Mary Peltola, the Democrat who leads polling in Alaska Senate race, asks judge for quick dismissal of lawsuit where Trump seeks a remedy only if Republican loses

(KTVU Fox News, Facebook)

What newspaper yesterday ensured that it would win the 2016 award for Most Irrelevant Article of the Year? That "honor" goes to The New York Times, which long has been cited as the most respected daily news publication in the country. The paper, however, did nothing to burnish its reputation with a story dated 10/28/26 about the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The Times undoubtedly maintains a lofty status in the journalism world, but readers have reason to question the paper's news judgment after it ran a piece suggesting "operatives" for Senate candidate Mary Peltola (D-AK) engaged in dubious (maybe even unlawful) behavior by spending months recruiting candidates to peel votes from Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent. The effort even produced an alternative Dan Sullivan -- Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., who resides in a small fishing village and has no experience in electoral politics -- in a seeming attempt to sow confusion among Alaska voters. 

All of this might sound sketchy, but even The Times acknowledges that it is perfectly legal -- perhaps even a time-honored tradition practiced by both parties, especially in the rough-and-tumble world of Alaska politics. You have to read to the eighth paragraph to learn there is nothing unlawful about the described behavior. (A well-known legal blog, whose contributing writers are law professors, law-school deans, or both, notes that the Peltola plot almost certainly was legal, and we will have more on that shortly.) Why did such a prestigious newspaper pursue a story about conduct that is common practice and is not illegal? Applying my tin-foil hat for a moment, I wonder if an "operative" from the right side of the political spectrum pitched the idea and maybe even pressured The Times to run with it.

What's all the fuss about? Let's start by taking a look at The Times article under the headline "Inside Democrats' secret effort to stack Alaska's ballot." The NY Times piece probably is blocked by a paywall. As an alternative, readers interested in checking out the entire article probably should click this link to the Seattle Times, which appears to be part of the New York paper's syndication service. We will present all the relevant information in a not-so-relevant story below, as Kellen Browning writes:

In the summer of 2025, a staffer for Mary Peltola, the Alaska Democrat who was eyeing a run for Senate, received unusual instructions from top campaign aides: Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can.

The staffer complied, combing through voter records to produce a list of Dan Sullivans from across the state.

This was no random request. 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.

The plan worked. 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 mention of a "potential lawsuit against the campaign" provides a clue about how The Times article came to be published. (more on that in a moment) For now, we have this from Kellen Browning:

The endeavor, which was internally called the ballot composition project, involved secret trips to far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs.

It also involved the Peltola campaign’s lawyers, as well as senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which directs the party’s campaign strategy in Senate races across the country. From Washington to Anchorage, those advisers participated in regular conversations about the effort and even considered forming a new political party to draw conservatives onto the ballot.

Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska. But this operation, which has not been reported before, reveals the lengths to which Democrats went to seek advantage in a Senate race that could determine control of the chamber.

With that, we get to the crux of the matter: The New York Times has invested considerable time and resources reporting on conduct that is both common and legal. Does that amount to a journalism case of "much ado about nothing"? That's how it looks from here. But that does not mean the story is complete. A report from Adam Klasfeld at All Rise News adds important context: In a post dated 10/26/26, Klasfeld writes under the headline "Dismiss Trump's 'lawless' attack on Alaska's election, judge asked; Senate candidate Mary Peltola's campaign seeks a ruling this week":

Alaskans shouldn’t have the Trump administration’s “lawless” attack on the U.S. Senate race hanging over their heads on Election Day, the race’s leading candidate wrote in a new court filing.

“The Court should not allow this lawsuit to hang like the Sword of Damocles over the ongoing election, lending false legitimacy to the President’s and the Attorney General’s ongoing efforts to spread false narratives about Alaska’s elections as voting continues and as results begin to be tabulated next week,” the campaign for Democratic candidate Mary Peltola wrote in a motion to expedite the case.

