Secretary Pete Hegseth Will Be Convicted of War Crimes - THE ORDERS, THE OUTCRY, AND THE LINE OF FIRE

 

THE ORDERS, THE OUTCRY, AND THE LINE OF FIRE

Inside the Legal and Moral Battle Over Alleged Kill Orders at Sea — And the Fight to Define a War Crime in the Trump–Hegseth Era

By SDC News One Staff News Writers

https://901c9917c4e44f5ab43dabb9eaa95962.elf.site

 - SDC NEWS ONE AUDIO - Listen Here.

APACHE JUNCTION AZ [IFS] -- In normal times, allegations of murder and war crimes leveled against a sitting Secretary of Defense — and by extension, the Commander in Chief — would stop the political world cold. But in this political moment, where outrage is ambient background noise and constitutional guardrails bend like wet cardboard, the story has unfolded with a grim, almost surreal rhythm.

Reports first surfaced that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered U.S. Special Operations forces to attack and kill all occupants of suspected drug-trafficking vessels operating in international waters off Latin America. Not just the armed, not just those resisting, but everyone — including those who survived initial strikes and were floating helplessly in the water.

Within hours of the initial reporting, a cluster of former military lawyers, law-of-war experts, and national-security jurists were on television and in print delivering the kind of legal assessment that makes the Pentagon flinch. Their judgment, offered carefully but unmistakably:

If true, these orders would not merely be improper. They would not merely be “excessive force.” They would amount to murder — and constitute war crimes.

Not politically. Not metaphorically. But in the plain language of the law.

“An Order to Show No Quarter”

Todd Huntley, a former Navy judge advocate and now director of the national security law program at Georgetown Law, said the quiet part out loud in the opening days of the controversy.

Ordering the killing of individuals who cannot fight, he explained, “would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime.” If the targets posed no imminent threat, Huntley continued, “those killings would amount to murder.”

That wasn’t hyperbole. Under the law of armed conflict — and under multiple U.S. statutes — shooting enemy survivors who are out of combat, incapacitated, or attempting to surrender is one of the sharpest, clearest red lines.

It is the line that separates warfare from slaughter.

Huntley didn’t stand alone. A chorus of former JAG officers and national-security professionals echoed the same point: If these orders were given as described, they violated international law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and federal criminal law.

They also slammed directly into the foundational moral code drilled into every American service member:

You do not kill those who can no longer fight. And you never, ever obey an illegal order.

But Here’s the Catch: No Official Conclusion — Yet

For all the explosive expert commentary, no official tribunal, board of inquiry, or court-martial has concluded that Hegseth or former President Donald Trump committed murder or war crimes.

There is no legally binding finding from an official body of “Military Lawyers.” No formal accusation. No Article 32 hearing. No charges.

Instead, what exists is a gathering cloud of expert analysis, congressional concern, and a Pentagon defensive posture that suggests the building senses something radioactive in the air.

The Trump administration has responded with a flat denial. The Pentagon called the reporting “completely false.” Hegseth insisted all operations remain within the law of armed conflict, brushing off the allegations as another media hit job designed to weaken the president.

But denials did little to slow the tremors moving through the ranks.

Congress Smells Blood — Or at Least Illegality

Democratic lawmakers — including several with military, intelligence, or national security credentials — seized on the reporting immediately.

They pointed out that if the orders are accurately described, they violate not just the laws of war but multiple federal criminal statutes, including those banning:

• Murder

• Assassination

• Killing persons hors de combat

• Conspiracy to commit acts outside lawful military authority

Several members of Congress demanded answers from the Department of Justice, insisting that no administration — not even one that has repeatedly tested the limits of presidential power — is permitted to treat suspected criminals at sea as kill-on-sight targets.

One senator put it bluntly:

“We do not execute drug suspects in this country. Certainly not at sea. And certainly not by Special Operations forces acting under a political directive. If these allegations are true, Americans were ordered to commit crimes.”

The Pentagon Opens…Something

Faced with mounting political pressure, the Department of Defense launched what it called a “review.”

Not an investigation.

Not an inquiry with sworn statements or legal process.

A “review.”

The distinction matters. Investigations imply accountability. Reviews imply paperwork.

Privately, Pentagon officials described the move as an attempt to “assess the reporting,” “clarify operational guidance,” and “restore confidence.” Publicly, they avoided any language that might suggest the possibility of criminal conduct by senior leaders.

And then the story swerved.

The Senator Who Warned Troops About Illegal Orders — Suddenly Under Scrutiny

While experts and lawmakers dissected the legality of alleged kill orders, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly — retired Navy pilot, astronaut, and husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords — found himself at the center of a strange counterstory.

