What’s Going on With The New York Times?

It has gone from speculation to reality. The political left must be hopping mad, and perhaps a little shocked. After all, when does The New York Times uncover dirty Democratic tricks and write about them before an election? It appears the newspaper did exactly that in the case of the two Dan Sullivans in Alaska. As if that weren’t enough to turn heads, the Gray Lady followed up with an article uncovering former President Barack Obama’s investigation into Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s various and sundry false statements concerning her immigration.

History Repeats Itself

The tale of the two Sullivans on the ballot in Alaska took a dramatic turn when The Times learned the campaign for the Senate Democratic nominee, Mary Peltola, was behind the ballot controversy. Peltola’s Democratic strategists took a page right out of history, as Liberty Nation News pointed out months ago in an article about the Alaska Senate election controversy paralleling John F. Kennedy's congressional run in 1946.

That’s when two Joe Russos appeared on the ballot for Massachusetts's 11th district: One was a bona fide candidate; the other, a 27-year-old janitor. Bet you can’t guess which one was the pretender. In the Massachusetts episode, Joe Kennedy was alleged to have paid the janitor for going along with the ruse. This follow-the-money strategy may have worked again, potentially leading The Times to uncover what really happened in Alaska.

The New York Times Gets the Scoop

The Times reported that Peltola’s “top campaign aides” ordered a staffer to “Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can.” Lo and behold, they found plenty of them in the 49th state. No one yet knows how many the Democratic campaign approached, but they located one willing to play ball. The Republican Senator on the ballot is Dan S. Sullivan; the pretender is Dan J. Sullivan, who, according to The Times, lives in a remote village reachable only by “air and sea.”

A dozen interviews over a two-month period were conducted by the reporter from The New York Times. In one of them, Elisa Rios, who was campaign manager for a time, tried to retract her previous statements, but The Times was not, and is not, obliged to remove her numerous comments in the story. What astounds many is that the newspaper of record, as it’s often called, printed this damning piece about a Democratic challenger trying to defeat a sitting Republican senator.

While the practice of ballot stacking appears not to be illegal, it does have that lingering odor of dirty tricks, and this article will certainly damage Mary Peltola’s campaign.

But Wait, There’s More

A New York Times report dated Oct. 29 disclosed that in 2016 the Obama administration conducted its own investigation into the immigration of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). The Trump administration claims that the immigration records of the Somali-born House member led to questions regarding her actual name, age, and marital status, and that these documents are filled with falsehoods.

The Times report by Ernesto Londoño “found some evidence that it [the marriage] was fraudulent.” However, they didn’t follow up on the irregularities because the crime or crimes were outside the five-year statute of limitations.

One way around that, according to Londoño, would be to “cite the marriage in an indictment or civil action that describes a family immigration fraud conspiracy — a broader case that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said could lead to Ms. Omar’s deportation.”

Brother and Husband?

In 2016, federal agents “found evidence suggesting that Mr. Elmi and Ms. Omar were siblings, according to the six former and current officials familiar with the case,” The Times reported. But they never went any further into the investigation, and there it sat until 2026.

Federal agencies raided Omar’s Washington, DC, home, and authorities appear to be champing at the bit to dig into Omar’s past. All of this comes within days of an election in which Omar is on track to win handily. If re-elected, this would be her fifth term in office.

What is startling about these two New York Times articles is that they dared to write about the missteps of two Democrats only days before the midterms. Does this mean the powers that be at the old Gray Lady are now willing to call out potential wrongdoing no matter which party is involved, or are they making a concerted effort to follow the facts instead of just adhering to Democratic talking points? Who knows? But it will certainly be worth watching, if only to show that The Times is no longer willing to be a Democratic lackey.