Oh Boy It Never Ends: Jane Fonda's latest boss move

Big news in the entertainment world. Anastasia Tsioulcas (NPR) reports:

On Wednesday, over 550 celebrities relaunched a group first organized during the post-World War II Red Scare: the Committee for the First Amendment. Their intent is to stand up in what they call a "defense of our constitutional rights," adding: "The federal government is once again engaged in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry."

The current group is headlined by actor and activist Jane Fonda — whose father, actor Henry Fonda, was one of the early members of the first Committee for the First Amendment, which was founded in the 1940s to oppose the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee, through which the federal government accused many top entertainers of being communists or communist sympathizers and derailed their careers.

See, that's why Jane Fonda matters politically. Without this, she's a great actress and she delivered the finest film acting performance of the second half of the 20th century with KLUTE. And that's great. But this boss move is why she is political and should be remembered as such.

I didn't hate Robert Redford. But he was a pretty boy who delivered the same shtick in film after film and he robbed it from Warren Beatty who actually came up with it. And in terms of politics? If you know about him and 'politics' it's really just the environment. And I don't mean the dedication on that one issue that Jane has shown with her Fire Drill Fridays. Warren and Jane are artists and they're political and they make boss moves as did Paul Newman.

I didn't take Redford seriously as an actor, I didn't take him seriously as a 'political' person.

Jane you take seriously.

Here she is on CNN talking about this new action.

Tara Suter (THE HILL) notes:

Actress Jane Fonda described her worry amid a second Trump administration, saying Wednesday that the country is facing “a very chilling time.”

“This is a very chilling time. You know, we’ve faced attempts at autocracy before in the ’20s and ’30s, and you’ve cited the example of McCarthyism. There was Jim Crow. This is different, and we should all be very scared, and the key is solidarity,” Fonda told CNN’s Dana Bash on “Inside Politics.”

“And so, that’s why I thought to resurrect the spirit of the committee that was started in the ’50s, and it included my father, within the entertainment industry. This is contained within — we want to work cross-sectorally with other people because, obviously, a lot of other people are affected by what’s happening,” she added, talking about the Committee for the First Amendment, which she recently relaunched.

Daniel Arkin (NBC NEWS) adds:

Oscar-winning actor and progressive activist Jane Fonda has relaunched the Committee for the First Amendment, a free speech initiative originally spearheaded by her father, Hollywood icon Henry Fonda, in response to the rise of “McCarthyism” during the 1940s.

“The federal government is once again engaged in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry,” the committee said in a statement. “We refuse to stand by and let that happen.”

The statement was co-signed by nearly 600 figures in the entertainment industry, including Whoopi Goldberg, Ethan Hawke, Spike Lee, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Aaron Sorkin, Barbra Streisand, Ben Stiller and Kerry Washington.

Barbra Streisand Spike Lee are two more you can describe as political and artists.

Check out the freak below, the one with butt hole eyes who looks to be a man in a bad wig.

She's who the White House deployed to attack Jane Fonda. She looks like she wants to make it with Riley Gaines while the two are covered in the s**t of Pete Hegseth and Tammy Bruce combined. It's a shame she looks like she does. Tweeze those manly eyebrows, cut the hair to shoulder length and she might pass for plain. But right now, her inner ugly is just spilling out.

I see Pedro Pascal turned out for the group. Don't see that ugly actor that played Superman in the latest film or James Gunn. Don't see him either. That's why the White Left Commentariat doesn't hold much sway with me. They had no lover for THE FIRST STEPS: FANTASTIC FOUR which was a great super hero film.

NBC NEWS notes:

Jane Fonda has long advocated for progressive causes, including environmentalism, the Civil Rights Movement, the women’s liberation movement and the LGBTQ rights movement. She publicly protested against the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

You didn't read anything like that in the Redford obits because there wasn't anything like that. He was no help to the LGBTQ+ community, for example. I went over that by explaining how Natalie Wood got him the role in INSIDE DAISY CLOVER. He was a nobody and he wanted the role and she got him the role and then? Wade's gay. He's a gay man who marries Daisy for his career. And Redford doesn't want to play it. That's the whole point of the character. The role he begged for and got and then he doesn't want to play it. So they have to change the character which waters down the property and makes what would have been a daring film in the sixties into something luke warm. Paul Newman spends years trying to get a film made of Patricia Nell Warren novel THE FRONT RUNNER and thinks Robert Redford's with him on this. Paul will play the coach, Redford will play 'the front runner' and, in the end, Redford's not there for his 'great pal' Newman.