Kelly had appeared in a video advising service members to refuse illegal orders. A statement so routine and so fundamental to military law that it’s printed in training manuals worldwide.

But within hours, the Trump administration labeled his comments “seditious behavior.”

And the Pentagon announced a new “review” — not of the alleged kill orders, but of Kelly.

For many in the military community, the move felt like whiplash.

While experts discussed whether senior officials may have ordered war crimes, the Defense Department’s energies seemed focused on the man reminding troops that obeying an illegal order is itself a crime.

The message, to some:

Question the President’s orders, and you become the problem.

A Legal Minefield Waiting to Detonate

Even without a formal finding, the legal terrain surrounding the allegations is stark:

• If forces were ordered to kill survivors who were not a threat, that violates the law of armed conflict.

• If senior officials knowingly issued such orders, that constitutes issuing an illegal order — a prosecutable offense under the UCMJ.

• If the killings occurred outside the context of armed conflict or without lawful justification, they fall under federal murder statutes.

• If the acts were systematic or intentional, they meet the threshold for war crimes.

The U.S. has prosecuted service members for less.

International tribunals — from Nuremberg to The Hague — have prosecuted leaders for exactly this.

The Military’s Uneasy Silence

Behind closed doors, current and former officers describe a creeping dread. One retired Marine general said the story “cuts into the spine of the profession.” A Navy JAG officer called the allegations “the nightmare scenario — the kind where you ask what you would have done if you were there.”

Because in the end, the orders — if real — would place service members in an impossible position: obey, and commit a crime; refuse, and risk professional ruin or criminal reprisal from the chain of command.

What Happens Next?

Maybe nothing.

Maybe everything.

The story sits now in a holding pattern — suspended between expert condemnation and official denial, between congressional demands and Pentagon deflection. The “reviews” are ongoing. DOJ has not acted. No whistleblowers have yet gone public.

But history has a habit of demanding receipts.

If even parts of the allegations prove accurate, the United States will face a reckoning that reaches from maritime operations up to the highest levels of power.

And if the allegations are false?

Then the government’s internal reaction — the defensive posture, the retaliatory review of Senator Kelly, the refusal to fully investigate — raises its own disturbing set of questions.

The Bottom Line

The facts aren’t fully adjudicated.

But the stakes are unmistakably high.

At issue is not mere misconduct.

Not poor judgment.

Not politics.

At issue is whether Americans in uniform were ordered to kill people they were legally — and morally — forbidden to kill.

If that’s true, it’s not just a scandal.

It’s a crime.

And if it’s false, the administration’s reaction suggests a fear of something deeper:

What happens when the military, the law, and the truth collide under a commander who demands absolute loyalty — even when the law says no?

- 30 -

The High Cost of a Lie — And the Two Servicemen Now Caught in the Crossfire

 

SDC NEWS ONE INVESTIGATION: The High Cost of a Lie — And the Two Servicemen Now Caught in the Crossfire

By SDCNewsOne

Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON, D.C. [IFS] — In the pre-dawn hours of a tense April morning, two U.S. servicemen were mobilized under what they believed was a lawful and urgent presidential directive: a fast-moving “security threat” inside the nation’s capital. What unfolded next has become the center of a national storm — not only because one of those servicemen is now dead, but because the deployment that placed them in harm’s way is alleged to have been based on a false narrative pushed from the highest office in the land.

Whether these allegations prove true will be the work of investigators, courts, and Congress. But the legal architecture surrounding such a claim is clear, and the human consequences — already irreversible — have reshaped the lives of two families and rattled the military community.

This is the story of how a single false claim, if proven, could ricochet from political rhetoric into criminal exposure, and how two young men in uniform became its collateral damage.

I. THE “CAPITOL THREAT” THAT NEVER WAS

Multiple agencies confirm that no credible security threat against the Capitol was identified on the night of the deployment. No law enforcement bulletins were issued. No intelligence partners were alerted.

Yet the servicemen — whose identities officials have not publicly released — were summoned to respond to what was described to them as an imminent attack. According to four defense officials, the mission parameters were “poorly defined,” “unusual,” and “inconsistent with established protocols for domestic deployment.”

The allegation at the center of the unfolding controversy is stark: that the claim of a Capitol threat originated not from intelligence sources but from a political directive, based on unverifiable reports of “criminal activity” that, according to authorities, simply did not exist.

Within hours, the mission had gone disastrously wrong. One serviceman died in the line of duty. Another survived physically but is now embroiled in administrative limbo, questioning the legality of the order he carried out — and being questioned himself about why he followed it.

II. THE LEGAL QUESTION AT THE HEART OF THE CRISIS

If the deployment is found to have been based on knowingly false information, the legal consequences could be immense.

