The New York Times on Wednesday published a blockbuster story claiming that multiple former staffers on the campaign of Alaska Democratic Senatorial nominee Mary Peltola implicated her and others in the effort to confuse voters with decoy “Dan Sullivan” candidates. Peltola has long denied knowledge or involvement, but the Times reported that she was allegedly aware of the effort that also involved campaign officials, its lawyers and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Rounding out the array of “usual suspects” is the Marc Elias Group. Elias was involved in the Russian hoax and has been previously sanctioned in court. The Times reported that Peltola’s campaign manager told it that “Alaskan voters need to know.”
Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) immediately ran out to do damage control and depict Rio as a “disgruntled former employee.” The problem is that it is not just Rio. The Times referenced multiple campaign workers and brought receipts.
The Times names Democratic operative Jerid Kurtz, who allegedly worked with and communicated with Rios and others on the campaign, including Anton McParland, who at the time was Ms. Peltola’s chief of staff. It also states that campaign lawyers were involved in this despicable dirty trick to get voters to cast mistaken ballots.
The Times reported that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chaired by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), was aware of and involved in the effort. The effort was allegedly called “a ballot composition” project and Kurtz was allegedly paid through a pro-Peltola fund.
The Times details the effort to conceal it. For example, the paper reports:
The Peltola aides worried at times that Mr. Kurtz’s efforts would be discovered, such as when he posted an image of the Anchorage airport on his Instagram account.
“I am hearing that our friend in the state is being noticed,” Mr. McParland wrote in a text message in January reviewed by The Times. Andrew Piatt, the D.S.C.C.’s director of campaigns, replied: “We will check in.”
Peltola refused to address specifics in response to the story. She attacked the liberal New York Times for just trying “to sell newspapers” and dismissed the story by saying that “Nobody’s waking up worried about ballot composition. Not even me. I’m worried about my bills. I’m worried about affordability in health care.”
Peltola is clearly hoping to ride this out for the last week. However, it could snowball legally. The staff was aware of past public denials and the likelihood of an investigation. Indeed, the Justice Department filed to try to address the confusion, but Peltola filed to block the effort and declared in court filings that the allegations were “baseless.”
There may be questions as to whether the lawyers and staff were forthcoming in such filings,
It is not a crime to help engineer decoy candidates, even if it is viewed as the lowest form of dirty politics. Lying about your knowledge or involvement only magnifies the unethical conduct.
However, it is easy to trip a legal wire in such efforts. Campaign filings must be true and correct. Indeed, Elias and the Clinton campaign were later sanctioned for hiding the funding of the infamous Steele dossier as a legal expense. (The Clinton campaign denied such involvement until after the election). The Times refers to the Elias Group as opposed to Elias as an individual in the account of this effort to confuse voters.
There can be allegations of not only misrepresentations in filings but possible violations in the pressuring of potential witnesses, destruction of evidence, or false statements to federal investigators.
The risk of such allegations should lead the Peltola lawyers to withdraw from further work, as they could become potential witnesses and targets in state or federal investigations. Reports indicate grand jury subpoenas are expected in the coming days.
There are also questions about the past interactions of the decoy Dan Sullivan, who insisted that the idea to run was his own idea and that he did not have communications with the Democrats on such an effort. He also has not responded to the story.
Yet, the Times reports an extensive effort to coordinate and communicate with decoys:
The operation began in the summer of 2025 to lure potential spoiler candidates onto the state’s unusual four-person ballot, Ms. Rios said. …
Months later, in early 2026, Mr. Kurtz participated in a video call with members of the ballot composition team, Ms. Rios said. He told the group he had made contact with one of the Dan Sullivans. This Mr. Sullivan lived in the tiny village of Petersburg, and Mr. Kurtz described him as amenable to running if it would help Ms. Peltola, Ms. Rios said.
Mr. Kurtz “told us when he found him,” she said. He said Mr. Sullivan “said he hated Trump, and if it was going to help Mary, he liked Mary. He didn’t have any interest in being a politician, but if this could help.”
Mr. Sullivan, who has maintained that he entered the race of his own volition, did not respond to repeated requests for comment over the past week.
