NY Times report on White House efforts to cover up ties to Jeffrey Epstein portrays Todd Blanche as a Trump butt sniffer with no regard for the rule of law

Todd Blanche: The ultimate Trump loyalist (Politico)

The New York Times' explosive account of White House insiders frenzied efforts to keep Donald Trump's connections to dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein under wraps might have cost one of those insiders a job he apparently craves. That's from a report at Raw Story under the headline "Todd Blanche may have torpedoed his own AG nomination with Epstein stunt: analysis." Nicole Charky-Chami writes:

A damning New York Times report released on Wednesday raised new concerns about Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and his involvement with the Epstein files.

Blanche has come under fire over his role in "attempting to kill off the Epstein firestorm," just days after President Donald Trump formally nominated his former personal lawyer for permanent attorney general, The Daily Beast reports. Now, doubts are being raised over whether he could be the top leader of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing — and whether he could maintain his independence.

"Opponents argue he is not fit for the job, pointing to his handling of the Epstein files, which identified numerous victims but kept the names of potential co-conspirators hidden, as well as other controversies, such as Trump’s $1.8 billion 'anti-weaponization' slush fund and the backroom deal giving the president immunity from continuing IRS audits," The Beast reported.

Opponents are correct that Blanche is not fit for the job. Also, it should be obvious to anyone who has paid close attention to Blanche's actions as acting AG that the answers to Charky-Chami's queries are "No, he cannot be an objective leader of the DOJ" and "No, he has no intention of maintaining any sort of independence."

Blanche has proven to be the ultimate political animal in the Trump universe; he is an uber loyalist, who if confirmed, will focus on only one task -- to make sure the president's directives are carried out ASAP. By bringing an indictment against former FBI director James Comey for photographing seashells on a North Carolina beach, Blanche has shown there is no depth to which he won't stoop in order to punish the people Trump perceives as enemies. Quaint concepts like due process, the rule of law, and prosecutorial independence will not factor into any equation Blanche employs for the AG job. The only equation Blanche will need is this: Puckering lips + Trump's butt = MAGAfied glory.

Let's consider the oath a Senate-confirmed AG swears before taking office:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Can Todd Blanche be expected to take these words seriously? Can Trump be expected to follow the Constitutional command that he "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed"? The answer to both questions is no. 

We addressed obligations facing an AG and a president in a post dated Feb. 17, 2025, less than one month after Trump took office for his second term. Here is one relevant section from that post:

Donald Trump and his allies are plotting to prosecute President Joe Biden if Trump wins the November election, according to a report from Axios. After months of Congressional inquiries, no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden has surfaced, so it is unclear what would form the basis of a Trump-fueled prosecution. But this much appears to be clear: Trump apparently wants to prosecute Biden because he believes Biden had him prosecuted -- even though Trump has offered no evidence to support that claim. One prominent legal analyst has stated that Biden did not have Trump prosecuted and could not have done so. Those matters come down to grand jurors.

Also, the Axios report suggests Trump has no problem violating roughly 40 years of U.S. policy that holds the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is to operate independently of the White House -- that presidents are not prosecutors, and they are to be excluded from decisions to charge or not charge suspected wrongdoers. . . . 

Here is another relevant section from that post, and it should be familiar to both Trump and Blanche. We've seen no evidence that either of them takes it seriously:

Trump can't resist exerting demands on the DOJ, mainly because he is desperate to extract revenge on his perceived political opponents. But that runs contrary to longstanding U.S. policy, as spelled out in the DOJ's Justice Manual. This is from Section 1-8.600 - Communication with the White House:

In order to promote and protect the norms of Departmental independence and integrity in making decisions regarding criminal and civil law enforcement, while at the same time preserving the President’s ability to perform his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the Justice Department will not advise the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal or civil law enforcement investigations or cases unless doing so is important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.

Charky-Chami notes that The Times article portrays Blanche in a highly unfavorable light. Assuming large numbers of Americans consume and digest that message, the newspaper will have done a significant public service. From the Raw Story report:

The bombshell reporting from Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan is part of an upcoming book and includes multiple revelations about what happened within the Trump administration and includes Blanche's involvement as the then-deputy attorney general under former Attorney General Pam Bondi.