1. The President’s Authority Isn’t Unlimited

A President may direct military resources for legitimate security reasons. But fabricating a threat — if proven — crosses several bright legal lines:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Knowingly making materially false statements to federal officials.

• 18 U.S.C. § 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law.

• 18 U.S.C. § 1112: Involuntary manslaughter resulting from gross negligence.

• Military Whistleblower Protection Act: Triggered if orders originated from improper or unlawful motives.

• Posse Comitatus & DoD Directives: Strict limitations on use of active-duty forces for domestic policing.

“The Commander-in-Chief has extraordinary discretion,” one former Pentagon lawyer explained. “But not the discretion to lie, fabricate intelligence, or weaponize the military based on false pretenses.”

2. “Causation” Is the Prosecutor’s Mountain

To hold any civilian or official criminally responsible for the serviceman’s death, investigators must establish:

• that the lie was deliberate

• that the deployment would not have occurred otherwise

• that the fatal event was a foreseeable outcome

Federal prosecutors call this the “chain of consequences” — and in cases involving military operations, it is notoriously difficult to establish. But not impossible.

III. INSIDE THE PENTAGON: ANGER, ANGUISH, AND A SEARCH FOR ANSWERS

Those who served alongside the fallen soldier are openly distraught.

“Deployments are dangerous. We accept that,” said one officer who spoke on background. “But being put in danger because someone wanted a political story? That’s a different kind of grief.”

The surviving serviceman is now at a precarious crossroads. His chain of command has temporarily suspended him from field activity — not as punishment, but because he is a crucial witness. The man is said to be “conflicted, shaken, and increasingly vocal” about the irregularities of the order he received.

“He’s grappling with the impossible,” said a military psychologist familiar with the case. “The guilt of surviving. The confusion of being used. The fear of being blamed. It’s a heavy psychological strike.”

IV. A SYSTEM BUILT ON TRUST — AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT TRUST IS BROKEN

The U.S. military functions on a foundation deeper than command hierarchy: the assumption that orders originate from legitimate, lawful authority.

“When that trust fractures at the top,” said a retired Joint Chiefs advisor, “the entire structure trembles.”

Several former Pentagon officials point to historic parallels:

• Vietnam’s Gulf of Tonkin incident

• Iraq’s WMD intelligence failures

• Iran-Contra’s covert directives

In each case, truth — or the lack of it — had catastrophic human cost.

But what makes this situation legally distinct is the allegation that the untruth originated not from flawed intelligence but from political invention.

“That would move the situation out of the realm of tragic mistake,” one analyst said, “and into something far more prosecutable.”

V. POLITICAL FALLOUT: A NATION DIVIDED ON BLAME

Reactions in Washington split along predictably partisan lines:

• Supporters call the deployment “a misunderstood attempt to protect the nation.”

• Critics deem it “criminal negligence” and “a deadly abuse of power.”

• Moderates avoid the word “crime” but demand a full accounting.

Congressional committees are already drafting subpoenas. The Department of Defense Inspector General has launched an inquiry. And civil rights groups representing military families are preparing what may become the most consequential wrongful-death lawsuit against a sitting or former President in modern history.

VI. THE REAL STORY: A FAMILY MOURNING A SERVICEMAN WHO NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE

The family of the fallen soldier has maintained a dignified silence, but friends who attended the private memorial service describe a grief tinged with anger.

“He believed he was protecting democracy,” said one. “Finding out that the mission may have been based on a lie is tearing people apart.”

His mother reportedly asked investigators the question many Americans are now asking:

“If there was no threat, why was my son there?”

VII. WHAT COMES NEXT

Investigators face a labyrinth of legal questions:

• Who initiated the false information?

• Who relayed it to the military?

• Who questioned it — or failed to?

• Were protocols bypassed?

• Was the lie intentional, reckless, or a misunderstanding?

The Justice Department has not ruled out criminal charges. Congressional leaders warn this could become one of the most contentious constitutional battles since Watergate.

And hanging over it all are the shattered lives of the two servicemen — one gone forever, and one living in the shadow of a mission that should never have been ordered.

THE BOTTOM LINE

If investigators prove that political lies led to a fatal military deployment, the legal and moral consequences would be unlike anything in recent American history. The debate will play out in courtrooms, committee hearings, and the public square.

But for the military community, the lesson is painfully simple:

When truth breaks down at the highest levels of power, it is the men and women in uniform who pay the price.

