Oct. 30, 2026
Unethical, Illegal, Or Both? Alaska Governor Orders Criminal Investigation Into Democratic Senate Candidate’s Campaign
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Alaska's governor has ordered an investigation into Democrat Mary Peltola’s involvement in a seemingly deceptive campaign trick to confuse voters on the ballot. A New York Times report, sourcing a dozen people either in or close to Peltola’s campaign, details efforts to recruit another Dan Sullivan to run against the Republican incumbent whose name is also, Dan Sullivan. Peltola has denied any involvement, instead pointing the finger at the Times, saying the outlet was just trying to increase its “subscriptions.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, October 30th. Just a few days from the midterm. So, of course, we got mudslinging, but we also got subpoenas and investigations flying into the case of the two Dans in Alaska. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. We knew this was some trickery. We knew this was some BS. It didn't sound right from the beginning, but now, we have official investigations underway looking into what Democrats were possibly up to to put a second Dan Sullivan on the ballot in Alaska.
00:00:36
Speaker 1: This is a fascinating political story.
00:00:38
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it feels silly to even have to point out what the issue is because it's so glaringly obvious. And it almost, well, not almost, it feels utterly uncomfortable to watch the Democratic challenger in this, Mary Paltola, deny any knowledge, culpability, responsibility to for any part her campaign may have played in recruiting a man to run for the same Senate seat with the exact same name as the incumbent.
00:01:11
Speaker 2: So if you don't believe the story, if you don't, if you think it's all BS, then you need to believe that the New York Times is a comic book. You need to believe that the New York Times, with its long history and its 12 sources now, On this, Robes and some people put their name to this. She wants us to believe that everything they have reported is wrong and they're only doing, they have literally made this story up for the sake of subscriptions is what she said.
00:01:42
Speaker 1: That's a tall order for me.
00:01:44
Speaker 4: Yes, and I agree with that.
00:01:47
Speaker 3: And I think most people listening would also concur, but also consider the fact that if you listen to most conservatives, they would view the New York Times as, yes, one of those liberal rags, fake news, we've heard the president say.
00:02:03
Speaker 4: So if they really... I do.
00:02:06
Speaker 3: Appreciate and respect the fact that, yes, the New York Times.
00:02:12
Speaker 3: Is a credible news organization that is an equal opportunity investigator of the truth.
00:02:21
Speaker 4: And so, yes, the fact that they were willing to.
00:02:24
Speaker 3: Investigate, expose, and write and stand by this story is of note.
00:02:29
Speaker 2: And now Macca loves him. Oh, you better believe the president is loving this story. He's giving New York Times full credit. For what they have done now, because this is a story that works in his favor. This is bottom line. There is an incumbent in Alaska. I don't have to explain to you how important the midterms are and how close the margins are. The fight for both houses is up in the air. If Democrats are going to possibly take back the Senate, they desperately need to get Alaska. They need to flip it. And they saw an opportunity to flip it because they have an incumbent there by the name of Dan Sullivan. And now they have a surging candidate by the name of Mary. I always get the letters mixed up.
00:03:05
Speaker 1: Peltola.
00:03:06
Speaker 2: All right, Peltola. I think Peloton now, and that helps me a little bit. But Mary Peltola is the Democrat who has a chance. She's up against, on this ballot, ranked-choice voting there in Alaska, but there are four people on this ballot. The Democrat, another random long-shot candidate, Dan Sullivan, the incumbent, and now Robes, Dan Sullivan... Another Dan Sullivan who is now an independent, who is a former school teacher, who has not campaigned. He is not on the campaign trail. He is not a legit candidate, even though his name is on the ballot. Let's just all say that out loud.
00:03:42
Speaker 1: It's okay. We get it. Fine.
00:03:45
Speaker 2: So we've always, Rob, suspected, but nobody was able to prove that this was a Democratic plan to try to take votes away from the incumbent Dan Sullivan. So what brings us to now, the New York Times has exposed all of this. Now it's gotten a little more serious because since they're reporting, we got subpoenas out there and we have an official state investigation of this. And words like criminal charges have been thrown around.
00:04:13
Speaker 3: Yes, because look, the state of Alaska investigated this early on and they did find that there was nothing, at least as far as their investigating showed, Even if it was manipulative, even if it was bad sportsmanlike conduct, so to speak. I just said that, meaning that, yes, that's shady AF to enlist a person with the same name as the incumbent to get on the ballot or to at least register as an independent to run for office.
00:04:47
Speaker 1: That's so crappy.
00:04:47
Speaker 4: It's so crappy.
00:04:49
Speaker 3: But the state of Alaska said that they didn't find anything criminally wrong with that, even if it's morally wrong and ethically wrong.
00:04:59
Speaker 1: This is cheating to win an election.
00:05:01
Speaker 2: You can't stand it. That feels so gross. Are we that desperate in politics? This is what's up for grabs that we're doing this? You don't think this is obvious, folks, that there's another Dan Sullivan who just has a website with a couple of blog posts and that's his campaign?
00:05:16
Speaker 1: He ain't campaigned. We know what this is.
00:05:18
Speaker 2: But don't look us in the face. She's gaslighting us, Robes. I don't want to put this, Robes, that first comment she made, we looked at each other.
00:05:27
Speaker 1: And said, oh my God.
00:05:28
Speaker 4: Yeah, she.
00:05:29
Speaker 1: Oh my God, Robes, we panicked.
00:05:31
Speaker 3: She pointed the finger at the New York Times, and what makes that funny... is what I just said. The New York Times has been accused of the opposite, of trying to help Democrats win and help Republicans lose. You got the New York Times doing an investigation on a Democrat, and she's trying to pull a card out of the Republican playbook, blaming the New York Times.
00:05:55
Speaker 2: I was, every benefit of the doubt in the world, I gave her until I saw that soundbite. I'm sorry, y'all, if you just hear what she says, that does not sound like someone who is.
00:06:07
Speaker 1: Innocent. Robes, it's simple as that. What?