"Blanche and other Trump aides—including Vice President JD Vance, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Communications Director Steven Cheung and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt—held a panicked meeting in the Situation Room in July last year, desperate to quell the MAGA civil war that had erupted over the administration’s failure to release the Epstein files," according to The Beast.

In the meeting, Blanche reportedly offered two potential options.

"The first was to petition Federal District Courts in Florida and New York to unseal grand jury testimonies related to Jeffrey Epstein’s heinous sex trafficking crimes, as these were unlikely to contain any new information, and therefore, releasing them was unlikely to damage Trump," The Beast reported.

Blanche probably knew that getting a federal judge to unseal grand jury material would be a tough move, The Beast reported.

"The second option was to have a Justice Department official interview Epstein’s accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, and release the transcript," according to The Beast.

Blanche apparently volunteered to sit down with Maxwell. He has described her attorney, David Oscar Markus, as "a friend." 

The White House and the Epstein files: New York Times rocks D.C. with an inside account of frenzied efforts to keep Trump's ties to pedophile under wraps

(The New York Times)

The talk of the political and journalism worlds is yesterday's release of a New York Times story about the Trump administration's panicked reaction to threats posed by the Epstein files. The headline alone provides a compelling summation of the article's content and import: "Inside the White House freakout over the Epstein files; The president's top advisers gathered in a series of Situation Room meetings as they struggled to contain a scandal engulfing Donald Trump himself."

The Times story is by White House reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, who are authors of the forthcoming Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump. Yesterday's article was drawn from reporting for that book, which is scheduled for release on June 23, 2026.

Here is one question The Times report brings immediately to mind: Why were White House staffers in a frantic state if, as Trump claimed in an article at MS NOW, he "had nothing to do" with Epstein, and wasn't "friendly with Jeffrey Epstein."

MS NOW's Steve Benen notes that Trump's claims about the limited nature of his relationship with Epstein were contrary to earlier statements from Trump that he found Epstein to be a "terrific guy" who is "a lot of fun to be with." They also are contrary to video clips that show the two men scoping out young women on a dance floor at Mar-a-Lago, with Trump saying something that caused Epstein to double over in laughter. Benen could only conclude that Trump's claims about a distant relationship with Epstein were "obviously untrue," adding they were "an odd and unnecessary misstep."

I could only reach a similar conclusion about the frenzied nature of White House meetings on the Epstein files. It seems clear that White House staffers knew Trump and Epstein had been close -- with Trump admitting at one point that he had known the financier for 15 years -- and staffers likely knew that such closeness to a convicted sex trafficker could pose an existential threat to the Trump presidency. 

Reporting on The Times' story and forthcoming book will not be going away anytime soon. In fact, several news outlets already have published summaries of what they consider the most fascinating, alarming, consequential or dishy portions of The Times' account. We will be examining those analyses in upcoming posts, but let's start with The Times own "highlight reel," which the paper published under the headline "Six Takeaways From the Story of How the Epstein Files Paralyzed the White House; Senior officials clashed in a series of meetings as they struggled to manage a crisis over the president's refusal to release the documents."

The highlights begin with an introduction from reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan:

Last summer, as pressure mounted on the Trump administration to release material it held on Jeffrey Epstein, the president’s top advisers gathered in a series of meetings, many of them in the White House Situation Room — typically used during national-security crises — as they struggled to contain a scandal engulfing Donald Trump himself. The discussions included the vice president, JD Vance; the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche; and the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, among others.

The reporting, which documents many previously undisclosed conversations and conflicts, is drawn from our forthcoming book Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump. We discovered how the Epstein files consumed and often paralyzed the highest levels of the Trump administration, far more than the public knew.

Here are six takeaways from the article in The Times Magazine:

(1) The government’s national-security bunker became an Epstein war room.

As the calls for disclosure grew louder, Trump’s inner circle spent more and more time in the Situation Room, which became inseparable from the crisis — a guarded space used not to weigh a foreign threat but to steer the president around a political problem concerning a notorious dead pedophile. The officials knew that prominent people, including Trump, were named in the records of F.B.I. agents’ interview notes with witnesses, some of whom were Epstein’s victims. While many of the claims made in the notes were not corroborated evidence, releasing them was, for most of the president’s advisers, a nonstarter.

