News

Trump demands dishonest aides be prosecuted, awarded investigation into his own ally same day.

By LouOne More Question · the afternoon edition, 22 October 2026

I went back to the federal building on Church Street for something that had nothing to do with any of this — a notarized form for the county, because the fan belt on the Buick is down to threads and I didn't want to fail inspection over a sticker again. The guard at the first window sent me to the second floor. The second floor sent me to records. Records told me records had moved to the annex a year and a half ago, which nobody had told the guard, and somewhere between the annex and the elevator I picked up, without asking for it, most of a story a different agency had been having a different morning about.

The clerk at records, who was eating a sandwich and in no hurry, told me the Justice Department had opened an inquiry into Corey Lewandowski on the twenty-second of October. I wrote the date on the back of my own form, since I didn't have anything else to write it on. The same day, she said, the president had told reporters that if people in his administration weren't being honest, they had to be prosecuted. Does the reporting give a different date for either one of those?

I'm sorry, I'll come at the day again, from a different side. Something had to travel for that inquiry to exist at all. A referral from the inspector general's office over at Homeland Security had to leave one building and arrive at another before the Justice Department could open anything on the twenty-second. Who carried it? Whose hands, whose inbox, whose car? The reporting doesn't say, and neither did anybody at records.

I don't mean to linger on this, but here's another side of the same day. At the house I took two things out of the toolbox drawer where I keep the odd screws, not to fix anything, just to lay them on the bench the way you'd lay down two receipts to see if they're for the same job. One was the sentence about honesty. The other was a word the Times used — rare. One of the rare instances, they called it, of a Trump ally facing an inquiry at all in this term. Does that tell us how many instances there have been that weren't rare? It doesn't say.

Forgive me, one more pass at the day, because I keep finding a different piece of it. Nine days before this Thursday, on the thirteenth of October, the same president used almost the same sentence about a different ally. Kimberly Guilfoyle was stepping down as ambassador to Greece over allegations she'd asked a donor to cover her credit card bills, and asked about the decision, he said the administration didn't like what they were reading. Nine days. Two allies. The same shrug, near enough, both times.

I'm sorry, I keep coming back to this. I stood on the porch while the dog did her business, holding two slips of paper — one with a date circled, one with a quote on it — and hadn't decided whether to throw either one away.

I was almost to the truck when the clerk came out after me. Excuse me, she said, before you go — you've dated the form wrong. I looked down at what I'd written. It was the twenty-second. I asked her: which twenty-second?

This story on its own page →

Diesel deal that got 'so close' to a ceasefire ends with missiles on Kyiv hours after talks resume.

By The Wrecking CrewThe Remedy Desk · the afternoon edition, 22 October 2026

The chief lays out the job again: a statute signed, then waived before it took effect, and tonight's missiles flew through the same gap the first ones did. On September 19, Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, named for the senator who pushed it before he died in July. The waiver landed the day before the statute took effect — the tool built, boxed, and set down before it ever touched the machine. Hours after the waiver, Russia hit Ukraine's power grid with more than 320 drones.

The planner walks the file forward a month to see where the unused tool sat while the war kept moving. On October 9, Putin phoned Trump to propose a three-way summit with Xi Jinping, the Wall Street Journal reported. The next day, a Saturday, Trump said Zelensky should be replaced over high U.S. diesel prices; by Sunday, Zelensky had shrugged off the call to quit, the Morning Star reported. Two days later, The Hill reported Zelensky calling Trump "weak" over the diesel deal, while allies inside Trump's own circle rallied around Kyiv. On October 16, Trump called Ukraine's renewed strikes on Russian refineries "a disgrace." On October 19, Zelensky said Washington gave no warning before a Russian strike on Kyiv's power plants, the same day the Guardian's own editorial warned Ukraine's future "is not theirs to bargain away."

The tinkerer lays the two tools on the bench side by side: a sanctions statute, waived, and a ceasefire the Czech president says had come within reach. On October 21, Putin released American detainee Stephen Hubbard without a swap; envoy Steve Witkoff called the release "humanitarian," and a former U.S. ambassador called the praise "fatuous." Putin agreed "in principle" to resume trilateral talks next month. The gap between the two tools is the gap between a law that would have bitten and a deal that never needed to.