Peltola holds a narrow lead in polling averages, making her the favorite to become Alaska’s first Democratic U.S. senator in more than a decade.

The Trump administration’s lawsuit asked a federal judge to block the certification of Alaska’s results if Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, loses. Peltola’s campaign, Alaskans for Mary, asked a judge to dismiss it “as soon as possible this week.” 

Klasfeld provides two critical pieces of information here: (1) Trump has been asked numerous times if he will accept the outcomes of the midterm elections. His answer has been, "I will accept the results if the election is honest." Trump never seems to clarify what he means by that. But language in his Alaska lawsuit indicates he sees an honest election as one where the Republican candidate wins -- and a dishonest election is one where the Republican loses; (2) The Peltola campaign is asking a federal judge to dismiss Trump's complaint "as soon as possible this week," after allowing time for the filing of motions and responses on Tuesday and Wednesday. That means a decision could come at any moment, most likely today or tomorrow. We will be on alert, and we invite you to stay with us. (Note: A dismissal would be a significant win for Peltola, but it might not mean the case is over; I would not be surprised if Trump seeks an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. That likely would be on the court's "shadow docket," so there is no telling how that might end up.) Let's check out more insights from Adam Klasfeld:

There are two Dan Sullivans running for the U.S. Senate in Alaska, and the state’s judiciary already has determined that both are qualified candidates.

Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the GOP incumbent, has been in office since 2015, and he is sharing a ballot with Dan J. Sullivan, a former independent with conservative views who changed his affiliation to the Republican Party.

Alaska’s Director of Elections Carol Beecher, a longtime Republican, previously tried to disqualify the latter Sullivan and lost her effort up to Alaska’s Supreme Court, which found that both candidates were qualified to compete in the race under the state’s laws and constitution. 

But the state’s courts made clear that Alaska’s election administrators could address any confusion through the design of the ballots themselves. Alaska’s Division of Elections acted accordingly: Ballots received by voters show Dan S. Sullivan marked as the “Registered Republican” and the “Incumbent.” 

Donald Trump, and the agencies under his control, refused to accept the answer of the state’s judiciary over the state’s administration of elections.

Despite the crystal-clear ballot design, the lawsuit claims to combat “voter confusion.”

“DOJ does not allege any facts that would render this concern plausible rather than merely possible, particularly given a ballot design that identifies Senator Sullivan as the incumbent, lists Mr. Sullivan without any party affiliation, and uses both candidates’ middle initials, which are different,” Peltola’s campaign noted in its motion. 

After the filing of the lawsuit, Trump made clear to reporters: “I'm the one that said [file] it,” and the case is being led by attorneys on his former campaign payroll. 

The lawsuit was written by Stanley Woodward, the department’s third highest official whose firm was paid $1.4 million by Trump’s political action committees for representing Trump’s co-defendant and key witnesses in the classified-documents case.

Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose firm made more than $10 million from Trump’s PACs for his work as Trump’s criminal-defense attorney, didn’t deny that his former client told him to file it in an interview on Face the Nation.

“I will not talk about communications I have with the president," Blanche told host Margaret Brennan, avoiding her question on Sunday. 

The governing law in this case seems to be straightforward, clearly pointing in favor of the Peltola campaign -- at this point. But that does not mean the matter is without possible complications, Klasfeld reports:

The Trump administration sued the same election administrators in Alaska who initially challenged the candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan, creating the possibility that both parties would effectively serve the same interests.

That’s why several parties have sought to intervene in the litigation, including registered voters, civil society groups, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Alaskans for Mary, which is Peltola’s official campaign entity.

“DOJ filed this lawsuit in the midst of the ongoing general election, less than two weeks before election day, raising issues governed exclusively by state law that were definitively resolved by the Alaska Supreme Court months ago,” Alaskans for Mary wrote in its most recent motion. “DOJ seeks an unprecedented order precluding certification of the U.S. Senate election if the candidate the President favors loses narrowly.” 