(2) The president wanted the whole thing buried.

Trump made clear to his aides that he had no interest in releasing anything related to Epstein. He snapped at anyone who raised the issue, and his staff mostly learned to avoid the subject in front of him. They were left to worry and plan among themselves. The president’s refusal to acknowledge that a crisis existed, let alone that it was growing, complicated every path his team wanted to take.

As The Wall Street Journal prepared a damaging article about his relationship with Epstein, the president tried to kill it. He called News Corp.’s chief executive; its owner, Rupert Murdoch; and the paper’s editor in chief, Emma Tucker. The president, practically shouting as he threatened to sue, told Tucker, who is British, that she must “hate America.” When his efforts to stop the article failed and his advisers settled on a limited gesture of transparency, the president went along grudgingly.

(3) Vice President JD Vance wanted to release all the files — even the unsubstantiated material about Trump.

Within the White House itself, no one was more vocal about releasing the Epstein material than the vice president. “This is a huge problem,” Vance told colleagues in the Situation Room. Others thought he appeared panicked about how the issue was splintering the MAGA coalition. Wiles would later describe the vice president to associates as an Epstein conspiracy theorist.

Vance pressed repeatedly for the administration to release everything — even unsubstantiated material about Trump — arguing that Congress would force the issue eventually and that getting ahead of it would earn the White House credit for transparency.

He floated the idea of enlisting Tucker Carlson to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator, in prison, and fretted to colleagues about how the crisis was alienating the young, low-propensity voters who had backed the Trump-Vance ticket in 2024. But the vice president’s suggestions were far from popular with the core Trump team, and most of them went unheeded.

(4) Expletive-laden blowups fractured the top of the Justice Department.

The lingering distrust between Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, and the F.B.I.’s top two officials — Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, then his deputy — exploded over the Epstein controversy. 

The day the Justice Department released a memo intended to put the Epstein matter to rest, Bongino marched into a daily meeting and erupted at Bondi. He and Patel told White House officials that Bondi should resign; at a later meeting, the two said they suspected that she had leaked damaging stories about them. When Wiles accused Bongino of a leak of his own, he stormed out of the Situation Room complex. Bongino privately warned associates that the Epstein crisis would become “President Trump’s Iran-contra.”

(5) Advisers found themselves having a surreal debate over an unverified allegation about Mr. Trump.

At an August meeting in the Situation Room, one of the president’s senior aides raised an uncorroborated and secondhand claim that had been made nearly a decade earlier, about Trump aggressively flicking and sucking a young woman’s nipples until they “looked incredibly painful.”

The claim about Trump had surfaced in 2024 in unsealed court filings from a civil suit unrelated to him, and when the matter was raised by another official, Vance argued for including this and many other accusations on the Justice Department’s website, saying that it would show maximum transparency and that Trump wouldn’t mind, given that he had been accused of worse. Wiles shut that down, saying the president would not, in fact, be fine with releasing it. One official later said it was “surreal” to be debating the nipple accusation in the White House Situation Room.

(6) More than a year later, the files were still damaging the president.

In late March 2026 — a full year into the White House efforts to manage the fiasco — a confidential memo from Trump’s pollster, Tony Fabrizio, summarized responses from focus groups conducted with voters earlier that month, in which the Epstein files ranked as the sixth most important political issue -- ahead of crime, the military and being pro-working class. The memo flagged the Epstein issue as "a real negative for some of these voters."

Maine Dems launch Graham Platner to a resounding primary victory, focusing on working-class issues while suggesting the GOP can't claim moral high ground while backing a convicted felon in Donald Trump

Graham Platner supporters celebrate his big primary victory (Bangor Daily News)

Democratic-Party insiders reportedly are fretting about the baggage Graham Platner has accumulated during the course of his run for a U.S. Senate seat from Maine. But if everyday Mainers are concerned, they did not show it yesterday as they went to the polls and gave Platner a runaway victory, setting up a much-anticipated November showdown with Republican incumbent Susan Collins -- in a matchup that could decide which party controls the Senate. 

