Inside DOJ's CHALLENGES in the CONTROVERSIAL Alaska election — MS NOW Highlights

[0:00] Donald Trump is calling for Alaska's Democratic Senate candidate for Senate, former Congresswoman [0:05] Mary Peltola, to be removed from the race. He says she should be criminally prosecuted. [0:11] The Justice Department had already filed a civil lawsuit in Alaska attempting to block the results [0:15] of the Senate race if and only if the Republican candidate, incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan [0:21] loses narrowly, which is so telling, isn't it? But now the Justice Department has also announced a [0:27] criminal investigation into the matter and said that they are surging law enforcement assets to [0:32] Alaska. The DOJ and FBI even held a big splashy presser about it all this afternoon. So all of that, [0:39] that five alarm style reaction, all of it stems from allegations that operatives aligned with [0:45] Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recruited and supported the [0:50] candidacy of this man, who's also named Dan Sullivan. And what is alleged to be a deliberate attempt to [0:55] confuse voters? Now, I should note that Peltola and her campaign and the Democratic Senatorial [1:00] Campaign Committee emphatically deny the allegations that they did what is known in politics as ballot [1:05] stacking. But there's another part of the story that is getting very lost in the sauce here. [1:11] Let me show you what I mean. Let's send a message to the D.C. insiders and vote progressive Richard [1:18] Grayson for U.S. Senate. In the primary on August 18th, vote for Democrat Carol Hafner, [1:24] a true progressive running for U.S. Senate. Those were ads from Alaska Senate primary [1:30] this year, everyone. And while those ads supported Green Party candidate Richard Grayson and Democratic [1:37] candidate Carol Hafner, neither the Green Party nor the Democratic Party nor Richard Grayson nor [1:44] Carol Hafner were actually behind those ads. Those ads were actually put out by a GOP-aligned [1:51] super PAC called Fair Deal Alaska, a super PAC that got more than 75 percent of its money from one single [1:58] source. The Senate Leadership Fund, the main super PAC aligned with, guess who, the Senate Republican [2:05] leadership. SLF PAC gave Fair Deal Alaska $650,000 to make stuff like this. [2:13] Richard Grayson will stand with Bernie Sanders and AOC to say no to Trump and MAGA Republicans. [2:21] Carol Hafner will stand up to Trump and MAGA Republicans and fight for bold progressive policies. [2:26] Fight the billionaire class, end the illegal wars and put the people back in power. [2:32] Medicare for all. Abolish ICE, combat the climate crisis and pass a Green New Deal. [2:38] Vote progressive Richard Grayson for U.S. Senate. [2:41] Vote Democrat Carol Hafner for U.S. Senate. [2:44] Did those sound like the ads were funded by Republican groups to you? Nope, me neither. [2:52] And get this, neither of those two candidates even live in the state of Alaska. [2:57] Green Party candidate Richard Grayson lives in Arizona. And by his own account, he's not a serious [3:03] candidate. He's just a guy who likes to run for office all over the country as a joke. [3:08] In 1982, he ran for a town council seat in Florida with a platform of giving nukes to cops [3:14] and allowing horses to vote. In 2012, he ran for president with a platform of deporting all of the [3:20] nation's Republicans to a place he said they would be more comfortable, the 18th century. [3:26] He described himself to the Arizona Republic in 2023 as something of a performance artist, [3:31] saying he has made, quote, a lifetime of public performances by being disingenuous. [3:38] That guy is who the Republican aligned Fair Deal Alaska spent $335,000 trying to get on Alaska's [3:46] general election ballot for Senate, everyone. Fair Deal Alaska also spent $346,000 promoting [3:53] Carol Hafner, who not only does not live in the state of Alaska, but has reportedly never [4:00] even been to Alaska ever. And in the past decade, she has run for house seats in Alaska and Wyoming, [4:07] despite having reportedly never been there either. Leading up to the primary, Fair Deal Alaska spent [4:13] hundreds of thousands of dollars on mailers and phone calls and ads to promote these fringe [4:18] out-of-state candidates who could have pulled votes from Mary Paltola. Now, I should note, [4:25] Fair Deal Alaska did not respond to our request for comment. Neither did the Senate Leadership Fund. [4:30] Dan Sullivan's campaign told us they had nothing to do with the promotion of those candidates. But [4:34] clearly, clearly, Republican aligned groups tried to promote fringe candidates in order to hurt the [4:40] chances of the Democratic front runner and take away votes from them. That's why they spent all that [4:45] money. And it's not like this is an isolated incident for the right or frankly, for the left. [4:51] A Democratic aligned super PAC was playing right along with Fair Deal Alaska, trying to boost two [4:56] conservatives onto the Senate ballot, one of whom made it. French candidates with outside backing pop [5:01] up all over the place. In Alaska, Carol Hafner isn't even the only one in her family who has run a [5:07] campaign against Mary Paltola from out of state. Okay. Her son, Eric Hafner, ran as a Democrat [5:13] against Paltola for Alaska's lone House seat in 2024. And he wasn't just out of state. [5:20] He was in federal prison in New York. The Anchorage Daily News reports that the National [5:26] Republican Congressional Committee sought to boost his campaign this year. Still in prison, [5:31] everyone. He is back on the ballot for Congress from Alaska with an unknown shadow group sending [5:37] texts promoting him to Alaska voters. And because Democrats are supporting an independent in the [5:43] House race this year, the New York inmate is the only person with the word Democrat next to his [5:48] name on the Alaska House ballot, which, you know, might confuse some voters. In fact, the Democratic [5:53] Party and liberal super PACs have spent a ton of money trying to convey to voters that they should [5:58] ignore the D by his name altogether. Meet Eric Hafner. He's running for Alaska's House seat. [6:04] There's just one problem. He's in federal prison in New York. The D by his name, yeah, [6:10] it stands for doing time. To be clear, that guy you just saw in that ad is the Democrat on the ballot [6:19] in Alaska's House race right now. Pretty confusing, right? And again, it's not like this is an isolated [6:25] incident. This kind of stuff isn't just happening in Alaska. This year, a GOP linked group has spent [6:31] more than a million dollars boosting a third party socialist candidate in the Ohio Senate race in [6:36] Nevada. A GOP tied group reportedly sent out mailers promoting a third party candidate for governor as [6:41] the AOC of Nevada, even though AOC doesn't support her. In Texas, records appear to indicate that a [6:49] Republican women's group may be behind the mailers for a fake trans rights advocacy organization that [6:54] have been flooding Texas mailboxes and ginning up outrage among conservative voters just in time for the [6:59] election. The group denies it. You can call this the unsavory side of politics by the left or by the [7:05] right. You can remind yourself once again that politics is not beanbag. It's not for the faint of [7:10] heart. What you cannot say is that this is the kind of thing that is new or that has been done by one [7:17] side only. That's never been the case. But right now, Republicans are trying to use this story about [7:22] Mary Peltola's campaign for an even uglier kind of politicking. Last night, the MAGA Republican [7:28] governor of Alaska, Mike Dunleavy, went on TV and left open the option that he might not certify the [7:34] election if Mary Peltola wins. If we conclude that there were things that should not have happened, [7:46] let me put it that way, that are illegal, we will act on that. And that may, in fact, impact [7:51] whether somebody is seated in the CUS Senate. What? I mean, did you see the anchor's face when [7:59] Governor Dunleavy said that? Yeah, there we go. His mouth is agape. He's pretty stunned. [8:04] And so am I. I have so many questions about where this all goes from here, given everything I just [8:09] told you. And I have just the perfect person to ask. Okay, with just a few days to go before [8:14] election day, the Trump administration is engaged in a wild last ditch effort to meddle