There are interviews that stay with you long after the recording ends. My conversation with Sheryl Hauk is one of them.

Sheryl is a retired music educator, an author, a child advocate — and a survivor of childhood sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.

For decades, she carried that trauma quietly. She built a career. Raised a family. Worked with young people. Helped students.

But almost no one knew what she herself had endured.

She told me that she did not really begin speaking publicly about her own experience until she was around 50.

Think about that.

For half a century she carried something that had shaped so much of her life. A heavy, heavy secret.

And yet today, rather than simply telling her story, Sheryl is asking a much bigger question:

Watch the Interview

Listen to the Interview

If we know what childhood trauma does to people, why aren’t we doing more to stop it?

That question became the heart of our conversation.

The cost does not disappear

We often talk about child abuse as if the damage occurs in childhood and then becomes part of the past. However, Sheryl argues that nothing could be further from the truth.

Trauma can follow people through relationships, school, employment, physical illness, depression, anxiety, homelessness, and countless other struggles.

She told me that when children do not receive early intervention and long-term support, the cost simply gets pushed forward, and eventually:

Families, communities, healthcare systems, schools, and taxpayers all pay.

But, most of all, survivors pay.

That is why Sheryl considers this not merely a family issue, but a public-policy issue.

Imagine trying to learn while your brain is trying to survive

One of the most striking parts of our discussion came when Sheryl spoke as an educator.

She explained that trauma can interfere with the brain functions children need to read, write, reason, and learn.

A traumatized child may be sitting in a classroom, physically present, while much of his or her mental energy is focused on survival.

Then, she said, we test that child.

We grade that child.

We ask why that child cannot concentrate.

We may call that child lazy, disruptive, or incapable.

But what if the real problem is that something terrible is happening outside that classroom?

That, Sheryl said, was her own experience. She did not excel academically, but she did excel at music.

Creativity, she said, became one of the ways she survived.

That ought to make every parent, teacher, school administrator, and policymaker think.

The danger may be someone a child trusts

We hear a great deal about predators lurking online, strangers abducting children, and trafficking.

Those dangers are real.

But Sheryl reminded me of something far more uncomfortable. The person abusing a child is often someone the child already knows.

A family member.

A teacher.

A coach.

A neighbor.

Someone trusted.

Someone with access.

Someone the child may depend upon.

In her case, it was her own father.

That reality makes the problem much harder to confront — and makes it even more important that adults know how to recognize warning signs and listen when a child tries to speak.

Sheryl told me that she tried to tell people, but they did not stop what was happening.

That sentence alone should haunt us.

What happens when survivors finally speak — but the law says it is too late?

Another focus of Sheryl’s work is state statutes of limitations.

She argues that many of these laws were written without understanding the reality of childhood trauma.

A child may not understand what happened.

A teenager may be afraid.

An adult survivor may spend decades burying the experience.

By the time someone is emotionally capable of confronting an abuser, the legal deadline may already have expired.

That is why Sheryl has spent years advocating for reform, and her point is hard to dispute:

Why should an abuser gain legal protection simply because the victim needed time to survive what was done to them?

The programs that help children are scrambling for money

Then we talked about Child Advocacy Centers, places designed to help children through forensic interviews, counseling, court advocacy, and other services without forcing them to repeatedly relive the trauma.

Sheryl described one center in the Detroit area that conducts around 2,000 forensic examinations a year. And yet centers like these are often begging for funds.

At one point she described advocates seeking just $2 million for roughly 40 centers in Michigan.

Forty.

Think about the amount of money government routinely spends without blinking.

Then think about abused children waiting weeks for help.

And think about the fact that the Trump administration has stopped what funding was available.

What does that tell us?

How Sheryl finally stopped the abuse

Sheryl endured abuse until she was 18.

The turning point came after she went away to college.

A counselor told her something she had not fully confronted before: if this was happening to her, what might be happening to her siblings?

That gave her the courage to act.

When she returned home, she confronted her father and refused to allow it to continue. A baseball bat was involved.

Her memoir, Piece by Piece, tells that story.

It is about making us listen.

It is about convincing us that trauma does not disappear merely because we would rather not talk about it.

It is about getting help to children sooner.

It is about giving survivors a genuine chance at justice.

And it is about recognizing that prevention costs far less — financially and humanly — than dealing with the consequences years later.

Near the end of our conversation, Sheryl said that if we invested properly in these children, “we would change the landscape of our communities.”

I believe she is right.

Watch my full Lean to the Left conversation with Sheryl Hauk: “She Survived Childhood Abuse. Now She’s Fighting to Protect Other Kids.”

Her story is painful.

But her message is one of hope — provided we are willing to listen, act, and put abused children higher on our list of national priorities.

Share

Leave a comment

It was about 5:30 p.m., four days after she had been given “comfort” drugs, a combination of morphine and Lorazepam (Ativan), which put her into a deep sleep. I was with her throughout her struggle, trading places occasionally with her son, Brandon, who actually was with her when her final breath was taken.

Jackie’s struggle was a long one, having been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2016, when we moved from our home in Maryland to Myrtle Beach, SC, to be near her daughter and family. Throughout that time, Jackie made many friends, including those from the Horry County Democratic Party and the Waccamaw Indian People, both of which she strongly supported. They loved her beautiful smile, her warm and hearty laugh, and her infectious personality.

Her laugh was so distinctive that when we were shopping, if she wandered off to look at some fancy lingerie or whatever, all I had to do was wait. Because soon she would chat with someone and then would come her laugh.

For both of us, it was a second marriage. And for the past almost 30 years, she has been my best friend, the one person I could count on without reservation; the one person whom I wanted to be with always. And that’s pretty much how it was.

Jackie supported me as I developed this Lean to the Left commentary site and its accompanying podcast. She was my cheering section when I played softball with the Myrtle Beach Senior Softball team. She complained when we went out to eat and the meatballs were the size of golfballs or smaller. One of Jackie’s meatballs, about the size of a baseball, was a meal in itself. She was a Pittsburgh Steelers fanatic, but she supported my love of the Baltimore Orioles — except when they played the Pirates.

For her 65th birthday, we went to New York City to see a couple plays and to celebrate. After one of the shows, I asked the cab driver to let me know when we were on Broadway. When he did, I told Jackie to sing. She did, and what a beautiful voice she had. I told her, “Now, Jackie, you can tell everyone you sang on broadway!”

She was my everything.

Jackie was born and raised in Pittsburgh, and that is where she will be laid to rest with her family members nearby. I, of course, will be there to say a final goodbye.

Meanwhile, this website and the podcast at https://podcast.LeantotheLeft.net will be paused until further notice. But don’t worry. I’ll be back, perhaps with a new and different focus that I am now considering.

Thanks for supporting Lean to the Left.

Bob Gatty

Obituary

Mrs. Jacqueline Theresa Cristiano, aged 80, passed away on August 15 at the Indigo Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility In Myrtle Beach, SC due to complications of Alzheimer’s disease.