Trump's successful effort to ensure the DOJ is populated with loyalists and sycophants, as opposed to the relatively competent and objective prosecutors who were present when he lost in 2020, probably will color the current case from beginning to end. Klasfeld writes:

After the 2020 presidential election, most attorneys from the Department of Justice refused to participate in Trump’s campaign of election subversion. Former DOJ employee Jeff Clark attempted to falsely announce that the Department was investigating allegedly “significant irregularities,” only to be rebuffed by higher-ups inside the agency. Clark’s participation in Trump’s attack on the election led disciplinary authorities to recommend his disbarment.

Now, the Justice Department is led by Trump’s former attorneys and allies.

The Civil Division chief Harmeet Dhillon, one of Trump’s 2020 campaign lawyers, filed lawsuits from coast to coast seeking to seize sensitive voter-roll information, only to suffer 27 consecutive defeats in the federal courts.

The Ninth Circuit appears equally likely to dismiss the Trump Justice Department’s attempt to disqualify 20,000 ballots in California by claiming — without evidence — that they were sent to “likely” noncitizens. A three-judge panel dominated by Trump appointees suggested that they were unlikely to intervene.

In the lower court, the California ballot lawsuit is pending before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, the first judge to have found that Trump likely committed federal crimes during his 2020 election subversion. In 2022, Judge Carter found that the crime-fraud exception overcame any privilege Trump may have had with now-disbarred attorney John Eastman.

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Judge Carter wrote at the time. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law-enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.” 

Political tension hangs over the Alaska case, along with the very real threat of violence that has come to mark U.S. campaigns and elections -- an ever-present reminder of an intensely divided electorate. Klasfeld writes:

In 2020, the blizzard of lawsuits by Trump and his allies failed in court, but they fueled more radical attacks on the election later, including the attempted intimidation of state administrators, the false elector scheme and the Jan. 6 insurrection.

When asked directly by CNN’s Dana Bash whether Trump’s lawsuits were setting the stage for more political violence by his supporters, Blanche laughed off the question. But the threat of violence is real.

The Brennan Center’s survey this year found that 14 percent of election officials reported receiving threats as of this past February. Trump has escalated his misinformation campaign since that time with the full backing of government attorneys under his control.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Louise Gleason, an Obama appointee, hasn’t yet indicated whether she will fast-track the case in time to potentially dismiss the Alaska litigation before Election Day.  

House Democrats' report is filled with examples of Trump DOJ unlawfully withholding or covering up information about the president's ties to Jeffrey Epstein

(CSR Journal, Facebook)

House Democrats' release of a report about Donald Trump's ties to notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein raises a host of questions for Americans to consider as they prepare to vote next Tuesday in midterm elections. But Popular Information (PI), an independent newsletter founded and primarily written and edited by well-known progressive journalist Judd Legum, reports that the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to hide a significant amount of information about the Trump-Epstein nexus. The Dems report is a step toward possible justice for Epstein victims and a sign that the American public might finally learn critical details about a shadowy relationship that likely has shaped Trump's public life since he entered electoral politics by launching a campaign for the 2000 presidential nomination with the Reform Party 

Perhaps the most telling line in the Democrats' report is this: The report alleges that “Trump has lied about the nature and extent of his relationship with Epstein dozens of times.” Trump's propensity to lie, and his appointment of two incompetent and compromised attorneys general (Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche) to lead the DOJ has ensured the public's knowledge of what went on between Trump and Epstein -- plus the nature of the abuse they allegedly inflicted on women and girls (some in the 13-16 age range, maybe younger) -- remains well short of complete.