in the [8:20] potentially pivotal U.S. Senate race in Alaska. It all stems from some New York Times reporting about [8:25] operatives associated with the Peltola campaign, boosting a spoiler candidate to confuse voters, [8:30] a claim Peltola denies. Trump's DOJ has basically lost its mind over the story. And today they [8:35] confirmed they're pursuing a criminal investigation. But as I just explained, the at times controversial, [8:41] and you can have any feeling you want about it, election tactic known as ballot stacking might be [8:45] a prime example of the dirtier side of politics. But it's a thing both parties do, including Republican [8:51] aligned groups in that very same race, everyone. So lots to dig into here. Joining me now is David [8:57] Becker, Executive Director for the Center of Election Innovation and Research. David, I'm so [9:03] grateful you could be here tonight. We could probably talk to you for an hour, but let me start here. [9:07] I just talked about this. I think a lot of people are very worried about all the reporting around [9:12] Alaska and kind of what it means. The Justice Department is making, of course, a very big show with its [9:15] criminal and civil investigations into this. And the story has kind of taken on what I would say [9:20] a life of its own. What is the best and worst case scenario here, people? What should people [9:25] understand? Well, first of all, we should understand the DOJ tried to stop certification [9:28] of Alaska's election before The New York Times ever came out. They were already trying to interfere [9:33] in Alaska's very state-specific certification process that is guaranteed under the Constitution. [9:38] The Constitution says states get to run elections. They get to certify elections. [9:42] They tried to interfere there. There wasn't much behind that case. I still don't think that case has [9:47] anything behind it. It will be disposed of very soon, perhaps as early as this weekend. [9:52] Then this story came out. But the fact is, Alaska has already considered this. [9:57] Senator Sullivan already raised the prospect of this being a scam, [10:00] this being a set-up candidate, the ballot stacking issues. The courts heard this, [10:04] both lower courts and the Alaska Supreme Court. It was resolved under Alaska state law. [10:09] And the Alaska Division of Elections, I think, came up with a really good solution to make [10:13] that the ballot less confusing. We should also remember Alaska has ranked choice voting. [10:17] So if someone is confused between those two Dan Sullivans and they rank them one and two, [10:22] by the second round, all of those will go to the highest vote getter. So there's really little [10:27] chance this is going to affect the outcome of the race. I think what this is designed to do, [10:32] as so much we're seeing from the administration right now, is perhaps to influence voters and [10:37] perhaps scare them or make them think their vote doesn't matter in advance of the elections. [10:40] That's failing. We're seeing record high turnout. And perhaps to also set up claims, [10:46] false claims, that the election was rigged in the aftermath of the election. But that's also [10:50] going to fail. The law is really clear here. Finally, I just want to make one point about [10:55] the Senate. The Senate, unlike the House, is a continuing body. That means about two-thirds of [11:00] the Senate is going to continue through. The new members will be sworn in. But unlike the House, [11:06] which ceases to exist on January 3rd, the Senate continues. And that continuation of the Senate [11:11] before the new members are sworn in is majority Democratic. So if there's an attempt to play games [11:16] with a clear winner, then it's possible the Senate Democrats and the majority of the Senate might be [11:22] able to push back or have some leverage, at least. That's really interesting. What could they do? [11:27] Well, remember, both houses are judges of their own membership. So unlike the House, [11:31] it's a little tricky because the House doesn't actually exist to judge their own membership [11:34] until they have 218 members to form a quorum. But the Senate does. And the Senate will sit there. [11:40] And whatever the majority is on January 3rd, if they see shenanigans going on in the Republican [11:44] side, the Democrats could push back. They could seat a Democratic member if that was legitimate. [11:49] I really hope neither party plays those games. I don't think those are appropriate games. We should [11:54] have a single certificate of election from every state for every Senate race and every congressional [11:58] district. And those should be honored by the incoming Senate and House. [12:03] Let me ask you also, I just played the Republican governor in the state of Alaska. There's a Democrat [12:06] running. That person could win. The Democrat could certainly win. They'd be seated on December, [12:10] early December, I think December 7th or so. Should we be worried about the Republican governor [12:15] and what Mike Dunleavy could actually do here? I don't know if we should be worried about the [12:20] Republican governor. Remember, the Republican governor and the lieutenant governor who runs elections [12:24] in Alaska, the lieutenant governor's, the office that oversees elections, have vigorously opposed [12:30] the DOJ's lawsuit, that initial lawsuit that was filed to try to interfere with certification. [12:35] I expect that this is a very difficult situation for him. I expect that once the votes come in [12:43] and we see who actually won, Senator Sullivan could win reelection. Mary Paltola could beat him in the [12:49] election. Once we see those votes counts coming in, I suspect that everyone will fall back on sanity [12:55] and rationality and recognize the true winner. I should also say we should expect this to take [13:00] days in Alaska, right? There's really remote voting all over Alaska. It takes a long time to get all [13:06] those ballots in, especially if it's close race. We might not know until Thursday, Friday or even [13:11] Saturday who won that race. That's so important for people to hear as they're pacing themselves through [13:16] next week. David Becker, thank you so much for being here with me, and I appreciate it. [13:19] We'll be at the beginning of the fight over the 2026 midterm election results. According to new MSNOW [13:29] reporting, people close to the White House expect that multiple election results could be challenged [13:34] after Election Day, raising the prospect that the battle over control of Congress could extend well [13:39] beyond November 3rd. And we're already seeing what those challenges could look like in Alaska. [13:45] We've seen the efforts by the Justice Department to potentially block the certification of the [13:49] Senate results, Senate race results if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan narrowly loses to [13:55] Democrat Mary Peltola. Over allegations, Peltola's campaign recruited another Dan Sullivan to run as [14:02] a spoiler. The DOJ has expanded its investigation, issuing dozens of new grand jury subpoenas. [14:09] Meanwhile, in California, the Justice Department is escalating its investigation into alleged [14:14] non-citizen voting, issuing subpoenas to state and local election officials. The administration has [14:20] also been trying to force California to set aside more than 20,000 ballots, an effort rejected by a [14:27] federal judge and again by an appeals court last night. Joining us now, Ned Foley, MSNOW election law [14:34] analyst and Ebersole chair in constitutional law at The Ohio State University. And MSNOW political analyst and [14:42] former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is also back with us. [14:49] Ned, I want to play for you what the governor of Alaska said on Thursday about the potential of not [14:57] certifying the election results in that Senate race. Watch this. [15:02] If she were to win and if she's still under investigation, would you certify the election there in Alaska? [15:11] That's going to cause a real issue, isn't it? Not just for Alaska, but for the country. And that's [15:16] why this race is important. That's why it's important that it's done the right way. We are [15:21] going to investigate it. We're going to follow the law. And if we conclude that there were things that [15:31] should not have happened, let me put it that way, that are illegal, we will act on that. And that may, [15:36] in fact, impact whether somebody is