- 30 -

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan has granted “summary judgment' for the IMMEDIATE release of all Trump–Epstein correspondence

 Judge Chutkan Takes the Epstein Records Case: No Summary Judgment Yet, but the Stakes Just Skyrocketed

By SDCNewsOne — Tuesday Evening Edition Long Read

WASHINGTON — For a story that has been buzzing through social feeds at the speed of gossip and outrage, the actual court record tells a much more measured — but far more consequential — tale. Despite breathless online claims that Judge Tanya S. Chutkan has granted “summary judgment for the IMMEDIATE release of all Trump–Epstein correspondence,” no such ruling exists. But the reality, as legal analysts like MSNBC’s Michael Popok have been quick to note, may be just as significant in the long game.

Because Judge Chutkan is now the judge on the Epstein-related records lawsuit targeting the Trump administration. And that alone has sent a jolt across political and legal circles.

The Lawsuit Behind the Headlines

The case at the center of the swirl was filed by the Democracy Forward Foundation (DFF), a nonprofit watchdog organization known for suing federal agencies that fail to comply with records obligations. In this instance, DFF is seeking the release of government documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein — including communications between Epstein and officials inside Donald Trump’s administration.

These are government communications, not private correspondence, but they could potentially shed light on who knew Epstein, who met with him, and how deep the contacts went during a presidency already dogged by questions about influence, access, and money.

The lawsuit landed on Judge Chutkan’s docket in August 2025, an assignment that instantly gave legal commentators something to talk about.

Why Chutkan’s Name Changed the Temperature

Judge Tanya Chutkan is not new to controversy, nor is she new to Donald Trump. As the judge overseeing Trump’s federal election-interference case, she issued some of the most pointed rulings of the entire saga, refusing to tolerate delay tactics and warning Trump’s attorneys that political status did not place anyone above the law.

So when the Epstein-records case hit her desk, the reaction was immediate:

This could be a problem for Trump.

Michael Popok, the MSNBC legal analyst whose clipped, caffeinated breakdowns have become a staple for court-watchers, summed up the mood: Chutkan’s involvement alone could be “nightmare news” for Trump — not because she has ruled, but because she is unlikely to indulge stalling.

And stalling has been the Trump playbook in nearly every records case.

The Reality Check: No Summary Judgment Yet

Despite the swirl of premature victory laps online, the facts remain stubbornly simple:

• There has been NO summary judgment.

• There has been NO order requiring immediate release of any Trump-Epstein communications.

• Chutkan has barely begun overseeing the case.

What exists right now is the potential for a future showdown — not a final decision.

In the early stages of a federal records case like this, the government will normally be required to explain what it has, why some documents may be classified or privileged, and what can be released. Only after motions and responses — sometimes months, sometimes years — can a judge consider summary judgment.

But people are not feverishly talking about legal timetables. They’re talking about Chutkan.

The Shadow of Florida: A Judge Who Tried, and Couldn’t

Part of the confusion stems from a related but separate case in Florida. In that lawsuit, Judge Robin Rosenberg faced a request from the Trump administration itself to unseal Epstein’s federal grand jury materials. Rosenberg rejected the request — not because she didn’t want transparency, but because federal law forbids releasing grand jury records without a very narrow set of exceptions.

Her ruling included a pointed note: if the Trump administration wanted material released, the administration had the power to release any documents it already possessed. The court didn’t need to act.

That line has taken on fresh weight now that the DFF suit is seeking the same category of Epstein-related government records the Trump administration itself chose not to release.

Why This Case Matters Now

Epstein’s name has never fully vanished from American political life — not after his 2019 death, not after Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction, and not after the public release of some civil case materials earlier this year. But this case is different. It’s about government handling of Epstein. It’s about official correspondence. It’s about public records, not rumor.

If the suit is successful, the public would learn:

• Whether Trump-era agencies communicated with Epstein or his associates

• Whether any diplomatic, legal, or political favors were discussed

• How the administration handled — or avoided — Epstein-related questions

• What internal briefings said about Epstein’s network

This isn’t a lawsuit about salacious behavior. It’s about governmental integrity and public transparency.

And now the judge who refused to treat Trump as a “special citizen” in his election-interference case is the one deciding how fast this lawsuit will move.

What Happens Next? Michael Popok Walks Through It

Michael Popok has sketched out the likely next steps, and they’re pretty straightforward:

1. Government agencies will file motions explaining why certain Epstein-related records should not be released.

2. DFF will challenge those exemptions, arguing that any withheld material must meet strict legal criteria.

3. Chutkan will set deadlines — and she’s not known for tolerating games.

4. Months down the line, motions for summary judgment will be filed.

5. Only then will Chutkan decide what gets released and when.

No one expects her to rush, but no one expects her to let this gather dust either.

The Bigger Picture: Why Trump World Is Nervous

The reaction inside Trump-aligned circles isn’t about today’s facts; it’s about tomorrow’s possibilities.

