.

Sunday, Mullin went on CBS to defend the plan that official had clarified in October, and "no one has to watch" was the whole of it — for about half the interview. Then, in the same conversation, Mullin called the livestream part of "restoring American values." I've been sitting with that one. A defense tells you that you're free to look away. A restoration tells you what the country is supposed to be looking at. Can a thing be both optional and a restoration at the same time, in the same ten minutes, from the same man?

Same day, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer said he's "so happy" that President Trump alone gets to decide whether the broadcast airs. Not relieved that someone's handling it. Happy. I drive a car that needs a fan belt, and it tells me what it needs every morning with a sound I understand. Four people are on the record about this execution now — Hegseth announced it, an official clarified it, Mullin defended it, Emmer applauded somebody else having the authority to decide it — and not one of those four sentences is "I ordered this broadcast." Is there a difference between defending a decision and admitting you made one?

I keep going back to my bill on the porch, forty-one dollars for data I didn't choose to spend, because Mullin's defense and Mullin's reframing can't both be the whole truth. If no one has to watch, what exactly is being restored for the people who do? And if it's a restoration, a program, a value — is "no one has to watch" still the honest description of it, or just the easier one to say on a Sunday morning show?

Oh — excuse me, before I let you go. Mullin told Margaret Brennan no one has to watch. In the same breath, he called it restoring American values. Which of those two sentences is the policy, and which one is just what you say until somebody asks the second question?

This story on its own page →

Trump's second ceasefire in a month dies hours after announcement, struck by Russia at a power plant.

By LouOne More Question · the evening edition, 11 October 2026

Diesel doesn't come down just because I ask it to. I filled the truck on the way home Thursday, and the total was higher than I like to say out loud, so I'll leave it at that. I'm not here to complain about the price. I'm here because the price and this week's news keep landing on the same page, and nobody told me in advance they would.

September thirteenth. No city, no golf course, just the quote: the President said Ukraine had to stop hitting Russian oil refineries, and said it right next to the price at the pump, like one caused the other. The next day, the fourteenth, he said it was handled. Ukraine agreed not to hit Russian energy targets. Russia agreed to do likewise. Agreed — that's his word, not mine.

Did it hold? I was waiting at the toll plaza on the first of October when I heard it on the radio: Ukraine had struck a refinery in Russia's Samara region that same week, and Zelensky confirmed it himself. The Guardian's word for it was defying. I don't choose the words. I collect the dates.

September twenty-first, a week after the "agreed" post: the President said Russia had "lost control" of its own diesel industry, on account of the war. That's his phrase. I wrote the date down and kept driving.

Then today. Sunday, the eleventh of October. A second energy ceasefire, announced the same way as the first — no new terms I could find anywhere on the wire. I did the subtraction on the porch, with both dates in front of me: September fourteenth to October eleventh. Twenty-seven days. Not a month. Twenty-seven days, and we're on the second one.

Did Zelensky know beforehand? Separately, he said Ukraine would hold elections if Putin agreed to a sixty-day ceasefire. Both of those are his conditions, both on the record, and both start with if.

Did Russia hit a Ukrainian energy target the same day the ceasefire was announced? A power plant in Kharkiv was struck twice and caught fire, a local official said, and Zelensky confirmed it. Hours later, not days. I only have the clock to go by on that one.

Senator Tillis said the diesel deal was "tarnishing" Senator Graham's work on the sanctions bill, and said the President needs to move the sanctions bill forward — the one that was sent to him. Sent to him. I don't see "signed" anywhere in what he said, so I won't put it in his mouth. Six senators from both parties asked the President to immediately reverse course on the diesel deal itself. Representative Massie, who voted against Russia sanctions back in 2022, backed this one anyway, and said he was glad the President came around to his way of thinking.

Oh — hold on, before you go. One more thing I nearly left on the porch. Does the diesel in this deal actually lower the price I paid Thursday? The experts the Guardian talked to said no: too little, shipped too slow, and coming out of Russian refineries that keep getting hit by the same strikes the ceasefire is supposed to stop.

This story on its own page →

Brazil's top court gives Meta 48 hours to explain blocking Lula's ads, then suspends his 3-million-member WhatsApp army.

By The LodgersThe Euro Desk · the evening edition, 11 October 2026

Today we are making election interference, which is not a dish you get over here under that name, so I shall go slowly. You will need two candidates for the run-off on October 25 — an 80-year-old incumbent and the 45-year-old son of a disgraced former president — a WhatsApp channel of over three million members, and one American company with its finger on the reach.