seated in the U.S. Senate. Ned, why do I not have a good feeling [15:46] that the good governor is going to, quote, follow the law? Well, the law is clear that he's obligated [15:55] to send a certificate of election to the U.S. Senate once the processes in Alaska have concluded. [16:02] There are actually two different certifications that occur. The first certification is the count of the [16:08] ballots themselves. And the counting board of Alaska does that. And once that exists, there's a final [16:18] result. And the governor's duty is only ministerial after that. He's supposed to submit whatever that [16:24] result is to the Senate. I think he was trying to be ambiguous as I read his comments, trying to suggest [16:32] that there might be litigation and a problem with that first stage certification. I didn't hear him quite say [16:39] that he was going to define his obligation under federal law to give the Senate what it's required to [16:46] receive. Senator, I want to bring you in here because you crossed over in different chambers, though, with the man [16:55] who is now Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. And Michael Schnell asked him a question about the concerns that a lot of [17:02] people have, people in the democracy coalition. So Democrats, Republicans and independents about the [17:08] transfer of power and whether or not folks would actually be sworn to listen to what Michael asked [17:12] and listen to his answer. Do you commit to having a peaceful transfer of power come January, regardless [17:18] of what the results are? It's a little silly. You have to ask the question. Of course, we'll have a peaceful [17:23] transfer of power, but it will not be transferring because we are going to keep the majority and I'm going [17:27] to be the Speaker of the House and I will keep steady hands at the wheel. Okay. Look, you know, [17:33] my background, I'm a constitutional law attorney. We're going to follow the Constitution. The [17:36] Constitution says when a state certifies the election of members of Congress and they administered [17:41] the oath, that's what I'll be doing on January 3rd to everybody who's there. I mean, I like some of those [17:45] outcomes, but that's our system. And for anybody to suggest otherwise is absurd. [17:49] It's a little silly. You have to ask the question. And for anyone to suggest anything to suggest [17:58] otherwise is absurd. Is it? Is he calling the White House and saying this? Because I just, [18:03] it feels as if sometimes the Speaker is living in a world we'd all love to live in, where everyone's [18:09] following the rules, the norms, and the laws, but that is not the world that Donald Trump and his [18:13] administration seem to be living in. So the concerns are valid. Yeah. And it's not silly because of his [18:19] track record. I mean, he has been obsequious. He has been, he's been the knee to Trump every time when [18:25] there was a critical decision he could have made that would have taken the Congress down a different [18:30] path. I mean, Congress has essentially been in a coma since Donald Trump was elected in 2024. [18:36] And that is with Republican leadership. They have refused to do their job under the Constitution. [18:42] And I just got to give a shout out to the law professor. I mean, I didn't know I'd be agreeing [18:48] with a Buckeye this morning, but that's kind of against my nature to agree with a Buckeye. [18:56] But I want to say it's very important to note that the people who are actually in charge of the [19:02] elections, and everybody needs to keep this front of mind over the next few days, the people who [19:07] actually administer the elections are local officials. They are county officials. Sometimes [19:13] they're even municipal officials. And they are all stripes. They are conservative, liberal, Republican, [19:20] Democrat, all over the country. And they do this. This is their professional job. And they take it very [19:26] seriously. And I have a lot of confidence that those local officials with a few outliers, like we had [19:32] that woman in Colorado, who clearly was an outlier. But Tina Peters. Yeah, Tina Peters. But there's a few [19:38] outliers. But the vast majority of them are offended that they're being talked about this way. They're [19:45] offended that they're being accused of somehow putting their finger on the scale. And that's why [19:51] our elections are so secure, because there isn't one lever that can be pulled in Washington to change [19:56] outcomes. There isn't one level that can be pulled in a secretary of state's office to change outcomes. [20:02] It is secure because there are so many different systems and different officials that only have [20:07] one goal, to make sure everyone who's eligible to vote votes and those votes are counted appropriately. [20:12] So that's why I continue to have confidence in the outcome, although it'd be a lot easier if the [20:17] margins are big. Ned, if we quickly run through some of the headlines that we have discussed on the [20:23] show alone today, a governor saying he might not certify an election, the administration, [20:29] and it's having a campaign to stop non-citizens from voting, the GOP potentially refusing to seat [20:36] Democrats who win their elections, the threats to election workers with prosecution ahead of Tuesday. [20:45] What is the scenario maybe that I may or may not have mentioned that you are most worried about [20:49] next week? Well, I'd actually be interested to hear the senator's view on this, because the thing [20:55] I am most worried about is if one or two seats in the Senate are on a nice edge themselves. I'm sure [21:02] she remembers the race out of Minnesota in 2008 between then incumbent Norm Coleman and then Senator [21:09] Franken ended up winning that. Yeah, that took six months or so to resolve. It was an incredibly close [21:18] race. About 300 votes was the margin of certification after an administrative recount, [21:24] and then it went to court. It wasn't a nefarious issue on either side. In other words, there were [21:30] genuine disputes over votes. It just took a long, long time. You know, I'd hate for that to happen this [21:36] year. That seat was not the seat that determined which party was the majority party in the Senate. [21:44] It was an important seat because it would have been the 60th seat or ended up being the 60th seat for [21:49] the Democrats that year. So if there are sort of one or two Senate seats that are as close as the [21:56] Franken race, which would be unusual. But if that happened and it determined which was the majority [22:01] party, that does make me nervous a little bit. Do you do you remember, was that contested under the [22:07] federal contested election act? Is that something that we should be keeping an eye on specifically? [22:11] No, that was all based in Minnesota law. Minnesota runs a very efficient, well, [22:20] well-run election in the sense that they count votes fairly and carefully. But it took a long time [22:27] to do it. And obviously, you want an election to be resolved by January 3rd when the new Congress meets. [22:34] But Minnesota couldn't do that. And it wasn't resolved until the end of June [22:39] of the following year, which which is unfortunate. So it was all Minnesota law. It wasn't contested [22:46] under federal law or in the Senate itself. [22:50] Claire, let me get you on one more one more headline before we go. And this comes from our [22:54] colleagues, Ken Delaney and Carol Lennig, from a story on Wednesday, White House actions spur worry [22:59] among FBI agents about being called to polling places, sources say. Current and former FBI officials [23:05] told MSNOW that in the wake of recent Trump administration actions that they believe were [23:09] designed to sow doubt in the election process, some agents have expressed deep concern that they [23:14] could be ordered to take legally questionable steps to investigate dubious claims of election fraud. [23:22] And those steps include being ordered to seize voting machines or take other actions that disrupt [23:28] election results. Just your reaction to that headline. And how how likely do you think that such orders [23:36] would be handed down? [23:39] Well, I hope it's unlikely. I mean, obviously, as I sat and watched what happened on January 6th, [23:48] it was a scenario I never dreamt would ever occur in the United States of America. [23:52] So I think we are all very clear eyed about what is possible with this guy in the Oval Office [23:58] and Kash Patel running the FBI. But I would first say to FBI agents, don't follow illegal orders. [24:09] Stand up. You don't need to worry about whether or not you'll be hired or have a future in your [24:18] expertise, because history will be very kind to you that you are doing the right thing. [24:25] Second thing I would say is we have really good lawyers on our side of this equation. [24:30] I mean, I remember vividly, obviously, the situation with Al Franken and Norm Coleman. [24:35] I was in the Senate at the time. And the lawyers that handled that are still the lawyers that are on [24:40] the tip of the spear for our side of the ledger in terms of all of these court cases. [24:46] We have very experienced lawyers ready to step in. And I think the courts always on election day [24:52] are very aware that they may be called upon to make immediate rulings on what can and can't be done [25:00] with an election and the votes that need to be secured from that election. So I feel pretty good [25:06] that we have courts that would be responsive and lawyers that know how to get there. [25:10] Former Senator Claire McCaskill and Ned Foley, thank you both so much. We'll see you on the other side. [25:16] Today, The New York Times published an explosive report on the high stakes race for the United States [25:22] Senate in Alaska. The Democratic candidate, the former Congresswoman Mary Peltola, [25:26] is running neck and neck against Alaska's current Republican Senator Daniel S. Sullivan. [25:31] But Peltola and Sullivan are not the only two names on the ballot. Alaska had a nonpartisan primary [25:37] in August with 16 candidates from all party affiliations. The top four advanced to the general [25:43] election in November and the winner is determined through ranked choice voting. You're looking at [25:48] Alaska's ballot right now and the names you see in order are Gerald Highkeys, a perennial Republican [25:54] candidate who got just over one percent in the primary. Mary Peltola, the Democratic nominee. [26:00] Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired school teacher and independent. And Daniel S. Sullivan, [26:05] the aforementioned Republican nominee. As you can see, the sitting senator, Dan Sullivan's name, [26:10] also reads registered Republican incumbent to avoid voter confusion. But even before the primary, [26:17] Republicans were raising the issue of potential confusion between the two Dan Sullivans. [26:21] Republicans sought to have the other Dan Sullivan removed from the primary ballot. [26:25] But a state court, state court states run the elections in this country, a state court determined [26:30] that both could remain on the ballot with the language to clarify which was the incumbent senator. [26:36] When Peltola appeared on my colleague Lawrence O'Donnell's show earlier this week, [26:40] she had this to say about the two Dan Sullivans. [26:44] This has already been adjudicated and it was decided that having a ballot, just like you showed, [26:52] that says Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. in one line and then another line that says Daniel S. Sullivan, [26:59] parens, registered Republican incumbent, [27:02] that is clear as day to all of the Alaska voters I know. [27:08] Alaskan voters are sophisticated and across Alaska, we have so many cases of people with the same name. [27:15] So many cases of people with the same name. And that may be true. [27:19] But today, the New York Times is reporting that it is not a coincidence that two Dan Sullivans ended up [27:24] on the same ballot this fall. In a 3000 word news story published today, [27:28] the New York Times cites multiple sources in reporting that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. [27:34] was recruited by operatives aligned with Peltola's campaign in hopes that his name would draw votes [27:39] away from the sitting Republican senator, Dan S. Sullivan. [27:43] The Times spoke to Peltola's former campaign manager who said operatives working with the Peltola team [27:48] reached out to her, to other Alaskans named Dan Sullivan, [27:52] as well as others with unrelated names who could fill out the ballot. [27:55] The former campaign manager also contacted the Times after the fact [27:58] and attempted to retract her previous interviews. [28:02] Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have denied involvement. [28:06] At a rally today, Peltola called the New York Times story a distraction from real issues. [28:11] But as you can well imagine, this news has ignited a firestorm in Trump world. [28:15] At Trump's request, the Department of Justice has already stepped in [28:18] and asked a federal court to block the certification of the results of Alaska Senate race [28:23] should Senator Daniel S. Sullivan lose by a margin smaller than the number of votes [28:29] received by the other Daniel Sullivan, citing potential confusion. [28:33] The Peltola campaign has asked the judge to expedite a ruling on the case. [28:37] And today, after the New York Times story broke, the DOJ withdrew its opposition to the Peltola campaign's request [28:43] because they now want there to be expedited discovery in court [28:47] about the Peltola campaign's reported involvement with the other Dan Sullivan. [28:52] I know, this is all very hard to follow. [28:54] It took me 20 minutes to read the article. [28:56] Speaking to reporters today, Trump said Mary Peltola should resign from the race. [29:00] I think she should be prosecuted criminally, end quote. [29:02] Speaking earlier today on Fox News, Attorney General Todd Blanche said [29:06] the Peltola campaign's actions should be illegal. [29:10] The reporting by the Times notes that this sort of ballot stacking or candidate recruiting, [29:14] while certainly considered shady, is generally not illegal [29:17] and has been done by candidates of both parties over the years. [29:20] Joining me now is Nathaniel Hertz. [29:22] He's the executive editor of the Anchorage Press. [29:25] Nathaniel, good to see you again. [29:26] I think I talked to you last, during the Alaska primary, [29:30] and I definitely didn't think I was going to have you on again about this particular issue. [29:34] This is a wild story. [29:35] I have to start by saying, if you submitted this to Hollywood, [29:38] someone would probably say this is too unrealistic to be true. [29:43] You know, I mean, I think on the one hand, yes. [29:45] Absolutely some of the details here about a political operative from outside of Alaska [29:51] flying up here, potentially using a fake name and having sort of surreptitious meetings [29:56] months before anyone is really thinking about any of this stuff, [30:00] except for the folks engaging in these kinds of imaginations in the political sphere. [30:04] It is novelistic stuff. [30:08] The flip side is, as you, I think, sort of rightly noted, [30:11] I think actually this stuff is going on behind the scenes all the time, [30:16] including in Alaska, but not limited to Alaska. [30:19] And I think what's really unusual here is that you end up with a disgruntled aide [30:23] who is so mad about sort of some of the, like, internal campaign politics [30:28] that apparently she, you know, spills all of the sordid details [30:32] that normally remain hidden from folks onto the page. [30:36] And I think, you know, again, in some ways, [30:39] the fact that this happened is not surprising. [30:41] I think one of the key issues here that does make it a story [30:46] is that for months we've had folks associated with Mary Peltola [30:50] and her sort of allies and surrogates essentially flatly denying [30:54] that they had anything to do with this. [30:56] And now the report really illustrating that, you know, [30:59] that's pretty clearly not the case, [31:01] even if Mary Peltola herself was not directly involved. [31:05] Talk to me, you were actually involved in the reporting of this story. [31:08] Your name appears at the end of the story. [31:10] Tell me what your role was in this. [31:12] What'd you discover? [31:14] Yeah, correct. [31:15] I got a call from an editor at the New York Times [31:18] while I was watching the Harlem Globetrotters a couple weekends [31:21] ago, and they sort of asked if I could, you know, [31:25] keep this stuff to myself. [31:26] And this was in my role as a freelancer, [31:28] not working for the Anchorage Press, [31:29] but they asked, they sort of described the contours of the story [31:32] and asked if I could drive out to the Valley, [31:35] which is sort