A woman at the center of a New York Times piece about Maine Democrat Graham Platner is calling out the paper. What she describes is journalistic malpractice.
“It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along,” Lyndsey Fifield says. “The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.”
Here’s what this is all about.
Platner is such an awful, disturbed candidate that he makes Republican Sen. Susan Collins the sane choice in Maine’s Senate race. People have good reasons to be fed up with Collins. But this guy?!
Don’t take it from me — here’s the plainest-spoken Democrat in the Senate, John Fetterman. (Or watch it from CBS, here.)
Referring to Platner by his online handle “P-Hustle,” Fetterman asked whether left-wing network MS Now (formerly MSNBC) would continue to back him. “If you want to defend a guy that describes the American army as absolute trash, OK,” Fetterman said. He noted that “P-Hustle said a Purple Heart awardee is dumb and doesn’t deserve to live.”
Platner was also “probably dropping d*** picks for a decade on Kik,” a controversial app, Fetterman noted. Days ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that Platner still had an active account. Also, his own wife flagged sexually explicit texts he had sent to several women.
“Kik has serious issues, a lack of kinds of controls, a lot of underage people,” Fetterman said. “Why was he on it for a decade? Who’s investigating why?” Fetterman questioned how Platner could possibly know that anyone he was interacting with on the platform was of legal age.
Platner had a Nazi tattoo for years, which he got covered up during his campaign. He insists he somehow managed not to know what it was. But Fifield, his ex-girlfriend, told the New York Times he not only knew, but taught her what it was. She says she told them this a while back, but the paper kept dragging its feet — only getting around to finally running the story this past week.
It gets worse. From the article:
“Mr. Platner could be rough with her, Ms. Fifield said, particularly when they were drinking, leaving her shaken and sometimes afraid… She was quick to note that he ‘never hit me, he never punched me.’ But she said he regularly grabbed her by the shoulders — sometimes hard enough to leave marks — and, on one occasion, yanked her out of a cab by her wrist after an argument when she wanted to stay in the car.
During one argument, she recalled, he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out, telling her to remain there until she was ‘calm.’”
Platner denies some behaviors and constantly insists that he has changed. But as Fetterman noted, the facts keep showing that he has “lied to everybody.”
The Times, in its endless move further and further left, may have strategically designed this piece to downplay Platner’s record. One of the paper’s tactics was to play up Fifield’s background working for Republicans. She has come forward with her story.
It’s worth reading in full, but here’s part of it:
“Where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)? Why does it say ‘nobody could corroborate’ when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?…
Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?The editors said it was too much, they explained. The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.”
I replied, encouraging her to hold onto any proof and inviting her to join me on They Stand Corrected.
The Times, of course, stands by its story. But it would be no surprise if Fifield’s accusations turn out to be true. After all, this is a paper that:
runs insane libel
leaves out basic, inconvenient facts
lies in headlines
runs cover for pro-terror figures
racked up votes in the Media Fail Awards
For more on Platner, check out News Center Maine and Seth Mandel’s writeup at Commentary.
I would also take Fettermans' comments with a grain of salt also. I used to believe he was the best Democrat to come along in years. Now I can't wait till he's out of there.