00:06:21
Speaker 2: Somebody on my campaign? I don't know what happened, but if that's the case, we need to get to the bottom of it. Like it's a shock to her that there's another Dan Sullivan.
00:06:28
Speaker 3: What?
00:06:29
Speaker 1: This could possibly have been what... Robs, that first soundbite, we immediately... I looked over and said, oh my God. She is not telling the truth. Robs, you say something. You say the first thing out of your mouth. No, of course I didn't have anything to do with this.
00:06:43
Speaker 3: And you'd say, yeah, and you'd say, I had nothing to do with this.
00:06:46
Speaker 4: And you make that very clear.
00:06:47
Speaker 3: You say, and I'm appalled that anyone in my campaign would have participated in any sort of scheme like this, because I can absolutely understand why this looks on its face pretty damning.
00:06:59
Speaker 1: But go ahead. What did she say? Paraphrase. It's fine. I know you'll remember. What did she say?
00:07:03
Speaker 3: She said this is about the New York Times trying to bolster its subscriptions.
00:07:09
Speaker 4: And it's downloads.
00:07:10
Speaker 3: And so she just blamed the New York Times saying they were being basically they were making stuff up so that people would click on it and they'd get more subscriptions and more downloads. And basically they were just doing a money grab here. And she was being falsely and her campaign was being falsely accused. And that is just such a ridiculous statement.
00:07:32
Speaker 1: Ridiculous. There it is. Let me get to the bottom of this. I'll get back. Do anything.
00:07:38
Speaker 2: Robes, her answer is that the New York Times is going to have a story this explosive days before the midterms for the sake of subscriptions.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: It's too... far. That's offensive.
00:07:48
Speaker 3: It is.
00:07:49
Speaker 2: And that is not okay. That is outside the realm of normal, commonsensical statements. That is not okay. I don't know this lady. This ain't politics.
00:07:57
Speaker 1: But lady, don't do us like that.
00:08:00
Speaker 4: This is why people hate politicians. And we talk about this all the time.
00:08:03
Speaker 3: People who are in office right now, people on both sides of the aisle, and certainly now in the middle of this high stakes midterm election campaign, where you have You have candidates who we're supposed to vote for and trust and respect to do our bidding, to have our backs, that we can say, hey, you lawmaker, you, we trust you to fight for us and for what we need. How can you possibly throw your support behind somebody who is literally telling you something that you know to be true isn't true?
00:08:35
Speaker 1: You're stupid. She's looking at us and saying, y'all are stupid.
00:08:38
Speaker 2: The New York Times just, you know, it actually was that she used the word subscriptions. That's just such a nervous word to use. That is not a normal way we talk.
00:08:50
Speaker 1: That is where she lost me.
00:08:51
Speaker 4: And she brushed it aside. She made that barb.
00:08:54
Speaker 3: She threw a barb at the New York Times and then immediately pivoted to what the New York Times doesn't care about is affordability for Alaskans in this state. And so then she just went on to her little campaign talking points. And that was also just Not only did she point the finger at the New York Times, completely dismiss it, but then just move on very quickly. She didn't take the time that she should have taken to explain, to be upset by it, to talk about the fact that it's not acceptable to try and fool voters to win an election. Why, that's not any way any candidate should want to win a seat. No, she didn't even acknowledge that.
00:09:34
Speaker 4: Any part of that.
00:09:35
Speaker 2: They didn't acknowledge how outrageous this possibly was. So she says, and they have denied it. She came out later and had a stronger statement, at least saying she had nothing to do with this.
00:09:46
Speaker 1: I wasn't crazy about that.
00:09:48
Speaker 2: But all the pushback, this is the best way here that the Times put it, and this kind of sums it up. Says the campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his, Dan Sullivan's, candidacy.
00:09:59
Speaker 3: But.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: 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.
00:10:12
Speaker 2: People trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other politicians would-be spoils into the race to dilute the incumbent's support and help catapult the Democrat. Robes, that's a lot. Robes, there's a very high standard when a story is this big of a deal. Robes, they got 12 sources.
00:10:34
Speaker 1: 12!
00:10:36
Speaker 2: Some of them putting a name on it. And she said, she is literally saying that one of the most preeminent news outlets on planet Earth made up All of this about her because they are trying to get you to get a subscription.
00:10:54
Speaker 3: And that I really, truly believe is offensive to anyone who is casting a ballot in the state of Alaska, that they would actually believe that.
00:11:06
Speaker 4: When you know, you not only.
00:11:07
Speaker 3: Those 12 sources, we're talking about members of her campaign, lawyers for her, senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, they all spoke to, this isn't just other people from the outside pointing fingers or making stuff up. These are people who had direct, intimate access to what was going on in the months leading up to this election.
00:11:33
Speaker 4: Period.
00:11:34
Speaker 2: So, as of this moment, Rosie, yes, the New York Times really kind of set this thing up. It's been talked about. Actually, there was legislation. No, it's not legislation.
00:11:42
Speaker 1: That was, what's the right word? Litigation. Sorry.
00:11:46
Speaker 2: There had been lawsuits, and they were trying to challenge this, but at least the judge so far says, yes, Everything's only up and up, at least with this other Dan Sullivan. He can't appear on the ballot. So the ballot looks like this. What people are going to see there are the two Dan Sullivans. Their names are next to each other, and one is written like this, Sullivan, Daniel J.
00:12:06
Speaker 1: Jr.
00:12:07
Speaker 2: The other is written Sullivan, Dan S., in parentheses, registered Republican, and then after that it says incumbent. I mean, if you're paying, this is a national story now. Certainly the local folks know which is which, don't they?
00:12:22
Speaker 4: I would think so.
00:12:22
Speaker 3: And look, because this has become such a big story, and you've got pretty much every time you turn on the TV, wait five minutes, this story is going to pop up. I mean, anyone who is following politics, even loosely, I would argue, around the country has seen this story. And so, yes, voters there in Alaska, I imagine, are keenly aware of this. But there is still that, like, you're taking a chance. They're hoping you're rushing through. You got to pick up your kids.