She was born on February 24, 1946 in Pittsburgh, PA. to Michael and Christine Mancini, where she grew up with her family and attended Peabody High School.

She was a devoted mother who considered raising her three children as her greatest accomplishment in life.

Although a native to Pittsburgh, PA, Jackie and her first husband Joseph F. Cristiano Sr. moved to Rockville, MD in 1972 to raise their family in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Jackie worked for many years at the Rockville Senior Center teaching exercise classes to the seniors of the community via choreographed routines set to the music of the 1950’s and 1960’s. The men and women who routinely attended her classes adored her for her humor, hearty laugh, and energy.

In 2016, Jackie and her current husband, Robert Gatty, moved to Myrtle Beach, SC upon Bob’s retirement. There they were members of the Carolina Forest Democratic Club and attended the Waccamaw Indian Tribe’s annual Pau Wau, as Jackie supported Native American culture, heritage, and art.

Jackie will not only be remembered for her big smile and laugh, but also for her extensive cooking which she shared with everyone. From her lasagna, cannelloni, and oversized meatballs, to her cakes, cookies, and pies, there was always open space at the table for another family member or a friend who became family. And Jackie made sure nobody left without something extra to take home, which almost always included her chocolate chip cookies.

Jackie was a loving and devoted wife, mother, daughter, sister, grandmother, great-grandmother, and friend to many. Along with her parents and older sister Yvonne Artman, Jacqueline was predeceased by her son Joseph F. Cristiano Jr.

She is survived by her husband Robert Gatty; daughter Jacqueline Campman; son Brandon Cristiano; four grandchildren, Gabrielle Cristiano, Mikaela Campman, Karleigh Campman, and Braeden Campman; great-grandson Grayson Campman-Young; brother Michael Carmen Mancini; Sisters Christine Mancini and Deborah Mancini; and her first husband and father of her children, Joseph F. Cristiano Sr.

Jacqueline will be laid to rest at Mt. Carmel Cemetery in Pittsburgh, PA. Burial arrangements in Pittsburgh will be managed by Charles W. Trenz Funeral Home, 1110
Frankstown Rd. Pittsburgh, PA 15235.

Memorial donations in Jacqueline’s honor may be made to the Alzheimer’s Association, 225 North Michigan Avenue, Floor 17, Chicago, IL 60601.

Goldfinch Funeral Home, Carolina Forest Chapel, is handling the arrangements in Myrtle Beach. Please sign the guestbook at www.goldfinchfuneralhome.com.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Imagine filing a claim for veterans benefits you earned through years of military service, but nothing happens.

You wait, and wait, and wait. You check your mailbox over and over again.

But no word from the VA. Nothing.

What you don’t know is that your claim may not even be in the VA system.

That’s the disturbing situation veterans advocate Steve Miller says some veterans are facing right now. It’s like their VA claims are vanishing into thin air.

Miller spent nine years with the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. Today, he runs Wellness for Veterans, where he helps former service members navigate the often bewildering process of obtaining the benefits they earned.

And he says he has uncovered what he describes as a VA “black hole.”

Listen to the Episode

The Black Hole

According to Miller, claims submitted through such organizations as the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans can be transmitted successfully, yet fail to show up inside the VA claims system.

The veteran, meanwhile, has no idea. He or she simply sits at home waiting for an answer that may never come.

So, this isn’t just an inconvenience.

These claims can involve compensation for injuries and illnesses connected to military service.

They can also affect how much veterans pay for healthcare and what services are available to them.

Miller says he discovered the problem while dealing with his own claim.He says a VA representative told him the system had been down and veterans had not been notified.

He says the problem had been going on for at least four months.

Think about that.

People who served this country may believe their benefit claims are moving through the system when, according to Miller, those claims may simply be sitting there untouched.

Miller’s Mission

Miller is particularly frustrated because helping veterans obtain benefits has become his mission.

He says he has assisted more than 800 veterans, helping them secure more than $1.5 million a year in benefits — and he does it free of charge.

He also helps veterans obtain medical equipment and other assistance, including wheelchairs, hearing aids, diabetes monitoring equipment and housing support.

During our Lean to the Left podcast interview, Miller made another point that deserves attention.

This shouldn’t be about Democrats or Republicans.

It should be about veterans.

As Miller put it, country before party.

That is exactly right.

Fix the Problem

If there is a technical breakdown inside the VA that is preventing benefit claims from being properly recorded, the agency needs to come clean and tell veterans what’s happening.

Congress should demand answers.

How many claims are affected?

How long has the problem existed?

Are veterans losing benefits because of it?

And what is being done to find and process claims that may have fallen through the cracks?

Those are not partisan questions.

They are questions of basic responsibility to the men and women who served this country.

Watch my full conversation with Steve Miller on Lean to the Left.

And if you are a veteran — or know one — who has experienced unexplained problems or delays with a VA claim, I’d like to hear about it.

Sometimes accountability begins when people stop suffering quietly and start telling their stories.

Share

Leave a comment

Mathew Toro is 32 years old.

He has never held elected office.

He does not yet have a campaign organization, professional staff, major donors, ballot-access operation, or national political network.

But he says he intends to run for president of the United States in 2036.

And he is dead serious.

Toro says this is not a sudden ambition, but a 16-year effort he began in 2020, when he was just 26 years old.

He calls 2036 “a date with American history.”

That makes him easy to dismiss.

But I did not invite him onto Lean to the Left to ridicule him.

I invited him because his ambition raises an important question about American politics:

What would make a young man with no conventional political credentials believe that he has something the country desperately needs?

Toro’s answer is economic justice.

He believes working Americans are being robbed of the value they create.

And he has a plan that he believes could change that.

Watch the Interview

Listen to the Interview

His Economic Justice Revolution

Toro proposes allowing corporations to keep the first $1 billion of annual net income.

After that, 36 percent of additional net income would be distributed to the company’s workers.

He calls that the Economic Justice Revolution.

Toro does not consider the money a handout.

He sees it as compensation already earned by workers but captured by corporations and shareholders.

His argument is straightforward:

Workers create the wealth. Workers should receive more of it.

He used Apple to illustrate his point, arguing that employees could receive very large annual payments under his proposal.

Whether his figures and assumptions would survive rigorous economic analysis remains to be seen.

But the central idea is clear.

Toro wants to restructure capitalism so that workers share much more directly in extraordinary corporate profits.

He says this could improve healthcare access, reduce homelessness, strengthen families, expand consumer spending, and restore dignity to work.

He also believes conservatives could support the idea because conservative workers are being shortchanged, too.

“This is not a handout,” he told me. “This is a return of the value of the labor.”

The Life Behind the Idea

Toro’s political thinking did not come from an Ivy League seminar room.

He earned a GED. He has not completed college.

He has worked different jobs, written books, made art, participated in boxing culture, and experienced homelessness.