As we reported yesterday, Maine Dems seem to consider Platner, a U.S. Marine veteran and oyster farmer, to be one of their own -- a plain-spoken "every man" who seems willing to take on the moneyed interests who have come to dominate the postmodern Republican Party. "He's just Maine," one observer said. "He sounds like Maine."

That noise we heard yesterday coming out of New England was the sound of Platner overwhelming his opponents. The Associated Press (AP) called the race at 8:23 p.m., with about 78 percent of ballots  counted and Platner holding 71.9 percent of the vote. Former Governor Janet Mills finished a distant second with 19.6 percent, followed by David Costello with 8.1 percent.

Both Mills and Costello have considerably more experience in electoral politics than Platner. But that did not seem to bother voters in Maine, where turnout was so strong that several towns started to run out of ballots and needed to have extras printed and delivered.

At least for one day, revelations about Platner's Nazi tattoo and his dubious conduct toward women appeared to be in the rearview mirror. Mainers now seem mainly interested in seeing Platner deliver on his message of supporting the interests of working families while putting oligarchs like Elon Musk in their place. It was Musk, of course, who used his billions to essentially buy a second term in the White House for Donald Trump. He even paid voters in Pennsylvania, and a state judge let him get away with it. Here is how one Mainer sees the Platner agenda:

Erin Oberson, a co-president of the Maine State Nurses Association/National Nurses United, which has endorsed Platner, says he is “a candidate who will represent the working class”—a determined advocate for Medicare for All and saving rural hospitals, for strong unions and pay equity, for taxing the rich and standing up to oligarchy."

In a joint report with Yahoo! published late last night, AP reported that Platner plans to focus on pocketbook issues, while also seeking redemption for mistakes he has made in his personal life:

Speaking to supporters in the small town where he was born, Platner, an oyster farmer and combat veteran, stressed a message of redemption as he promised to oust Collins. Democrats see the race as a prime opportunity to flip a GOP-held seat and a must-win as the party tries to claim control of the Senate in November.

Platner's expected win in the primary came after days of questions about his past personal conduct, particularly his relationships with women, that threatened to undermine enthusiasm on the left over his candidacy.

"If you believe, as I do, that we can change our politics and change our country, then you must also believe that people can change," Platner said during his acceptance speech in Blue Hill, a rural town where he was born, as the crowd cheered on. "And the reason I believe that is because I have lived it."

As voters look toward November's general election, Maine finds itself in a unique position, AP reports:

Maine is the only state with a competitive Senate race where voters supported Democrat Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in 2024. Collins is the only Republican senator from New England.

Platner, a progressive who had early support from Sen. Bernie Sanders, has said he plans to focus on economic issues such as housing and healthcare. He'll be facing one of the most powerful legislators in the Senate, and one of its few remaining moderate Republicans.

"Any of those who feel let down, or disappointed, or disillusioned, it is my job to earn your trust, faith and support, and I will spend every day of this campaign, and if I have the privilege, every day in the United States Senate doing exactly that," Platner said.

Maine, and the country, need a change in the United States Senate, Platner said. He called Collins "spineless":

"Susan Collins has never met a war she didn't like, she's been supporting endless wars since I was a teenager, and I know, I had to fight in two of them," Platner, a Marine and U.S. Army veteran, said. "[Collins and her friends] profited, and my friends died."

He also criticized Collins for voting alongside Trump, stressing she was a key vote in support of putting conservative judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"She has become just as spineless and corrupt as the establishment she now serves," Platner said, noting that Collins once promised to only serve two terms.

First elected in 1996, Collins has said her experience and key position as chair of the powerful appropriations committee are two reasons to send her back to the Senate.

"While others talk about revolution and division, Susan Collins is delivering for Maine communities by funding rural hospitals, supporting our shipbuilders and fishermen, improving infrastructure, expanding broadband, and strengthening public safety," said Collins' spokesperson, Shawn Roderick. "Maine people are practical. They care about whether their communities are stronger and their families are better off. That's exactly what Susan Collins is focused on every single day." 

As for Platner, AP reports that he wants to help ensure the middle class gets a fair shake:

Platner, 41, has focused his campaign on fighting the high costs he says hold down the middle class and said he got in the race to focus on income inequality. He had early support from progressive champions helping to boost his candidacy.