With the reported investigations unfolding, this has the makings of a major scandal with possible criminal and civil elements. It would be wise for staffers to “lawyer up.” The likelihood of state and federal investigations is quite high and it is also likely that some of these same sources will cooperate with investigators. Lawyers tend to minimize the risk for their clients in such investigation. They do not want their client to be the target without a chair when the music stops.
In other words, this is likely to metastasize in the coming weeks. However, with the rapidly approaching election, the die is cast on the ballots. That may be good news for the Democrats for retaking power, but it may not be good news for the potential targets. It will only magnify the costs of this conspiracy if it moves from a political conspiracy to an actual criminal conspiracy.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Alaskan voters also have the right to know that Republicans are paying to promote a third party candidate, who was calculated to bleed off voters from Mary Peltola. Republicans are doing the same thing in other states where they are afraid of losing, like Ohio and in New York.
If any party is insulting the intelligence of Alaska voters, it’s Republicans. The ballot makes clear which Republican candidate is the incumbent. Trump said that an Alaskan voter would have to have a genius IQ to understand the ballot. Anyone with the most fundamental level of reading comprehension would have no trouble figuring out the ballot.
Trump filed a lawsuit in Alaska to try to block Peltola from being certified if she wins even before the current unproven allegations. Democrats have never done anything like this to try to hang onto power.
The only 3rd party candidate on the ballot is Dan J Sulivan.
We are learning more over time.
1). the Petola campaign looked at over 200 Dan Sulivans in Alaska to find one who would do this.
2). This was initiated by the Petola campaign.
3). Marc Elias and the DSCC are involved – that takes this way outside of alaska.
3). There are texts between Daniel J Sulivan and Petola’s people agrring to do this specifically to help Petola.
4). Daniel J Sulivan initially filed as a candidate as Danial S Sullivan. That triggers identity theft laws.
5). This is NOT the only effort by Alaska Democrats to create voter confusion – more than one other person has come forward indicating efforts by what they beleive to be the Petola campaign to get them to Run in various alaska electiosn to dilute the Republican vote.
6). There are people in jail elsewhere in the country for doing exactly this.
7). There is a DOJ Civil Suit, and DOJ Criminal investigation and an Alaska Criminal investigation going on.
8). The Daniel J. Sulivan campaign web site was constructed by the same people who constructed Petola’s website and it was constructed to look very much like Sen. Sulivans web site.
9). The Alaska State department disqualified Daniel J. Sulivan from the ballot because he was not a legitimate candidate.
Daniel J. Sullivan appealed and won. THAT may prove to be the largest criminal problem. Everything involved in that lawsuit is sworn.
Anything that is false is perjury. Given fake Dan’s texts that he was doing this solely to help Petola, subsequent claims that he actually was running as a legitimate candidate are perjury.
10). Daniel J’s campaign has consisted of Fishing in Alaska with no campaign events or press appearances.
11). Even Nancy Pelosi thinks this is a federal crime. Even Bernie Sanders thinks it is a big mistake.
Nothing here is illegal. Republicans did the exact same thing in 2024. Eric Hafner an actual inmate in jail was put on the ballot in Alaska. The Alaska Supreme Court did the same thing it did with the Sullivan case. It deemed it legal.
Republicans are merely upset that their own tactic was used against them. Nothing more.
What federal crime is this? Did someone create a fake video or falsified statement attributed to Pelosi?
Both can be true at the same time. With little expectation of winning, running as a legitimate candidate is to help Petola.
They don’t teach people well in the US to see through such blatantly ignorant Russian attempts at interfering with US elections as the John Say group writes.
If you attempt to rob a liquor store with a day glo orange plastic gun that no one would beleive is real – you will still go to jail for robbery.
It is not an affirmative defense to fraud to claim that only really stupid people would be fooled. It may actually be an aggravating factor.
But yes Alaska Voters should be angry at Democrats who think they are so stupid as to be easily duped.
Please stop telling us what you claim Trump (or anyone else) said – quote them or better yet link to them actually saying it.
You have lied so much few beleive you.
What part of the allegations do you think have not been proven ?
There are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot, one was removed and filed suit to get reinstated, lots of evidence was provided in that case.
The one who was removed and reinstated initially tried to file under a false name – Daniel S. Sullivan rather than his actual name Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.
He has been fishing for the past month.
All of the above and a few more things are FACTS – they are already proven. There was a lawsuit and filing under oath in that case.