He described traveling across the country by bus, staying in shelters, sleeping on rocks, and living in abandoned buildings.

Those experiences gave him a close view of addiction, poverty, instability, and institutional failure.

He believes too many politicians describe these problems without offering real solutions.

Toro may lack formal political training, but he does not lack conviction.

The harder question is whether conviction is enough.

What He Still Must Prove

Presidential campaigns require much more than a powerful story and a bold idea.

They require money, staff, discipline, policy expertise, coalition-building, political judgment, organization, and the ability to withstand relentless scrutiny.

Toro acknowledges that he does not yet possess most of that infrastructure.

He believes ten years gives him time to build it.

“I’m barely half the man I’ll be in 2036,” he said.

That may be one of the most honest things he said during our conversation.

Toro clearly has enormous work ahead of him.

He must develop a serious understanding of foreign policy, national security, government operations, Congress, the courts, and the limits of presidential power.

His answers were strongest when discussing workers, corporate profits, hardship, and economic injustice.

They were much less developed when the conversation turned to diplomacy and global affairs.

That is not surprising. He is 32 and only beginning this effort.

But it is important.

A president cannot simply be the champion of one compelling idea.

Visionary—or Premature?

Toro believes the Economic Justice Revolution could attract support across party lines.

He argues that liberals and conservatives alike are struggling with wages, healthcare costs, housing, food, and family expenses.

He may be right about the shared frustration.

Whether his proposal could survive opposition from corporations, Congress, lobbyists, courts, and financial interests is another matter.

Toro believes overwhelming public support would force politicians to cooperate.

That confidence may be admirable.

It may also underestimate how difficult governing really is.

But there is something refreshing about a young man thinking ten years ahead when so much of American politics is driven by the next news cycle.

Toro is not asking voters to declare him qualified today.

He is asking them to watch what he does next.

That is reasonable.

The burden is now on him.

Can he build a movement?

Can he test and refine his economic proposal?

Can he recruit serious advisers?

Can he prove that he can lead people, raise money, withstand criticism, and make difficult decisions?

Can he broaden his vision beyond one issue?

And can he demonstrate that his ambition is about public service rather than simply becoming president?

Those are the tests ahead.

Will He—and America—Be Ready?

Ten years from now, Toro will be 42.

America will also be different.

The country may be more unequal, more divided, more technologically disrupted, and more distrustful of traditional political leadership.

Or a new generation may be ready to demand something radically different.

Toro is betting on the latter.

He believes 2036 will be his moment.

He has a long way to go before anyone should call him a credible presidential candidate.

But he has started the clock.

And now the question is not simply whether Mathew Toro is serious.

He clearly is.

The question is whether he can become ready—and whether America will be ready for him.

Watch the interview and tell me what you think.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

Democrats have spent years warning Americans about Donald Trump.

They have criticized his conduct, challenged his policies, defended democratic institutions, and repeatedly described the danger of returning unchecked power to him and his MAGA allies.

But Patrick Reynolds believes warning is no longer enough.

Democrats must fight.

They must stop playing defense, stop softening their message, and stop pretending they are engaged in an ordinary political contest with ordinary opponents.

That is the central argument Reynolds makes in my new Lean to the Left interview, now streaming.

And he is not simply offering political commentary.

He has produced four aggressive campaign ads designed for use in the House and Senate races that will determine control of Congress.

Watch the Interview

Listen to the Interview

The Tobacco Heir Who Fought Big Tobacco

Patrick Reynolds is the grandson of tobacco pioneer R.J. Reynolds.

His family’s wealth came from cigarettes, but his father also died from smoking the Camels and Winstons that helped build that fortune.

In 1986, Reynolds testified before Congress and called for a ban on tobacco advertising. He spent the next several decades as one of the nation’s most visible opponents of Big Tobacco.

That decision came at a personal cost. It created conflict within his family and forced him to confront the legacy into which he had been born.

But it also gave his life a purpose.

Reynolds now says that his years fighting tobacco taught him an important political lesson: public policy depends on who holds power.

He watched tobacco companies direct most of their political money toward Republicans. He watched public-health initiatives stall. And he watched meaningful action become possible when Barack Obama entered office with Democratic majorities in Congress.

That experience made him increasingly partisan.

“If we had Democrats in power,” he reasoned, stronger tobacco policies could be enacted. So could action on climate change, reproductive rights, gun safety, and other priorities.

Eventually, Reynolds decided to move beyond tobacco activism and create a super PAC devoted to electing Democrats.

Political Ads That Do Not Play Nice

Most campaign ads are predictable.

A candidate tells us why he or she is wonderful. Then the candidate tells us why the opponent is terrible.

The names and locations change, but the formula remains the same.

Reynolds believes voters are tired of it.

His Congress Majority PAC is taking another approach. Its ads are not built around individual candidates. They attack Trump and Republicans as a party and can be used in different races throughout the country.

Each ends with two simple words:

Vote Democrat.

That may sound obvious. But Reynolds believes Democrats too often fail to make a forceful, unified national case for their party.

He wants to change that.

Four Ads to Beat MAGA

The interview includes four ads Reynolds wrote, produced, and narrated.

One directly confronts Trump and links his record to the Republicans in Congress who support him.

Another focuses on climate change, Big Oil, and Trump’s dismissal of global warming.

A third makes an economic argument, contrasting periods of prosperity under Democratic presidents with Republican deregulation and the financial crisis that followed the Bush years.

The fourth may be the most politically interesting.

It speaks (although there is no VoiceOver) to voters who once supported Democrats but have become disappointed, frustrated, or alienated from the party.

Reynolds does not pretend those concerns do not exist. He acknowledges them.

Then he delivers his appeal:

Vote Democrat, even if it hurts.

It is funny, but it also reflects a serious political reality.

A voter does not have to love every Democratic position, every Democratic politician, or every Democratic message to recognize the danger of giving Trump and MAGA Republicans unchecked power.

Use the Right Ad at the Right Moment

Reynolds wants these ads placed strategically—not broadcast nationally with money wasted in safe states and districts.

He says approximately 20 competitive races may determine control of Congress.

Those are the places where the Congress Majority PAC hopes to operate.

The ads could also be matched to events.

A climate-change message could run in a battleground district experiencing a heat wave, flood, hurricane, or other extreme weather event.

An economic ad could be placed where the cost of living is dominating local concern.

The objective is not simply to make noise. It is to influence the voters who will decide who controls the House and Senate.

The Real Story: Democrats Must Get Tough

The ads are important, but they are not the whole story.

The real story is Reynolds’ challenge to the Democratic Party.

Stop playing nice.

Stop responding to Republican attacks with timid explanations.

Stop allowing Trump and MAGA politicians to dominate the emotional argument.

Make Republicans defend their record.

Make them answer for Trump.

Make them answer for their positions on climate, guns, reproductive rights, the economy, and democracy.