00:12:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
00:12:50
Speaker 3: You're like, And you might accidentally, inadvertently vote for the wrong Dan Sullivan.
00:12:55
Speaker 2: When is this tight? The margins are this close. You can't take any chances here. So we got two things now since the New York Times report. On two fronts, the Justice Department had already sued. They were the ones that said if Dan Sullivan, the incumbent, doesn't win, then they didn't want the results to be official. So now they have amended their lawsuit and have added some 30-plus subpoenas. that have been issued to Paltola's people in her office and also sent to Dan Sullivan, the other. Dan Sullivan, I should say. And then the other part of this story, Robes, that took off, is there an official state investigation now? The governor has stepped into this.
00:13:32
Speaker 4: That's right, and he actually released a statement.
00:13:34
Speaker 3: Governor Dunleavy has weighed in, and he made it very clear where he stands. He said, one with the same name as incumbent U.S. Senator, to deliberately confuse voters and misdirect their votes. The Alaska Division of Elections investigated these very concerns in June of this year. The new reporting substantially supports the division's findings. I am therefore directing the Department of Public Safety to investigate whether this scheme violated Alaska's laws and whether criminal charges were or civil action are warranted, the evidence will determine what happens next.
00:14:21
Speaker 2: And when they say if, and a lot of places we've looked at saying, well, is this actually illegal?
00:14:28
Speaker 1: It seems like obvious fraud. It should be. It seems like an obvious manipulation.
00:14:31
Speaker 4: If they can prove that they.
00:14:33
Speaker 3: coerced, convinced a, and I hate to say random, I'm not trying to act, I don't know anything about Dan Sullivan, the teacher, but yes, and convinced him, like he had to know exactly what he was walking into and what his purpose was on the ballot, period.
00:14:50
Speaker 4: And then yes, it's about who knew what. We know the why.
00:14:55
Speaker 3: I think that's really obvious, but it's the, it's the It's the who and what law did they potentially violate? But yes, how is this not illegal? How is this not a crime?
00:15:07
Speaker 4: It should be. If it isn't on the books, why wouldn't it be? To deliberately deceive?
00:15:12
Speaker 1: This is so dirty. This is why they hate. This is so dirty.
00:15:17
Speaker 2: And it's been exposed in this manner. Everybody's denying they had anything to do with it. So Dan Sullivan did this on his own, apparently, because the Democrats who are reportedly in concert, working in concert with Paltola's campaign to make all this happen.
00:15:34
Speaker 1: They're all denying it.
00:15:35
Speaker 2: Paltola's campaign, they're denying it, and now the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They were the ones that, according to the New York Times, was working in lockstep with the campaign. They've denied wrongdoing, and they made sure they got in there, Rogue, that Republicans do it, too.
00:15:51
Speaker 3: Yes. They said Republicans have a long history of recruiting and propping up candidates in an attempt to boost their own campaigns, including recruiting a prisoner with a New York address to run against Mary Peltola and spending nearly half a million dollars to secure a spot on the ballot in Alaska for an Arizona resident in the Senate race this cycle.
00:16:11
Speaker 4: They're like, you do it, too.
00:16:13
Speaker 3: They didn't pick a candidate that has Mary Peltola's name.
00:16:17
Speaker 4: That would be more of an appropriate term. Yin for Yang.
00:16:20
Speaker 1: She was harder to find. A Dan Sullivan ain't hard to find. Exactly.
00:16:23
Speaker 3: And I'm sure that someone, I wonder who that person was who thought, hmm, that's a pretty generic name. I bet we can find another Dan Sullivan.
00:16:31
Speaker 2: That's how the New York Times article starts, by them saying that a staffer got an assignment. Find as many Dan Sullivans as you can. And then we're going to go through the list.
00:16:42
Speaker 1: But hey, why not? It worked for JFK. It'll work for us. Yes, folks. This, what they just did in Alaska, ain't nothing new. Stay here.
00:16:53
Speaker 2: All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ with the two Dan Sullivans. What's going to happen on Election Day? Is the second guy going to get any votes, a few votes, a handful of votes? He has no supporters because he's not campaigning. He's not doing anything. He's not on a campaign trail. He's not raising money. He barely has a website. It's nothing there. This guy is not a legit candidate. We've known that, but now the New York Times has exposed it in a broader scheme. How are people going to feel? Wrote the Ramaswamy ad in Ohio, and now this in Alaska. These are places that The margins are so thin. What does this do for her? Does this hurt her chances?
00:17:42
Speaker 1: Does this help her?
00:17:42
Speaker 4: I would think so.
00:17:43
Speaker 3: I would think so when you are proven to be, and I guess it's not proven, but there's some really damning evidence suggesting your involvement in deliberately deceiving the voters you claim you want to transparently represent and support.
00:18:03
Speaker 2: Man, again, I think they should clip what you just said. If you repeat that about her, From now until Tuesday, you should do well. These are the people you want to represent. You just consciously deceived them. Yes.
00:18:17
Speaker 1: Come on, man.
00:18:19
Speaker 3: And then denied it, which is even worse. I mean, I guess maybe from a legal standpoint, she can't or shouldn't or wouldn't be advised to admit it, but she could have, I don't know.
00:18:29
Speaker 4: This is, I just, I question.
00:18:31
Speaker 3: I do, and maybe this is my naivete, but the ethics of somebody like.
00:18:36
Speaker 4: Does it feel good? I guess it feels good to win at all costs, no matter what.
00:18:41
Speaker 3: You don't care if you can look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about it and you defend yourself by saying, well, everybody else does it.
00:18:46
Speaker 4: Everybody else is dirty.
00:18:48
Speaker 3: So I have to get dirty in order to win because that's just how it's done, right? That's what you tell yourself when you're Mary Peltola. You say, well, this is what you have to do to win. And if I didn't do it, I'd be a fool because they'd be doing it to me. They have done it to me. And this is what you tell yourself. This is how you sleep at night. This is how you justify these types of actions.