Are Maine Democrats willing to put issues of morality on the back burner for now in order to seek a more fair, balanced, and just society? One voter suggested her answer is yes, especially in the age of Trump:

Voter Annette Babcock, from Sullivan, said she's met Pastner a few times and likes that he's not an established politician. His recent controversies didn't dissuade her from supporting him. 

"The Republicans don't have much moral high ground to stand on . . . when Trump is a convicted felon," she said.

'He's just Maine He sounds like Maine': National Democrats might fret over Graham Platner's extensive baggage, but Maine Dems plan to stand by their man

(Instagram)

While national Democrats worry about the unsettling revelations surrounding U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner, Maine Democrats are expected to head for the polls in today's primary and stand by their man. That's the take-home message from John Nichols of The Nation, who spent last week traveling the state and interviewing its inhabitants about their hopes and expectations as the country's most watched June primary drew near.

When Mainers talk about Platner, Nichols found, it's not so much about policies or issues, messages or style. Instead, it's mostly about who the candidate is and where he is from. As one resident said, "He's just Maine. He sounds like Maine." To some outsiders, that might seem like an insular way to view a race that figures to have national implications. But Platner, who grew up in Sullivan -- a town of 1,219 residents (as of the 2020 census) on Maine's Upper Schoodic Peninsula -- is a Mainer through and through. One senses that the residents who spoke with Nichols see Platner as a local boy who they want to help make good. 

Nichols' dispatch was published yesterday under the headline "Graham Platner is about to find out whether Mainers really have his back; Voters, not DC insiders, will determine whether the Senate candidate is credible and viable." Nichols opens with the thoughts of a woman named Corinn Keblinsky, who was attending a Platner campaign event in Bar Harbor, Maine:

Corinn Keblinsky surveyed the crowd of Graham Platner backers that had packed this town’s historic Criterion Theatre on the Friday night before Maine Democratic primary voters will send the first tangible signal regarding the fate of Platner’s US Senate candidacy.

Keblinsky, an accountant from Standish, Maine, said she was more interested in the verdict that will be rendered Tuesday by the people seated around her—and by voters across the state—than in the pronouncements from pundits and politicians in Washington.

Like everyone who pays attention to politics in Maine, Keblinsky was well aware of an increasingly frenzied national debate about Platner, the 41-year-old Marine veteran and oyster farmer turned US Senate candidate whose controversial past has dominated cable news shows and newspaper front pages in recent days. And she was frustrated by the national coverage. “It’s out of control,” she said. “They’re all talking about Maine, but they don’t know Maine.”

This was a common theme among Mainers I spoke with last week in Bar Harbor, Blue Hill, Bangor, and other communities around the state. While Platner is facing a firestorm from national commentators—some who see reports on Platner’s sexting, since covered-up Totenkopf tattoo, and “toxic” relationships as “disqualifying,” and others who simply worry that a weakened Platner might fail to dislodge Republican US Senator Susan Collins in November and upend Democratic prospects for retaking the Senate—the candidate maintains substantial support in the state, where his campaign literature declares: “Maine First. Maine Always.”

As a weekend headline from Maine’s largest newspaper, the Portland Press Herald, explained, “Maine Democrats largely stand by Graham Platner amid D.C. worries.” 

As the headline on The Nation story makes clear, Maine voters, not DC insiders, will decide Platner's fate.  And Mainers are taking Platner's candidacy seriously, looking beyond the baggage he carries to the statements he makes and the issues he has put front and center, as Nichols reports:

Why the dichotomy between the state and national discourse? Many voters said they have a sense of regional connection with Platner. “He’s just Maine. He sounds like Maine,” said Keith Tharp, a photographer from the town of Mount Desert. “When he’s talking, he comes across as a Mainer. So, we want to hear what he has to say.” What they’ve heard, argues Erin Oberson, a co-president of the Maine State Nurses Association/National Nurses United, which has endorsed Platner, is “a candidate who will represent the working class”—a determined advocate for Medicare for All and saving rural hospitals, for strong unions and pay equity, for taxing the rich and standing up to oligarchy.