Reynolds says continued Republican control of Congress would give Trump dangerously unchecked power.

“The future of our democracy is at stake,” he warns.

That is not a subtle message.

Nor should it be.

This is not a subtle moment.

The new interview with Patrick Reynolds streams Monday on Lean to the Left. It includes all four ads—and a clear warning to Democrats who still believe restraint, caution, and traditional campaign tactics will be enough.

They will not.

Democrats must fight harder.

They must sharpen their message.

And they must stop playing nice.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

We had planned to give the Dixie Dems the summer off.

Then Lindsey Graham died and South Carolina politics exploded.

His death has created an open Senate contest, a rush of Republican candidates, a Trump endorsement, and an opportunity—however difficult—for Democrats to make a race of it.

So Arthur Hill, Robert Thompson, and I got back together to examine what Graham’s death could mean not only for South Carolina, but also for Democratic prospects throughout the South.

Watch the Episode

Listen to the Episode

An open seat—and an open question

Trump has endorsed Graham’s sister, Darleen Graham Nordone, who was appointed to serve as the interim senator, who later announced that she would, indeed, seek a full term.

Several additional Republicans were already preparing to run, potentially creating a bitter primary fight.

That matters because the Democratic candidate, Dr. Annie Andrews, could benefit from Republican division and a compressed election schedule.

South Carolina remains difficult territory for Democrats. Nobody should pretend otherwise. But open seats produce uncertainty, and uncertainty produces opportunity.

Three races that could shake South Carolina

The Senate contest is only one part of the story.

John Vincent is challenging Trump-aligned Rep. Russell Fry in the 7th Congressional District. Vincent is a retired Navy submarine master chief who has built an energetic grassroots campaign. Fry announced July 20 that he would seek Graham’s seat and had hoped to win Trump’s endorsement. His name will be on the ballot for both positions should he succeed in what appears to be a long-shot bid for the nod.

Jermaine Johnson is running for governor against Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson. Johnson is a strong speaker with a loyal following, particularly among Black voters.

During our discussion, I posed what may sound like a wildly optimistic question:

What happens if Democrats win Graham’s seat, Vincent defeats Fry, and Johnson wins the governorship?

That would not merely be a good election night for Democrats.

It would be a political tsunami in South Carolina.

Is it likely? Perhaps not.

Is it impossible? I’m no longer prepared to say that.

The struggle over who gets to vote

Arthur brought us troubling news from North Carolina.

Republicans have changed the structure of election boards, giving themselves effective control over decisions involving ballots and voter identification. There are also efforts to reduce Sunday voting, Saturday voting, and early voting.

Sunday voting is particularly important in Black communities, where churches often take congregants directly to the polls.

Reducing those opportunities is not simply an administrative decision. It has predictable political consequences.

At the same time, there are encouraging signs for Democrats. Former Gov. Roy Cooper was leading his Republican opponent in polling discussed during the program, and Democratic registration and participation appeared to be growing.

Georgia: anger, uncertainty and another hard campaign

Robert described a similarly volatile situation in Georgia.

Republicans are again focused on election investigations and voting procedures, even as voters struggle with gasoline prices, groceries, healthcare, and other everyday costs.

Jon Ossoff faces another major Senate campaign. Keisha Lance Bottoms is preparing for a governor’s race that could revive the same racial attacks deployed against Stacey Abrams.

Robert’s warning was direct: Do not assume your voter registration is safe.

Check it now. Then check it again.

Arthur said activists in North Carolina are encouraging people to verify their registration every month. That may sound excessive, but discovering a problem at the polling place is too late.

The voter-roll investigation

We also discussed investigative reporter Alison Greene’s examination of voter-registration records.

Greene alleges that legitimate voters have disappeared from rolls and have sometimes been replaced by suspicious entries she calls “ghost voters.”

She is recruiting volunteers to compare registration files from different dates in South Carolina to identify changes.

These allegations are serious, controversial, and deserving of careful independent scrutiny. They should not be accepted uncritically.

But every voter can take one simple precaution without waiting for investigators, political parties, or the media:

Check your registration.

Make certain your name, address, county, and status are correct. Do it well before Election Day.

Is the South changing?

Republicans still control most of the political machinery in the Deep South.

They have more money, stronger institutions, and—in many places—election rules written to protect their advantage.

But they also face angry voters, internal division, weak candidates, unpopular policies, and growing Democratic organization.

The South is not suddenly turning blue.

But cracks are appearing.

And sometimes political change begins not with a wave, but with a series of races that nobody thought could be won.

Watch our special Dixie Dems conversation and let us know:

Can Democrats finally break through in the South?

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

The sudden death of Sen. Lindsey Graham has opened a seat in the United States Senate, triggered a Republican primary August 11, and created an opportunity for Democrat Dr. Annie Andrews.

It also has created confusion, with Trump endorsing Graham’s sister, interim Sen. Darlene Graham to run against Andrews for a full-six year term, and numerous other South Carolina wannabes hoping lightening will strike.

Confusion is exactly when election systems deserve the most scrutiny, which is why investigative journalist Alison Greene joined me on the Lean to the Left podcast to discuss a question that should concern every voter in South Carolina:

Are the state’s voter rolls accurate—and who is checking?

Listen

Watch

Greene has started filing public-records requests for voter-registration files in South Carolina counties. She intends to compare those files over time to determine whether legitimate voters are disappearing, questionable names are being added, addresses are being altered, or other unexplained changes are taking place.

That does not mean every change is fraudulent.

People move. People die. Voters change addresses. Election officials conduct lawful list maintenance. Some registrations are properly removed.

But Greene’s point is simple and important:

We should verify. We should not merely assume.

After all, she had reason to believe that Graham’s 2020 election may have seen unauthorized manipulation of the state’s voter rolls, but was unable to prove it at that time.

The Voter Who Disappears

Here’s the thing.

Imagine that you have been registered for 20 years. You vote in every election. You show up at your usual polling place, present your identification, and are told that your name is no longer on the voter roll.

You may be allowed to cast a provisional ballot.

But unless officials can verify your registration, that ballot may never be counted.

Greene says she has examined voter files in other states in which people appeared on one version of a registration list and vanished from a later version only weeks or months afterward.

There may be an innocent explanation.

There may also be an administrative error.

Or something worse.

The only way to know is to compare the records, contact the affected voter, and ask election officials to explain what happened.

Why Changing a Voter Record Matters

Most election debates focus on voting machines and the final tally.

But Greene argues that a vote can effectively be eliminated before it ever reaches a tabulation machine.

A malicious actor would not necessarily need to change the final count. Altering a voter’s address, status, county, or other information could cause that voter to be rejected at the polls.

It’s important to understand that voter-registration databases are part of election security, but in today’s world they can be hacked by bad actors favoring one side or the other.

Greene also discussed “ghost voters”—registration records tied to fake identities, nonexistent addresses, deceased individuals, or people whose information may have been stolen.