What is alleged is what we now have publicly from the NYT article – texts to/from Daniel J. Sulivan, whistleblower leaks and communications from inside the Petola campaign.
I would further note that when a lawsuit is filed you are required to have a credible allegation NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof is established during the lawsuit. This is a divil lawsuit so the standard of proof is more likely than not.
Regardless you PROVE cases in court. You do not have to have already won to get into the court.
John Say, still wrong.
“The one who was removed and reinstated initially tried to file under a false name – Daniel S. Sullivan rather than his actual name Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.”
The decoy candidate never tried to file under a false name, nor did he try to claim his name was “Daniel S. Sullivan.” His legal name is Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. When filing his official candidacy paperwork with the Alaska Division of Elections, he used his real name. The actual controversy—which the comment reverses—is that when officials asked how he wanted his name to appear on the ballot, he requested to use the middle initial “S” (purportedly standing for a family nickname or a maternal surname) instead of his legal middle initial “J.” He did not file under a fake identity; he attempted to use a misleading middle initial on the ballot presentation, which election officials ultimately denied, forcing him to appear as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.”
“There are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot, one was removed and filed suit to get reinstated…”
The decoy candidate was never removed by election officials only to sue for reinstatement. The litigation moved in the exact opposite direction. The Alaska Republican Party filed lawsuits to have him removedfrom the ballot, arguing his candidacy was a fraudulent attempt to deceive voters. It was the courts—culminating in the Alaska Supreme Court—that repeatedly denied the Republicans’ challenges, ruling that because he met the literal statutory requirements (age, residency, filing deadlines), he legally had to remain on the ballot.
“All of the above and a few more things are FACTS – they are already proven. There was a lawsuit and filing under oath in that case.”
ROFL! Nope. Not even close.
John Say confuses the existence of a lawsuit and filings under oath with judicial proof. In the initial ballot-access lawsuits, the decoy candidate filed affidavits denying he was working with any third-party campaigns or running solely to confuse voters. The recent New York Times report exposed leaked text messages that directly contradict those statements under oath. Therefore, the candidate’s prior claims are not “proven facts”—they are now the basis for potential perjury and false statement investigations because they appear to be demonstrably false.
“This is a civil lawsuit so the standard of proof is more likely than not… Regardless you PROVE cases in court.”
While John Say is correct that the standard of proof in a civil case is a “preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not), he is applying this logic to the wrong arena. The primary legal threat being discussed Jonathan Turley isn’t just the civil lawsuit to halt ballot certification—it is the active federal criminal investigation by the DOJ and the FBI. Criminal charges (such as wire fraud, conspiracy to deprive citizens of voting rights, and perjury) require the highest legal standard: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil standard of proof will do nothing to secure the criminal convictions or indictments currently being weighed by federal grand juries.
This just goes to show how John Say doesn’t understand how the law…works.
John Say doesn’t need to know how the law works. His task is to produce destabilization in the belief in free and fair elections so that his bosses can have the sanctions against them lifted and they can murder every last person in Ukraine in order to make Putin feel better.
At no point should John Say be taken in any other light.
PT, I’m tired of Sam Altman and chatgpt. I’m tired of Bill Gates. I’m tired of open AI.
There are very serious flaws in the programming. Very ill people…
I do appreciate the unknown Shirley reporter. Just a simple guy asking real questions.
Happy Halloween aka candy day. ☺
“I’m tired of Bill Gates.”
I’m more than tired on that score. I’m at the point that I would cheer if someone whacked him. Did you notice that Putin is now courting Elon Musk? I would be very surprised if he wasn’t up to speed on what the Dems plan for Musk should they win, and hopes to catch him and his businesses on the rebound. Anyone who succeeds at precipitating such an event deserves to be shot. YMMV
Musk Says Gates Funding His Attackers As Democrats Ready Post-Midterm Witch Hunt
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/musk-says-gates-funding-his-attackers-democrats-ready-post-midterm-witch-hunt
I guess Trump owes the NYTimes a big thank you. (Don’t hold your breath.) Perhaps the Times will get a Nobel for their reporting on this one 🤣
It would be a pulitzer not a nobel and it has been along time since NYT has received a pulitzer for a story that was true.
Trump nor anyone owes NYT for this. Whatever the results these people brought it on themselves.
I expect The fake Dan Sulivan to be disqualified.