Going out with C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"

Wednesday, October 1, 2025. The government is in shutdown, AOC and Senators Patty Murray, Ed Markey and Adam Schiff explain why that is (they're protecting the American people), Chump remains haunted by the Esptein-Maxwell crimes, turns out a Republican senator voted last month not to release the Epstein files without informing people of her long relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell and Maxwell's current husband, Chump and Miss Pete conducted a beauty seminar for the military brass yesterday, and much more.

There is a lot to cover. We're going to start with Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein was a sex trafficker and pedophile. He got convicted and took his own life. Ghislaine Maxwell was his accomplice who also molested young girls and also engaged in sex trafficking. She got convicted and was in appropriate prison in Florida. Enter Donald Chump. Friends of both and roll dog of Jeffries in their hunt for females for at least 15 years, he ran promising to release The Epstein Files. And Attorney General Pam Bondi went on FOX "NEWS" to tell the world that the client list was sitting on her desk awaiting her review. Months go by and no release of the client list or any real files not already available to the public. That's due to the fact that she meets with Chump in the spring and tells him how many times he's mentioned in the files. At the start of July, Americans are suddenly told there is no client list.

Nothing to see here.

Then, as the month of July winds down, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche rushes to Florida and meets with Maxwell on the 24th and 25th. The deal for the meet up was "quid pro quo" per Ghislaine's own attorney. She talks -- nd possibly agrees not to implicate Chump -- and she gets a transfer to a lighter prison. Despite the fact that being convicted sex offender should not allow her to move to "Camp Fed" in Bryan, Texas the crook convicted to 20 years is moved to the lighter security. After Blanche tells Chump that Maxwell said nothing to incriminate him. The move is not announced. After the fact, when it's discovered by the press and the public, Chump denies any involvement or knowledge. For someone who never stops lying you'd think he'd get better at it.

He keeps thinking he can make tis go away. They honestly thought they'd killed the topic July 4th weekend. It has not gone away and it is not going away. The only thing killed was the trust some MAGA put in him, they really thought -- based on a lot of whispered rumors throughout his first term as president and immediately after -- that he cared about holding sex offenders accountable.

To try to bury the topic, Speaker of the Closet Mike Johnson shut down the House of Representatives at one point. Tuesday of last week, Adelita Grijalva became the newest member of the House. Yet Speaker of the Closet Johnson refuses to sit her. She is expected to provide a signature to the House call to release the files and force the issue.

Jim Jordan is a member of Congress. He is also accused by several men of looking the other way when he was a coach and the team doctor was molesting them and raping them. He's accused of joking about it. Of covering it up. And in one instance, of grabbing the junk of a player complaining to him and saying, "Like this! He grabbed you like this!"

This is ongoing but somehow he got to lead a Committee hearing recently and dismiss the survivors of Epstein and Maxwell.

That's because corruption runs deep.

But we don't always know how deep. In the US Senate, a measure in support of the survivors were killed via votes from Repulicans. That includes one Republican who apparently shouldn't have been voting. Lisa Murkowski is a US senator from the state of Alaska and new information emerging states that she is a lifelong friend of Ghislaine Maxwell's current husband -- a detail that should have been made public and should have prevented her from voting.

This new information was covered yesterday on THE TARA PALMERI SHOW.

In addition, Tara and Abi Baker reported on it here:

Part one of the series zeroes in on Epstein survivor and Alaskan Marijke Chartouni, who has turned her attention to Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the deciding vote on September 10 to block the release of the Epstein files. Chartouni uncovered Murkowski’s longstanding ties to Ghislaine Maxwell’s husband, Scott Borgerson, and the many occasions Murkowski appeared on stage with Maxwell at ocean-advocacy conferences. They were appearances that, intentionally or not, helped launder Maxwell’s name even as she was publicly linked to Epstein.

Chartouni’s foray into opposition research came after a crushing moment: she was misled by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) at Reagan National Airport into believing that she had voted for the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, co-sponsored by Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, which needed only two more votes at the time. Chartouni burst into tears of joy. But it was a lie. Hageman had only backed Speaker Mike Johnson’s countermeasure, which was a move designed to bury the issue in the sham investigation run by the House Oversight Committee.