The muscle wrecks the cover story first. Czech President Petr Pavel told the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network on Tuesday that Trump's diesel deal derailed talks between Kyiv and Moscow, saying both sides had been "so close" and "it will be much harder now." Pavel said Russia is using the momentum the deal handed it to walk back its own commitments.

The pilot lands the plane on the runway the chief built in September. Hours after Putin agreed to resume talks, Russia bombarded Kyiv with ballistic missiles anyway, killing at least two and wounding 22, including four children, and hitting a bridge, homes and a clinic. The statute that would have answered that attack is still sitting on the shelf where the waiver put it, five weeks and one hostage release later.

This story on its own page →

Google renames a lake and a gulf for Trump, declines to rename the ocean too.

By The LodgersThe Euro Desk · the afternoon edition, 22 October 2026

This week the President of the United States telephoned the chief executive of Google and asked whether the company could rename the Atlantic Ocean after him, or failing that after America. For the first time in this particular recipe, the answer that came back was no.

You will need a map, which in America increasingly means a telephone; a lake and a gulf already relabelled; an executive order with the president's own signature on it; and two technology companies that have, until now, done as they were told.

CLIVE: Relabelled. That is exactly what I am doing to the verse the critics called unfinished, and I expect the same courtesy afforded to a lake.

Begin with the lake. In August, Google changed Lake Ontario to 'Lake America' on its American maps, after the president signed the order; the company called the change procedural, pointing to the government's own register of geographic names.

GARY: Procedural. I called the boiler broken in March and nobody at this table called that procedure, they called it Tuesday and left it to me.

Google had already renamed the Gulf of Mexico the 'Gulf of America' at the president's request before this week's phone call. In September, Apple Maps followed Google's lead on the lake as well.

ROB: Followed. We've all followed something this year, the meter, the damp, the rota, and none of us signed an order about it.

In October, at a rally in Tennessee, the president said he was thinking of renaming the Atlantic or the Pacific. This week, at a rally in South Carolina, he said he had telephoned Google's Sundar Pichai to ask whether the company could, in his word, 'handle' calling the Atlantic the 'American Ocean.' Turn the order over and look underneath: the lake is still the same water it was before anyone signed anything.

RTÉ, which is Ireland's broadcaster, has it as 'Trump says he asked Google Maps to rename Atlantic Ocean.' The Guardian printed the same request. At home, what he asked Google to call it was the 'American Ocean.'

You will be looking for the part where Google's answer changes anything on the water itself; there is no such part. The request went back in the pan: Pichai said no, and the Atlantic kept its name.

CLIVE: Named. The lake got a name, the gulf got a name. I have been asking for a byline for four years and apparently all it takes is an order.

This one serves the president a headline and Google a refusal, after twice saying yes before. Nobody pays a fine for any of it; the Atlantic keeps the name it already had.

KEITH: There's an angle in that refusal. Bottled water, 'Atlantic Ocean, Unrenamed,' I could have it in shops by Thursday.

This story on its own page →

Supreme Court finds student ID voting too confusing 12 days out, finds nothing confusing about a voter-purge database.

By LouOne More Question · the evening edition, 23 October 2026

Here's the list, in order, the way it happened. September 25th: the Supreme Court, six to three, lifts a lower court's block and lets the Department of Homeland Security run its SAVE database against state voter rolls — a database federal law otherwise keeps out of the final ninety days before an election. October 20th: New Hampshire's Secretary of State asks the same Court to put a different block back up — the one on student IDs at the polls. October 22nd: the Court grants it. Student IDs are out, twelve days before the vote, on account of what the order calls the risk of voter confusion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissents. Alone, on that one.

That's the list. I'm going to stop there and let it sit a second, because I read it over coffee this morning and didn't say much to the guy behind the counter, unusual for me.

I had the raincoat on — the one I've got, there's only the one — because it was doing that thing where it's not quite raining but you'd be a fool not to wear it anyway. On the way to the store I went through the toll plaza, the one with the transponder lane next to the cash lane. My sticker's old, peeling at the corner since maybe 2019. The reader doesn't ask who's driving. It reads the number off the sticker and the gate's up before I've touched the brake. Hasn't asked me to prove the car's mine, not this year.