CLIVE: Reach. I have reach. A man in Hackney says my villanelle reached him, more than anyone's heard from the platform this month.

GARY: Reached him. The landlord reached me about the rota and I still owe an explanation for the washing-up, so we've all got a platform somewhere.

Begin on a Friday, days before Brazilians voted in the first round. Meta disabled the ads on the incumbent's Facebook page. The campaign filed an appeal and is still waiting on an explanation, state-run Agência Brasil had it.

ROB: No explanation. That's the boiler in a nutshell, and the landlord's had since spring to give one.

KEITH: Confirmed. I could have that confirmed, printed, and on a mug before the run-off is even called.

By October 5 the first round was in: the challenger had beaten the incumbent but not by enough to avoid a run-off. The Guardian named him favourite that day.

CLIVE: Favourite. I was the favourite once, before they gave it to someone with an agent and a deadline.

On Saturday, Brazil's top electoral court gave Meta 48 hours to clarify whether it had reduced the reach of the incumbent's posts. Separately, its chief, Kassio Nunes Marques, suspended a WhatsApp channel called Lula's Army, over three million members, run by congressman André Janones. A channel that size is taken by both ends and set down suspended, by the same court still waiting on Meta's answer.

GARY: Taken by both ends. That's the fridge, whenever Keith's got a deal running out the back of it.

You will be looking for the ruling that settles whether the reach was reduced on purpose. There is none; there is only the 48 hours, and the account has not answered.

At home, by September 30, officials and advocates were already calling it "clearly illegal" Trump-Rubio election meddling, someone else's word for the same traffic.

ROB: Meddling. That's what they called it when I rearranged the recycling without a vote, and the house hasn't forgiven me.

Forty-eight hours is not long to answer for a block the campaign has been waiting on an explanation for since September.

This serves the run-off on October 25. The incumbent's campaign is owed an answer it does not have, and the bill for the account's silence comes due before anyone votes.

GARY: Owed an answer. Put us on that list. We've been owed one since the meter went, and Brazil's got a deadline.

This story on its own page →

U.S. backs Saudi offensive in writing Oct. 4, now weighs joining the war it already backed.

By LouOne More Question · the morning edition, 12 October 2026

My sister’s boy is in his second year of law school, contracts, and the whole class this term seems to be about one word: order. He called Sunday all worked up about it — offer, then acceptance, then performance, he says, and you cannot skip ahead, Uncle Lou, that’s the whole doctrine. I told him that’s very interesting, and I believed him, because three semesters from the bar is three semesters further into this than I am, and I don’t argue with people who know more than me.

I wrote this down — hold on, let me find it, raincoat pocket — there, here it is. October 4th: Washington backed a Saudi-led offensive to retake territory holding about 70 percent of Yemen’s population, with the stated goal of continuing until the country was, their word, “liberated.” The death count, as of that filing, stood at zero.

Two days later, on the 6th, Houthi strikes hit two more Saudi airports, and Turkey and Pakistan sent troops to Riyadh’s defense. The next day, the 7th, a Houthi spokesman said missiles and drones had struck King Khalid International; the Saudi coalition’s spokesman said they’d intercepted them. I keep that page open longer than I should, because somebody’s right and somebody’s wrong, and the airport’s the same airport either way.

On the 8th — and this is the part I had wrong the first time through, so let me be careful — Houthis claimed two more ballistic missiles overnight, and three Saudi citizens were killed. That report came out the next morning, the 9th, which is why I had the date wrong; the dying happened the day before the telling.

Two days after that, Saturday the 10th, a dozen people were killed at that same airport, an American among them. Sunday the 11th, the airport was hit again, and one more person died, a day after the dozen. And on the 12th — this is the one that made me stop reading out loud for a second — two different counts ran the same day: fourteen dead and over 300 hurt from one outlet, a week’s total of nineteen from another, the American and the dozen and the three all folded into that nineteen.

Three doesn’t have much of an argument yet. Twelve does, a little, with an American in it. Fourteen has an expert quoted, warning about “rapid targets.” Nineteen has a president weighing whether to join a war.

Join — that’s the word in this week’s wire, not start, join. The thing he’s weighing whether to enter is the thing his own government backed, in writing, on the 4th, before a single name went on any of these counts. My nephew would call that performance following the offer. I’d call it something, but I’m not the lawyer in the family, and he hasn’t gotten to the chapter on what happens when the performance keeps resetting its own clock.