That last point might be the most important one of all. One senses that Mainers are not big on oligarchs, and Platner makes sure they know he shares their concerns about the influence of the ultra wealthy in Washington, especially during Donald Trump's second term as president. After all, a strong argument can be made that a billionaire, Elon Musk, essentially bought the White House for Trump in the 2024 election. Nichols writes:

While so much coverage of the Senate race has focused on Platner’s stormy personal life, his struggles after returning from four combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on a string of divisive comments he left on online forums, much of the talk in Maine is about where he stands on the issues—and on a broader fight over economic inequality and whether working Mainers will be able to afford housing, healthcare, and heating oil in winter.

“We’ve been robbed of things in this world by the people who run it,” said gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson, a veteran union activist and legislator whom Platner has backed for governor. “This isn’t a campaign. This is a movement,” declares Jackson, who, like Platner, has been endorsed by US Senator Bernie Sanders and echoes the message of the two-time presidential contender, who remains popular in Maine.

“We’re not from the left. We’re not from the right,” declares Jackson. “We’re from the bottom, and we’re rising.”

The extent to which this rising will benefit Platner remains to be seen. But if there was one sentiment that came through loud and clear after a week of troubling reports on Platner’s past, it was that Mainers want to have their say.

The controversy surrounding Platner has, unquestionably, heightened interest in Tuesday’s primary.

Platner became the presumptive Democratic nominee to take on Republican US Senator Susan Collins in late April, when Maine Governor Janet Mills—a favorite of Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic strategists in DC—suspended her bid for the party’s Senate nomination. Now Mills is saying, “People have the impression that I withdrew or dropped out, but I simply suspended active campaigning. I’m still on the ballot.” Mills yard signs have reappeared in some places, and newspaper columns have talked up the options of supporting her or another candidate, David Costello.

What this means is that, on Tuesday, Maine Democrats have a chance to provide tangible evidence of their sentiments regarding Platner. While he is still seen as a likely winner, a substantial primary vote for Mills and lesser-known contenders could be a blow to Platner’s long-term candidacy.

A strong showing in today's primary could put Platner in a solid position against Collins in November's general election. And that could heighten Democrats' chances of taking over the Senate from GOP rule. Nichols writes:

The first test of whether Maine voters share that view comes  Tuesday, in a high-turnout primary that will send a powerful signal about whether Mainers really do have Platner’s back. That’s not guaranteed. But, if they do, Platner will mount a fall campaign that seeks to shift the debate away from his past and toward a Maine-focused critique of Collins—as he did in his final pre-primary campaign appearances. Cheered on by Portland supporters Sunday night, Platner said of Collins, “She has always been there to cast votes for the stupid foreign wars [the government] starts and sends young men like [Platner] to fight in. She’s always there to support that. She’s always there to make sure that the defense companies that donate money to her—or that her lobbyist husband represents—that there’s always money for them. She is always there to make sure that when money gets appropriated at the federal level, [it] goes in the pockets of corporations long before it goes in the pockets of working Mainers. She’s always there for that stuff, but she’s never there for us.”

Revelations about Graham Platner's Nazi tattoo and misconduct with women suggest Dems who defend him sound like Republicans defending Donald Trump

As the list of scandals connected to Graham Platner continues to grow, one veteran Democratic aide in the U.S. Senate has described the party's mood as "apoplectic." The willingness of some prominent Dems to overlook the downsides of a deeply flawed candidate brings another adjective to mind -- and that is "Trumpian."

Will Democrats who choose to stand behind Platner, seemingly at all costs, prove to have made a wise call? We won't have to wait long to find out; the primary in Maine, which is attracting voluminous media coverage, is tomorrow.

Even Americans who have tended not to give Maine much thought should be thinking about it now. That's because the Democratic Party has become more than the home of progressive and liberal ideas. It is our only functional political party -- the only one capable of governing, the only one with even a serious interest in governing. Republicans long ago abandoned any such ideals, turning their party over to a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist who has credibly been accused of acts that could amount to "crimes against humanity." Also, a tipster stated in an FBI document that longtime TV host Robin Leach strangled a girl at a sex party on a Trump property, with the victim's body buried on a Trump golf course.

Now Democrats seem willing to ditch the moral high ground for a candidate who is not worth it and clearly is not qualified to serve in the U.S. Senate -- no matter how well he polls in Maine.