The woman in the cash lane ahead of me had a dispute going — a ten-dollar toll from three months back the machine says she owes and she says she doesn't. She pulled out her license to settle it, which took about four minutes, a person checking a face against a card, over ten dollars.

Four minutes for ten dollars with a face attached to it. Under two seconds for my sticker, no face in it at all.

That's a toll plaza, not a court case. But it's what I kept thinking about, reading the list back.

Because here's what I wrote down — give me a second, it's in here — the order on the database, the one from September, the Fox piece on it says it was allowed to go forward during the appeal, on account of a law that otherwise keeps a purge program like it out of the ninety days before an election. During the appeal. That's the reason given. Not confusion. The order on the ID, the one from Thursday, gives confusion as its reason, with the vote twelve days out.

So there it is. The database doesn't get checked again for confusion once the calendar gets this close — it just keeps running, the appeal still pending, same as September. The ID does get checked again, and the thing that gets it is confusion, this close to the vote.

One of those two was built to add a name to the rolls at the polling place — a kid showing a card with their picture on it. The other one was built to take names off the rolls somewhere behind a server, months before anyone sees a ballot. Confusion stopped the first one cold, twelve days out. I haven't found where confusion stopped the second one. I looked. It's not in the piece from September and it's not in the piece from Thursday.

Oh — hold on, before you go. One more line, since I've got the page open anyway. Both orders are sitting on the books the same twelve days before the election. One of them says, in the order itself, that it's too close to the vote to risk confusion. What does the record say the other one is too close to the vote to risk?

This story on its own page →

ONE WORD, TWICE

Unauthorized settler outposts and the Palestinian Authority receive the same verdict from Netanyahu's government: dismantlement.

By LouOne More Question · the morning edition, 23 October 2026

Do I know what that word means? I do. I've known since September, and that's exactly the trouble — the man using it hasn't learned anything new since then, he's just pointed it somewhere else.

Write this down, I keep telling myself. September 7th: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders what the wire service calls the "dismantlement" of unauthorized settler outposts in the West Bank. Structures. Plywood, mostly, I'd guess, though I don't have the blueprints — buildings put up without a permit, no inspector's signature, nothing with a foundation the government downtown ever agreed to. Just a second, here's the quote — Washington Examiner, September 7th: Netanyahu "ordered unauthorized West Bank settler outposts to be dismantled."

Forty-six days later — October 23rd, today's paper — Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich says the Palestinian Authority should be dismantled too. Same word. Different noun entirely. One was a shed with no permit. The other is the government that runs the lives of the people living under occupation — I don't have a count for how many of them there are, and I'm not going to guess one, but the word doesn't ask how many. It just asks what's left standing when the crew shows up.

I've got a shed of my own out back, stood there thirty-one years without a county permit, and my neighbor brings it up at the fence about twice a summer like it's on his calendar. If the zoning board ever used that word on it, I'd know exactly what comes next — a crew, a crowbar, a dumpster, done by Thursday. That's what the word means when it's pointed at plywood.

But Smotrich isn't pointing it at plywood. He's pointing it at an Authority — an office, a police force, a payroll, the outfit that issues the paperwork for the people who live there. You don't send a crowbar for that. The morgue's been filling in what gets sent instead all month: B'Tselem calls the whole pattern "The Elimination Project," Amnesty counted fifteen land confiscation orders in July alone, twenty hectares, and not one of those got the demolition word attached to it when it happened. That word was saved for something else.

I keep a toolbox in the garage, metric bolts on one side, standard on the other, and I've learned the hard way not to reach for the wrong size twice — stripped one clean trying.

His number, not mine; he's the one who reached for it. I'm not asking what's unprecedented about a military operation. I'm asking why the same prime minister had a demolition word for an illegal shed in September, and his own finance minister has the identical word for a government in October.

Oh — one more thing, before you go. That word from September, the one for plywood with no permit, nothing downtown ever signed off on — it's the same one his finance minister is using now for the Authority that governs the people under occupation. Forty-six days between the two sentences. I wrote down the first one and I wrote down the second one, and I keep checking they're not a typo. Is it the same word in both places — dismantled?