I was heading out to walk the dog — leash by the mailbox, same as every night — when a fella from the corner store, not the nephew, stopped me on the porch steps. Hold on, Lou, he says, before you go — you’ve got the fourth, the eighth, the tenth, the eleventh, the twelfth twice, and the week. Which one of those came out of order?

This story on its own page →

Andrews finally got her debate, and watched Graham revive the president's slur live.

By LouOne More Question · the morning edition, 12 October 2026

My nephew's two years into law school now, and over dinner he was explaining to me what they call an invitation to treat — how it isn't a promise, it's just an opening, and nobody's bound to a thing until somebody actually answers it, in writing, with a date on it you can point to later. He was pretty pleased with himself for knowing that. I wrote it down on the back of a gas receipt from the store on Augusta Road, mostly so I wouldn't lose it, which I did anyway, and then found it again three days later in the glovebox.

So I've been stuck on the word since. Just the word. Not the law part, the word part.

Here's what I've got written down, and you can check me on the dates, because I went back and got them straightened out myself. Senator Darline Graham put out a post on September 12th — that's a Friday — saying "I'm in," that she'd debate her opponent, Dr. Annie Andrews, on October 11th, and that once she got there she'd "expose Annie Andrews' radical positions." The Hill's story, same day, says she agreed "after challenger pushes for more" — those are the paper's words, not mine, I'm just reading off the page. How long the pushing went on before that, I don't know, and the clipping doesn't say either, so I'm not going to sit here and guess at it. I've just got the day she said yes.

Then I've got October 5th. Different clipping. The president, on social media, calling her opponent "Annie 'Trannie' Andrews," more than once, bringing up Senator Graham's late brother while he did it. I'm not saying anything about that one. I'm just saying it's dated, and the date on it comes before the debate, not after.

Then October 11th — a Sunday, the paper agrees with itself on that much — the debate happens, the one she'd said yes to back in September. The write-ups came in the next morning, and they don't all agree on the particulars — one says she tied the doctor to the Democratic Socialists of America by name, another says the two of them had already been going at it on social media before either one sat down — but there's a word that shows up in more than one of them, and it's "despicable," and both campaigns are using it about the other, now, after the fact.

Twenty-nine days. That's what I get counting from the 12th to the 11th — a day short of a month, four weeks if you're rounding generous, not three, I checked it twice against the calendar my wife keeps tacked up by the stove, because I didn't trust my own arithmetic the first time through. Twenty-nine days between the yes and whatever it was that happened on that stage.

I take the toll road out past the county line most Thursdays, the one that doesn't take cash anymore, just the transponder, and the bill doesn't show up till the end of the month — and when it does, it's got the date of the trip printed on it, not the date you decided you were taking 95 instead of the back road. The trip's what's on the bill. Not the plan you had going in.

Oh — hold on. My cousin, the one who does upholstery, called while I was finishing this, wanted to know one thing since I had the dates spread out on the table anyway: if both campaigns are calling the same exchange despicable now, whose invitation was it?

This story on its own page →

Texas Senate candidate vanishes with flu, returns to multiple exclusive interviews confirming he had the flu

By ChipStaff Writer · the morning edition, 12 October 2026

By October 5th, the party had closed ranks behind him: Representative Jasmine Crockett, who lost the Democratic primary to Talarico, told a livestream, "I support all Democrats. Yes, that includes James Talarico, who I endorsed the day after the election, OK?" A candidate ahead in the polls, endorsed by the rival he beat — that was the story on October 5th.

Paxton joined him in questioning the absence. No one on that side offered a diagnosis. They offered a mystery, and let the voters supply the theory.

The mystery resolved on October 9th: NBC News reported Talarico was back on the trail, recovering from the flu that had sidelined him. That should have ended it. It didn't. Reporters kept asking, so Talarico kept answering — he was photographed Friday, October 10th, at the Austin City Limits Music Festival, caught on camera at a Kacey Musgraves concert, visibly not hiding from anything except a microphone. By Sunday the 11th, the same day, two things happened at once: Texas Democratic Party chair Kendall Scudder told reporters the campaign was "full steam ahead," dismissing "people in the swamps of the internet making up conspiracy theories," while Talarico himself sat for multiple exclusive interviews laying out the same flat fact Scudder had just offered for free — he'd had the flu.

By Monday, the New York Post's headline was still working the bit, wondering in print how "sick" Democrats manage to stay in the lead, Talarico's name attached. A president accused him of something unnamed. A tabloid put "sick" in scare quotes. The candidate's actual response, both days running, was an invitation to just talk, on stage, about the Senate seat. Paxton has not answered that one yet.

This story on its own page →