00:19:08
Speaker 2: And we have to keep saying that she has denied it. And the second time she got to speak on it, she denied it directly. But she has. She has denied it. She has denied that her campaign had anything to do with it. But this does not look good.
00:19:21
Speaker 4: No, it does not.
00:19:21
Speaker 2: It does not look good. It doesn't feel good. And it's not just the article that was written. Her responses, especially that first one, it just didn't look good. But we said there are plenty of cases and Things people point to over the years in which something like this has been done, but one of the most famous ones, John F.
00:19:39
Speaker 1: Kennedy Jr.
00:19:40
Speaker 2: his first ever campaign, congressional campaign. He was going up against a well-known and fairly popular city councilman by the name of Joe Russo. And according to the historians, folks associated with Kennedy's campaign literally paid another guy named Joe Russo who was a 27-year-old janitor, to put his name on the ballot for this same purpose, Rose, of confusing the voters. This was 1946.
00:20:10
Speaker 4: It's a tale as old as time. Yes, and look, John F. Kennedy was elected to the U.S.
00:20:18
Speaker 3: House of Representatives, and we won't know if he would have still won by as wide.
00:20:23
Speaker 4: Of a margin. That's the thing. Yes, but I guess that's my point. Like, I don't know.
00:20:28
Speaker 3: Again, maybe I'm too Pollyanna, but it's like, wouldn't you want to win? And especially if you know you probably are going to win, why go to those tactics? Why safeguard maybe a likely win by just making sure, even if it's underhanded and deceptive, you're lessening your opponent's chance by whatever you get out of putting up a candidate with the exact same name in a deliberate attempt to confuse voters.
00:20:53
Speaker 1: I don't know why I had.
00:20:54
Speaker 2: A football mindset there where why do you need this extra pad?
00:21:00
Speaker 1: Like you're already doing well.
00:21:01
Speaker 2: And I, you know, that first thing I thought about that I know you will relate to a few years ago before the, before the BCS championship widened a little bit, a lot of teams understood that in week three, you might be up 62 to seven on a team, but you better score some more points if you can, because you're not sure.
00:21:21
Speaker 1: Later on, even if you're undefeated, they might hold it against you that you, You remember that?
00:21:25
Speaker 2: It was just this idea that I got to be sure. I got to make sure. I got to do everything I can, even if it doesn't feel good or feel right.
00:21:32
Speaker 1: Or is even sportsmanlike. Got to do what I got to do to make sure I preserve my spot. I don't know. This is ugly. This is dirty. And if this has gone down the way in Alaska, the way they're saying it went down, start over. That Roshi, that is... And again, we're naive, right? They're listening to us. Come on, y'all. This is just how it goes.
00:21:55
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:21:55
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:21:57
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:21:58
Speaker 3: If this is how politics is done, then thank God for the New York Times.
00:22:04
Speaker 4: Thank God for journalists.
00:22:05
Speaker 3: We don't always, it doesn't always come out, maybe. We don't always get this type of depth and investigative reporting. But when we do, this is why the New York Times matters. This is why the Wall Street Journal matters. This is why a lot of these publications that President Trump constantly belittles and eviscerates and humiliates and discredits, when it works actually to point out corruption on the other side.
00:22:30
Speaker 4: Of the aisle, I'm pretty sure.
00:22:32
Speaker 2: They're crushing it. Yes.
00:22:34
Speaker 3: The Trump administration and all the people who will normally just absolutely... say, disparaging things about the journalistic integrity of the New York Times now are applauding and heralding it because it worked to their advantage.
00:22:47
Speaker 4: But that is the point. I appreciate, and Americans, there's never, I don't.
00:22:52
Speaker 3: Feel like there's been enough of a defense of what we do for a living and what journalists do for a living. And I think this is an exhibit A, an absolute perfect example of why it's so important that we do have well-intentioned, independent journalists making sure as much as they can that when there is corruption or even the appearance of corruption or the appearance of anything that is untoward and works against how our political system is supposed to operate, thank God for journalists.
00:23:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, well done.
00:23:26
Speaker 2: New York Times, this is one really, really well done. Give them all the credit. And this is one where I am a little gobsmacked and appreciate this was brought to my attention. This is awful behavior. um, the deception. I am going to trick you into sending me to the Senate where I'm then going to declare how I am going to represent you.
00:23:49
Speaker 1: Honestly, represent you with.
00:23:51
Speaker 2: That's how can you, you're deceiving those very people. They repeat that line. Take Dan Sullivan, take that line from Rose. Just repeat it from now until Monday and you're going to do great. Uh, agreed.
00:24:04
Speaker 4: And you, you said the word gaslighting.
00:24:06
Speaker 3: Um, Yes, a spokesperson for the incumbent, Dan Sullivan, put it exactly similarly to what you said earlier in this episode. Mary Pallotta and her campaign have spent months gaslighting Alaskans, denying a scheme they were running all along.
00:24:23
Speaker 1: That's tough, man.
00:24:26
Speaker 2: More will come of this. What stories are we covering? Subpoenas in California. What are we covering?
00:24:34
Speaker 1: We're covering this mess in Alaska.
00:24:36
Speaker 2: What are we covering? Situation of California ballots. They say 20,000 of them are.
00:24:42
Speaker 4: Non-U.S.
00:24:42
Speaker 2: Citizens. What we're seeing is the precursor. We are seeing the setup to waking up the day after the elections, and those elections are being deemed invalid.
00:24:53
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:24:54
Speaker 3: We've heard the president be asked multiple times by reporters as he's coming and going on the campaign trail, will you accept?
00:25:01
Speaker 4: Are you prepared to.
00:25:03
Speaker 3: basically deal with these new margins where Democrats may take and are likely to, widely expected to take control of the House and the Senate as well.
00:25:11
Speaker 4: How will you manage? Will you accept the results of this election? And the president always has a caveat, always has an asterisk.