Chartouni was devastated but she quickly learned the vocabulary of Washington: spin, obfuscate, deceit. She and her fellow survivors refuse to fold. If anything, Hageman’s duplicity made them more determined. “We’re sharing info and lobbying,” Chartouni texted me. They’re now playing D.C. at its own game, using one of its sharpest tools: opposition research.

So when Murkowski cast that fateful vote on the Epstein files, Chartouni took it personally.

“She needs to be shamed!” the usually soft-spoken survivor told me. “I’m from Alaska. It’s personal.”

And she didn’t stop there. She started digging. Why would Murkowski, who has occasionally broken with Trump and previously suggested the files should be released, suddenly reverse course?

What she uncovered was a tangle of connections between Murkowski, Maxwell, her husband Borgerson, and Anchorage Daily News publisher and political donor Alice Rogoff. Through the Arctic Circle conference circuit, Murkowski repeatedly overlapped with Borgerson, and once with Maxwell herself—a well-known convicted sex offender’s right hand and later a convicted trafficker. For Murkowski, the release of those files isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about reminders of who she chose to share a stage with, and what that signified.

What else is Lisa Murkowski hiding? Tight with pedophiles, the question needs to be asked: What else is she hiding?

Epstein and Maxwell got sweet heart deals and were protected by many people. Don't take my word for it, Chump declared that over and over in public. Was Lisa one of the helpers? She's certainly a helper now. Did it go beyond that? I don't know. But if she and or her husband were also clients of Epstein and Maxwell would it be surprising now that we know she lied to the public, she hid her friendship and she voted against the release of the files?

Powerful people protected Epstein and Maawell. Powerful people continue to protect. Lisa Murkowski needs to hold a press conference and answer questions including what their relationship was and why she thought it was appropriate to vote "no" on the release of files that her own name could be in.

Last night on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show, Lawrence spoke with US House Rep Ro Khanna about the release of these files, how October 7th should see the newly elected Democrat to the House finally seated and how Alan Dershowitz trashed these survivors repeatedly.

BLOOMBERG NEWS has done outstanding work on the issue. That includes last month's "Epstein's Inbox" -- their exclusive report by Jason Leopold, Ava Benny-Morrison, Jeff Kao, Dhruy Mehrotra, Suray Mattu, Harry Wilson and Max Abelson. And here's a video report that they did on that.

Stupidity must run in the Chump family. How else to explain Don Junior's failure to grasp what he witnessed. "They tried to impeach my father two times!" Michael Luciano (MEDIAITE) quotes Junior whining that on one of the lesser known right-wing stations. Congress did not try to impeach him. They impeached him. Two times. Twice your loser father was impeached. He wasn't removed from office. But he was impeached. Twice. What an idiot.

"It's a bad look," Miss Pete said sashaying across the stage yesterday at Quantico as he lectured the military brass that no-one-loves-a-fatty and beards are not on his list of personal list of turn-ons. He was the opening act for the Convicted Felon.

Donald Chump was slurring his words yesterday. Was he drunk that early in the morning or it was more of his ongoing dementia? He was speaking at Quantico with his man crush Pete Looselips Hegseth. Maybe Chump was drunk, speaking to a military audience had to be intimidating for the nothing who lied to avoid the Vietnam War. People were being drafted. I have no problem with war resisters who protested the war. But that wasn't Chump. He was part of the wealthy White kids who got away without serving by paying off a doctor to lie for them. Bone spurs. What a joke. So he may have been intimidated or guilty and that might have led him to get blotto before taking the stage. From the moment he entered the hall, he underwhelmed the assembled. Dan Gooding (NEWSWEEK) notes, "Hegseth told senior military leaders that Trump had their backs as he introduced the president, who was met with near silence from the hundreds of gathered personnel" and quotes Chump stating, "I’ve never walked into a room so silent before." It only got worse for Chumps. Josh Wingrove, Natalia Drozdiak and Courtney McBride (BLOOMBERG NEWS) report:

President Donald Trump told top military brass that the US is fighting an “invasion from within,” as he used a highly unusual gathering of officers stationed around the world to deliver a largely political speech that highlighted border security and rooting out “woke” culture.

“After spending trillions of dollars defending the borders of foreign countries, with your help, we’re defending the borders of our country,” Trump said on Tuesday at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.

“It’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control,” he added.