of a conservative area north of Anchorage [31:39] to talk to Gerald Heikis, [31:41] who's sort of one of these fringe candidates, [31:45] a registered Republican who is on the ballot, [31:49] has raised no money, [31:51] but has been the beneficiary of, [31:54] I believe, millions of dollars in campaign spending [31:57] by sort of mysterious super PACs on his behalf [32:01] with the clear goal of sort of pulling votes away [32:05] from the incumbent Republican, Dan Sullivan, [32:08] and benefiting the Peltola campaign. [32:10] So I drove out to Heikis' house. [32:13] I knocked on his door. [32:14] He was not there. [32:15] I met a dog and his house sitter [32:18] who passed my number to Gerald Heikis, [32:22] who called me back, [32:24] and I patched in Kellen Browning, [32:25] the New York Times reporter who was working on this story. [32:27] And we had a conversation with Mr. Heikis [32:29] who described, you know, [32:31] a number of facts that were pretty consistent [32:33] with Kellen's reporting to that point, [32:35] which included a meeting with a guy [32:38] who effectively said, you know, [32:40] can't have fingerprints on any of this, [32:41] but if you run for U.S. Senate, [32:44] there will be money to support your campaign. [32:47] And Mr. Heikis thought this was a pretty good idea [32:49] and filed to run for U.S. Senate. [32:51] And lo and behold, he's on the ballot. [32:53] He's on the ballot. [32:54] He got 1%, [32:55] but that's the nature of the way [32:57] the ballots work in Alaska. [32:59] Here's the thing. [32:59] In the primary in August, [33:01] when you and I last talked, [33:02] Mary Peltola led Senator Dan S. Sullivan [33:05] by eight points. [33:07] Daniel Sullivan, [33:08] Daniel J. Sullivan, [33:09] the other guy, [33:10] got two and a half percent of the vote. [33:12] So one wonders what this was necessarily for. [33:15] Mary Peltola was on that night in the lead [33:18] and conceptually might have been in the lead [33:19] next Tuesday night. [33:22] This all happened long before [33:24] those primary ballots were cast. [33:26] And I think, you know, [33:27] there's absolutely an expectation [33:29] on the part of both sides [33:31] that this race is going to be decided [33:33] by razor thin margins. [33:34] And so whether it's 1%, 2%, 3%, [33:37] you know, every single vote [33:39] in this race matters, [33:40] which is why you're seeing, [33:41] you know, literally millions of dollars [33:43] being spent on, you know, [33:46] efforts to boost these fringe candidates [33:48] that I honestly think, you know, [33:49] when I think you hear folks on all sides, [33:52] except for President Trump, [33:54] effectively saying Alaska voters are smart. [33:57] And, you know, our mailboxes, [33:59] I and others have never seen [34:01] an effort like this. [34:02] Like they are absolutely jammed with mailers [34:04] and our airways are clogged with ads. [34:06] And anyone who is really still convinced, [34:09] still confused about which Dan Sullivan [34:11] is the right Dan Sullivan [34:12] or whether someone is a credible, [34:14] viable candidate at this point, [34:15] like is living not just like under a rock, [34:18] but under a whole rock pile [34:20] because, you know, it's the messaging [34:23] is ubiquitous. [34:25] Here we go again. [34:26] I mean, it's the same thing [34:28] over and over again. [34:28] Donald Trump has boxed himself [34:30] and the Republican Party [34:31] into an untenable political corner [34:34] in which they're about to get [34:35] their clocks cleaned by the voters. [34:38] Why? [34:38] Because for the last 18 or so months, [34:40] they've done exactly jack. [34:43] They've done nothing to improve the economy. [34:46] They've made it worse [34:47] to get us out of a war. [34:48] He started to to level set with our allies. [34:52] They want to break up NATO. [34:53] So the American people [34:55] have paid close attention to this. [34:57] Oh, and by the way, [34:58] there's a little thing called the Epstein files, [35:00] which, despite what everybody's thinking, [35:02] yes, it's still a part of the narrative [35:04] that people are taking with them [35:06] into the into the voting booth this November. [35:08] The president was literally heckled [35:09] at one of his rallies this week [35:11] by someone saying, like, [35:14] he was on the Epstein plane [35:15] and this was at his rally. [35:16] So, you know, [35:17] this won the Democrats, Chad. [35:18] This is somebody at the Trump rally. [35:19] At his rally. [35:20] They're standing in line. [35:21] So it's clearly a thing. [35:22] I just, you know, [35:24] we talk a lot about how they are about, [35:26] like Republicans are about to lose power [35:27] in Washington and what that means. [35:29] But I also think that these stories [35:31] that we started with today [35:32] are much more about what this president [35:35] and Republicans are willing to do [35:37] to try to hold on to power. [35:38] And that's where I'm looking at, like, [35:40] they are very desperate. [35:41] And because they're desperate, [35:42] they're willing to try anything. [35:43] And we talk about this kind of like it's benign. [35:46] But in California, [35:47] we are talking about people [35:48] who have already cast ballots. [35:50] These are voters. [35:51] These are people in this country [35:52] that have decided to participate [35:53] in the process. [35:54] And the government is trying [35:56] to disenfranchise them. [35:57] The government is trying to say [35:58] that they don't count. [35:59] So I'm just kind of like, [36:00] whoo, child, [36:01] what else they got up their sleeve? [36:02] What you guys just mentioned [36:04] are the real scandals. [36:05] And we're hearing today [36:07] around a lot of legacy media. [36:08] Oh, my God. [36:10] Alaska. [36:11] Let me clutch my pearls. [36:13] There's gambling in power. [36:15] There's gambling. [36:15] There's gambling here. [36:17] That's what this story is. [36:18] It's a big nothing burger. [36:20] But a lay person out there [36:21] sees this story from The New York Times [36:22] about Alaska ballot stacking. [36:24] Mr. Chairman, [36:25] you know that ballot stacking [36:26] has gone on in this country [36:27] for decades and decades and days. [36:30] So when people, [36:31] when you have someone [36:31] who comes up to you [36:32] and goes, [36:32] I can't believe the Democrats [36:34] are ballot stacking in Alaska. [36:36] You calmly say to them, [36:37] the real scandal [36:38] is the preemptive decertification [36:41] of election results [36:42] that Trump's DOJ [36:43] is trying to do in Alaska. [36:45] The real scandal [36:46] is how the Epstein files [36:47] have been kicked to the side. [36:49] The real scandal [36:49] is how he could possibly [36:50] have federal agents [36:51] at polling places [36:52] around the country. [36:52] The real scandal [36:53] is how California votes [36:56] are just mysteriously [36:57] being asked for. [36:58] They're trying to do [36:58] check for non-citizens [37:00] on voter rolls [37:00] that don't align. [37:02] Same thing in Washington State. [37:03] Those are the scandals, [37:04] not ballot stacking in Alaska [37:06] that we have seen [37:07] over so many decades. [37:08] And you already gave an example [37:09] of that happening [37:10] in the last summer. [37:11] I have another scandal [37:12] to add to your list. [37:14] In the Wall Street Journal today, [37:16] apparently Donald Trump [37:17] made another phone call. [37:18] You know one of those [37:18] infamous phone calls? [37:19] I'm just going to read it [37:20] for you, Norm. [37:20] Trump called Dunleavy, [37:22] who is the Alaska governor. [37:24] Early Thursday morning, [37:25] the governor said [37:26] in an interview [37:27] with the Wall Street Journal [37:28] to inquire about the status [37:29] of the state investigation. [37:31] He's just wondering [37:32] what we're doing up here. [37:33] And I said, [37:34] we're investigating [37:34] at the state level. [37:36] Dunleavy recalled, [37:37] adding that the president said [37:38] the federal government [37:39] was also investigating the matter. [37:42] Now, I wasn't born yesterday. [37:44] And I wasn't even born at night. [37:46] I was actually born [37:46] at 8.23 a.m. in the morning. [37:47] However, Norm, [37:51] if, you know, [37:52] if passed this prologue here, [37:54] usually when Donald Trump [37:55] is calling up these governors, [37:56] it is not a benign conversation. [37:58] He wants them to do something. [38:00] Let's start with