Are we closer now to having the blindfolds removed from our eyes and perhaps seeking accountability for perpetrators who are alleged to have engaged in horrific acts of savagery, including rape, child sexual abuse, and maybe much more? The answer on both fronts appears to be yes. But Popular Information, under the headline "The rape allegations against Trump: what we know and what is still being hidden; a report from House Judiciary Committee Democrats contains new details about the Trump-Epstein relationship -- and an alleged cover-up," tells us we still have quite a ways to go. Rebecca Crosby and Noel Sims write:

On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Democrats released a new staff report about President Trump’s alleged relationship with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The report details allegations involving 11 women, including five of whom accuse “Trump of rape or sexual assault in Jeffrey Epstein’s close company or presence.”

The report is based on interviews conducted by Judiciary Committee staff, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records, released documents, and survivor accounts. While the majority of the allegations included in the report were already public, it includes a new allegation that Trump raped a young model at a 1993 pageant.

“The report concludes that, based on the available evidence and witness testimony, Trump and Paolo Zampolli—who until recently served as a senior Trump Administration official and diplomat—may have been co-conspirators in Jeffrey Epstein’s conspiracy to traffic and abuse young women in the 1990s,” a press release states. 

Why has it been difficult to get to the truth about a relationship that might have influenced many of Trump's actions on the world stage? House Dems are not shy about addressing that question. From the PI article:

The report alleges that “Trump has lied about the nature and extent of his relationship with Epstein dozens of times.” For example, Trump has claimed that he kicked Epstein out of his club at Mar-a-Lago. But according to the report, members of Congress reviewed a 2009 document that reveals that Trump “stated unequivocally that Epstein ‘was never asked to leave’ Mar-a-Lago.” The file is redacted in public documents. Trump has also denied ever being on Epstein’s plane, but files show that Trump is listed on the plane’s flight logs “at least eight different times” throughout the 1990s.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are now asking for a new independent investigation. The report calls for an independent special counsel to be appointed to investigate potential co-conspirators.

Why is such a step necessary? House Dems make it clear that Trump ignores longstanding U.S. norms and rules that are supposed to keep a wall of independence between the White House and the DOJ, ensuring the president generally is not consulted regarding charging or non-charging decisions. To make the situation even more dicey, Trump has installed loyalists throughout the DOJ, who often act as his personal attorney rather than as objective prosecutors. Democrats, however, have vowed to launch new investigations on Trump-Epstein matters if they regain power after the midterm elections. Crosby and Sims write:

A press release argues that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) “conflict of interest and obstruction make clear that Trump’s appointees cannot be trusted to pursue accountability.” The report alleges that the DOJ “actively obstructed the Epstein investigation into any co-conspirators, attempted to prevent the release of the Epstein files, and then released an incomplete and heavily redacted set to the public.”

The report also reveals that documents in the Epstein files allege that Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was deputy attorney general at the time, “likely knew about certain survivors’ claims against” Trump when he interviewed Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. According to a transcript, Blanche, on at least three occasions, “directed Maxwell not to discuss” an individual whose report to the FBI implicated Trump, but whose allegations were not yet public. The report alleges that by doing so, Blanche “may have engaged in criminal obstruction of justice.”

“The bottom line: there is more than sufficient evidence to launch a criminal investigation,” the report states.

“The women who survived Epstein deserve to be heard, Congress must have the complete files required by law, and an independent special counsel must investigate Epstein’s co-conspirators and DOJ’s cover-up and ensure that state and foreign prosecutors have the evidence they need to pursue justice,” Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said.

The White House has denied the allegations laid out in the new report. “None of these allegations are true. This ‘report’ is nothing more than a desperate attempt by crazed Democrats to distract Americans from the surging Republican momentum driven by President Trump’s historic achievements,” a White House spokesperson told NBC News.

One of the most important developments this year came in February when NPR reported under the headline "Justice Department removed, withheld Epstein files related to Trump. From that report:

The Justice Department has withheld some Epstein files related to allegations that President Trump sexually abused a minor, an NPR investigation finds. It also removed some documents from the public database where accusations against Jeffrey Epstein also mention Trump.