Sounding more and more like he was drunk -- dementia can mimic the appearance of being intoxicated. Either would explain this statement from Chump, "We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military." No. No, we shouldn't. We're not supposed to carry out war games amidst civilian populations. It's amazing what COWARD Chump wants to force the military to do. Too much of a coward to serve himself he thinks the US military is his own personal set of toys.

This issue is established and established long, long ago.

At The Brennen Center for Justice, Joseph Nunn explains:

What does the term “posse comitatus” mean?

In British and American law, a posse comitatus is a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county. In any classic Western film, when a lawman gathers a “posse” to pursue the outlaws, they are forming a posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because one of the things it prohibits is using soldiers rather than civilians as a posse comitatus.

What are the origins of the Posse Comitatus Act?

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and the return of white supremacists to political power in both southern states and Congress. Through the law, Congress sought to ensure that the federal military would not be used to intervene in the establishment of Jim Crow in the former Confederacy.

Despite the ignominious origins of the law itself, the broader principle that the military should not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian government is a core American value. It finds expression in the Constitution’s division of power over the military between Congress and the president, and in the guarantees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, which were in part reactions to abuses committed by the British army against American colonists.

Today, the Posse Comitatus Act operates as an extension of these constitutional safeguards. Moreover, there are statutory exceptions to the law that allow the president to use the military to suppress genuine rebellions and to enforce federal civil rights laws.

What does the Posse Comitatus Act say?

The Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

In practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution.

On using the military in cities, Chump also felt the need to state:

And I told Pete we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military -- National Guard, but military -- because we’re going into Chicago very soon. That’s a big city with an incompetent governor. Stupid governor. Stupid. They threw him out of his family business. He was so stupid. I know the family. He becomes governor. He’s got money. Not money that he made. But he ran for governor. He won.

Excuse me?

I know JB. Chump's describing himself. He's incompetent. He's stupid. He's never made money but he lost a ton. JB was an orphan with both parents dying before he was 18. Do people not know that? Do they hear Chump's lies and nod along? Are people really that stupid? JB's never declared bankruptcy. He and his siblings donating to charity big time -- unlike cheap Chump. He met MK at the end of the 80s and they married in 1993 and are still together. By contrast, during that same period of time, Donald Trump abandoned first wife Ivana, he married and divorced Marla Maples, married Melanie and still found time to spend 15 or so years with roll dog and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Also, JB's a billionaire. Chump's not. Even with all his grifting thus far, he's not. Don't shoot back some estimates. Most of us knew he overinflated his wealth for years and we're aware that he still does. Add in that if he ever gets around to paying E Jean Carroll, he'll be even further from a billionaire.

The point is that both men came from well off families -- you could use rich for JB. Chump stumbled around and was a slumlord -- does no one remember Barbara Ehrenreich on the Chump casinos? -- who declared bankruptcy multiple times. JB went to law school. He made something of himself. He and MK also made a happy marriage and family.

That's got to really hurt Chump.

No doubt JB's statements on MSNBC hurt Chump as well.

When not attempting to destroy our democracy on the eve of the tricentennial, Chump just muttered useless nonsense. Maria Villarroel (IRISH STAR) report is headlined "Senile Donald Trump says an event 76 years ago was the 'first sign of wokeness'" and that really does sum it up. Zachary Leeman (MEDIAITE) sums up a portion of the speech with this, "Trump ran through a large variety of topics during his talk, at one point expressing frustration at the potential of him not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize -- while also insisting he doesn’t desire the prize." Chump used 191 words to whine about the Nobel Peace Prize, how he deserved it but they wouldn't give it to him, and he didn't even want it, not himself, it was the country deserved it and --

He thinks he's the Susan Lucci of world leaders. Reality, Susan eventually won a Daytime Emmy. Chump's not ever going to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Not happening. For more on that, see Elaine's "No, Chump does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize."

Waddling around the stage, standing in all of his grotesque obesity, he blustered, "If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future, but you just feel nice and loose, ok?"

He found time in his mealy mouthed speech to repeatedly praise War Criminal Vladimir Putin by name while repeatedly trashing former US President Joe Biden.

He attacked CNN and AP. He attacked Democrats -- terming them "vicious."