Those claims require evidence and verification. Nobody should be removed from a voter roll based on suspicion alone.

But neither should election officials ignore clearly questionable records.

The goal must be twofold:

Protect every legitimate voter.

Remove only records that can be shown to be invalid.

Why the Next 90 Days Matter

Greene believes the final 90 days before an election are especially important.

That is the period when changes to voter-registration data can have the greatest impact and when voters have the least time to correct mistakes.

South Carolina’s special election makes the situation more complicated. A compressed campaign calendar, a new Republican nominee, heightened national attention, and intense partisan pressure can distract voters from the less visible work of election administration.

That is why Greene is putting together a team of volunteers to begin now.

She needs people who can file public-records requests with county election offices.

She needs people who can compare spreadsheets and voter lists.

She needs people who can help determine whether a voter was lawfully removed or may need assistance restoring a registration.

And she needs campaigns and community organizations willing to investigate questionable addresses without harassing legitimate voters.

Check Your Registration

Every South Carolina voter should verify his or her registration status well before the election.

Do not wait until Election Day.

Do not assume that because you voted before, everything is still correct.

Check your name, address, precinct, and registration status. Encourage family members and friends to do the same.

That is not paranoia.

It is basic civic responsibility.

This Is Not About Guaranteeing a Democratic Victory

I made my own preference clear during the interview.

I hope Annie Andrews wins.

But if she does not, South Carolinians still deserve confidence that the election was fair and that every eligible voter had an opportunity to participate.

Election integrity cannot mean “my candidate must win.”

It must mean that the rules were followed, the voter rolls were accurate, the ballots were properly counted, and the result reflected the will of the people.

Greene has not proven that South Carolina’s voter rolls have been manipulated.

She is asking citizens to join her team and help determine whether those rolls are trustworthy.

That is a legitimate question.

And in the aftermath of Lindsey Graham’s death, it is a question South Carolina cannot afford to ignore.

To volunteer with Greene’s voter-roll project, visit:

itsuptous.grassrootsspeak.com

Watch the full interview on Lean to the Left.

This program is part of our Truth Under Attack series, examining election integrity, investigative journalism, whistleblower protections, media freedom, and the growing threats to democratic accountability.

Share

Leave a comment

What really happened in the Jeffrey Epstein case — and why are so many questions still unanswered?

This Thursday on the Lean to the Left podcast, investigative journalist Nick Bryant joins me for a powerful and disturbing conversation about:

⚠️ Epstein’s “Black Book” and flight logs
⚠️ Alleged institutional coverups
⚠️ Why victims still say justice hasn’t been served
⚠️ Claims of blackmail involving powerful elites
⚠️ Why Bryant says BOTH political parties failed the victims
⚠️ His push for an independent congressional commission

Bryant has spent more than 15 years investigating Epstein’s network and was one of the first journalists to expose key documents tied to the scandal.

Whether you agree with him or not, this interview raises serious questions about power, accountability, and transparency in America.

🎧 Streaming Thursday, May 21 on Lean to the Left.

Subscribe now on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.

#JeffreyEpstein #NickBryant #EpsteinFiles #TrueCrime #Politics #InvestigativeJournalism #LeanToTheLeft #Podcast

Share

Leave a comment

Democrats may have popular policies, but veteran progressive strategist David Fenton says that is not enough to win elections or build lasting political power.

In this episode of the Lean to the Left podcast, Fenton draws on more than five decades of activism and public relations to offer a pointed prescription for Democrats and progressives:

Simplify the language. Repeat the message. Speak to working people. Expose corruption. Build a movement.

Fenton founded the pioneering progressive communications firm that bears his name after years in the antiwar and counterculture movements. His remarkable career has included work connected to the No Nukes concerts, the movement to free Nelson Mandela, marijuana-law reform, anti-fracking campaigns, climate advocacy and numerous human-rights and social-justice causes.

The National Journal called him the “Robin Hood of public relations” because he used the techniques of corporate PR on behalf of nonprofits and public-interest campaigns.

Democrats Are Disarming Themselves

Fenton argues that conservatives have built a powerful communications system encompassing television, radio, websites, social platforms and influential personalities appearing directly on voters’ phones.

Progressives, he says, have failed to build anything comparable.

Instead, Democrats frequently rely on policy details, expert analysis and the assumption that a good idea will eventually persuade people on its merits.

Fenton says that assumption is dangerously wrong.

Political communication requires clear language, emotional relevance and repetition. Republicans understand that. Democrats often do not.

Why Simple Language Matters

One of Fenton’s central lessons is that communicators should use familiar words that activate ideas people already understand.

Climate advocates, for example, regularly speak about “net zero,” “carbon” and “climate justice.” Those terms may be technically useful, but they do not necessarily connect with a mass audience.

Fenton recommends talking instead about pollution, cost and corruption.

Rather than presenting climate change as an abstract scientific concept, he describes a blanket of pollution trapping heat around the Earth. Instead of lengthy explanations of energy policy, he urges advocates to say: Make Polluters Pay.

The goal is not to dilute the truth. It is to make the truth understandable.

Talk About What People Are Living Through

With families struggling to cover food, housing, gasoline, electricity and healthcare, Fenton says Democrats should connect their political arguments directly to affordability.

He believes voters need to hear how Trump’s tariffs, fossil-fuel policies and favors for wealthy donors raise their costs.

Democrats should not begin with an ideological label or a complex program. They should begin with the problem people experience every day—and identify who benefits from it.

Fenton believes cost caused by corruption could become one of the party’s strongest messages.

Top Versus Bottom

Fenton is also critical of progressive rhetoric that divides people into small political or identity-based groups.

Respecting identity is important, he says, but winning change requires assembling a broad majority around shared interests.

The most powerful political divide, in his view, is not left versus right. It is top versus bottom: billionaires and concentrated economic power versus the working people forced to live with the consequences.

That approach offers Democrats a way to discuss inequality, corporate influence and democracy using language that reaches voters across conventional political categories.

A Life Spent Making Change

Fenton’s own story is as colorful as his advice.

He recounts dropping out of school during the 1960s, photographing antiwar leaders and rock legends, learning from Abbie Hoffman and helping organize a concert featuring John Lennon to free marijuana activist John Sinclair.

He later worked at High Times and Rolling Stone, helped produce the No Nukes concerts and created the first PR firm devoted to progressive causes.

He also discusses his book, The Activist’s Media Handbook, and his podcast, The Fenton Forecast, which examines the choices society faces on democracy, climate, artificial intelligence, inequality and the future.

