What REALLY Happened With Graham Platner
And why inventing a new version of him won't solve the Dems' problem
Friends, Paul starts us off with a quick take on the true lessons of the Graham Platner implosion… and why just conjuring a new Maine candidate won’t fix what ails the Dems when it comes to blue-collar voters. This goes back a looong way….
Then Chris provides an X-ray on the Gavin Newsom case — is there enough there for a conviction? Or will Greasy Gavin (and his wife) slip this one?
Next our (every shadowy) Legal Editor gives us a take on why roughly half (HALF!) of America’s 17-year-old boys are becoming more vulnerable to criminal extortion…. Trust us, it ain’t pretty.
Then our True Crime Girl updates us on a mockery of justice out in Wisconsin — a case we hope isn’t over, but is only beginning.
Oh! And we have a great podcast with former DEA Director Derek Maltz, who explains why “it’s all one case” — and why America is finally starting to recognize that even the lowly drug dealer on the street today is an avatar of nation states looking to take America apart, one dose at a time. And how we’re stopping them!
So as “the Great One” said: And awaaaay we go…!
Democrats Think They Have a Graham Platner Problem. They Actually Have a Bill Clinton Problem
For the past several months, Democrats have been swooning over Graham Platner. A Marine. An Army veteran. An oyster farmer. A guy who looks like he changes his own oil instead of hosting seminars on the intersectionality of trans Eskimos. The thinking seems obvious: This is how Democrats win back blue-collar America.
It’s a nice thought. It’s also like trying to win back your ex by changing your haircut — after you burned down the house.
The Democratic establishment keeps acting as though working-class voters drifted away because Donald Trump came along and hypnotized them. No. They left because they concluded the party stopped representing their economic interests long before Trump descended that golden escalator.
If you’re looking for the turning point, don’t start in 2016. Start with Bill Clinton.
In 2000, Clinton became the chief advocate for granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)—formerly known as Most Favored Nation status—and aggressively pushed Congress to approve China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. He argued that opening America’s markets to China would boost U.S. exports, create American jobs, and even encourage political liberalization in Beijing.
Those arguments aren’t revisionist history; they’re right from President Clinton’s own remarks. Congress ultimately approved PNTR, clearing the way for China’s accession to the WTO.
Now, we’re sure the theory sounded brilliant in Washington. But reality looked different in Youngstown, Gary, Flint, Lowell, Scranton, and hundreds of other manufacturing towns.
Factories closed. Production moved overseas. Supply chains migrated to China. Economists continue to debate the precise number of jobs attributable to the “China Shock,” but there is broad agreement that China’s integration into the global trading system profoundly reshaped American manufacturing — and helped create our principal global adversary.
Working-class Americans didn’t need to read an economics paper to understand what had happened. They watched the machine shop close. They watched the steel mill lay off another shift. They watched their kids move away because the jobs had already left town.
This economic divorce eventually became a cultural one. Many working-class Americans no longer believe Democrats share their priorities on jobs, energy, public safety, patriotism, or even respect for the dignity of manual labor. They believe Democrats see them as relics of the past rather than the backbone of the country. They don’t see a party that represents their interests; they see elitists who increasingly cater to elite institutions, urban professionals, and a multiplying panoply of grievance groups.
So when Democrats convinced themselves that Graham Platner was the answer, they were confusing packaging with policy.
Blue-collar Americans aren’t looking for a candidate who owns a pickup truck, wears flannel, or pretends to wield an oyster knife. They’re looking for a party that won’t trade away the factory while telling the guy who worked there to “learn to code.”
You don’t reconnect with the working class by finding a better actor to play the part. You reconnect by convincing them you finally understand why they walked off the stage in the first place.
Until the Dems recognize that… expect the blue-collars to continue to shift red.
(But that said: there is a bright side to the Platner debacle – it gave us these two. They can’t be real, can they? Just too good to be true!).
Lawfare or Anti-Corruption?
There has been a great deal of consternation and hand-wringing over the arrest of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s former Chief of Staff, Dana Williamson, and the current investigation into the Newsoms’ nonprofit organizations. Several outlets have portrayed the investigations as lawfare by an out-of-control and vindictive Trump administration.
That doesn’t appear to be the case with the Newsom investigation. That is not to say Trump would oppose going after Newsom. He has turned the tables on many of the people who used lawfare against him. The Comey election interference investigation was legitimate, and we wish it had gone forward, but the cases against Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and Comey’s current “shells” case involve relatively minor crimes and could reasonably be viewed as revenge.
What many outlets failed to point out is that the Williamson and Newsom investigations were not initiated by the Trump Administration. Biden’s DOJ opened the corruption investigation in 2022 after a whistleblower alerted the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California to potential criminal conduct. It is entirely possible—even likely—that a DOJ already comfortable engaging in lawfare eagerly pursued the tip. Newsom briefly considered entering the 2024 presidential race and almost certainly would have been a leading contender in 2028 regardless of Kamala Harris’s performance. Like many Democrats, he may have anticipated that a Harris presidency would struggle politically, creating an opening for his own campaign.
Whatever the motivations, there appears to have been ample cause to open an investigation (although these days it feels like you could throw a rock into any government building and have a 50/50 chance of hitting someone stealing money.)
Newsom’s longtime Chief of Staff, Dana Williamson, is accused of running a fairly typical embezzlement scheme. According to prosecutors, she identified a dormant campaign account belonging to Xavier Becerra (the former, largely ineffective Secretary of Health and Human Services and current California gubernatorial candidate) and siphoned roughly $250,000 to an associate. She is also accused of influencing California officials to settle a civil case involving Activision Blizzard, which was facing unfair labor practice claims. The FBI persuaded Newsom political appointee Alexis Podesta to cooperate and wear a wire during the investigation.
As is often the case in financial fraud investigations, the FBI appears to have caught Williamson dead to rights—it is difficult to conceal embezzlement once it is discovered. She allegedly compounded her problems by committing additional crimes while trying to cover up the original scheme. Williamson pleaded guilty in May and is awaiting sentencing. Two co-conspirators also pleaded guilty.
Now things become more interesting: by our count, at least one Newsom associate wore a wire, and several others have pleaded guilty to federal felonies. This investigation may actually go somewhere.
We still do not know all the details surrounding the ongoing investigation into the Newsoms, but it reportedly centers on Jennifer Newsom’s nonprofit, The Representation Project, allegedly receiving donations in exchange for favors by Gavin Newsom.
The Representation Project is dedicated to “fighting sexism with social impact films,” but it appears to function largely as a funding mechanism for its employees (Jennifer Newsom herself earned $161,250). In 2025, the organization received $1.24 million in donations while paying $1.11 million in salaries and benefits, leaving comparatively little for its stated mission (which may be a blessing; the films are simplistic lefty propaganda).
California has created a legally questionable carve-out through its Behested Payments law, which allows donations made at the request of public officials to charities without treating them as campaign contributions. But can those donations go to a charity run by the official’s spouse? That may be ethically problematic, but the legal question is less clear.
To prosecute under federal bribery statutes, DOJ would likely have to prove that Gavin Newsom personally benefited from the donations he solicited and that he agreed to perform an official act in exchange. That second element is often difficult to establish, but with one associate wearing a wire and several cooperating witnesses, prosecutors may have a stronger chance—assuming a quid pro quo actually occurred.
Regardless, because this investigation began under the Biden Administration and involves serious corruption allegations, it does not feel like the Trump lawfare operation Newsom and his allies claim.
Now the question is whether DOJ can actually deliver a conviction. Given the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonnell v. United States, recent struggles in public corruption prosecutions, and Congress’s refusal to strengthen anti-corruption laws, that will not be easy.
The investigation alone is likely to damage Newsom, however, even if he ultimately survives it politically. Americans increasingly believe they are living in a kleptocracy. A recent Brennan Center poll found that 92% of Americans across party lines believe public corruption is a “big problem” at all levels of government. If you do not trust the Brennan Center, numerous other polls reach similar conclusions.
At this point, many Americans appear less concerned about investigators’ motives than about seeing public officials held accountable. That is bad timing for Newsom—and good timing for whoever called in the original tip.
Congress Has Become A Nursing Home
In the 1970s and early ’80s there was a great deal of derision directed at the USSR over its leadership. The power brokers in the Soviet Union were out of touch. They were living in the past. They had no new ideas. They were…old.
It was true. Longtime leader Leonid Brezhnev was 75 when he died in office in 1982. His successor, Yuri Andropov, was 68 and suffering from kidney failure when he assumed office. He died the following year. The next General Secretary, Konstantin Chernenko, was 72 and also in poor health, hanging on for just 13 months before kicking the bucket. In 1982, the average age of a Politburo member was 70.
In America, these regimes were often referred to as a gerontocracy. The late ’70s and early ’80s became an era of stagnation for the dying communist regime. The elderly Soviet leadership had no new ideas, no solutions, and no hustle—an aging goliath wheezing through its death throes.
Today, the United States is not far behind in a leadership race to the nursing home. The average age of a senator is 69, nearly five years older than in 2000. The House of Representatives is, on average, four years older than it was in 2000.
Our last two presidents are the oldest in American history. Biden was nursing-home ready before his term began. Trump, although energetic, will be the oldest president ever when he leaves office.