Hegseth swished around with a severe case of JPS. If someone in the hall had a Q-tip, they could have helped him out. Instead, video shows him anxious and presenting throughout the event. Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali (REUTERS) note, "U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assailed what he called 'decades of decay' caused by policies promoting diversity and inclusion in the U.S. military at an unprecedented gathering of military leaders near Washington on Tuesday." The heavily made up girls -- Chump and Pete -- explained that, immediately after WWII ended, the DoD went into decay. Take that WWII veterans, you so-called Greatest Generation. That's when you ascended into leadership. Take that those of you who fought in the Korean War and those of you who fought in the Vietnam War and fought all the way up to the Iraq War. You bunch of woke fancy nancys.

That is what Never Served Chump and Boobalicious Hegseth were saying. In fact, if Pete gets any more breasty, they're going to need put him in a bra. Maybe even milk him. Even so, Hegseth insisted, "It's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon." Pete likes his men in uniform like he likes them in bed -- mean and lean.

Could someone ask Senator Joni Ernst how she feels about the claim of new physical standards for the military ("male benchmarks only")? Or about Pete abolishing the 74-year-old panel entitled the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS)? Twenty-three years of military service and Joni abandoned women to support Pete for Secretary of Defense (that remains his title). What a backstabber, what a bitch. He harassed women and he had to pay off a woman he is said to have assaulted. But to Joni Ernst, Pete was irresistible.

Remember, Joni, we're all going to die. But we're not all going to be missed. And your actions have ensured that you will never be missed.

What else to note? Pete's new 'fresh look' facial make up -- make up that now may his teeth look discolored and Chump always looks like an idiot when they use a curling iron on his head. We should all grasp that we are now on the hook for millions because Miss Pete wanted to do his fitness and grooming salon face-to-face instead of via ZOOM. Ahead of the meeting Senators Mazie Hirano and Tammy Duckworth:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ahead of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s abrupt, needless, and wasteful speech to much of our nation’s top military leadership tomorrow, September 30, U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), pressed the Secretary on the serious risks that such a gathering poses to security—on top of the monstrous cost to American taxpayers as Republicans march us toward a government shutdown.

Emphasizing the impacts this meeting could have on security, the Senators wrote, “If reports are accurate, this gathering would represent an unprecedented concentration of senior military leadership in one location simply to hear you speak about standards and ethos at significant cost and with potentially serious security implications. This includes both the personal security of all individuals assembling—and creating a rich target for any malign actor—and national security, given that our adversaries will know that many of our most senior commanders from around the world are tied up together with some portion of the highest level of the civilian chain of command.”

In their letter, the senators requested a briefing or detailed written answers to over a dozen questions, including what these additional flights, hotel rooms, and other expenses will cost taxpayers, as well as what impacts this meeting will have on operations around the globe in the absence of senior leadership, and more.

The Senators continued: “For an administration obsessed with rooting out waste, this abrupt, time and resource-intensive meeting of our military’s top commanders, all of whom have earned their positions through superior performance over decades of service, to reportedly hear you, the least qualified Secretary of Defense in living memory, lecture about military standards and warfighting is absurd.”

The full text of the letter is available here and below.

Secretary Hegseth:

Recent reporting that you intend to convene commanders in grade O7 through O10 and their senior enlisted advisors from around the world for an in-person meeting at Marine Corps Base Quantico next week—on short notice, supposedly to hear you make a speech about the “warrior ethos”—raises profound concerns about security, cost and operational impacts. It comes amid a pattern of deeply troubling decisions under your tenure, including continued abuse of the military in American cities for political purposes; the abrupt removal of highly qualified senior leaders without justification, sometimes at the behest of a far-right social media influencer and conspiracy theorist; and your own humiliating mishandling of classified operational information in unclassified, unsecured group chats with your wife, brother and, stunningly, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic.

If reports are accurate, this gathering would represent an unprecedented concentration of senior military leadership in one location simply to hear you speak about standards and ethos at significant cost and with potentially serious security implications. This includes both the personal security of all individuals assembling—and creating a rich target for any malign actor—and national security, given that our adversaries will know that many of our most senior commanders from around the world are tied up together with some portion of the highest level of the civilian chain of command.

Very few commanders at the specified grades are stationed in the National Capital Region, meaning that this order could potentially require over 1,000 uniformed servicemembers, between commanders, their senior enlisted advisors and support staff, to travel at the taxpayer’s expense, interrupting their planned duties in their areas of responsibility. For an administration obsessed with rooting out waste, this abrupt, time and resource-intensive meeting of our military’s top commanders, all of whom have earned their positions through superior performance over decades of service, to reportedly hear you, the least qualified Secretary of Defense in living memory, lecture about military standards and warfighting is absurd.