In This Episode

David Fenton and Bob Gatty discuss:

• Why Republicans are winning the information war

• The messaging mistakes Democrats repeatedly make

• Why good policies do not sell themselves

• How repetition and framing shape public opinion

• Why progressive jargon can alienate voters

• How to communicate climate change through cost and pollution

• Why Democrats should focus on corruption and affordability

• How to reconnect with working-class voters

• The dangers of disinformation and concentrated media ownership

• What mass movements can accomplish

• Lessons from Abbie Hoffman, John Lennon and five decades of activism

• The Activist’s Media Handbook and The Fenton Forecast

The takeaway is direct: Democrats cannot win simply by being correct. They must learn to communicate in a way that people understand, remember and feel compelled to act upon.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Imagine arriving at your polling place next November.

You’ve voted there for years.

You hand over your identification.

The poll worker searches the voter rolls.

Then comes the sentence no voter ever wants to hear:

“I’m sorry...you’re not registered.”

That possibility is exactly why I invited investigative journalist Alison Greene back to Lean to the Left.

Our first conversation explored her investigation into alleged voter-roll irregularities and what she calls “ghost voters.” This second interview is different. It’s about preparation.

Whether or not you agree with every conclusion Greene reaches, one point is difficult to dispute:

Every voter should verify their registration before Election Day.

In our discussion, Greene explains how provisional ballots work, why checking your registration early is important, and how volunteers around the country are working to help citizens make sure they remain eligible to vote.

She also discusses the volunteer effort she’s building to monitor voter registration records and help identify changes before they become problems at the polls.

As journalists, our responsibility isn’t simply to report after something happens. It’s also to ask difficult questions, present evidence, and encourage citizens to become informed participants in our democracy.

That’s what this conversation is about.

This episode continues our ongoing Democracy & Election Integrity Series, which has included conversations with whistleblower advocate Marcel Reid, Election Truth Alliance researcher Lilli McGregor, and now a second interview with Alison Greene.

Whether you’re conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, one principle should unite us all:

Every eligible American deserves the opportunity to cast a ballot that counts.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Have you ever checked your voter registration before an election?

Should states make it easier for voters to verify their registration status?

Join the conversation in the comments.

And if you think this discussion is important, please share it with someone who cares about protecting democracy and encouraging informed civic participation.

Watch the Interview

Listen to the Interview

Leave a comment

Share

As Americans celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday, I’ve been thinking about two Supreme Court decisions that received plenty of news coverage—but, in my opinion, not enough analysis.

Most outlets treated them as completely separate stories.

I think that’s a mistake.

One ruling expands presidential authority over independent federal agencies.

The other dramatically increases the role of big money in political campaigns.

Standing alone, each decision is significant.

Taken together, they could fundamentally change the relationship between political power and wealthy campaign donors.

That’s why I’m concerned.

In the accompanying article and video, I walk through both rulings and explain why I believe they should be viewed as parts of the same story rather than isolated legal decisions.

You may agree with my conclusions.

You may not.

Either way, I hope you’ll read the piece—and then tell me where you think I’ve got it right or wrong.

One of the goals of Lean to the Left has always been to look beyond the daily headlines and ask what today’s events may mean tomorrow.

I think this is one of those moments.

As always, I welcome your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a comment

Share

Click on the image to view the highlight reel.

Let’s face it.

Not everyone has time to watch a half-hour political interview.

That’s why I’ve created a 4-minute highlight reel from my conversation with South Carolina Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dr. Jermaine Johnson.

In just four minutes, you’ll hear his positions on:

🚧 Roads and infrastructure

📚 Public education

🏥 Healthcare & Women’s Rights

💰 Taxes

🏠 Veterans & Affordable Housing

🤖 AI data centers

🗳️ Government and voter participation

Whether you agree with Johnson or not, you’ll quickly understand what his campaign is about and the direction he believes South Carolina should take.

If the highlights leave you wanting more, here’s the link to the complete interview, where Johnson answers questions submitted directly by South Carolina voters.

One thing I hope you’ll notice is that this isn’t a campaign commercial.

It’s a straightforward opportunity to hear a major gubernatorial candidate explain his ideas in his own words.

I plan to do the same with other major candidates in the months ahead.

Take four minutes to watch the highlights—and then tell me what you think.

Can a Democrat win South Carolina?

🎥 Watch the complete interview here:

Share

Leave a comment

South Carolina Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dr. Jermaine Johnson discusses his plans for roads, education, healthcare and other key issues during an exclusive interview with veteran journalist Bob Gatty on the Lean to the Left podcast.

One of the things I enjoy most about producing Lean to the Left is giving people an opportunity to hear directly from the people asking for their votes—not just through 30-second TV commercials or carefully scripted campaign speeches.

So when I sat down recently with Dr. Jermaine Johnson, the Democratic nominee for governor of South Carolina, I decided to do something different.

Instead of asking only my questions, I asked yours.

Before the interview, I invited followers on social media to submit questions they wanted answered. The response was terrific. We couldn’t get to every question, but we covered a lot of ground.

Johnson discussed roads, education, healthcare, taxes, veterans, reproductive rights, gun violence, artificial intelligence data centers, voter participation and much more.

What struck me wasn’t simply his policy positions.

It was his insistence that politicians ought to stop promising things they know they can’t deliver.

One example involved South Carolina’s income tax. Republican leaders continue talking about eliminating it, but Johnson argued that income taxes account for roughly half of the state’s budget. If that’s true, eliminating the tax without replacing that revenue would leave an enormous hole in state finances.

Whether you agree with him or not, it’s the kind of discussion voters deserve to hear before Election Day.

Johnson also returned repeatedly to another theme: after decades of one-party Republican control, South Carolina still struggles with some of the nation’s worst roads, underperforming schools, healthcare shortages and persistent economic challenges in many communities.

His answer?

As he sees it, South Carolina needs new leadership—and yes, he joked that it’s time to help drag the state out of the political dark ages.

Whether voters agree remains to be seen.

South Carolina has long been difficult terrain for Democratic candidates statewide. President Trump remains enormously influential with Republican voters, and Attorney General Alan Wilson enters the race with significant advantages.

But elections are about choices.

My goal wasn’t to tell you which candidate to support.

It was to give you an opportunity to hear directly from one of the people asking for your vote—and to let him answer questions submitted by South Carolinians themselves.

I hope you’ll watch the interview and then tell me what you think.

Can a Democrat win South Carolina?

More importantly…

What issue will decide your vote?

I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

—Bob Gatty

Watch the complete interview below.

Or Listen, here.

If you enjoy independent journalism that focuses on substance instead of sensationalism, please consider subscribing and sharing Lean to the Left with friends and family.

Leave a comment

Share

When people ask why podcasting continues to explode in popularity, podcast expert Michelle Glogovac has a simple answer:

Trust.

Watch the Episode

Listen to the Episode

Known throughout the industry as “The Podcast Matchmaker,” Michelle joined me recently on Lean to the Left to discuss podcasting, audience growth, business building, and why podcasts have become such powerful tools for communication and marketing.

Her answer about trust struck me because it helps explain something we’ve all experienced.

Listeners invite podcast hosts into their homes, their cars, their workouts and their daily lives. They hear our voices week after week. They learn our values, our quirks, our perspectives and our personalities.