Alaska. [38:03] The Alaska Supreme Court, [38:05] the top legal authority [38:07] in the state, [38:09] has said that the two Dan Sullivans [38:13] can cohabit on this ballot. [38:16] So the notion [38:17] that there's any basis [38:19] for Donald Trump [38:20] to file a lawsuit [38:21] in all the terrible civil lawsuits [38:24] that I've seen [38:24] from this administration, [38:26] we've had hundreds of legal matters [38:28] that democracy defenders [38:29] fund in action. [38:31] That Alaska one is the worst. [38:33] There's no cause of action. [38:34] There's no law [38:35] that's being broken. [38:38] Number two, [38:38] the Constitution. [38:40] The Constitution gives these issues [38:42] to the states. [38:44] Congress has some role [38:45] to set the law. [38:47] The president is not mentioned [38:48] in Article 1, Section 4, [38:51] where this is set forth. [38:52] He has no business calling. [38:54] Number three, [38:55] we have seen, [38:56] there's the two worst things [38:58] this administration has done. [39:00] It's killed innocent people [39:02] with ICE, [39:04] Lorenzo Salgado, [39:06] Alex Priti, [39:08] Rene Good. [39:09] and it has prosecuted [39:12] innocent people [39:13] that it does not like [39:14] over and over again. [39:15] Every time Jim Comey's daughter, [39:18] Maureen, [39:18] wins, [39:19] in her case, [39:20] they release another criminal [39:22] prosecution against him. [39:24] And the same thing [39:25] with Tish James, [39:26] my client, [39:26] Davey Hearn, [39:27] the reflecting pool gentleman, [39:29] falsely blamed, [39:31] criminally prosecuted. [39:32] Why? [39:32] So Donald Trump [39:34] could hide his [39:34] botch rush installation. [39:36] That is what they are doing [39:37] in Alaska, Simone. [39:39] They're stirring up [39:40] this fuss over something [39:42] that the Alaska Supreme Court [39:44] has said is legal. [39:46] And then, [39:47] let's travel down the coast, [39:49] shall we? [39:50] Washington, [39:50] where they've sent [39:51] these letters [39:52] threatening election administrators, [39:54] state of Washington, [39:55] California, [39:56] where I was in court, [39:57] our team helped win [39:58] the case [40:00] with these 20,000 voters. [40:02] The judge in that case, [40:04] they tried for a TRO, [40:05] he threw them [40:06] right out of court [40:07] because their list [40:09] that they have [40:10] in California, [40:11] they claim, [40:12] oh, [40:12] over 20,000 [40:14] unauthorized voters [40:15] is a junk list. [40:17] It's unreliable. [40:19] It's unproven. [40:20] It's there to intimidate [40:22] voters. [40:23] They're losing in court. [40:24] And that's the last thing [40:25] I want to say. [40:26] Why are they doing this? [40:27] They're losing [40:28] in the court of law [40:29] and they're losing [40:30] in the court of public opinion. [40:32] They are facing a wipeout. [40:34] And just like I sat [40:35] at this desk [40:36] for the past 21 months [40:38] and I told you all, [40:39] we're going to go [40:39] to the Supreme Court, [40:40] we're going to win that. [40:41] These cases are going [40:42] no place. [40:43] Voters should not [40:44] be distracted. [40:45] Vote, [40:46] vote early, [40:47] vote with confidence. [40:48] We have your back. [40:49] Norman, [40:49] Norman, [40:50] fired up and ready to go. [40:51] Simone, [40:52] she inspired me. [40:54] I aim to please. [40:56] It's just, [40:56] it's so crazy. [40:57] I don't know about y'all. [41:00] Whenever I speak to Norm, [41:01] he makes me feel better. [41:02] And then I just, [41:03] I see what's happening [41:04] out there in the world [41:05] and I get more anxious. [41:06] I understand what Norm [41:07] is saying about the fact [41:08] that like the lawyers [41:10] are doing what they're [41:11] supposed to do. [41:11] The president is [41:12] lashing out like this [41:13] and Republicans are [41:14] lashing out because [41:15] they know they're [41:16] going to lose. [41:16] They've lost in the [41:17] court of public opinion. [41:18] They're losing in the [41:18] actual courts. [41:19] But I don't know, [41:20] Michael Steele, [41:20] Luke. [41:21] I just, [41:22] I'm still a little like, [41:24] what else do they have [41:25] up there? [41:25] She says I'm like low dose [41:27] Rosac. [41:28] I'm like, [41:29] it's not the good stuff. [41:31] Maybe like a well-beauty friend. [41:32] I mean, [41:32] I, [41:33] you can't, [41:34] again, [41:35] I just, [41:35] this Alaska thing [41:37] is just so wild. [41:38] And I think what you laid out [41:39] was the very strong [41:40] legal argument [41:41] against it here [41:42] was that the state [41:43] Supreme Court [41:43] already in cadence. [41:44] This was already an issue [41:45] that was okay. [41:46] Like they went through this. [41:47] This was challenged. [41:48] If the state said [41:49] that this guy could be [41:50] on the ballot, [41:50] it's okay. [41:51] But all this pearl clutching, [41:52] my God, [41:53] just don't fall for this again. [41:56] This is what happens. [41:57] People throw this out there [41:58] and there's this false equivalency. [42:00] It's not anywhere. [42:02] Ballot stacking [42:03] is not anywhere near [42:05] trying to steal an election. [42:06] That is what's happening [42:07] from the Trump administration. [42:09] That's what they're doing. [42:09] That's what they've telegraphed [42:10] the entire time. [42:11] And how do we know this? [42:12] Let's talk about [42:12] California ballots, [42:14] Norm. [42:15] The U.S. [42:15] District Judge [42:16] David O. [42:17] Carter [42:18] ruling on CA ballots [42:19] and bringing this lawsuit, [42:20] the executive head [42:21] of his court believed [42:22] that it reigns [42:22] as a sole sovereign. [42:23] But California [42:24] and its people [42:24] are sovereign too. [42:25] The executives requested [42:26] relief would wreak havoc [42:27] and disrupt the election [42:28] that it's already underway, [42:29] create a chilling effect [42:30] on election workers [42:31] and voters alike [42:31] and discount the votes [42:33] in the United States citizens. [42:34] What is this obsession [42:35] that the Trump administration [42:36] has with California [42:37] and its elections? [42:39] There's only one real swing seat [42:41] in there in the U.S. House. [42:42] The governor's race, [42:44] Becerra is polling [42:45] by almost 20% [42:46] over Hilton. [42:47] What is the obsession [42:48] about California voters? [42:50] Well, I saw it firsthand [42:51] with our Democracy Defenders team [42:54] representing the NAACP, [42:57] our nation's preeminent [42:58] African-American [42:59] civil rights organization, [43:01] LULAC, [43:02] our nation's largest [43:03] and oldest Latino organization. [43:05] We went to court. [43:07] We helped argue that case. [43:09] And what you saw [43:10] on the other side [43:11] is an obsession with, [43:13] that they knew [43:14] they were going to lose [43:15] because that case [43:15] is a junk list [43:17] of 20,000 [43:19] and it's junk law, [43:21] Luke. [43:22] They want a scapegoat, [43:24] someone to blame. [43:25] And they have picked [43:26] the idea [43:27] of migrants [43:28] to our country. [43:29] These are people [43:30] who are the salt [43:31] of the earth. [43:32] They come here [43:33] to make a better life [43:34] for themselves, [43:35] their families. [43:36] They're drawn [43:36] to the American idea [43:37] and they contribute [43:38] to America. [43:40] Other than the Native Americans, [43:42] we're all from migrant stock [43:44] in this country. [43:45] They're blaming them. [43:46] Some of us, of course. [43:47] Some of us. [43:47] Yes, that's true. [43:49] But we get your point. [43:51] Yeah, we'll take it. [43:51] But like the Davey Hearn case, [43:54] like the Davey Hearn case, [43:56] they're looking for someone [43:58] to blame for their own failures. [44:00] And they're seeing [44:00] this massive, [44:02] this massive blue wave gathering. [44:04] It's like California. [44:05] I mean, Pete Wilson, [44:06] Proposition 187. [44:07] This was all litigated [44:08] in the 90s [44:09] in terms of what you're saying. [44:11] I just want everybody [44:12] to take a moment [44:14] and take a breath. [44:18] Breathe in, breathe out. [44:22] Tuesday's election day. [44:24] Some of you [44:24] have already voted early. [44:26] Some of you [44:27] are going to be doing it [44:28] this weekend. [44:28] Others are going to show up [44:29] at the polls. [44:31] Whether you're in Alaska, [44:33] whether you're in Maine, [44:34] North