To our knowledge, no Secretary of Defense in modern history has convened an in-person gathering of this scale, involving general and flag officer commanders worldwide, without a publicly stated agenda or declared crisis. Even during periods of acute national emergency, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Gulf War or the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, senior military leaders were summoned only in smaller, mission-specific groups, and always with a clear operational or strategic purpose. Regularly scheduled events such as the Unified Commanders Conference involve far fewer participants, are planned well in advance and are conducted with a defined, operational purpose and full transparency. The reported Quantico meeting departs dramatically from these precedents.

Given the exceedingly costly nature of this meeting and our lack of confidence in your judgement when it comes to operational security on account of your well-publicized failures in this regard, we require detailed responses to the following questions:

What is the estimated total cost of this gathering, including:

Estimated number of flight hours required for military aircraft, fixed wing and rotary wing, and the cost per flight hour;

Estimated number of commercial roundtrip airline tickets required for commanders, senior enlisted advisors and support staff and the estimated total cost of commercial airfare;

Estimated number of hotel rooms required and estimated total lodging costs for all travelers, including commanders, senior enlisted advisors and support staff;

Estimated total per diem for all travelers, including commanders, senior enlisted advisors and support staff;

Estimated total cost of ground transportation, to include rental and contract vehicles, fuel and mileage reimbursements;

Estimated total cost of extra security measures required at Marine Corps Base Quantico and throughout the wider National Capital Region.

What accounts are being used to fund these costs?
If there is a lapse in annual appropriations starting at midnight the night of this meeting, how will it impact meeting participants’ ability to return to their duty stations?
Was a cost-benefit analysis conducted prior to deciding on an in-person format?
Why was a secure virtual alternative not considered sufficient?
Is public reporting that the purpose of this meeting is to deliver a speech accurate? Are there any other objectives planned for this meeting?
What force protection measures are being implemented at Marine Corps Base Quantico during the meeting?
Has the Department conducted a risk assessment of concentrating much of the operational chain of command in one location?
What contingency plans are in place in the event of a security breach during the meeting?
Has the Department coordinated with the intelligence community to assess risks to the senior leadership gathering or broader national security?
What is the impact on command and control in each combatant command during the absence of its senior leadership?
Are there any ongoing or anticipated operations that could be affected by this absence?
What are the anticipated impacts to personnel and operations at Marine Corps Base Quantico in preparation for this meeting, on the day of this meeting and following the conclusion of the meeting?

What installation resources are being used in support of this meeting?

How many installation personnel are being detailed to support this meeting?

How many personnel are being directed to not report to their duty station on the day of the meeting?

What restrictions are being placed on families or individuals living on base and how are base services impacted?

What are the anticipated impacts to personnel and operations at other installations in the National Capital Region in preparation for this meeting, on the day of this meeting and following the conclusion of the meeting? For each impacted installation, detail:

What installation resources are being used in support of this meeting?
How many installation personnel are being detailed to support this meeting?

Has this gathering disrupted any other scheduled operations, training or interagency coordination?
Why has the Department not publicly disclosed the purpose of this meeting?
Has the President directed this gathering? If not, was the President briefed on or otherwise aware of the gathering before it was reported?
Has any previous Secretary of Defense convened a similar gathering under comparable circumstances?
How does the Department justify the urgency of this meeting in the absence of a declared crisis?

Secretary Hegseth, we write with particular concern on account of your consistent prioritization of political theater and distraction over warfighting and blatant disregard for operational security. Given the reported scale and sensitivity of this reported gathering, we require a briefing or written response to answer these questions no later than Monday September 29, 2025. If any of the information requested is classified, we are prepared to receive a briefing in an appropriate setting.

Sincerely,

###

CNN's Daniel Dale does a fact check on the many lies told by Chump.

Here's some video coverage of Chump and Pete's massive waste of tax payer money.

As we wind down, remember that the Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Yet we are now in a government shut down. Negotiations apparently don't exist in THE ART OF THE DEAL despite the fact that no deal takes place without negotiatons.

Senator Adam Schiff notes what's going on in the video below.