The Senate is led by people like Chuck Grassley, 92, Chuck Schumer, 75, Mitch McConnell, 84 (if he is still with us), and Dick Durbin, 81. The Dianne Feinstein debacle was an embarrassing cover-up for a woman too old and senile to do her job. Lindsey Graham, 71, just died in office (rest in peace).
The House is no better, with power brokers like Nancy Pelosi, 86, Steny Hoyer, 87, and Jim Clyburn, 86.
America, in many ways, is facing stagnation as well. Continuing massive and unsustainable deficit spending, an inability or unwillingness to pass meaningful legislation, and our continuing engagement in dubious overseas wars are slowly weakening the country. Government is spending more, wasting more, stealing more (see below), and giving Americans less.
Many today are calling for fresh faces to lead the country, and I agree. However, the younger generation of prospective leaders is not the answer. As we saw in recent congressional primaries, a growing number of younger contenders support the same bad ideas that drove the Soviet Union into becoming a dysfunctional, tyrannical, and doomed empire.
The next Congress will include several younger members who identify as “Democratic Socialists.” Their ideas are a steppingstone to the full-blown communism that wreaked havoc and destroyed millions of lives in Eastern Europe, Asia, Cuba, and Venezuela.
Democratic Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib are likely to be joined by House primary winners Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and Melat Kiros. Thankfully, we appear to have been spared the youthful energy of Graham Platner.
These members are likely to double down on massive deficit spending while bringing an uncompromising approach to a legislative body intended to function through compromise. In other words, the stagnation will continue despite the addition of younger elected officials.
In the dying days of the Soviet Union, its aging administrators simply ran out of money to keep their ideologically driven regime afloat. These poorly chosen new legislators could well drive us down the same road — and they’ll be around a lot longer.
What America needs is new leadership that is centrist, forward-looking, and willing to work together to end corruption, wasteful spending, and bad ideas. Unfortunately, in today’s brutal political and media environment, many of those candidates remain on the sidelines.
America needs a youth movement — just not the one we’re getting.
From the Legal Desk… A New Threat to Our Teens (HALF of Them!)
In 2018, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. NCAA struck down the federal restriction on state authorized sports betting. The states saw tax revenue and moved quickly, transforming mobile gambling into an ordinary part of American sports culture. In 2025 alone, commercial gaming produced a record $18.09 billion in state and local tax revenue.
The traditional harms are familiar: addiction, debt, depression, family breakdown, and teenagers learning to chase losses before they understand money. The newer concern for law enforcement is that betting now overlaps with gaming platforms, social media, offshore bookmakers, cryptocurrency, encrypted chats, and digital payment systems, the same interconnected environment in which criminal and extremist recruitment has become scalable. And with the new on-line gambling explosion, money is now the overt centerpiece of these new online relationships.
This is the street level Mafia recruitment tool scaled internationally. The classic gangster method was to get a patsy into debt and then own him. Online gambling can reproduce that vulnerability on an enormous scale.
A young bettor who owes money, hides losses, uses borrowed accounts, or moves onto an offshore platform becomes an attractive target for anyone offering a loan, a way to clear the balance, or “easy money” for completing a small task.
That task may be to open an account, transfer cryptocurrency, deliver a package, photograph a building, or move money through a digital wallet. According to Europol’s assessment of youth recruitment, criminal networks deliberately use coded messages, financial inducements, direct online contact, and “gamification” to draw minors into almost every criminal market. Children attract less police attention, are easier to manipulate, and may face reduced punishment.
The assignments escalate. What begins as a challenge or quick money opportunity can become drug transportation, money laundering, extortion, arson, assault, or murder. Europol describes this business model as “violence as a service”, in which young recruits carry out threats, attacks, or even killings for a fee while insulating the organization from law enforcement.
Terrorist recruiters are using the same architecture. In 2025, Europol referred more than 2,000 online links containing jihadist and right wing extremist propaganda aimed at minors. Australia’s AFP Corporate Plan for 2025 to 2026 warns that young people are being targeted through social media and gaming platforms for exploitation and extremist conditioning as never before.
The FBI is confronting the American version through networks such as “764”. Members enter gaming and social platforms, pose as friends, obtain compromising material, and use blackmail to compel self-harm, sexual abuse, animal cruelty, or violence.
Let’s be clear: exploiting kids and young adults over the internet is nothing new to law enforcement.
But the introduction of an enormous new population of children into the online gambling world has effectively eliminated one step in the traditional recruitment process: getting the target into debt. Unless the gambler has extraordinary skill, luck, or self-control, the debt is almost inevitable.
Think we’re exaggerating? Consider: the pure number of children and young adults who are gambling now is shocking. A 2024 study showed that in North America, over 33% of our kids are gambling online, despite the applicable laws and regulations. And a nationally representative 2026 study found that 36 percent of American boys between 11 and 17 had participated in gambling during the previous year, rising to nearly half of 17-year-olds.
HALF of America’s 17-year-old boys are gambling online! With gaming-related gambling as their most common entry point.
How can that end well?
Licensed sportsbooks are not recruiting children for cartels or terrorist groups. But they have helped normalize internet gambling among children. The Supreme Court, financially strapped states, and corporate interests have created a new class of victims who are no longer merely addicted to their phones, but increasingly addicted to gambling through them.
As a result, we have created a vast, ready-made pool of potential patsies. The results will be felt for years.
Pod: Former DEA Director Derek Maltz on America’s Increasing Safety
Join us for a hang with law enforcement veteran Derek Maltz, where we discuss:
The Donroe Doctrine (if you haven’t heard of it — you should have!)
The new challenges America is facing
Who are the global adversaries behind those challenges
And why America is winning
Trust us — there may be nobody out there more knowledgeable on these issues — and why they matter to the life and safety of every American.
So click below for the sizzle — and HERE for the full pod!
True Crime Girl: What The—NO Prison for Judge Dugan?
So former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan walked out of court without a prison sentence after being convicted of helping an illegal immigrant evade federal immigration authorities. Whatever anyone thinks about immigration policy, the message this sends is hard to ignore.
Let’s review. Judge Dugan didn't merely disagree with federal immigration policy—she crossed the line into active interference. According to the evidence accepted by the jury, when federal immigration agents arrived at her courthouse to arrest an illegal immigrant after his hearing, Dugan confronted the agents over their authority, directed them away from the courtroom, and then escorted the defendant out through a nonpublic jury door, temporarily helping him evade arrest. The man was ultimately captured outside after a foot chase, but a federal jury concluded that Dugan had abused the authority of her judicial office to obstruct a lawful federal enforcement action, resulting in her felony conviction. (Quite telling that she went to trial on this. no?).
Now, we need to remind ourselves that judges occupy a unique place in our system. They are entrusted with enforcing the law—not deciding which laws deserve obedience based on their personal politics (a novel idea in this age of TDS). When a judge is found guilty of obstructing a federal law enforcement operation and avoids prison, it raises an uncomfortable question: what deterrent remains for the next judge who decides ideology outweighs the rule of law?
Supporters argue Dugan’s punishment appropriately reflects her background and lack of criminal history; sorry, but we see something quite different. We see a two-tiered justice system where public officials who misuse their authority are treated with extraordinary leniency by fellow lefty judges while ordinary citizens often face far harsher consequences for obstructing law enforcement. Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman stated he didn’t feel jail time was necessary after Dugan’s lawyers argued that she “had been punished enough.”
Could this sentence embolden other judges inclined to resist federal immigration enforcement? It certainly could. A light punishment lowers the perceived personal risk for officials already convinced that violating federal law is justified by a higher political cause. While most judges will continue to respect their oath, it only takes a handful of activists on the bench to create chaos, undermine cooperation between state and federal authorities, and erode confidence in the courts. And we’re seeing that trend across the judiciary, as judges hand down outrageous decisions they know will be overturned — just to signify resistance to the Trump administration.
The broader issue isn’t immigration. Today’s controversy may involve ICE, but tomorrow it could involve firearms laws, civil rights statutes, tax enforcement, or any other federal law a judge personally opposes. The rule of law cannot survive if those entrusted to uphold it decide they are exempt from it.
And more and more, they seem to believe they answer to a power higher than the law.
A republic governed by laws requires that no one stands above them—not politicians, not prosecutors, and certainly not judges. If accountability disappears at the top, respect for the law inevitably weakens everywhere else.
DOJ: Stay on this. We need more judges held to account. Appeal this farcical sentence and send a message that’s long overdue.
And finally…
We read this headline with interest recently….
… and we’re not sure she’s getting the full message:
First they came for the conservatives… then they came for the moderates….
The Clintons sold America out to China. That is the real crime of the century. Not a sex scandal. Not a campaign circus. The industrial murder weapon was permanent normal trade relations, WTO entry, and the bipartisan globalist fantasy that shipping American manufacturing to a communist adversary would somehow liberalize Beijing and enrich Scranton. It did the opposite. It gutted towns, broke families, empowered China, and turned the Democrat Party into the HR department for Wall Street, Silicon Valley, universities, NGOs, and grievance groups. Platner could not fix that with a beard, a truck, and oyster cosplay. Working men are not stupid. They know who closed the plant. They know who mocked them after. They know Trump was the first president in decades to say their jobs mattered.
The case against Leti. James for a fraudulent loan application is the same type of case that got Gerry McCann the former mayor of Jersey City a tour of the federal prison system. He was a CPA and held to that standard. She is an attorney. Not a bulloney case but very legit. She should do time.