00:25:22
Speaker 1: You know, we keep saying, man, I can't wait till it's over, but I'm kind of scared. It won't be. Well, I'm kind of scared to see what happens the next day and the day after that. Folks, we're on it for you. We appreciate you, as always, spending a little time with us. I'm TJ. On behalf of my dear Emmy robot, we'll talk to you all soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, October 30th. Just a few days from the midterm. So, of course, we got mudslinging, but we also got subpoenas and investigations flying into the case of the two Dans in Alaska. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. We knew this was some trickery. We knew this was some BS. It didn't sound right from the beginning, but now, we have official investigations underway looking into what Democrats were possibly up to to put a second Dan Sullivan on the ballot in Alaska.
00:00:36
Speaker 1: This is a fascinating political story.
00:00:38
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it feels silly to even have to point out what the issue is because it's so glaringly obvious. And it almost, well, not almost, it feels utterly uncomfortable to watch the Democratic challenger in this, Mary Paltola, deny any knowledge, culpability, responsibility to for any part her campaign may have played in recruiting a man to run for the same Senate seat with the exact same name as the incumbent.
00:01:11
Speaker 2: So if you don't believe the story, if you don't, if you think it's all BS, then you need to believe that the New York Times is a comic book. You need to believe that the New York Times, with its long history and its 12 sources now, On this, Robes and some people put their name to this. She wants us to believe that everything they have reported is wrong and they're only doing, they have literally made this story up for the sake of subscriptions is what she said.
00:01:42
Speaker 1: That's a tall order for me.
00:01:44
Speaker 4: Yes, and I agree with that.
00:01:47
Speaker 3: And I think most people listening would also concur, but also consider the fact that if you listen to most conservatives, they would view the New York Times as, yes, one of those liberal rags, fake news, we've heard the president say.
00:02:03
Speaker 4: So if they really... I do.
00:02:06
Speaker 3: Appreciate and respect the fact that, yes, the New York Times.
00:02:12
Speaker 3: Is a credible news organization that is an equal opportunity investigator of the truth.
00:02:21
Speaker 4: And so, yes, the fact that they were willing to.
00:02:24
Speaker 3: Investigate, expose, and write and stand by this story is of note.
00:02:29
Speaker 2: And now Macca loves him. Oh, you better believe the president is loving this story. He's giving New York Times full credit. For what they have done now, because this is a story that works in his favor. This is bottom line. There is an incumbent in Alaska. I don't have to explain to you how important the midterms are and how close the margins are. The fight for both houses is up in the air. If Democrats are going to possibly take back the Senate, they desperately need to get Alaska. They need to flip it. And they saw an opportunity to flip it because they have an incumbent there by the name of Dan Sullivan. And now they have a surging candidate by the name of Mary. I always get the letters mixed up.
00:03:05
Speaker 1: Peltola.
00:03:06
Speaker 2: All right, Peltola. I think Peloton now, and that helps me a little bit. But Mary Peltola is the Democrat who has a chance. She's up against, on this ballot, ranked-choice voting there in Alaska, but there are four people on this ballot. The Democrat, another random long-shot candidate, Dan Sullivan, the incumbent, and now Robes, Dan Sullivan... Another Dan Sullivan who is now an independent, who is a former school teacher, who has not campaigned. He is not on the campaign trail. He is not a legit candidate, even though his name is on the ballot. Let's just all say that out loud.
00:03:42
Speaker 1: It's okay. We get it. Fine.
00:03:45
Speaker 2: So we've always, Rob, suspected, but nobody was able to prove that this was a Democratic plan to try to take votes away from the incumbent Dan Sullivan. So what brings us to now, the New York Times has exposed all of this. Now it's gotten a little more serious because since they're reporting, we got subpoenas out there and we have an official state investigation of this. And words like criminal charges have been thrown around.
00:04:13
Speaker 3: Yes, because look, the state of Alaska investigated this early on and they did find that there was nothing, at least as far as their investigating showed, Even if it was manipulative, even if it was bad sportsmanlike conduct, so to speak. I just said that, meaning that, yes, that's shady AF to enlist a person with the same name as the incumbent to get on the ballot or to at least register as an independent to run for office.
00:04:47
Speaker 1: That's so crappy.
00:04:47
Speaker 4: It's so crappy.
00:04:49
Speaker 3: But the state of Alaska said that they didn't find anything criminally wrong with that, even if it's morally wrong and ethically wrong.
00:04:59
Speaker 1: This is cheating to win an election.
00:05:01
Speaker 2: You can't stand it. That feels so gross. Are we that desperate in politics? This is what's up for grabs that we're doing this? You don't think this is obvious, folks, that there's another Dan Sullivan who just has a website with a couple of blog posts and that's his campaign?
00:05:16
Speaker 1: He ain't campaigned. We know what this is.
00:05:18
Speaker 2: But don't look us in the face. She's gaslighting us, Robes. I don't want to put this, Robes, that first comment she made, we looked at each other.
00:05:27
Speaker 1: And said, oh my God.
00:05:28
Speaker 4: Yeah, she.
00:05:29
Speaker 1: Oh my God, Robes, we panicked.
00:05:31
Speaker 3: She pointed the finger at the New York Times, and what makes that funny... is what I just said. The New York Times has been accused of the opposite, of trying to help Democrats win and help Republicans lose. You got the New York Times doing an investigation on a Democrat, and she's trying to pull a card out of the Republican playbook, blaming the New York Times.
00:05:55
Speaker 2: I was, every benefit of the doubt in the world, I gave her until I saw that soundbite. I'm sorry, y'all, if you just hear what she says, that does not sound like someone who is.
00:06:07
Speaker 1: Innocent. Robes, it's simple as that. What?
00:06:21
Speaker 2: Somebody on my campaign? I don't know what happened, but if that's the case, we need to get to the bottom of it. Like it's a shock to her that there's another Dan Sullivan.
00:06:28
Speaker 3: What?