And let me note the conclusion to Rebecca's "general hospital and beyond the gates:"

and, if you missed it, we are now in a government shut down.

let me note1of my senators - ben goodman and hanna guidry report:

We caught up with Senator Ed Markey Tuesday to hear his thoughts on this possible shutdown. He said that besides this negatively affecting the labor market, a potential shutdown puts the healthcare of hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents at risk: “325,000 Massachusetts residents are going to lose their health insurance. 337,000 Massachusetts residents are going to see their premiums or healthcare dramatically skyrocket. So, we are looking at 660,000 people in Massachusetts either losing their healthcare or seeing it be dramatically increased in cost.”

democrats are standing up. they are refusing to let donald chump rob us of healthcare. we need to be sure that our reps know we are with them in this fight.

Very well said by Rebecca. Don't let the liars rewrite what's going down or why it's going down. Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

Murray: “People are about to get completely priced out of their coverage and Republicans are sitting on their hands. Worse than that, they are reveling in this shutdown.”

***ICYMI: New Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds premiums on the ACA marketplaces will, on average, more than double next year if Republicans refuse to act***

***WATCH AND DOWNLOAD: Senator Murray’s remarks after Senate rejects funding bills***

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke alongside Senate Democratic leadership after two votes failed on: Republicans’ partisan continuing resolution and Democrats’ bill to fund the government, address the health care crisis, and protect Congress’ power of the purse.

Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:

“We have been calling for Republicans to work with us to keep the government funded, to address the health care crisis they created, and to stop people’s premiums from skyrocketing. Republicans haven’t just stuck their heads in the sand, they’ve outright refused to get serious about a solution.

“Well, health care rates for next year are being finalized right now. Rate hikes will be in the mail any day. Open enrollment is weeks away.

“And still, Republicans have refused to lift a finger to prevent millions of families from being hit with massive costs.

“Well, Republicans may be forcing the government to shut down before they so much as talk about health care, but they will not shut down the debate. And they will not shut out the voices of families who want action before their monthly health care payments more than double.

“One family in Washington state is about to see their monthly premium jump from $278 a month, to $1,800 dollars a month, because of Republicans’ inaction. That is what’s at stake. That is the problem Republicans refuse to solve. And that is what they have to answer for.

“This has been a problem for months. Why hasn’t Republican Leadership joined us at the table? We’ve been here all year!

“Why do Republicans prefer to shut down the government over talking about how we save families from astronomical health care price hikes?

“I mean, do Republicans care about farmers? They tell us they do! Because a quarter of our farmers are enrolled in those health care exchanges.

“Republicans say they care about small business owners and employees. Do they care about people who are self-employed? Because nearly half of them get their health care on the exchanges.

“Do Republicans care if their constituents lose their health care? Because some of the areas that most rely on the health care tax credits to afford coverage are represented by Republicans.

“Don’t tell us to wait. Don’t tell us to wait—families have already been waiting, and we’ve been at the table ready to solve this for months. Don’t tell us you want to fix this later—later is too late. The health care clock has all but run out.

“If Republicans refuse to act, families are going to pay the price. It will cost millions of people hundreds—if not thousands—of dollars a month. In some cases, it will cost them their health care insurance entirely. People are about to get completely priced out of their coverage and Republicans are sitting on their hands.

“And worse than that, they are reveling in this shutdown.

“Trump just said, ‘a lot of good can come down from shutdowns.’ He said ‘you can get rid of a lot of things we didn’t want. They’d be Democrat things.’

“Trump doesn’t want to lift a finger to stop health care premiums from more than doubling, but he is raring to go when it comes to firing whoever he wants to, or slashing whatever he wants to, or prosecuting whoever he wants to, or telling his military his opponents are ‘enemies within,’ and tweeting AI nonsense and lying about whatever he wants to.

“Trump doesn’t care about how this shutdown is going to hurt real, average Americans across this country. He doesn’t care about the Republican health care crisis. He clearly thinks this is all a game.

“Democrats know better. The stakes for American families are real.

“When people get priced out of their health care, they put off their basic care, they skimp on their prescriptions, they miss out on lifesaving treatments.

“We are not going to let Republicans dodge this subject. And we’re not going to let them delay this action on an empty promise or a pig in a poke.

“We’re going to keep calling on them to sit down, work with us to keep the government open, and solve this health care crisis.”

###

Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "What Chief Justice John Roberts Has Wrought" went up last night. The following sites updated: