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. 

Three men say U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (D-SC) paid them for sex, and one of them was 17 years old at the time; the story unfolds in "The CLOSETocracy," a documentary by The Young Turks

(Mississippi Television, Facebook)

Three men claim that the late U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) paid them for sex, according to a report at The Advocate magazine, which focuses on news, politics, opinion, and arts/entertainment of interest to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, queer (LGBTQ) community. One of the men claims he was 17 years old when Graham paid him for sex. Under the headline "Lindsey Graham opposed LGBTQ+ rights. Three men say he paid them for sex; one participant said he was 17 during an alleged encounter, Christopher Wiggins writes:

Three sex workers allege in a documentary released Thursday that the late Sen. Lindsey Graham paid them for sex, including one who says he was 17 and that Graham questioned his age before continuing the encounter.

Among the participants is Cory Burns, an adult film performer known professionally as Sean Harding. His 2020 social media posts helped propel the “Lady G” allegations into public view, drawing attention to claims that Graham hired male escorts while opposing LGBTQ+ rights.

The CLOSETocracy, released by The Young Turks and Swamp Watch Studios, presents the accounts alongside Graham’s legislative record. Participants accuse him of privately seeking sexual encounters with people whose rights he opposed in public office.

Young Turks host Cenk Uygur wrote online this week:

The documentary we’re releasing tomorrow on our YouTube channel, The Closetocracy, is about a gay, closeted US senator. The issue isn’t someone’s sexuality, but there is a serious national security issue. One of the incidents was highly illegal - and on tape!

Independent journalist Roger Sollenberger addressed the documentary on X and wrote "just got a sneak peak at this thing. I gotta say pretty compelling stuff here." The 29-minute CLOSETocracy documentary can be viewed at The Young Turks YouTube page. A direct link to the film is available by clicking here.

Charlotte Hazard, of The National News Desk (TNND), writes:

The documentary,titled “The CLOSETocracy,” interviews three different men who claim they had sex with Graham.

Graham died in July following an aortic dissection at the age of 71.

He served as a U.S. South Carolina senator for more than 30 years. After his death, his sister, Darline Graham, was appointed to his seat -- backed by President Donald Trump.

During one part of the documentary, a reporter follows Darline and asks about rumors regarding her late brother and gay escorts.

“I’m not even gonna entertain that question,” she said in response.

As for The Advocate, Wiggins writes that the magazine has not independently verified the documentary’s allegations. It contacted Sen. Darline Graham’s office for comment and also reached out to Burns. It has not yet received responses. Lindsey Graham, who died July 11 at 71, publicly denied being gay during his lifetime. 

One conservative media figure seemed unperturbed by the film's release. Andrew Kolvet said, "This is why we called him Lady Graham. This isn’t an October surprise, we’ve known this for years. And blaming his sister for the fact Lindsey was a poorly closeted gay man, is only going to backfire."

A liberal commentator saw it as a serious issue. Kareem Rifai is a political consultant, commentator, and Fulbright-award winning researcher who also leads campaign strategy at a political technology startup. He says: "Lindsey Graham was routinely hiring male sex workers -- including a minor whose story is detailed here for the first time -- while handling extremely sensitive national-security material.

"Meanwhile, Graham's sister, Darline, runs on his name while campaigning on anti-LGBT rhetoric."

Mississippi Television provides a solid overview of the film in a post at Facebook:

The documentary, titled "The Closetocracy," was released by The Young Turks on October 22 and features three men describing their alleged experiences with Graham.

One of the men claims Graham “wanted to be a little submissive to me and explore his kinky side.”

Another man, identified as Kelvin, claims he was just 17 years old during an alleged encounter in 2001 and was paid approximately $120. He also alleges that Graham wanted him to say he was 18.

A third man, identified as Cory, claims he received $1,500 for an alleged encounter at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., in November 2015. 

The allegations have sparked controversy because Graham, who died in July 2026, spent much of his political career opposing LGBTQ+ rights legislation, including same-s*x marriage protections.

The documentary is now generating widespread discussion online, with people questioning Graham’s public political positions compared with the private conduct alleged by the men.

The allegations have not been independently verified, and there is no publicly established evidence confirming that the encounters occurred. 

FDR's decision to side with Britain and not the Nazis gave Americans a country where freedom could thrive; Trump and Putin seem determined to undo all of that

(Amazon)

“Imagine if in 1943 FDR had decided that the U.S. would stop helping Britain and instead would side with the Third Reich. That’s a bit like what President Trump is now doing by cozying up to Russia as it tries to destroy Ukraine. Utterly shameful. A humiliating moment for the U.S.”—Nicholas Kristof, opinion columnist, New York Times

Kristof, one of the most prominent editorial voices in America, has created a hypothetical that raises harrowing implications many Americans probably have never even imagined. I know I haven't, and perhaps that's because the proposed scenario is so frightening that it is almost beyond the imagination. Why is that? My best guess is that, for those of us born in the post-World War II era, it suggests an upending of the only reality we have ever known. 

It becomes even more disturbing when Kristof suggests something similar is going on now, thanks to President Donald Trump and his new bestie, Vladimir Putin. 

This all comes to mind because I just visited the Horton-Kaiser Report, where Charles Kaiser analyzes the Kristof scenario. I started this endeavor with the hope Kaiser would write something that might ease my scrambled psyche, at least a little. Instead, he took the idea a step further, concluding that Trump's actions were more than "a bit" like the imagined Franklin D. Roosevelt switcheroo of 1943. 

What do I mean? Let's take a look at Kaiser's piece under the headline "Score one for Nick Kristof." In his first sentence, Kaiser makes it clear that, in his view, Kristof did not go far enough in comparing Trump's actions of today to a nightmarish revision of the 20th century, one that would overturn what veteran journalist Tom Nichols has called "the Western order, the most successful -- and powerful security arrangement in human history."

In other words, Trump isn't engaging in minor tampering, making a few tweaks. He seems determined to undermine a setup that, rightly or wrongly, gave many Americans the sense that they came of age in a relatively safe world. Now, it seems, Trump and Putin want to ensure future generations never know a remotely safe world.

Let's return to Charles Kaiser's piece, where we learn that, if you and I think Trump is dreadful (and I hope we all do), Kaiser apparently thinks he is worse, writing:

Actually, it (what Kristof envisions) is exactly what Trump is doing right now. His decision to block missile shipments to Ukraine at the exact moment when Russia was losing its ghastly war is more shameful and more shameless than any other presidential act in my lifetime.

It’s also the most blatant confirmation yet of the thesis of David Corn’s essential new book, How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and the Fight for America. The blood of all Ukrainians is on the hands of every Republican senator and congressman who remains silent in the face of their president’s extraordinary treason.