00:06:29
Speaker 1: This could possibly have been what... Robs, that first soundbite, we immediately... I looked over and said, oh my God. She is not telling the truth. Robs, you say something. You say the first thing out of your mouth. No, of course I didn't have anything to do with this.
00:06:43
Speaker 3: And you'd say, yeah, and you'd say, I had nothing to do with this.
00:06:46
Speaker 4: And you make that very clear.
00:06:47
Speaker 3: You say, and I'm appalled that anyone in my campaign would have participated in any sort of scheme like this, because I can absolutely understand why this looks on its face pretty damning.
00:06:59
Speaker 1: But go ahead. What did she say? Paraphrase. It's fine. I know you'll remember. What did she say?
00:07:03
Speaker 3: She said this is about the New York Times trying to bolster its subscriptions.
00:07:09
Speaker 4: And it's downloads.
00:07:10
Speaker 3: And so she just blamed the New York Times saying they were being basically they were making stuff up so that people would click on it and they'd get more subscriptions and more downloads. And basically they were just doing a money grab here. And she was being falsely and her campaign was being falsely accused. And that is just such a ridiculous statement.
00:07:32
Speaker 1: Ridiculous. There it is. Let me get to the bottom of this. I'll get back. Do anything.
00:07:38
Speaker 2: Robes, her answer is that the New York Times is going to have a story this explosive days before the midterms for the sake of subscriptions.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: It's too... far. That's offensive.
00:07:48
Speaker 3: It is.
00:07:49
Speaker 2: And that is not okay. That is outside the realm of normal, commonsensical statements. That is not okay. I don't know this lady. This ain't politics.
00:07:57
Speaker 1: But lady, don't do us like that.
00:08:00
Speaker 4: This is why people hate politicians. And we talk about this all the time.
00:08:03
Speaker 3: People who are in office right now, people on both sides of the aisle, and certainly now in the middle of this high stakes midterm election campaign, where you have You have candidates who we're supposed to vote for and trust and respect to do our bidding, to have our backs, that we can say, hey, you lawmaker, you, we trust you to fight for us and for what we need. How can you possibly throw your support behind somebody who is literally telling you something that you know to be true isn't true?
00:08:35
Speaker 1: You're stupid. She's looking at us and saying, y'all are stupid.
00:08:38
Speaker 2: The New York Times just, you know, it actually was that she used the word subscriptions. That's just such a nervous word to use. That is not a normal way we talk.
00:08:50
Speaker 1: That is where she lost me.
00:08:51
Speaker 4: And she brushed it aside. She made that barb.
00:08:54
Speaker 3: She threw a barb at the New York Times and then immediately pivoted to what the New York Times doesn't care about is affordability for Alaskans in this state. And so then she just went on to her little campaign talking points. And that was also just Not only did she point the finger at the New York Times, completely dismiss it, but then just move on very quickly. She didn't take the time that she should have taken to explain, to be upset by it, to talk about the fact that it's not acceptable to try and fool voters to win an election. Why, that's not any way any candidate should want to win a seat. No, she didn't even acknowledge that.
00:09:34
Speaker 4: Any part of that.
00:09:35
Speaker 2: They didn't acknowledge how outrageous this possibly was. So she says, and they have denied it. She came out later and had a stronger statement, at least saying she had nothing to do with this.
00:09:46
Speaker 1: I wasn't crazy about that.
00:09:48
Speaker 2: But all the pushback, this is the best way here that the Times put it, and this kind of sums it up. Says the campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his, Dan Sullivan's, candidacy.
00:09:59
Speaker 3: But.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: 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.
00:10:12
Speaker 2: People trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other politicians would-be spoils into the race to dilute the incumbent's support and help catapult the Democrat. Robes, that's a lot. Robes, there's a very high standard when a story is this big of a deal. Robes, they got 12 sources.
00:10:34
Speaker 1: 12!
00:10:36
Speaker 2: Some of them putting a name on it. And she said, she is literally saying that one of the most preeminent news outlets on planet Earth made up All of this about her because they are trying to get you to get a subscription.
00:10:54
Speaker 3: And that I really, truly believe is offensive to anyone who is casting a ballot in the state of Alaska, that they would actually believe that.
00:11:06
Speaker 4: When you know, you not only.
00:11:07
Speaker 3: Those 12 sources, we're talking about members of her campaign, lawyers for her, senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, they all spoke to, this isn't just other people from the outside pointing fingers or making stuff up. These are people who had direct, intimate access to what was going on in the months leading up to this election.
00:11:33
Speaker 4: Period.
00:11:34
Speaker 2: So, as of this moment, Rosie, yes, the New York Times really kind of set this thing up. It's been talked about. Actually, there was legislation. No, it's not legislation.
00:11:42
Speaker 1: That was, what's the right word? Litigation. Sorry.
00:11:46
Speaker 2: There had been lawsuits, and they were trying to challenge this, but at least the judge so far says, yes, Everything's only up and up, at least with this other Dan Sullivan. He can't appear on the ballot. So the ballot looks like this. What people are going to see there are the two Dan Sullivans. Their names are next to each other, and one is written like this, Sullivan, Daniel J.
00:12:06
Speaker 1: Jr.
00:12:07
Speaker 2: The other is written Sullivan, Dan S., in parentheses, registered Republican, and then after that it says incumbent. I mean, if you're paying, this is a national story now. Certainly the local folks know which is which, don't they?
00:12:22
Speaker 4: I would think so.
00:12:22
Speaker 3: And look, because this has become such a big story, and you've got pretty much every time you turn on the TV, wait five minutes, this story is going to pop up. I mean, anyone who is following politics, even loosely, I would argue, around the country has seen this story. And so, yes, voters there in Alaska, I imagine, are keenly aware of this. But there is still that, like, you're taking a chance. They're hoping you're rushing through. You got to pick up your kids.
00:12:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
00:12:50
Speaker 3: You're like, And you might accidentally, inadvertently vote for the wrong Dan Sullivan.
00:12:55
Speaker 2: When is this tight? The margins are this close. You can't take any chances here. So we got two things now since the New York Times report. On two fronts, the Justice Department had already sued. They were the ones that said if Dan Sullivan, the incumbent, doesn't win, then they didn't want the results to be official. So now they have amended their lawsuit and have added some 30-plus subpoenas. that have been issued to Paltola's people in her office and also sent to Dan Sullivan, the other. Dan Sullivan, I should say. And then the other part of this story, Robes, that took off, is there an official state investigation now? The governor has stepped into this.
00:13:32
Speaker 4: That's right, and he actually released a statement.
00:13:34
Speaker 3: Governor Dunleavy has weighed in, and he made it very clear where he stands. He said, one with the same name as incumbent U.S. Senator, to deliberately confuse voters and misdirect their votes. The Alaska Division of Elections investigated these very concerns in June of this year. The new reporting substantially supports the division's findings. I am therefore directing the Department of Public Safety to investigate whether this scheme violated Alaska's laws and whether criminal charges were or civil action are warranted, the evidence will determine what happens next.
00:14:21
Speaker 2: And when they say if, and a lot of places we've looked at saying, well, is this actually illegal?
00:14:28
Speaker 1: It seems like obvious fraud. It should be. It seems like an obvious manipulation.
00:14:31
Speaker 4: If they can prove that they.
00:14:33
Speaker 3: coerced, convinced a, and I hate to say random, I'm not trying to act, I don't know anything about Dan Sullivan, the teacher, but yes, and convinced him, like he had to know exactly what he was walking into and what his purpose was on the ballot, period.
00:14:50
Speaker 4: And then yes, it's about who knew what. We know the why.
00:14:55
Speaker 3: I think that's really obvious, but it's the, it's the It's the who and what law did they potentially violate? But yes, how is this not illegal? How is this not a crime?
00:15:07
Speaker 4: It should be. If it isn't on the books, why wouldn't it be? To deliberately deceive?
00:15:12
Speaker 1: This is so dirty. This is why they hate. This is so dirty.
00:15:17
Speaker 2: And it's been exposed in this manner. Everybody's denying they had anything to do with it. So Dan Sullivan did this on his own, apparently, because the Democrats who are reportedly in concert, working in concert with Paltola's campaign to make all this happen.
00:15:34
Speaker 1: They're all denying it.
00:15:35
Speaker 2: Paltola's campaign, they're denying it, and now the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They were the ones that, according to the New York Times, was working in lockstep with the campaign. They've denied wrongdoing, and they made sure they got in there, Rogue, that Republicans do it, too.
00:15:51
Speaker 3: Yes. They said Republicans have a long history of recruiting and propping up candidates in an attempt to boost their own campaigns, including recruiting a prisoner with a New York address to run against Mary Peltola and spending nearly half a million dollars to secure a spot on the ballot in Alaska for an Arizona resident in the Senate race this cycle.
00:16:11
Speaker 4: They're like, you do it, too.
00:16:13
Speaker 3: They didn't pick a candidate that has Mary Peltola's name.
00:16:17
Speaker 4: That would be more of an appropriate term. Yin for Yang.
00:16:20
Speaker 1: She was harder to find. A Dan Sullivan ain't hard to find. Exactly.
00:16:23
Speaker 3: And I'm sure that someone, I wonder who that person was who thought, hmm, that's a pretty generic name. I bet we can find another Dan Sullivan.
00:16:31
Speaker 2: That's how the New York Times article starts, by them saying that a staffer got an assignment. Find as many Dan Sullivans as you can. And then we're going to go through the list.
00:16:42
Speaker 1: But hey, why not? It worked for JFK. It'll work for us. Yes, folks. This, what they just did in Alaska, ain't nothing new. Stay here.
00:16:53
Speaker 2: All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ with the two Dan Sullivans. What's going to happen on Election Day? Is the second guy going to get any votes, a few votes, a handful of votes? He has no supporters because he's not campaigning. He's not doing anything. He's not on a campaign trail. He's not raising money. He barely has a website. It's nothing there. This guy is not a legit candidate. We've known that, but now the New York Times has exposed it in a broader scheme. How are people going to feel? Wrote the Ramaswamy ad in Ohio, and now this in Alaska. These are places that The margins are so thin. What does this do for her? Does this hurt her chances?
00:17:42
Speaker 1: Does this help her?
00:17:42
Speaker 4: I would think so.
00:17:43
Speaker 3: I would think so when you are proven to be, and I guess it's not proven, but there's some really damning evidence suggesting your involvement in deliberately deceiving the voters you claim you want to transparently represent and support.
00:18:03
Speaker 2: Man, again, I think they should clip what you just said. If you repeat that about her, From now until Tuesday, you should do well. These are the people you want to represent. You just consciously deceived them. Yes.
00:18:17
Speaker 1: Come on, man.
00:18:19
Speaker 3: And then denied it, which is even worse. I mean, I guess maybe from a legal standpoint, she can't or shouldn't or wouldn't be advised to admit it, but she could have, I don't know.
00:18:29
Speaker 4: This is, I just, I question.
00:18:31
Speaker 3: I do, and maybe this is my naivete, but the ethics of somebody like.
00:18:36
Speaker 4: Does it feel good? I guess it feels good to win at all costs, no matter what.
00:18:41
Speaker 3: You don't care if you can look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about it and you defend yourself by saying, well, everybody else does it.
00:18:46
Speaker 4: Everybody else is dirty.
00:18:48
Speaker 3: So I have to get dirty in order to win because that's just how it's done, right? That's what you tell yourself when you're Mary Peltola. You say, well, this is what you have to do to win. And if I didn't do it, I'd be a fool because they'd be doing it to me. They have done it to me. And this is what you tell yourself. This is how you sleep at night. This is how you justify these types of actions.
00:19:08
Speaker 2: And we have to keep saying that she has denied it. And the second time she got to speak on it, she denied it directly. But she has. She has denied it. She has denied that her campaign had anything to do with it. But this does not look good.
00:19:21
Speaker 4: No, it does not.