Politico examines these issues and more under the headline "Democrats are furious after latest Platner revelations." A subhead reads "A New York Times report with new allegations about the Democrat's Nazi symbol tattoo and his conduct with women has the party freaking out over its Maine Senate chances."

Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for the Platner-induced quandary in which they find themselves. They should have rejected his candidacy months ago -- not only because of the scandals but because he has no high level or elected experience in government, providing no reason to believe he can serve effectively in the U.S. Senate. Too many Dems have taken the approach of "We simply must win this race in Maine and finally eject Republican Susan Collins from the U.S. Senate, so we will overlook our guy's flaws and saddle up on a gimpy thoroughbred to ride in the political equivalent of the Kentucky Derby." That's the kind of short-term GOPesque thinking that gave the world Donald Trump. To see Democrats stoop to that level is disheartening for those who believe in the party, and it could be borderline tragic for the country. 

Platner has cast himself as an anti-establishment candidate, with supporters willing to take on both Republicans and Democratic Party kingmakers. This is from the Politico report:

Democrats are at each other’s throats about Graham Platner after his latest scandal. They don’t know what to do about it.

The New York Times released a report Thursday with disturbing accounts from several of Platner’s ex-girlfriends, just days before he is set to win the Democratic nomination to face GOP Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, a critical Senate battleground. One woman described Platner grabbing her in ways that left marks and once locking her in a room. She also claimed he knew that his tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol when he got it — something he has repeatedly denied.

The report — on the heels of last week’s news that Platner had sexted other women while married — left Democrats torn. Some view Platner, whose campaign has persisted despite a series of scandals, as their only chance to take down Collins. He continuously led Democratic Gov. Janet Mills in primary polling before she suspended her campaign in April, and has led the Republican senator in public head-to-head polls.

Several observers have stated that Democrats are taking the most convenient path, siding with a candidate they think can win, while pushing ethical considerations out of view. In other words, they are starting to act like Republicans. From Politico:

“Several donors I know are still all-in for Platner because he’s not Susan Collins and he’s a Democrat,” said Alex Hoffman, a Democratic strategist and donor adviser. “The line that keeps being thrown around is the double standard that exists between Republicans and Democrats, where if this was a Republican, they’d all be getting behind him.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who campaigned with Platner on Friday, reiterated his support. And some Democrats online were quick to cast the ex-girlfriend of Platner who spoke on record to The Times, Lyndsey Fifield, as a partisan activist because she has worked in Republican politics.

How did Graham Platner reach a level of prominence in national politics? A TIME magazine profile  

provides details. It's an intriguing, improbable story, but some observers sense Dems are attaching their hopes to the wrong wagon. From Politico:

[Some have] warned that [Platner’s] a loose cannon and there’s no predicting what other information about his past will spill into public view. What has already come to light, they argued, might be enough to sink his candidacy, not to mention undermine the party’s core values.

“Democrats in Maine and throughout the country have got to decide what is their priority: Justifying Graham Platner’s behavior or winning the Democratic seat in Maine,” said Robert Zimmerman, a New York-based Democratic National Committee member. “It’s very clear that Platner has not been able to credibly justify his conduct and Democrats who defend him sound like Republicans defending Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood tape.”

Ouch! That highlighted section is painful to read because it is so on point -- and it should prompt serious self-reflection in the Democratic Party and beyond. Some Dems, meanwhile, are having second thoughts about allowing a "win-at-all-costs approach" to overtake their core values -- especially since theirs is the only U.S. party that still has core values. From Politico:

Winning Maine is all but a necessity for Democrats’ chances of taking back the Senate this fall. Collins is the only Republican senator up for reelection this year in a state former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024. If Democrats can’t knock her off, they’d have to win a far redder state, such as Iowa or Texas, to get control of the upper chamber.

Platner, on MSNOW on Thursday just hours after The Times published its story, denied the allegations of violence and said they were coming from someone who’s “politically motivated.” He said he has “not once” considered dropping out of the race.

“My journey is one of transformation. And I’m very happy to talk about that earlier part in my life. And I have no doubt that people will attempt to continue to revisit Reddit posts, continue to try to revisit parts of my past,” Platner said, referring to his previously unearthed offensive posts. “But I think what’s really important to note here is that these are things that I talk about in my past — things that I am not proud of — but it is a past that I had to go through to get where I am today.”