Some files have not been made public despite a law mandating their release. These include what appear to be more than 50 pages of FBI interviews, as well as notes from conversations with a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago when she was a minor.

NPR reviewed multiple sets of unique serial numbers appearing before and after the pages in question, stamped onto documents in the Epstein files database, FBI case records, emails and discovery document logs in the latest tranche of documents published at the end of January. NPR's investigation found dozens of pages that appear to be catalogued by the Justice Department but not shared publicly.

House Democrats' notion that the Trump DOJ cannot be trusted clearly is based in reality. New allegations against Trump, from a Swiss beauty-pageant contestant, receive front-and-center treatment in the House Dems' report. Crosby and Sims write at Popular Information:

The report reveals new allegations against Trump from Beatrice Keul, a former Swiss model who participated in the Donald J. Trump American Dream Pageant in 1993 at age 24. 

According to an interview she gave to committee staff, both Trump and Epstein introduced themselves to Keul when she arrived and promised to take care of things like her travel and education. Keul said Trump told her “I will take care of you” several times. So, when a Trump representative asked her to come to his room later in the day, she assumed he was following up on his promises to get her a visa and a New York University education. 

Instead, Keul alleges that Trump raped her in a “brutal” assault that left her bleeding and covered in bruises. She said she went through the rest of the pageant in a “daze” because her passport had been taken from her and she did not want to raise alarms. After the pageant, she got her passport back and returned to Switzerland. She declined to participate in another Trump-sponsored pageant a few weeks later, but Trump called her and repeated his offer to take care of her.

In 2024, Keul told a different version of this story to the Daily Mail. At the time, she said when she arrived in Trump’s room, he “jumped” on her and began “grabbing and touching” her, but that ultimately she was able to hold him off. “I’m very tall, that’s what helped me a lot,” Keul said to the Daily Mail. The report does not say why Keul changed her story. It also does not end with the Keul story, Popular Information reports:

The report also includes the stories of four other women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. 

Stacey Williams, a swimsuit model who dated Epstein in the early 1990s, has accused Trump of groping her when she and Epstein visited Trump’s office in 1993. According to CNN, three friends of Williams have separately confirmed that she told them about the incident, which Williams later described as “trophy hunting” for the two men. 

Jill Harth, who recruited young models for Trump’s pageants, filed a lawsuit against Trump in 1997 claiming that he had “forcibly kissed, fondled, and restrained” her at a Mar-a-Lago party in 1993 when she was 31. The lawsuit also claimed that the same year, Trump had demanded Harth provide him with access to an 18-year-old contestant “whom Trump referred to as a ‘sex object.’” Harth’s lawsuit was resolved as a part of a settlement by Trump in a separate contractual suit brought against him by Harth’s then-partner.  

A woman identified by the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2016 accusing him of raping and sexually abusing her in 1994 at a party hosted by Epstein when she was 13 years old. According to DOJ documents, Johnson “was asked to strip down to her underwear and give a massage to Epstein” and “massage the penis of Epstein’s guest, Trump, with her hands.” Johnson later dropped the suit.  

In 2019, a woman described as Jane Doe 4 came to the FBI with claims that in 1983, when she was 13 or 14 years old, she “bit [Trump] while performing oral sex” and that he “hit [her] in the face after she laughed about biting [him].” 

Although Jane Doe 4’s claims have not been substantiated, the report alleges that the DOJ may be “still withholding a huge number of documents related to the allegations,” stating that the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier reported that it had reviewed FBI agents’ notes that contained new details about Jane Doe 4’s interview, but that those notes have been withheld by the DOJ for being “duplicative.” 

The House Dems' report is rife with information that points to the untrustworthy nature of the Trump DOJ. Crosby and Sims write:

In addition to these five women who claim to have been abused by Trump, the report also details the accounts of three Epstein survivors who believe that Trump participated in Epstein’s crimes.