This story on its own page →

Guardian calls Justice Department probe of a Trump ally rare, after weeks spent investigating his critics instead.

By The LodgersThe Euro Desk · the morning edition, 23 October 2026

Today we are making a Department of Justice investigation into the president's own man, which is not a dish you get over here, so I shall go slowly. You will need a department that usually investigates the president's critics, a longtime ally who held a top post at Homeland Security, and a president who has just said dishonest employees have to be prosecuted.

Twelve days before this, on 11 October, the same department opened a file on the president's behalf instead: whether five broadcasters, after CNN, MS Now and Politico were barred from the White House, broke antitrust law simply by stopping their coverage together.

CLIVE: An ally, is it. Mine rhymes, and the only file open on him is the one under his own bed.

A week later, on 18 October, agents searched the home of a Democratic member of Congress standing for re-election, the same week the attorney general campaigned for Republican candidates — what the Guardian called the shattering of its "longstanding practice of political neutrality."

GARY: Neutrality. This house hasn't seen that word since the rota was last agreed, and that's two landlords back.

By 22 October the president supplied his own line: "If they're not going to be honest, they have to be prosecuted," he said, the same day it emerged his Justice Department had opened a criminal inquiry into Lewandowski over a Homeland Security inspector general's referral.

ROB: Prosecuted. Heavy word for a Tuesday. I'd like to know who at this table has held themselves to a rule they wrote.

On 23 October the BBC confirmed Lewandowski, once Trump's campaign manager and later a top aide to Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, is under criminal investigation over allegations he used his DHS post for financial gain. The Guardian led its briefing with the same case: no subpoenas issued, Lewandowski's lawyer not responding to its request for comment, and allegations he signed some DHS contracts despite, in the paper's words, "questionable legal authority" to sign them.

KEITH: Contracts, questionable authority — now that's a going concern. I could have the paperwork sorted by Thursday, properly signed this time.

The BBC, which is what they have here, prints it plainly: the justice department investigating Corey Lewandowski over his DHS role. The Guardian's morning briefing calls the same inquiry a rare move by the department against an ally of the president.

CLIVE: Rare, is it. Rare is also the word for anyone in this house finishing what they started by Thursday.

You will be looking for the subpoena. There is not one; the department says so itself, which for now is what the investigation is instead of a charge.

No one has been charged, and no subpoena has gone out. Lewandowski keeps his post; the president keeps the sentence he already said about who gets prosecuted.

GARY: Keeps his words. This house has kept exactly one promise this year, and it wasn't about the rent.

This story on its own page →

Laptop serious enough to indict two FBI officials over becomes a coin that lost 99 percent in hours.

By LouOne More Question · the morning edition, 23 October 2026

Here's a question I already know the answer to. Who got charged this week with lying to Congress about the Hunter Biden laptop? Give me a second, I don't trust myself with names without the page in front of me. Here it is: Nikki Cole Floris, forty-six, and Bradley Benavides, fifty-six. Two former FBI officials, surrendered on arrest warrants Friday. I'm not guessing at that. That's what the paper says.

I got a demonstration for you, and it's not the kitchen, I've leaned on that counter enough this month already. It's the garage. There's a car out there with a fan belt that's been whining since August. I keep meaning to get under the hood. Every time I do, I think about how a thing can look fine from where you're standing in the driveway and be coming apart somewhere you can't see from there. That's the belt. I think it might also be the laptop.

Here's my one fixation, and I'm only going to say this once, then I'm leaving it alone till the very end, I promise you that. The Washington Examiner says these two had roles in the bureau's Foreign Influence Task Force, back in 2020, during the election. Not that they ran it. Not that they led it. That word, and nothing in front of it. I'm done with it till the end.

Now, the four papers covering this don't all say the same thing, and that's worth sitting with. The Examiner's got the Friday arrest and the task force. Fox says their testimony's come under scrutiny. The Post says they covered the thing up. Four different angles on one Friday. I'm not saying any one of them is wrong. I'm saying I noticed they don't line up into one sentence, and I wrote that down too.