Trump is already navigating:

• A faltering presidential campaign

• Criminal and civil cases

• A deeply fractured donor network

• A series of new subpoenas tied to Epstein’s orbit

• And a press corps that smells blood every time the name “Epstein” appears next to “Trump administration”

The possibility — not the reality, the possibility — that Chutkan will ultimately order disclosures has political implications far beyond the courthouse.

And Trump knows it.

A Case to Watch, Not a Case Decided

So where does that leave things?

In a familiar place: the truth is less dramatic than the rumor, but ultimately more important. Judge Chutkan has not ordered the immediate release of Trump-Epstein communications. What she has done is assume oversight of a case that could, over the next year, make those documents public — or bury them behind federal exemptions.

For now, the story is not about a ruling.

It’s about the judge, the calendar, the stakes, and the unmistakable shift in atmosphere.

And if Popok is right — if Chutkan brings her trademark no-nonsense approach into this fight — then the real fireworks haven’t even begun.

- 30 -

JOY-ANN REID, IHIP NEWS, AND THE WOMEN REDEFINING POLITICAL CONVERSATION

 THE ELECTRIC TRIANGLE: JOY-ANN REID, IHIP NEWS, AND THE WOMEN REDEFINING POLITICAL CONVERSATION

By SDCNewsOne

On a quiet morning—one of those soft-lit Sundays when the coffee tastes stronger and the news feels a little less apocalyptic—an unlikely trio set the political world buzzing louder than a cicada summer. Joy-Ann Reid, the Emmy-nominated journalist known for marrying historical scholarship with TV charisma, appeared on IHIP News with Jennifer and Pumps, and something in the atmosphere shifted.

It wasn’t just a good conversation. It wasn’t even just a smart conversation. It was the kind of discussion that made viewers sit a little straighter on their couches and think, Oh… this is what grown-up political talk sounds like.

Electric. Unexpected. Comforting. And just fun enough to make you forget that American politics is held together with duct tape and primal screaming.

The segment didn’t just trend—it traveled. Like gossip in a small town, it made its way across group chats, living rooms, front porches, and even a protest in Scottsdale where, as fate would have it, a massive banner depicting Donald Trump with the unforgettable caption “CANCKLES MC TACO TITS” drew cheers from people who swear the IHIP women’s irreverent spirit was somewhere in the DNA of that protest art.

Whether or not that’s true hardly matters. What matters is the energy. And that morning, Joy, Jennifer, and Pumps had it in overflowing supply.

I. THE MORNING JOY RETURNED

Joy-Ann Reid has always been a cultural force—a media translator who can explain Reconstruction, immigration policy, and modern authoritarianism with the ease of someone reading directions off a cereal box.

Her firing from MSNBC sent shockwaves through her audience. Some stopped watching entirely.

“I quit watching MSNBC when they fired Joy,” one viewer wrote. “I’m happy to see she is doing well.”

There was a collective sigh when she reappeared on IHIP News—not the sigh of nostalgia, but the sigh of relief that comes when a familiar voice re-enters the conversation and reminds you: You’re not losing your mind. The world really is as complicated as it feels.

On the screen sat three women who looked—and sounded—like America itself: sharp, funny, culturally fluent, politically informed, and braver than half the elected officials in Washington.

Some viewers captured it perfectly:

“Some of my favorite ladies in the same space. I love it.”
“Joy is such a great guest! Like a walking, talking history book!”
“Ladies, I love it!! Three bad ass women doing the work for the People!!”

It’s rare to find political talk that’s both nourishing and entertaining. Rarer still to find a trio that can hold a national audience spellbound without a single raised voice.

This was that moment.

II. A SOUTHERNER WHO UNDERSTANDS THE SOUTH—BETTER THAN MOST SOUTHERN POLITICIANS

Of all the reactions pouring in, one stood out—not for its shock factor, but its sincerity:

“As a Mississippian, it’s amazing to me that Joy-Ann has a better understanding of what needs to happen in the South. She is spot on!!!!! Show up Democrats!!!!! Poor Republicans, let’s unite!!”

If you know anything about Mississippi, you know this is unusual praise. Southerners don’t hand out political credibility like Halloween candy. You earn it.

And Joy has earned it.

She talks about the South not as an outlier but as a historical engine—where the contradictions of democracy are laid bare, where the fight over votes has always been a fight over power, and where the next generation of political realignment could decide the country’s fate.

Her historical walkthroughs feel less like lectures and more like stories told by that one beloved aunt who always knows exactly what really happened.

She traces lines from Reconstruction to modern-day book bans, from the 1964 Freedom Summer to 2025 voter suppression laws, from Fannie Lou Hamer to the women organizing in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi today.