Maria Farmer, a former assistant to Epstein who was abused by him, has said that on one occasion she went to meet Epstein in his office and Trump approached her there. But Epstein told Trump, “No, no. She’s not here for you,” before taking Trump to a different room. Farmer believed that there was a different young woman in that room waiting for Trump. She has said that she urged authorities to look into Trump decades ago. According to the report, Farmer’s “reports to FBI appear to be unlawfully omitted from the files released by DOJ pursuant to” the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA).

DOJ documents released under the EFTA detail other concerning incidents involving Trump. In one case, Trump was accused of agreeing with Epstein that one of Epstein’s victims, who was 14 at the time, was a “good one.” In another instance, a Jane Doe described how she was introduced to Trump by Maxwell and felt she was being offered to him for sex. She recalled Maxwell saying “things like, ‘Oh I think he likes you. Aren’t you lucky. This is great.’” 

The report provides three additional examples of women who seemed to have connections to Trump and Epstein. The first woman, Lauren Petrella, has never made accusations against Trump herself, but Harth’s lawsuit claimed that he sexually assaulted her. The other two women, Jane Does 5 and 6, spent time with Trump and Epstein during the 1990s, but have not accused Trump of any wrongdoing.

House Democrats' report raises new questions about Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein, calling for appointment of a special counsel to lead investigation

(Forbes, Facebook, Getty)

With midterm elections one week away, Americans face many questions about the future of their government. The most important question, in my view, took over the top spot in our internal survey just yesterday. It goes like this: Do I want to support the political party that has enabled our current president, Donald J. Trump, to be repeatedly and credibly accused of unspeakable crimes -- rape, child sexual abuse, and perhaps much more -- all the while consorting and perhaps conspiring with notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who pled guilty to prostitution-related offenses in Florida and was charged with federal sex-trafficking crimes in New York, where he died in prison under mysterious circumstances on August 10, 2019. 

The unpleasant questions Americans might ask themselves do not stop there. Consider these: Do I believe the Republican Party deserves my support, despite growing signs that its members have unlawfully covered up evidence that makes Watergate look like a child's birthday party, with Trump making Richard Nixon -- once considered our most devious president ever -- look like an Eagle Scout? Has our country been led for almost six years by a pedophile who appears to have acted on his worst urges, who seems to have committed acts of child sexual abuse that push us to the grotesque edges of our imaginations -- to places we do not want to go? And this pedophile has been representing the United States on the world stage, often under the most serious and somber occasions? If I supported this man in the past, perhaps blindly, have I been a pedophile protector? Is it time for others like me -- and I am sure there are many who fit that description -- to let the scales fall from our eyes, allow the courts to play their role, and have this president and perhaps dozens of his Republican allies -- if convicted of these apparent crimes -- sent to prison for appropriate terms? Are these steps necessary to allow our country to rebuild our democracy while we still have one?

Obviously these will be weighty elections next Tuesday, unlike any our country ever has faced. So what happened yesterday that led us to this place? A jointly published article at TIME and Yahoo! News provides one of the best overviews of yesterday's activities I've seen. Under the headline "New details of rape allegation against Trump revealed in House Democrats Epstein Report," Phillip Wang writes:

A woman who had accused President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in 1993 described it to congressional staff as rape and said the interaction left her bleeding and bruised, according to a report released Monday by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee examining Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Beatrice Keul, a model and former Miss Switzerland, alleged to Judiciary Committee staff that she was raped by Trump in a Plaza Hotel suite in Manhattan when she was 24. Keul said that while attending the American Dream Pageant, which had a partnership with Trump, she met with Trump at a press luncheon at the event.

Trump, according to Keul, promised to arrange her visa in the U.S. and ensure her acceptance into New York University through his friend Paolo Zampolli, a close Trump ally who was, until earlier this month, part of his Administration. At the same event, she also spent at least 10 minutes talking to Epstein who she said claimed to have organized "many parties with Don."