The actual owner of the actual laptop put it on the actual market. A coin. Ticker symbol $LAPTOP, announced in early September. By Wednesday it had gone from thirty-seven dollars to two hundred twenty-two dollars inside the first hour of trading. By three that afternoon it was down to a dollar thirty-six. I did the arithmetic twice because I didn't believe myself the first time. Two twenty-two down to a dollar thirty-six is a loss of ninety-nine point four percent. I had it wrong the first time I wrote it down, so I wrote it down again.

So somewhere in that same calendar month, the government is building a federal case on how seriously the FBI took this laptop, serious enough that two people's liberty is now riding on the answer. And the man the laptop belongs to spent that same month selling pieces of it to strangers at two hundred twenty dollars a share, then watched it go to a dollar thirty-six by supper. I'm not telling you what to do with those two facts. I'm just telling you they're both there.

Oh — one more thing, before you go. What's the actual charge against these two? I looked it up. It's not the laptop. It's not the coin. The lying is the charge. The testimony is the charge.

Which brings me to the word I said I'd leave alone till now. The record never says what these two actually did at that task force. It gives you a plural noun and nothing else — no title, no rank, no job description. Whatever it cost two people to get that word wrong in front of Congress, it's still the only word on the page for what they did there. Roles.

This story on its own page →

Mississippi rules shooting of baby 'justified,' bodycam contradicting it surfaces days later, officer resigns uncharged

By LouOne More Question · the afternoon edition, 23 October 2026

Was the officer in danger when he fired? I already know the answer to that one. Give me a second, I had it written down somewhere... here it is. That's not my line. That's the bodycam footage, out this week from Mississippi's own department of public safety.

Now go back four months, before any of us had seen that tape. Mississippi's attorney general, Lynn Fitch, had her office put out a statement. I wrote the word down at the time because I wanted to be sure I had it right. "Justified." That's what her office called the shooting of a one-year-old boy, Kohen Wiley, who was sitting in his mother's lap in a Walmart parking lot in Senatobia. That was a Monday, the nineteenth.

Here's where I have to keep going back, so bear with me, because I think it matters what order things happened in. On June 14th, officers in Senatobia responded to a shoplifting call at that Walmart — CBS News has it as an allegation over stolen diapers. An officer, later named as Hunter Foster, fired at a moving vehicle. The baby died in his mother's arms. Foster was put on leave two days later, June 16th. Then four months went by. Then the ruling came down. Then, within days of the ruling, the department released the footage.

I want to show you something, and I promise it won't take long — the car in my driveway barely starts most mornings, but it starts enough for this. You ever sit at a toll plaza and watch the car ahead of you in the next lane? There's a window where that car is right there beside the booth, close enough to clip whoever's standing at it. And there's a window after, where the car's already gone past, already rolling, taillights shrinking. A person standing at that booth isn't in danger from a car that has already gone by. I'm not the one saying that. The bodycam is saying that — it shows the vehicle with Kohen Wiley inside already alongside the officer, already moving past him, when the shots went into the passenger's side.

So which window was Officer Foster in when he fired? I don't have to answer that one. The tape already did: passenger's side, already passing.

The family's lawyer had a line I wrote down because it was put so plainly: an allegation of shoplifting "does not warrant the death" of a child. I don't have anything in my notes where the attorney general's office disputes the diapers, or the shoplifting, or any of it. What I have in my notes is the word that got disputed once the tape came out, and I'll get to that.

On October 21st, the Senatobia board of aldermen accepted Hunter Foster's resignation. Effective immediately. No charges were filed against him. Not one. Four months of a ruling stood on its own, before the public ever saw a frame of the tape that contradicts it — and now the officer is gone from the department, and does anybody go back and reopen the file once the tape disagrees with it? I don't have that written down anywhere, because as of this morning, nobody has.

Wait — hold on, one more thing before you go to print with this. The tape came out after the ruling. The ruling is still on the books. The officer who fired it is no longer employed, and the shooting he's no longer employed over was never charged as anything — it was only ever called one thing, back on a Monday in October, before a single person outside that building had seen where those shots actually went. Justified.

This story on its own page →