"The staffer complied, combing through voter records to produce a list of Dan Sullivans from across the state.... Dan S. Sullivan is the name of the state’s Republican senator. And if the Peltola campaign or its allies could track down and persuade another Dan Sullivan to run for Senate, the confusion could cost the senator crucial votes on the state’s unusual, four-person ballot.... This spring, a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea, announced his candidacy for Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan.
The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory...."
The NYT exposes Peltola, in
"Inside Democrats’ Secret Effort to Stack Alaska’s Ballot/Operatives aligned with Mary Peltola, the Democratic nominee for Senate, spent months recruiting candidates to peel votes from Senator Dan Sullivan, the Republican."
That's a gift link. It's a long article, so check it out, especially if you're inclined to think the NYT is always just trying to help Democrats.
પોસ્ટ્સ
224 ટિપ્પણીઓ:
«સૌથી જૂનું ‹વધુ જૂનું 224 માંથી 201 – 224Named candidates on the Alaskan ballot clearly define tin incumbent candidate, so no harm no foul.
That's a curious attitude to take in an obvious attempt at fraud. Election officials worked hard in Alaska to try to minimize this criminal attempt to disenfranchise voters. But that doesn't absolve your party for its criminal attempt!
If Republicans find 692 voters who got confused on the ballots between the two "Dan Sullivans," is that enough evidence of fraud for you? How many witnesses do they need to bring forth before the jury is disgusted and mad and putting your assholes in jail for 10 years?
the article is a surprise. Anyone with more brain cells than a tadpole knew it was a Democrat play, but it is helpful for the NYT to do the research and publish the result, otherwise Democrats would never believe it. I'll bet a lot of Democrats still don't.
Ironically, this NYT story will likely suppress votes for Peltola. It might cause people to switch and vote for Sullivan. But even more likely is a fair number of Democrats will simply stay home and not vote at all.
She's been exposed as a liar who is trying to scam her way into office. Voters don't like that, in any party. Hardcore party stalwarts will vote for their party's nominee, regardless. But many people will stay home, disgusted by both candidates.
I think she's going to lose now. Even if she "wins," this attempt at fraud has put her candidacy under a cloud. There will be investigations, and maybe prosecutions. No amount of vote totals will shield her from this. (See Nixon, who won the 1972 election in a wipeout -- and yet he was still hounded from office).
Dr Weevil ,
> So who exactly is running 'Apartheid' states?
I'll let you know as soon as I get back from my trip to Mecca.
--Kirk "Richard Burton" Parker
Contra Althouse's suggestion that this is one to put in the pile "The NYT is an honest newspaper" it's reminiscent of a WW2 deception incident. A double agent named Garbo/Alaric (depending on which side you are on) had been taken over by British intelligence, and was being turned into a star deception asset - which involved him producing (ie being given by Brit Intel) great quantities of uncheckable or checkable but only modestly useful intelligence for the Germans. Such that by D Day he was the Abwehr's most trusted asset, and duly produced a pack of lies about D Day that they swallowed. One of his great coups was to give the Germans early warning of the Operation Torch landings in North Africa. This boosted his credibility with the Germans even more. It was just that his warning came only a few hours before the landings began - way too late for the Germans to use the warning operationally. The NYT is running the same scam. In a much less noble cause.
It certainly is an inexplainable surprise that the NYT came up with the evidence. Maybe Mercury or Venus is retrograde.
Expect this to become a "Republicans pounce -- Trump cracks down on opposition" story for much of the media though.
Building credibility for an October surprise, perhaps. What else is on the horizon that would garner greater party interest? Maybe, baby, maybe.
Can't imagine what ailed the NYT to cover this. LOL
The Governor (R) has called for an investigation. Peltola will say shenanigans are just that shenanigans. Nothing to see here! The NYT covering the shenanigans is eyebrow raising, too.
It was just that his warning came only a few hours before the landings began - way too late for the Germans to use the warning operationally.
This is a week before the election. Classic October surprise. And the real surprise is that it came from the NYT.
They might have slow-walked it. They've been investigating this story for a couple of months.
NYT reporter: "I got two sources."
NYT editor: "We need more."
NYT reporter: "Now I got six sources."
NYT editor: "It's not ready. Keep digging."
NYT reporter: "I got 12 sources, motherfucker!"
NYT editor: "Let me sleep on it."
Trump files a lawsuit in Alaska alleging election fraud.
NYT editor: "Okay, start the presses."
Let us not lose sight of the fact that it was the Peltola campaign, in conjunction with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Marc Elias legal team that came up with this plan and put it into motion. It's not like Peltola just woke up with an inspiration.
Anytime Marc Elias or Norm Eisen get involved, there will be dirty tricks.
The former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, is the main source for the story. She was the campaign manager, so she was kind of up to her neck in the scam. She might be more guilty than the candidate(!)
She was fired from the campaign, and she was the source for an NYT article about angry and profane outbursts by the candidate.
After giving this Dan Sullivan story to the NYT, Rios tried to kill it. Why? I was thinking maybe she was worried about future career prospects. But National Review has a darker suspicion. She had been planning a wrongful termination lawsuit against the candidate. And NR suggests that the campaign settled with her, and as a condition of the settlement she wasn't to speak out about the campaign.
That's why she tried to kill the story.
Apparently, Rios doesn't think this was a crime. But if it is a crime? Then the campaign actively paid a witness to shut up about it.
Okay I think I'm done here. I let it go overnight; my original question; "Exactly what laws were broken if we presume a hypothetical where an unknown Dan Sullivan ran for Senate as a stunt, but without formal coordination or undisclosed financial backing from Democrats...?"
And other than one commenter's bland refernce to fraud without any citation to the US Code (and offering one lousy off-point case reference from an FBI press release), no one came up with anything.
When he was interviewed about the earlier Alaska case filing from the DoJ, AG Todd Blanche had nothing.
Y'all got nothing. Thanks for playing.
" Democrat Campaign Recruited ‘Decoy Dan’ Sullivan to Run in Alaska. “Now The New York Times is reporting that, in fact, Peltola’s campaign is responsible for the second Dan Sullivan entering the race, claiming to be a Republican despite his previous voting record. A Peltola staffer in summer 2025 acted upon instructions from top campaign aides to search out as many Dan Sullivans in Alaska as possible, The Times reported. The staffer put together a list.”
Chuck, Rich and every other leftwing Soviet here - "It's all fine"
Begley,
I certainly agree that ranked-choice voting is a bad idea, but could you explain what is *unconstitutional* about it?
Dan Sullivan might be charged with perjury.
governor orders criminal probe
Here is Peltola, before the NYT bombshell.
After the NYT bombshell?
Nothing! No comment!
I'm calling it: Republicans win Texas, Michigan, and Alaska.
knock on wood
I dunno, Chuck. I think there might be quite a bit more than was shilled for years about 'Fine People' and 'Russia Russia Russia', and 'Walls Closing In', and I don't recall you having any problems with those. Did you call them out at the time, too? Maybe your problem is with standards, eh?
Remember - If you area rage fueled superiorist leftist - it's OK to commit fraud. OK to engage in street rage, arson and murder - because your rage is self-righteous and Democratically Soviet.
Attempting a crime is still a crime even if you fail. It's not exactly redeeming to be a loser and a a criminal.
I hope Sullivan loses.
Which one?
ટિપ્પણી પોસ્ટ કરો
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.