Her viewers have long joked:

“Joy-Ann Reid is like a walking talking history book—but the interesting kind.”

They’re not wrong.

III. A PROTEST, A BANNER, AND THE STRANGE BEAUTY OF MODERN ACTIVISM

On another side of the country, while Joy and the IHIP team were making political enlightenment feel like brunch conversation, Scottsdale was staging a protest with an art piece that would’ve made Dadaists proud.

A banner—enormous and unapologetically absurd—featured a cartoon Trump labeled “CANCKLES MC TACO TITS.”

You could almost hear the cackles from miles away.

One viewer immediately thought of the IHIP crew:

“I was so proud!!! Your influence is everywhere! Keep going!!!! 🎉”

Politics has always had satire. What’s new is the internet’s ability to blend protest, comedy, and commentary into something more primal—a kind of cathartic public therapy.

This banner was, in its own bizarre way, part of the same ecosystem that made IHIP News and Joy’s appearance so resonant: women, humor, intelligence, and truth colliding in public spaces.

Sometimes resistance looks like a lawsuit.
Sometimes it looks like a voter registration drive.
And sometimes…it looks like questionable anatomy jokes on a banner in the Arizona sun.

Democracy is messy—but it is rarely boring.

IV. THE IDEA THAT CUT THROUGH IT ALL: DO WHAT’S RIGHT, NOT WHAT POLLS WELL

Of all the comments from viewers, one became a thesis statement for the episode:

“I think the Democratic Party loses its soul when it asks the question: ‘How do we win votes?’ rather than ‘What is the right thing to do?’ Eventually, doing the right thing would win the votes. The truth shall set you free.”

It was the kind of line that makes you freeze mid-sip of morning coffee.

This wasn’t punditry. It was philosophy. And it perfectly captured the spirit of the episode: politics centered on values, not vibes; substance, not slogans.

When Joy, Jennifer, and Pumps talk, you get the sense that they care less about performative outrage and more about structural change. Less about political theater and more about political clarity.

One viewer called it a dream:

“THIS is my dream DNC—women of substance having a conversation of substance.”

And honestly? There are worse dreams to have.

V. THE FUTURE LOOKS FEMALE, INFORMED, AND READY TO FIGHT

The success of the IHIP + Joy Reid crossover didn’t just come from star power. It came from authenticity, the unfiltered kind that makes people lean in because they can feel it’s real.

It came from three women who talk like the rest of us think.
It came from shared history, sharp analysis, and belly laughs.
It came from the rare promise that political news can be both enlightening and joyful.

Joy Reid and the IHIP women showed what political media could be: honest, accessible, bold, funny, inclusive, unapologetically smart, and occasionally a little rowdy.

And America—exhausted, confused, overwhelmed—responded.

“Please do more stuff together in the future,” one viewer pleaded.

After watching the segment, it feels less like a request and more like a prediction.
This trio tapped into something real—and rare.

Women have always been the backbone of political movements, the organizers, the strategists, the truth-tellers. The difference now is that more people are watching, listening, and following their lead.

EPILOGUE: A SUNDAY THAT FELT LIKE HOPE

For one morning, in a news cycle overflowing with indictments, threats, bans, and political nihilism, something unusual happened:

People felt good.

They laughed. They learned. They started conversations. They felt connected rather than isolated. In a moment when politics feels like a dark tunnel, Joy-Ann Reid, Jennifer, and Pumps cracked open a window and let some sunlight in.

It wasn’t just a show.
It was a reminder:
There is still space for joy in the work of democracy.

And, lucky for us, these women have plenty more where that came from.

- 30 -

Trump’s T1 Phone Still Missing in Action: Months of Delays, Confusion, and Silence Leave Pre-Order Customers Frustrated

 Trump’s T1 Phone Still Missing in Action: Months of Delays, Confusion, and Silence Leave Pre-Order Customers Frustrated

By SDCNewsOne

APACHE JUNCTION AZ [IFS] -- The Trump T1 smartphone — heavily promoted as the first flagship device of “Trump Mobile” and originally slated to hit doorsteps in August 2025 — still hasn’t shipped to a single customer as November closes. What began as a splashy MAGA-branded launch has drifted into a fog of shifting delivery dates, inconsistent customer service responses, and a conspicuous lack of communication from the company.

For customers — some of whom put down a $100 deposit more than six months ago — the biggest update they’ve seen recently is a vague promise on the Trump Mobile homepage that the phone will arrive “later this year.”

Four Months Late, With No Shipments in Sight

According to company statements earlier this year, the T1 was expected to roll out in August, with promotional materials touting the device as a “secure, America-first smartphone” positioned as an alternative to Big Tech hardware and software ecosystems. That launch window passed quietly, replaced by a new internal target: October.

Then October came and went. No shipments.

Customer service representatives — who appear to be working from shifting scripts — gave some callers a tentative November delivery window. November has now passed too, again with no phones shipped.

NBC News reporters who placed deposits as part of their coverage confirmed they have not received their devices or any proactive updates.

Consumers Say They’ve Been Left in the Dark

What’s frustrating customers most isn’t just the delay, but the silence. Trump Mobile has not issued a single broad update or formal statement on what’s holding the T1 back.

Instead, customers report having to chase down information through the company’s 24-hour support line at (888) 878-6745, where operators are polite and U.S.-based, but not always aligned on the same message. Some callers are told the phone is in “final production,” others that shipping will begin “soon,” and still others that the company is “awaiting a new timeline.”

Meanwhile, the company’s website has been reduced to one line: the phone is coming “later this year.”

A Familiar Pattern in the Political Tech Space

The T1’s delays echo a growing pattern in political-branded technology ventures: big launch events, large pre-order pushes, then months of delays as companies navigate complex supply chains, limited manufacturing experience, and regulatory compliance hurdles that ordinary tech giants long ago learned to manage.

Tech analysts say that building a smartphone from scratch — especially with promises of “enhanced security” and alternative software stacks — is extraordinarily difficult, even for industry veterans. Whether Trump Mobile underestimated that difficulty or encountered unexpected obstacles is unclear, because the company has declined to respond to media inquiries for weeks.

What Customers Can Do Now

For those awaiting their T1 — or reconsidering their purchase — there are a few options:

• Call Trump Mobile customer support at (888) 878-6745 for the most up-to-date information on your specific order. Operators are available 24/7.

• Check TrumpMobile.com for any official announcements, though updates have been sparse.

• Consider requesting a refund. Customers concerned about the mounting delays or lack of communication can inquire about refund policies when contacting customer service.

For now, the T1 smartphone remains a product with a high-profile name, strong interest from Trump’s political base, and zero units delivered. Whether Trump Mobile can course-correct, communicate a clear timeline, and win back customer confidence remains to be seen — but with December approaching, the clock is working against those promises of “later this year.”

- 30 -

Marco Rubio - The Real "Fall-Guy" in Real Time as U.S. Peace Plan for Ukraine Sparks Global Uproar

 

U.S. Peace Plan for Ukraine Sparks Global Uproar as Questions Swirl Over Process, Pressure, and Putin’s Shadow

By SDCNewsOne Staff Writer

WASHINGTON [IFS] — A 28-point proposal meant to chart a path out of the bloody Russia-Ukraine war has detonated into a full-blown geopolitical storm, with European leaders openly balking, Kyiv privately fuming, and Washington scrambling to explain how a peace document so consequential emerged from such an unusual drafting process.

The Trump administration insists the plan is simply an “opening framework,” the start of a negotiation designed to end Europe’s largest land war since 1945. But critics on both sides of the Atlantic say the blueprint reads far less like a tentative outline and far more like a Russian-favored settlement — a deal Ukraine was handed, not one it helped shape.

And now, as political fallout intensifies, a new round of speculation has landed on U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who some commentators have suggested is becoming the “fall guy” for a process that Europe claims was flawed from the start. Rubio has denied the allegation and called the theory “absurd.” Yet the questions keep coming.

What began as a diplomatic initiative has become a case study in how fragile, and combustible, wartime diplomacy can be.

A Plan Born in the Shadows

At the center of the controversy is the plan’s origin story — a story that, until leaked drafts reached European capitals, few outside Washington had even heard.

The 28-point proposal was drafted largely by U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, working in close contact with Russian sovereign wealth fund chief Kirill Dmitriev. That collaboration alone was enough to set security analysts on edge. Dmitriev has been a longtime conduit for Kremlin outreach to Western political figures and remains a sanctions-designated official under U.S. law.

What shocked European officials was not only Moscow’s early involvement but the almost total absence of Kyiv from the drafting process. Senior Ukrainian diplomats were briefed only after the document’s key elements had been finalized.

“It was as if someone wrote a script and handed us our lines,” one European foreign minister told Der Spiegel. “This is not how you build peace. This is how you build resentment.”

The comparison circulating in diplomatic circles was less international relations than pop culture: like the old Life cereal commercial, where reluctant kids shove the unknown product toward Mikey — “He likes it! Hey Mikey!”

Except, this time, Ukraine was Mikey, and nobody seemed particularly confident it would “like” anything in the bowl.

The Terms: Concessions Masquerading as Peace

The plan asks Ukraine to:

• Recognize Russian control over significant swaths of the Donbas.