As Michelle put it, listeners know whether we’re authentic because they hear us regularly and get to know who we really are.

That’s a very different relationship than what most people have with traditional media.

Podcasting Doesn’t Require Perfection

One of the biggest misconceptions about podcasting is that you need a fancy studio and expensive equipment.

Michelle laughed about her early days recording from a closet with a TV tray and a microphone.

The lesson?

Start with what you have.

Too many people never begin because they’re waiting for the perfect setup. Meanwhile, successful podcasters are creating content, learning from experience, and building audiences.

Storytelling Beats Selling

Another key takeaway from our conversation was Michelle’s advice for business owners.

Don’t use a podcast as a commercial.

Use it as a storytelling platform.

People don’t connect with sales pitches. They connect with people.

Why did you start your business?

What challenges have you faced?

What lessons have you learned?

Those stories create emotional connections that eventually translate into trust—and trust often leads to customers.

The Power of Showing Up

Michelle currently hosts multiple podcasts while running a successful podcast publicity business.

Her secret?

Consistency.

She shows up.

Week after week.

Episode after episode.

And that’s really the lesson for all creators, whether you’re podcasting, blogging, writing newsletters, or producing videos.

Trust isn’t built overnight.

It’s built one conversation at a time.

One episode at a time.

One audience member at a time.

And that’s exactly why podcasting remains one of the most powerful media platforms available today.

What do you think?

Do you listen to podcasts regularly? What makes you trust one host more than another?

Let me know in the comments.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Editor's Note: Investigative journalist Alison Greene recently recommended this interview to her Substack readers, calling it "one of the most important conversations I've heard in a long time." I am very grateful, but more important is the work she and her It's Up to Us movement are doing to fight back against efforts to rig the voter rolls in many states. Learn more here and watch for our followup interview with Alison June 29, where we'll discuss steps we all can take to help protect the vote in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Most Americans understand that democracy depends on free elections.

Fewer realize it also depends on something else:

People willing to tell the truth.

In my latest Lean to the Left conversation, whistleblower advocate Marcel Reid delivers a warning every American should hear.

“Democracies don’t last if people don’t know the truth.”

Reid knows the cost of speaking out.

A former ACORN whistleblower, she lost friends, standing, and certainty about how the world works. Yet she continues fighting for those who expose corruption, fraud, abuse, and injustice.

She explains why journalists and whistleblowers depend on each other, why attacks on the press should concern everyone, and why fear is making fewer Americans willing to report wrongdoing.

This conversation also takes an unexpected turn into the hidden dangers of guardianship systems that can strip vulnerable people of control over their own lives.

Truth isn’t self-executing.

It requires courageous people willing to defend it.

I hope you’ll watch, listen, and share this important conversation.

WATCH

LISTEN

Share

Leave a comment

— Bob

There are some conversations that make people uncomfortable.

This is one of them.

Watch the Interview

Listen to the Interview

Read the Transcript

For years, Donald Trump has insisted that widespread voter fraud cost him the 2020 election. Courts repeatedly rejected those claims, and Trump failed to present evidence sufficient to support them.

But what happens when concerns about election integrity emerge from a different direction?

In my latest Lean to the Left interview, investigative journalist Alison Greene explains why she believes the evidence she’s uncovered in Florida deserves public attention—and independent review.

Greene assisted the Election Truth Alliance’s investigation into alleged voting anomalies in Florida. Through public records requests and analysis of voter registration data, she says she discovered troubling patterns involving missing voter records, unusual registration activity, and what she calls “ghost voters.”

Among the claims she discusses:

• Tens of thousands of expected voter records that she says could not be accounted for through public records requests.

• Registration patterns she argues defy ordinary explanation.

• Voter records connected to questionable addresses and unusual identities.

• Similar patterns she believes may exist outside Florida.

Greene is careful to note that many of the questions she raises require further investigation. But she argues that dismissing such concerns outright undermines public confidence just as surely as making unsupported accusations.

Her broader message is simple:

Democracy depends on trust.

And trust requires transparency.

Whether you find Greene’s conclusions compelling or remain unconvinced, I believe these issues deserve to be discussed openly and thoughtfully. Elections belong to all of us. Confidence in their fairness shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

I encourage you to watch the interview with an open mind, evaluate the evidence presented, and draw your own conclusions.

Then let me know what you think.

Should these concerns receive independent review? Or are Americans already doing enough to safeguard the integrity of our elections?

The future of our democracy may depend on our willingness to ask difficult questions—even when the answers challenge our assumptions.

Editor's Note: This article is Part 2 of Lean to the Left's continuing examination of election integrity questions raised by the Election Truth Alliance. If you missed Part 1, featuring ETA Executive Director Lilli McGregor, you can read/watch it here.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

For years Donald Trump has insisted the 2020 election was stolen.

Courts rejected those claims.

Election officials rejected those claims.

Evidence never materialized.

So imagine my surprise when I interviewed the leader of an election watchdog organization that says it has found troubling election anomalies — not benefiting Democrats, but benefiting Republicans.

And nowhere are those concerns more striking than in Florida.

Watch the Podcast

Listen to the Podcast

The Election Truth Alliance recently released an analysis of voting data from Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Counties. According to ETA, the statistical patterns they found resemble warning signs election-forensics experts have identified in manipulated elections overseas. The organization says those findings justify independent audits and hand-count reviews.

What’s especially notable is that Florida isn’t a swing state hanging in the balance.

It’s Donald Trump’s home turf.

It’s home to Mar-a-Lago.

It’s governed almost entirely by Republicans.

And according to ETA’s analysis, the voting patterns they examined consistently favored Trump.

Now before anyone jumps to conclusions, ETA is careful to say its findings do not prove fraud occurred. The organization says the data raises questions, not conclusions.

But some of those questions are difficult to ignore.

In Miami-Dade County, ETA identified a precinct reporting 369 votes from only 300 registered voters — a turnout rate of 123 percent. The group also flagged precincts in Palm Beach County reporting turnout levels well above 100 percent. ETA says those discrepancies require explanation and verification.

That’s the kind of finding that tends to get attention.

And it’s one reason I wanted to hear directly from ETA Executive Director Lilli McGregor.And whether you agree with her conclusions or not, the conversation raises some uncomfortable questions.

The Question Isn’t 2020

McGregor isn’t trying to relitigate Trump’s loss to Joe Biden.

In fact, she says her organization found no evidence supporting claims that Biden benefited from election manipulation in 2020.

Instead, ETA says its data analysis uncovered statistical anomalies in several states that deserve closer examination.

The organization points to Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and other states where voting patterns appeared unusual enough to warrant investigation.

The common denominator?

According to McGregor, Republican candidates appeared to benefit.

Why This Matters

Most Americans have grown tired of election conspiracy theories.

I know I have.

But there’s a difference between making evidence-free accusations and examining data for potential vulnerabilities.