Keul's accusations stand out in the Epstein matter because they have her interacting with Trump and Epstein in roughly the same time frame. They also differ from other accounts because Keul was 24 years old at the time of the alleged assault, as opposed to reports that involve much younger victims. The report includes accounts involving victims in the 13-16 age range, and we will have more on those cases in upcoming posts.Wang writes:

Later that day, Keul alleges, Trump invited her to a hotel suite where Trump "grabbed Keul from behind and forcibly raped her," causing "bleeding and bruising on multiple parts of her body," the report says. Following the incident, Keul alleges Trump made her promise she would keep quiet and repeated his promise for visa and college admission. 

Because Keul's passport had been taken from her on her arrival, she was not able to leave the contest following the incident, she alleges, according to the report. After she returned to Switzerland, she declined to participate in an additional Trump-sponsored pageant in Hawaii several weeks later.

TIME has been unable to independently verify details of Keul's account.

How did the Trump administration react to the report? A spokesperson essentially brushed it off as a political stunt by "crazed Democrats," TIME reports:

In a statement, the White House denies the allegations and says that President Trump has been "fully exonerated of anything related to Epstein." "This 'report' is nothing more than a desperate attempt by crazed Democrats to distract Americans from the surging Republican momentum driven by President Trump's historic achievements," White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis says.

The actions ascribed to Trump in the report could accurately be called "historic," coming from a U.S. president. But I'm not sure many Americans would see them as "achievements." Given Trump's sagging approval ratings, it's not clear the source of "momentum" to which the White House refers.  Will voters come to think their president and his staffers are leveling with them? It's hard to see how, given that a spokesperson seems to have blown off not only the Keul allegations but others in the report that describe additional savage acts by Trump. Wang writes:

Keul has previously spoken in public about her sexual assault allegations against Trump, but the report provided new details of the alleged rape—as well as reviewing similar accounts of other Trump accusers.

In addition to Keul's account, the report also compiled allegations from four other women who have directly accused Trump of rape or sexual assault in connection with the Epstein investigation. The allegations, spanning from the mid-1980s to the 1990s, had all been previously made public either through media interviews or FBI testimony released as part of the Epstein files.

The report's release, just over a week before Election Day, comes as Democrats are working to signal to voters how they will make use of their power if they gain control of one or both chambers of Congress. 

On Monday, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee, called on the Department of Justice to appoint an independent special counsel to oversee the investigation of allegations mentioned in the report. So far, Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein confidant, is the only person to have been convicted of sex trafficking of minors in connection with the Epstein case. 

"An independent special counsel must investigate Epstein's co-conspirators and DOJ's cover-up and ensure that state and foreign prosecutors have the evidence they need to pursue justice," Raskin said in a statement. 

Todd Blanche loses his cool under tough questioning on Alaska election lawsuit, and legal experts pan the case as having 'no realistic chance of success in courts"

(Purple Room Politics, Facebook)

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche had a tough day on the Sunday morning news programs, even calling a CNN journalist "crazy" for suggesting Donald Trump's efforts to intervene in an Alaska U.S. Senate race could lead to another Jan. 6.

Here is what's really crazy: That the nation's top law-enforcement officer doesn't seem to know the U.S. Consitution places control over Congressional elections with the states, not the federal government. It's right there in Article 1, Section 4 for anyone who wants to check. In press reports about the Sunday news show, Blanche several times let language slip that indicates he really does know the law. But it appears his strategy is to act dumb in case a "doomsday scenario" plays out -- meaning Democrats take back both houses of Congress -- causing Trump to panic and demand that Blanche and his underlings tie the case up in court for who knows how long.

Blanche gave the distinct impression on Sunday that he is thinking ahead, and given his boss is the mercurial Trump, that's probably a wise move. We must hope that Americans have seen Blanche's slippery act enough to know that he is one of the most lawless, disingenuous characters to ever slither onto the  political stage. Heck, he makes his predecessor, Pam Bondi, look like John Adams by comparison.