Platner said he did not have any communication Thursday with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee about exiting the race and making way for another candidate. And he said “I expect that we will not” because of the “outpouring of support” he has received.

However, some donors — even those who had previously opened their checkbooks for Platner — are starting to grow skittish.

“He’s now below the bar for my client group,” said one national donor adviser, who is telling clients to send their money to other battleground Senate races instead. 

The most recent New York Times story has splintered Democrats into warring factions -- at a time when party resources and energy should be focused on fighting Trump, not each other . . . 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had recruited Mills to run, was silent when asked several questions about the Platner revelations in the Capitol halls by reporters Thursday.

“There is dramatically higher concern about losing Maine now across the caucus than there was before the stories broke,” said one senior Democratic Senate aide who, like others in this article, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Everyone realizes that without Maine the path to taking back the Senate is impossible.”

The aide added: “Everyone is apoplectic.”

But there was also frustration among some Democratic donors and operatives Thursday that the party was again cannibalizing one of its own, further jeopardizing its chances in what was already an uphill battle against a longtime GOP incumbent.

A Democratic consultant close to many of the party’s biggest donors said the sentiment among them has been that they don’t care about Platner’s scandals. Citing a conversation with a major donor who sits on the finance committee of one of the Democratic Party’s main national campaign arms, the consultant said he does not think that sentiment will change after The Times story.

“We don’t care. I think that’s the case for many donors. Anybody who beats Susan Collins will do,” said the consultant. The consultant attributed the indifference to the fact that it’s the “Trump era,” when allegations of wrongdoing simply don’t weigh as heavily as they once used to.

Are some Democrats leaning toward becoming a slightly different version of the Republican Party? It sounds that way to me, and I find it extraordinarily wrongheaded. Consider the case of Ro Khanna (D-CA), who as co-sponsor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), took a principled stand about shining light on bad behavior in politics.  Now, he risks throwing that away by standing beside Graham Platner:

Platner was set to rally in Bar Harbor, Maine, on Friday with Khanna, who has endorsed him, and alongside Maine 2nd District candidate Matt Dunlap and gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson. Representatives for all three said the event was still set to go.

“The behavior described in The New York Times story was wrong and toxic. Graham has acknowledged that and sought redemption,” Khanna said in a statement Thursday. “The people of Maine deserve a senator who is going to stand up to the billionaire class, against genocide, and for the working class.”

Platner is all but certain to win Maine’s Democratic primary on Tuesday over Mills and 2024 Democratic Senate candidate David Costello. After that, Maine law allows the state party to replace Platner with another Democrat if he stepped down before mid-July. Such a move would be unprecedented in the state’s politics.

Some observers warn that Democrats could face serious blowback for casting aside their core values:

The Times report follows revelations last weekend that Platner had exchanged sexual messages with women other than his wife after they were married — which had already reignited Democratic fears that he could tank hard in November.

Platner, a political newcomer, has been dogged by scandals since the fall, when his Reddit history revealed a series of offensive posts suggesting, among other things, that victims of sexual assault should take more responsibility and that white rural Americans are stupid. Platner apologized for the posts, saying he was in a dark place at the time, and owned up to having a tattoo that resembles a Nazi symbol, though he said he didn’t realize the meaning at the time he got it and later had it covered. 

The Times report reignited the controversy over Platner’s tattoo: Fifield told the paper he had referred to it as “my Totenkopf” while they were dating and knew about its Nazi connection.

“This is the most important seat for the next Democratic president to have a trifecta to act and accomplish all the things that all the people in the Democratic Party believe in — health care, child care, climate,” said Brian Romick, president of Democratic Majority for Israel. “And now we’re in a position where someone with a Nazi tattoo, inappropriate relationships with women, and racist Reddit posts is our person. And people need to answer for that.”

Cheyenne Hunt, founder of Reckoning Action and former Executive Director of Gen Z For Change, who had organized against former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) over allegations of sexual assault, rescinded her endorsement of Platner on Thursday.

“We have the responsibility to do what is right even when it’s politically inconvenient,” she said in a video posted on social media. “Women cannot be an acceptable sacrifice for the next election.”