This was addressed before. He was disqualified before.
While there is the voter confusion issue – the more important issue is that the fake Dan Sullivan lied on his election paperwork. The Sec State determined that and removed him A federal court restored him claiming there was no evidence of misrepresentation. Now there is.
Turley is correct this kind of dirty trick is not illegal. But it is nearly impossible to pull off without violating other laws. Election filings are Sworn statements- anything false in them is a crime.
There was also an investigation and sworn statements.
There is a good chance this ends Petolas shot in Alaska.
But there is ZERO chance there will not be a criminal investigation after the election
Further this once again proves Dems will do anything to win-including election fraud.
This hurts Democrats EVERYWHERE.
What about the already cast mail-in ballots, JS? Lets not leave out Kirsten Gillibrand from this conspiracy. Incredibly Junior High school and no one sane would vote for such an unethical campaign, candidate. Hey look, your shoe’s untied.
Money changed hands and from Petola’s fund. That looks serious.
The Federal Court said that there was no evidence of lies on the paperwork. The Secretary of State appears to have interfered in the election by denying the candidacy.
Now the DoJ is playing “Heads, I win; Tails, you lose.”
If they only investigate if the Republican loses then they are soft on crime. Or they are just running a smear campaign by making an unsupported (as the Fed Court already ruled) allegation.
Daniel J. Sulivan jr. filed to be on the ballot as Daniel S Sulivan. That was denied – his name is Not Daniel S. Sulivan and the Sec. State argued that it was likely he was not a legitimate candidate.
Danial J. Sullivan apealled that decision and won. That appeal required that he make numerous sworn statements that the evidence now suggest were false and he knew that at the time.
That is perjury.
There are people in jail for this – the Sec. State did not “interfere” in the election.
Courts have already ruled – based on sworn statements that there is now significant evidence were known to be false at the time.
Aparently perjury is not very serious for left wing nuts.
This investigation is likely to proceed regardless of who wins.
There was no evidence at the time, but that has changed since her former campaign manager has come forward and disputed their claims that they had nothing to do with it
Do try and keep up so you don’t keep coming across as ignorant and uninformed
Not really. One wonders why the super liberal, super biased, Trump hating NY Times suddenly exposed both the decoy candidate and Obama’s investigation of Ilhan Omar’s (fake name) fake marriage to her brother? It has to have some nefarious underhanded motive, as that is the NY Times.
The only other option is it is a last ditch effort to save the Democrat propaganda rag from bankruptcy and going out of business. If that is it the NY Times will fail. No conservative is going to subscribe to get around their expensive paywall to read obvious lies, which is why they are going broke in the first place. Even most die-hard liberal now recognize the lies.
More than 30 subpoenas issued on this Alaska issue.
It’s OK; communism is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property preclude it. Karl Marx could win the presidency, Congress, and the Senate, and the Constitution would still deny communism.
The only thing that is imperative is that the judicial branch fulfill its sworn-oath duty to support the manifest verbatim tenor of American fundamental law, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It’s either that or the American Revolution 2.0 with extreme prejudice.
A testicular self-exam is an inspection of the appearance and feel of your testicles. You can do a testicular exam yourself, typically standing in front of a mirror.
Routine testicular self-exams can give you a greater awareness of the condition of your testicles and help you detect changes. Self-exams can also alert you to potential testicular problems.
If you detect lumps or other changes during a testicular self-exam, make an appointment with your doctor.
Testicular self-exams help you learn how your testicles normally look and feel. Then you’re more likely to notice subtle changes.
Changes in your testicles could be a sign of a common benign condition, such as an infection or a cyst, or a less common condition, such as testicular cancer.
It’s not clear who should consider regular testicular self-exams. Though often promoted as a way to detect testicular cancer, testicular self-exams aren’t proved to reduce the risk of dying of the disease.
Testicular cancer is a relatively uncommon type of cancer. It’s also highly treatable at all stages, so finding testicular cancer early doesn’t make a cure more likely.
Doctors and medical organizations differ on their recommendations for testicular self-exams. If you’re concerned about your risk of testicular cancer, discuss the issue with your doctor. Together, you can decide whether regular testicular self-exams are right for you.
NOT A MEDICAL SITE! BOZO ANON
In other words, kirk has no balls.
it’s more likely that Anonymous is looking for a pair to fondle