How did Blanche fare under the white-hot lights of the Sunday morning studios? The UK Guardian provides insights under the headline "Blanche defends DOJ's pre-emptive suit to block Alaska Senate results certification; US attorney general calls CNN 'crazy' for suggesting Trump's attempts to overturn election could lead to January 6 repeat. Victoria Bekiempis writes:

Todd Blanche, Donald Trump’s attorney general, lashed out during an interview on Sunday while defending the justice department’s pre-emptive lawsuit to block certification of Alaska’s US Senate results if the GOP incumbent loses, calling a TV host’s question “crazy”.

The testy repartee unfolded on CNN’s State of the Union over the DOJ’s unprecedented legal action, which alleges that there could be “voter confusion” due to two candidates named Dan Sullivan on Alaska’s ballot. Trump told reporters, “I’m the one that said do it” when asked about the suit. Dana Bash, State of the Union host, said “one of the big questions is whether or not “Trump tries to overturn the election, and the result of that could be, God forbid, what we saw after January 6”.

“Oh, stop it,” Blanche said. “Oh, you got to stop it with that. You are not being a real person. Come on, man.

“That is crazy!”

Bash said, “it is not crazy.”

“I would have said that before January 6,” Bash said, referring to election-denying Trump supporters’ shocking attack on the Capitol. A bipartisan Senate report said there were seven deaths in relation to this incident.

Is Blanche admitting that the actions of Trump and his supporters on Jan. 6 were crazy? That's how it sounds to me. If they already have acted crazy once regarding an election, why wouldn't Dana Bash, or anyone else, suspect they might do it again?"

This is the point in the story where Blanche starts dropping hints that he might not be as ignorant of the law as he sometimes sounds. Bekiempis writes:

“Because the president, because the Department of Justice, is concerned that there is an absolute fraud happening in Alaska, and he wants to do something about it, you’re saying, Mr Attorney General, because the president of the United States wants to stop a fraud and confusion in Alaska, is he going to do something crazy? That is not, that is not a real question.” (This is example No. 1 of Blanche suggesting that Trump has no authority to act in an area of law reserved for states.)

“We’re not laying any groundwork for the president to do that,” a fiery Blanche insisted. “What I said is the groundwork that we are laying is for Alaska, for the state of Alaska.” (Here, Blanche suggests that he knows this is an issue for the state of Alaska, not the feds.)

“If it becomes an issue after the election, we’ll have the ability to determine whether there was confusion that violates the law in determining who the senators should be.” (What law is he talking about here? It would likely be a state law in a situation where feds are required to butt out. This appears to be a case of Blanche slithering back to his slippery ways, which seem to come second nature to him.)

Dana Bash was not the only tough inquisitor that Blanche encountered Sunday. Margaret Brennan was waiting for him at CBS News' Face the Nation. Bekiempis writes:

Blanche also appeared irked during an interview with Margaret Brennan on CBS’s Face the Nation after she summed up the litigation and asked whether Trump directed him to file suit.

“Well first of all, let me correct you, OK,” Blanche said. “You described facts that were just simply either at best misleading, but really a lie to your viewers."

While Trump’s DoJ has claimed there might be “voter confusion” on Alaskan ballots, potentially propelling Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola to victory, election experts maintain that this position is legally weak. 

“The legal claim is so absurdly thin, there’s essentially no likelihood of success,” said DeDerek Mueller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, in a blog post.

Another expert, David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said this suit marked “an unprecedented intervention by the federal government” and noted that Alaska’s courts had “fully litigated” this issue.

The lawsuit, Becker said, “raises serious concerns about political interference” and that he could not remember “ever attempting to stop the certification of an election – and certainly not 11 days before polls close.”  

Richard H Pildes, a law professor at New York University who focuses on elections, told The New York Times: “It is one of the weakest election lawsuits I’ve ever seen.”

“It should have no realistic chance of success in the courts,” Pildes said.