00:19:21
Speaker 2: It does not look good. It doesn't feel good. And it's not just the article that was written. Her responses, especially that first one, it just didn't look good. But we said there are plenty of cases and Things people point to over the years in which something like this has been done, but one of the most famous ones, John F.
00:19:39
Speaker 1: Kennedy Jr.
00:19:40
Speaker 2: his first ever campaign, congressional campaign. He was going up against a well-known and fairly popular city councilman by the name of Joe Russo. And according to the historians, folks associated with Kennedy's campaign literally paid another guy named Joe Russo who was a 27-year-old janitor, to put his name on the ballot for this same purpose, Rose, of confusing the voters. This was 1946.
00:20:10
Speaker 4: It's a tale as old as time. Yes, and look, John F. Kennedy was elected to the U.S.
00:20:18
Speaker 3: House of Representatives, and we won't know if he would have still won by as wide.
00:20:23
Speaker 4: Of a margin. That's the thing. Yes, but I guess that's my point. Like, I don't know.
00:20:28
Speaker 3: Again, maybe I'm too Pollyanna, but it's like, wouldn't you want to win? And especially if you know you probably are going to win, why go to those tactics? Why safeguard maybe a likely win by just making sure, even if it's underhanded and deceptive, you're lessening your opponent's chance by whatever you get out of putting up a candidate with the exact same name in a deliberate attempt to confuse voters.
00:20:53
Speaker 1: I don't know why I had.
00:20:54
Speaker 2: A football mindset there where why do you need this extra pad?
00:21:00
Speaker 1: Like you're already doing well.
00:21:01
Speaker 2: And I, you know, that first thing I thought about that I know you will relate to a few years ago before the, before the BCS championship widened a little bit, a lot of teams understood that in week three, you might be up 62 to seven on a team, but you better score some more points if you can, because you're not sure.
00:21:21
Speaker 1: Later on, even if you're undefeated, they might hold it against you that you, You remember that?
00:21:25
Speaker 2: It was just this idea that I got to be sure. I got to make sure. I got to do everything I can, even if it doesn't feel good or feel right.
00:21:32
Speaker 1: Or is even sportsmanlike. Got to do what I got to do to make sure I preserve my spot. I don't know. This is ugly. This is dirty. And if this has gone down the way in Alaska, the way they're saying it went down, start over. That Roshi, that is... And again, we're naive, right? They're listening to us. Come on, y'all. This is just how it goes.
00:21:55
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:21:55
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:21:57
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:21:58
Speaker 3: If this is how politics is done, then thank God for the New York Times.
00:22:04
Speaker 4: Thank God for journalists.
00:22:05
Speaker 3: We don't always, it doesn't always come out, maybe. We don't always get this type of depth and investigative reporting. But when we do, this is why the New York Times matters. This is why the Wall Street Journal matters. This is why a lot of these publications that President Trump constantly belittles and eviscerates and humiliates and discredits, when it works actually to point out corruption on the other side.
00:22:30
Speaker 4: Of the aisle, I'm pretty sure.
00:22:32
Speaker 2: They're crushing it. Yes.
00:22:34
Speaker 3: The Trump administration and all the people who will normally just absolutely... say, disparaging things about the journalistic integrity of the New York Times now are applauding and heralding it because it worked to their advantage.
00:22:47
Speaker 4: But that is the point. I appreciate, and Americans, there's never, I don't.
00:22:52
Speaker 3: Feel like there's been enough of a defense of what we do for a living and what journalists do for a living. And I think this is an exhibit A, an absolute perfect example of why it's so important that we do have well-intentioned, independent journalists making sure as much as they can that when there is corruption or even the appearance of corruption or the appearance of anything that is untoward and works against how our political system is supposed to operate, thank God for journalists.
00:23:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, well done.
00:23:26
Speaker 2: New York Times, this is one really, really well done. Give them all the credit. And this is one where I am a little gobsmacked and appreciate this was brought to my attention. This is awful behavior. um, the deception. I am going to trick you into sending me to the Senate where I'm then going to declare how I am going to represent you.
00:23:49
Speaker 1: Honestly, represent you with.
00:23:51
Speaker 2: That's how can you, you're deceiving those very people. They repeat that line. Take Dan Sullivan, take that line from Rose. Just repeat it from now until Monday and you're going to do great. Uh, agreed.
00:24:04
Speaker 4: And you, you said the word gaslighting.
00:24:06
Speaker 3: Um, Yes, a spokesperson for the incumbent, Dan Sullivan, put it exactly similarly to what you said earlier in this episode. Mary Pallotta and her campaign have spent months gaslighting Alaskans, denying a scheme they were running all along.
00:24:23
Speaker 1: That's tough, man.
00:24:26
Speaker 2: More will come of this. What stories are we covering? Subpoenas in California. What are we covering?
00:24:34
Speaker 1: We're covering this mess in Alaska.
00:24:36
Speaker 2: What are we covering? Situation of California ballots. They say 20,000 of them are.
00:24:42
Speaker 4: Non-U.S.
00:24:42
Speaker 2: Citizens. What we're seeing is the precursor. We are seeing the setup to waking up the day after the elections, and those elections are being deemed invalid.
00:24:53
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:24:54
Speaker 3: We've heard the president be asked multiple times by reporters as he's coming and going on the campaign trail, will you accept?
00:25:01
Speaker 4: Are you prepared to.
00:25:03
Speaker 3: basically deal with these new margins where Democrats may take and are likely to, widely expected to take control of the House and the Senate as well.
00:25:11
Speaker 4: How will you manage? Will you accept the results of this election? And the president always has a caveat, always has an asterisk.
00:25:22
Speaker 1: You know, we keep saying, man, I can't wait till it's over, but I'm kind of scared. It won't be. Well, I'm kind of scared to see what happens the next day and the day after that. Folks, we're on it for you. We appreciate you, as always, spending a little time with us. I'm TJ. On behalf of my dear Emmy robot, we'll talk to you all soon.