Carolina, [44:35] South Carolina, [44:36] Mississippi, [44:37] wherever you are, [44:38] you're going to vote. [44:39] Hello, Group Chat. [44:41] Molly John Fast [44:42] is here host [44:43] of the Fast Politics podcast [44:44] and contributing writer [44:45] for the New York Times. [44:47] Eamon Mohadeen [44:48] is back, [44:48] MSNOW analyst. [44:49] Ben Collins, [44:50] CEO of The Onion [44:51] and David Gurra, [44:52] host of Bloomberg [44:53] this weekend [44:54] and the Big Take podcast. [44:55] Also with us, [44:56] Glenn Thrush, [44:57] Justice Department reporter [44:58] for the New York Times. [44:59] Glenn, [45:00] this is your reporting. [45:01] So I want to start [45:02] with your reporting [45:03] on the Justice Department. [45:04] What do we need to know [45:05] and how do they respond? [45:08] Well, look, [45:09] I think as you laid out [45:11] pretty clearly [45:11] in the Alaska case, [45:13] we have two separate things. [45:15] We have to do something [45:16] that we're not, [45:17] as a country, [45:18] apparently capable [45:19] of doing in 2026. [45:20] We need to hold [45:21] two parallel thoughts, [45:23] right? [45:23] In Alaska, [45:25] what the campaign did [45:27] with Sullivan's [45:28] and my colleagues' [45:30] wonderful reporting [45:30] on that [45:31] is a dirty trick. [45:34] I've covered [45:35] two or three races. [45:36] some of my earliest [45:37] journalistic endeavors [45:40] were in a New York City [45:41] council race [45:42] where two Asian candidates [45:44] where one was run [45:45] against another one [45:46] because they had [45:47] an identical name. [45:47] This happens [45:48] a fair amount [45:49] in politics. [45:50] It was something [45:51] that she needs [45:52] to be held [45:52] to account [45:54] by the electorate. [45:55] It is something [45:55] that is likely [45:56] going to hurt her politically. [45:58] That is one silo. [45:59] The question now [46:00] that we have to ask ourselves [46:01] is what role [46:02] does federal law enforcement [46:03] have in this? [46:04] And the one role [46:05] that the consensus [46:07] is among legal scholars, [46:08] current and former officials, [46:09] is that this attempt [46:11] to intervene [46:12] to block, [46:13] potentially block [46:14] certification [46:14] to the election [46:15] if she wins [46:16] based on the two Dans [46:17] has no precedent. [46:19] The only precedent [46:20] that exists [46:21] emanates from 1968 [46:24] and it was the only time [46:26] a Justice Department [46:28] attempted to prevent [46:29] an election [46:30] from being certified [46:31] and that was [46:32] the Barber County [46:33] Democratic Committee [46:36] in which [46:37] the Johnson [46:37] Justice Department [46:38] tried to prevent [46:39] an election [46:41] that was excluding [46:42] black candidates. [46:44] So we're on [46:45] a double track here. [46:46] We have seen [46:47] some reporting. [46:48] We have not reported it yet. [46:50] I don't believe [46:50] that the Justice Department [46:52] is looking into [46:53] a potential criminal case [46:54] against Fatalta's campaign. [46:56] Again, [46:57] that's another question. [46:58] Why would the feds [46:59] be involved in that? [47:00] So when we are seeing [47:01] the Alaska Attorney General [47:02] look at it, [47:03] that would be a more [47:04] appropriate venue [47:05] for such an investigation. [47:06] Although the people [47:07] that I've, [47:08] the clips that I've read [47:09] and the people [47:10] that I've talked to [47:10] seem to indicate [47:11] that even a criminal case [47:13] in Alaska [47:13] would probably be [47:14] a fairly tall order. [47:16] But that's the thing. [47:17] What would the charges be? [47:18] Right? [47:19] Trump obviously wants [47:20] her to face [47:20] criminal prosecution, [47:21] Glenn, [47:22] but whatever you think [47:23] of tricks like this, [47:24] dirty or not, [47:26] can they point [47:27] to actual crimes? [47:28] Because let's be clear, [47:30] going right up [47:30] to the edge of the law [47:32] but not breaking it [47:34] is kind of Trump's jam. [47:36] Well, and also the ballot, [47:37] if you look at the ballot, [47:38] and I'm sure everybody has, [47:41] Sullivan is clearly identified [47:45] as a Republican. [47:46] So the ballot [47:47] is actually pretty, [47:48] and that was one [47:48] of the issues [47:49] that took place [47:49] in the initial filing. [47:51] But I think part [47:55] of the larger issue here [47:57] is not necessarily [47:58] in the legal arena. [47:59] And again, [48:00] it gets to this thing [48:01] that I and my colleagues [48:02] have been covering [48:03] since the beginning [48:04] of this administration, [48:05] the complete obliteration [48:06] of the wall [48:07] between the political [48:08] imperatives of the White House [48:09] and the prosecutorial [48:11] imperatives [48:11] of the Justice Department. [48:13] I think this is part [48:13] of a larger campaign [48:15] if you sort of look [48:18] at the knock-on [48:18] and how Republican politicians [48:20] are using this, [48:21] particularly the president, [48:23] to invalidate [48:24] the broader [48:25] Democratic field here. [48:28] I think this is, [48:31] if you look at the polls [48:32] and if the polls [48:32] can be trusted there, [48:34] and we saw another rash [48:35] of CNN ones out today [48:36] showing four races [48:38] that were presumed early on [48:40] to be Republican safe seats [48:42] are now in jeopardy. [48:44] I think what you have seen, [48:46] I think, [48:46] on all of government approach [48:48] by the Trump administration [48:50] to cast doubt [48:52] on the veracity [48:53] of Democratic candidates [48:54] and the integrity [48:56] of the balloting process. [48:57] So I think [48:58] the Alaska intervention [49:00] as well as [49:01] the interventions [49:02] to impound [49:03] 20,000 votes [49:04] in California [49:05] and this is now spreading, [49:07] these requests [49:07] are spreading [49:07] across the country, [49:08] even if they're not [49:09] successful legally, [49:12] I think what they're [49:13] intended to do [49:14] is to spread this fog [49:16] over the political landscape [49:18] to put in question, [49:21] again, [49:21] the validity [49:22] and veracity [49:24] of Democratic candidacies [49:26] and the overall integrity [49:27] of the election itself. [49:29] Glenn Thrush, [49:30] thank you so much. [49:30] That takes us directly [49:32] to a viewer question. [49:33] Judith in Brookline, Massachusetts, [49:35] writes, [49:35] I'm sickened by the story [49:37] coming out of Alaska [49:38] as it gives Trump fodder [49:40] for his claim [49:41] that elections are rigged. [49:43] What can Democrats do [49:44] at this late stage [49:45] in the game [49:46] to recover from this? [49:47] So here's what I would say. [49:49] What I think is really interesting [49:51] about this case [49:52] is you have a situation here [49:53] where Todd Blanche, [49:54] who was Donald Trump's [49:56] personal lawyer [49:57] until fairly recently, [49:58] is doing things [50:00] to try to please the boss. [50:02] And it's funny [50:03] because I wrote a piece [50:05] about this simple [50:05] social structure [50:06] of this Trump [50:08] administration 2.0 [50:09] and it does seem [50:10] like you see people [50:11] around the president [50:12] trying to anticipate [50:14] what he might like [50:15] and then make them happen. [50:18] And so when you see [50:18] this flooding the zone [50:20] with these kind [50:21] of Justice Department [50:22] things to undermine [50:23] the election, [50:24] you could see [50:25] a Todd Blanche [50:25] trying to anticipate [50:27] something that would [50:27] please the big guy. [50:29] Put that aside [50:30] and put Trump [50:31] and Todd Blanche aside, [50:33] it still does not look [50:34] good for Democrats. [50:35] No, it does not. [50:36] And let me just say [50:37] one thing about [50:37] Donald Trump's jam. [50:38] I don't, [50:39] just to be on the record [50:40] clearly here, [50:40] Donald Trump's jam [50:41] is not going up [50:42] to what is legal or not. [50:43] He basically, [50:44] he literally crossed [50:46] the law by inciting [50:47] an insurrection [50:48] to overturn our election. [50:49] Let's never not [50:50] lose sight to that. [50:51] Look, I think the issue [50:52] here with the reporting [50:53] is what does a line mean, [50:54] right? [50:55] I think are there [50:55] nefarious people out there [50:56] who are always trying [50:57] to, you know, [50:58] exploit the moment [50:59] and try to get Democrats [51:00] across the finish line? [51:02] Unfortunately, [51:02] this is part of [51:03] American politics, [51:04] which sucks. [51:05] Right. [51:05] But I do think [51:06] it's also a game. [51:07] It's the game. [51:08] And I think Alaska [51:09] it's 10 times worse. [51:10] Yeah. [51:10] And I want to just [51:11] be very clear. [51:11] If somebody is have found [51:13] to broken the law, [51:14] they should be punished [51:15] regardless of the party. [51:16] But here's the problem. [51:17] We are losing confidence [51:18] in the law [51:19] because the law [51:20] is being weaponized [51:21] for one party [51:21] over the other. [51:22] So it's kind of naive [51:23] to just kind of [51:23] take a step back [51:24] and say, [51:25] hey, [51:25] the Democrats [51:26] are doing something [51:26] really bad in Alaska. [51:27] Let's prosecute it [51:28] to the full extent [51:29] of the law [51:29] when for the last [51:30] several weeks, [51:31] we are seeing the law [51:32] weaponized in a way [51:33] that is making [51:34] the average American [51:34] lose any confidence [51:36] in what the law [51:37] is supposed to be. [51:37] And this is part [51:38] of the game [51:39] that the Republicans [51:40] are trying to play. [51:41] And I'm not just [51:41] putting the blame [51:42] on Republicans here, [51:43] but I'm saying [51:43] they have created [51:44] an atmosphere [51:45] in which by getting [51:47] people to feel [51:48] less confident [51:48] in the electoral process, [51:50] in the outcome, [51:51] in who votes, [51:52] in who runs, [51:53] you start losing confidence [51:54] in the democracy. [51:55] When that happens, [51:57] they win. [51:58] So is the situation [51:59] in Alaska troubling? [52:00] Yes, absolutely. [52:01] Should it be prosecuted? [52:02] Should it be investigated? [52:04] It should be [52:04] in the appropriate channels. [52:06] But you can't come now [52:07] and say after going [52:08] after Ilhan Omar, [52:09] Jim Comey, [52:11] seizing ballots in Georgia. [52:13] You can't clutch [52:13] your pearls now. [52:14] Yeah, it's like, [52:15] oh my God, [52:16] there's problems [52:16] in our electoral system [52:17] that Democrats [52:18] are out here [52:19] trying to cheat. [52:20] But also to that point, [52:21] if Trump changed the game, [52:23] Democrats are potentially [52:24] just playing that game now. [52:26] Right? [52:26] We've been complaining [52:27] forever and ever [52:28] that like Democrats [52:29] don't know how to fight [52:30] like Republicans do. [52:30] They bring spoons [52:31] to a knife fight. [52:32] So like now [52:33] they brought a knife [52:33] and Republicans are saying, [52:35] how dare you [52:35] when that's how they roll? [52:36] It's the first ever knife. [52:39] I've never seen a knife before. [52:40] What's going on? [52:41] I also like, [52:41] just logistically here, [52:42] guys, [52:43] this is rank choice voting. [52:44] Right. [52:44] This is important. [52:45] This is really important to note. [52:46] You can put both Dan's [52:48] just in order [52:48] and not put Mary's name. [52:49] Or you can actually [52:50] read the ballot [52:50] that says Republican incumbent. [52:52] It says incumbent. [52:53] I mean, [52:54] I kind of feel bad [52:56] that the Republican strategy [52:57] is like, [52:57] we don't trust our voters [52:58] to be able to read [52:59] the word incumbent. [53:00] Look at this right now. [53:01] This is not that complicated to me. [53:02] If I wanted to vote [53:03] for Dan Sullivan, [53:04] I would just vote for him [53:05] in two different ways [53:06] as evidence [53:07] on this thing. [53:09] I agree with you completely, [53:10] Steph. [53:11] And also, [53:11] let's not lose sight [53:12] of the immense corruption [53:14] on the other side. [53:15] Elon Musk just lost [53:16] a lawsuit for doing that [53:19] giving away [53:19] a million dollars thing [53:21] to a random person. [53:22] Turns out, [53:22] A, [53:22] that wasn't even [53:23] a random person. [53:23] That was like [53:24] a very selected person. [53:25] And second of all, [53:27] that's like the most [53:27] illegal election thing [53:28] that I can possibly conceive. [53:29] Correct. [53:30] What about giving [53:30] $5,000 to voters [53:32] to help Donald Trump? [53:33] And there's no way [53:35] that didn't impact [53:36] the Wisconsin [53:37] presidential voting results. [53:38] So like, [53:39] again, [53:40] like you said, [53:40] I think [53:41] feigning outrage here [53:43] is part of the game plan. [53:45] And that's what, [53:46] again, [53:46] this is what [53:47] the Trump media ecosystem [53:49] does really well. [53:49] They take these little [53:50] weaponizable data points [53:51] and make them [53:52] into the biggest thing ever [53:53] and say, [53:54] ah, [53:54] we would never do [53:54] anything like this. [53:55] Well, [53:55] they just do it [53:56] all the time. [53:56] But Republicans [53:57] did also run someone [53:59] when Mary Patola [54:00] ran for Congress [54:01] the second time [54:02] who was [54:03] an inmate [54:05] who ran his campaign [54:06] from a New York prison [54:08] who they put [54:09] on the ballot. [54:09] So I'm just saying, [54:11] like, [54:11] Alaska has a long [54:12] and solid perspective. [54:14] And even, [54:14] like, [54:14] remember the congressman [54:15] from Alaska [54:16] who carried around [54:17] the knife? [54:18] I mean, [54:18] this is a very... [54:19] Maybe these guys [54:20] have cool ideas, [54:20] though. [54:21] This is an intense state. [54:22] Could he see Russia [54:23] from his living room, [54:24] though? [54:25] Kitchen window. [54:26] No, [54:27] I think that all of this [54:28] is a very cohesive answer [54:29] to the viewer's question, [54:30] which is, [54:30] I think there's a tendency [54:31] on the Democrats' part [54:32] to step back [54:33] and have to reckon [54:34] with what they're being accused [54:35] of here, [54:35] be that illegal or not. [54:37] And I think there are [54:38] so many examples [54:39] of how this is not [54:40] a clean election process, [54:42] that the campaign [54:43] has been waged [54:44] in such a dirty way [54:45] as led by Republicans. [54:47] Just going back [54:47] to the Justice Department, [54:48] we have seen [54:49] from this administration [54:50] time and time again [54:50] this kind of [54:51] entrepreneurial jurisprudence [54:53] where it doesn't have [54:54] anything to do with [54:55] how the law [54:55] is supposed to be upheld [54:56] or the path [54:57] that they're supposed [54:57] to go down. [54:58] It's what could work, [54:59] what could create a storm, [55:00] will it stick or not? [55:01] And I think we've seen [55:01] that in so many instances [55:03] with Jim Comey [55:03] most recently [55:04] where something doesn't work, [55:05] let's try something new [55:06] and whether or not [55:08] it works is really [55:09] besides the points. [55:09] Can we attenuate it? [55:10] Can we lengthen the process [55:11] as much as we can here? [55:12] And we see their lack [55:14] of success [55:15] with grand jury indictments [55:16] here moving into [55:16] this other realm [55:17] of how they're [55:18] loving this stuff [55:19] and again, [55:20] it's to have it out there [55:21] lets them have it [55:21] lead to something. [55:22] Can I say quickly, [55:23] by the way, [55:23] that viewer question [55:24] was a great question [55:24] because it highlights [55:25] what this person has, [55:27] the person who called in [55:28] was like, [55:28] I have shame. [55:29] You know, [55:30] I am capable of being like, [55:31] I don't want to be on the side [55:33] of people doing dirty tricks [55:34] and bad stuff. [55:35] The other side [55:35] doesn't even consider that. [55:36] It's the great cosmic disservice [55:38] of having to vote for [55:39] and be around people [55:40] who have the concept [55:41] of shame in their heart. [55:43] Hey, it's Rachel. [55:44] I am so glad to see you [55:45] at the end of that clip [55:46] because this is where [55:46] I get to tell you [55:47] about a new way [55:48] to watch all our clips [55:50] and all of our shows [55:51] and everything on MSNOW [55:53] on your phone [55:54] or your tablet [55:55] or your laptop. [55:56] You can watch things live [55:57] or recorded. [55:58] Plus, you can ask me [55:59] and all the other hosts [56:00] and reporters questions [56:01] in our weekly live chats. [56:03] You can go to [56:04] ms.now [56:05] slash membership [56:07] or just click below. [56:10] Thanks.