ETA argues that computerized voting systems create opportunities for interference because any computer system can potentially be compromised.

That’s not a partisan observation.

It’s a technological reality.

The group’s solution is simple:

More audits.

More recounts.

More transparency.

More verification.

Frankly, those shouldn’t be controversial ideas.

The Real Goal

The ultimate question isn’t whether ETA is right about every concern it raises.

The real question is whether Americans can have confidence that election outcomes accurately reflect the will of voters.

Democracy depends on that confidence.

When trust erodes, political division deepens.

And when citizens stop believing their votes matter, democracy itself becomes vulnerable.

That’s why I found my conversation with Lilli McGregor so interesting.

Her organization isn’t arguing that elections should be trusted blindly.

It’s arguing they should be verified.

That’s a principle every American should support.

Whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, election integrity shouldn’t belong to one political party.

It belongs to all of us.

Listen to the full interview with Election Truth Alliance Executive Director Lilli McGregor and decide for yourself.

(Editor's Note: Investigative reporter Alison Greene has played a major role in uncovering election irregularities in Florida. We will present an interview with her Thursday, June 11. Watch for it here, on LeantotheLeft.net, and on the Lean to the Left podcast on YouTube and major audio podcast channels.)

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

South Carolina Democrat John Vincent knows most political experts don’t think he can win.

He doesn’t care.

In a powerful interview on the Lean to the Left podcast, the retired Navy command master chief and small business owner laid out an aggressive strategy for taking on Republican Congressman Russell Fry — one of Donald Trump’s most blindly loyal allies in Congress.

And Vincent believes the political landscape is changing faster than many Democrats realize.

“People assume South Carolina is immune to what’s happening nationally,” Vincent said. “I think they’re wrong.”

Watch

Listen

Vincent argues that Fry’s complete alignment with Trump may actually weaken him among moderates, independents, and even some Republicans uneasy with MAGA politics.

He also believes Democrats make a mistake when they focus only on criticizing Republicans without offering concrete solutions.

So Vincent came prepared with specifics.

He says he would:

• Fight to eliminate tariffs he calls “a tax on everyone”

• Push addiction treatment initiatives to reduce veteran homelessness and suicide

• Protect Social Security by raising the payroll income cap

• Oppose deficit spending without offsetting cuts

That message, he says, resonates with voters tired of partisan extremism.

Vincent also discussed the enormous fundraising gap between himself and Fry, acknowledging he cannot compete dollar-for-dollar with Republican money.

Instead, he’s betting on grassroots organizing, face-to-face campaigning, and local engagement.

And despite the odds, he insists this race is way more than competitive.

“I think he’s backing a loser,” Vincent said of Fry’s loyalty to Trump.

Whether Vincent can actually pull off one of the biggest political upsets in recent South Carolina history remains to be seen.

But one thing is certain: he’s not running a traditional Democratic campaign. He has no fear.

And no quit, either.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I’ve interviewed a lot of Republicans over the years. Even worked for a GOP Congressman once upon a time.

Very few sound like Sam Gibbons.

Gibbons is a Marine veteran running for Congress as a Republican in South Carolina’s deeply conservative 2nd District. But unlike most GOP candidates these days, he openly criticizes Donald Trump, opposes war with Iran, condemns cruelty toward immigrants, and says the Republican Party has lost its way.

In other words, he’s not MAGA.

That’s what made this conversation on the Lean to the Left podcast so fascinating.

Listen

Watch

Gibbons spoke passionately about the values he learned in the Marines and at The Citadel — honor, duty, transparency, and leadership through service. He contrasted those values with Trump’s behavior and what he sees as a politics built on anger, fear, and division.

Snake Oil Salesman

At one point, he described Trump as “a snake oil salesman” who has sold millions of Americans “a wonderful lie.”

That’s not something you ever hear from Republican candidates in South Carolina.

Even more striking was Gibbons’ discussion of war.

Having served in Afghanistan, he spoke emotionally about the human consequences of military conflict and said he was disgusted by Trump’s rhetoric about “bombing the hell out of” Iran.

He warned about moral injury among veterans and criticized political leaders who speak casually about war while civilians pay the price.

On immigration, he rejected the cruelty and scapegoating that have become central to Trump’s political brand.

“People are people,” he told me.

Now, let’s be realistic.

Gibbons is running in one of the reddest districts in South Carolina against longtime incumbent Joe Wilson. That’s a steep climb.

But the significance of his campaign may go beyond whether he wins.

It’s Beyond South Carolina

The fact that a Republican Marine veteran in South Carolina feels compelled to publicly challenge Trumpism says something important about the cracks forming inside today’s GOP.

And maybe that’s why this conversation matters.

Because the future of American politics may depend on whether more people inside both parties are willing to stand up and say what they actually believe — even when it’s unpopular.

As Gibbons put it:

“Be brave in your values.”

Share

Leave a comment

Investigative Journalist Nick Bryant, who first published Jeffrey Epstein’s “Black Book” listing powerful people who engaged in child trafficking activities, is calling for a independent commission to help provide justice for victims.

In a powerful interview on my Lean to the Left podcast, Bryant argued that for decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations have failed to fully expose the network surrounding Epstein and the institutions that protected him.

Bryant has spent more than 15 years investigating the Epstein case. He helped ignite worldwide scrutiny after publishing Epstein’s “Black Book” and flight logs online in 2015, exposing connections to wealthy elites, celebrities, and powerful political figures.

Today, Bryant directs Epstein Justice, a nonprofit organization pushing for an independent congressional commission to investigate the case and seek justice for victims.

Listen to the Podcast

View the Podcast

Read the Transcript

A Bipartisan Cover-Up

One of Bryant’s most explosive claims during the interview:

“The coverup started with Bush. It continued with Obama. It continued under Trump. It continued under Biden, and now it’s continuing under Trump.”

Bryant says the public is being asked to believe that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell acted alone, despite years of evidence suggesting a far larger operation involving trafficking, influence, and possible blackmail.

He pointed to surveillance systems allegedly installed throughout Epstein’s homes and described what he says was a secret monitoring room inside Epstein’s New York mansion.

Bryant also expressed frustration over what he sees as systemic failures by federal authorities and prosecutors to fully pursue the case, despite years of allegations and victim testimony.

“The government isn’t going to give us transparency unless we demand transparency,” he said.

The conversation also touched on:

• The significance of Epstein’s “Black Book”

• Alleged failures by the DOJ and FBI

• The role of Ghislaine Maxwell

• Claims of institutional protection

• The push for a new independent investigation

• Why Bryant believes the public still doesn’t know the full story

Whether you agree with Bryant’s conclusions or remain skeptical, the interview offers a provocative and deeply unsettling look at one of the most controversial scandals of our time.

If you haven’t already, subscribe to Lean to the Left for more interviews and commentary focused on politics, accountability, and social justice.

And as always:

Stay informed. Speak up. Join the conversation.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now