• Accept a demilitarized corridor in the east.

• Limit the size of its military to levels far below NATO’s recommendations.

• Freeze its NATO aspirations indefinitely.

In return, the U.S. would offer security guarantees — though the nature and force of those guarantees remain hazy.

Historians note that proposals echo older, uneasy European settlements. The forced disarmament clauses evoke the post-Napoleonic system, where the victorious powers sought to restrain France through strict military limits. The territorial concessions mirror the 1938 Munich framework, where a democratic state was pressed, under great-power pressure, to cede land in the name of “peace.”

“Europe has seen this movie before,” said Dr. Helena Riis, a historian of modern conflict at King’s College London. “Deals imposed on a besieged nation rarely produce durable peace. They usually precede the next war.”

Europe’s Fury: Blindsided and Alarmed

European backlash was swift and unusually blunt.

German Chancellor Annalena Baerbock called the plan “destabilizing.” France’s foreign minister said it “pressures the victim rather than the aggressor.” Poland’s prime minister warned it would “reward the use of force” and “encourage future invasions.”

Behind closed doors, diplomats were even more candid.

“This is Russia’s plan with American handwriting,” said one senior EU official. “We were not consulted. Ukraine was not consulted. And yet we are expected to sell this to our publics.”

For Europeans, the proposal reopened a longstanding suspicion: that Washington, from time to time, is willing to negotiate European security over Europe’s head.

Rubio Caught in the Crossfire

Secretary of State Marco Rubio finds himself navigating a minefield not of his own making. After leading a new round of talks in Geneva aimed at revising the plan, Rubio emerged telling reporters the discussions were “productive” and that the proposal was “far from final.”

Asked whether the plan was effectively written by Russia, Rubio bristled.

“That’s false,” he said. “This is a U.S. document based on a wide set of inputs.”

But Rubio’s denials have not stopped Washington and European observers from questioning how deeply the Trump administration relied on Russian-provided frameworks.

Nor have they stopped the swirl of speculation — much of it unsubstantiated — about supposed private financial motivations hidden behind the diplomatic theater.

There is currently no evidence supporting claims of a secret wealth arrangement with Vladimir Putin. But the mere existence of such rumors underscores how fraught the geopolitical atmosphere has become.

Trump’s Position: Peace, Pressure, and Provocation

President Trump has said repeatedly that he wants the war “finished quickly,” framing the conflict as a drain on American resources. He has taken public shots at Ukraine’s leadership, accusing them of insufficient gratitude for U.S. weapons and aid.

At the same time, he has insisted the 28-point proposal is not his “final offer” and that revisions will come “once Europe stops complaining.”

Trump’s allies argue the plan is simply a starting point — a first draft in a long diplomatic process. Critics argue that starting with Russia’s maximalist demands reshapes the negotiation around the Kremlin’s interests, not Kyiv’s.

The Historical Weight of a Bad Peace

The controversy has revived a century-old debate: is a flawed peace better than a prolonged war?

Historians point to several cautionary episodes:

• The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918): A coerced agreement where Russia ceded vast territory to Germany — undone within months, but deeply destabilizing.

• The Munich Agreement (1938): Famously sold as “peace for our time,” it instead emboldened Nazi expansion.

• The Dayton Accords (1995): A fragile, imposed peace that stopped a war but froze ethnic divisions for generations.

“Peace requires legitimacy,” said Dr. Riis. “To impose peace on Ukraine without Ukrainian authorship risks repeating painful history.”

Kyiv’s Dilemma: Between Survival and Sovereignty

Ukrainian officials, speaking cautiously to avoid antagonizing Washington, described the proposal as “not viable in its current form.” Privately, they have been more blunt.

“It asks us to amputate limbs,” one senior Ukrainian adviser said. “And then smile as if we were healed.”

Ukraine’s government is acutely aware of its reliance on U.S. military aid. But it is equally aware that accepting the plan as drafted would fracture domestic support and likely spark political upheaval.

A Peace Plan Without Peace

For now, the 28-point plan sits in an uneasy limbo — not dead, but far from alive. Trump insists it can be revised. Europe demands major surgery. Ukraine wants agency. And Russia, perhaps the only party quietly pleased, has refrained from comment.

History shows that wars often end with messy compromises. But it also shows that bad agreements can be as destabilizing as the conflicts they attempt to resolve.

Until Washington re-centers Ukraine in the process, diplomats say, this proposal may be remembered less as a peace plan and more as an object lesson in how not to conduct wartime negotiation.

As one European ambassador put it:

“Peace cannot be outsourced. And it certainly cannot be ghostwritten.”

- 30 -