Well, the NYT Caved and Omitted This Serious Allegation Against Graham Platner

The New York Times published a damaging article about Graham Platner, in which multiple women accused him of emotional abuse. They also explored how he knows the tattoo on his chest has Nazi ties and that he has a strange fascination with rape, including wanting to rape a home intruder, but not in a gay way. This is on top of the sexting scandal, where we still don’t know if those he communicated with were of age. It’s a boat trip that cannot help but crash into every rock and reef, but Democrats are doubling down on this guy.

The issue here is that the Times watered down the real story, shifted attention to someone who didn’t want to be the focus, and completely removed the most serious allegations against Platner. That’s why every operative aware of this story dropping feared it could influence the election. The story is that Platner was accused of sexual assault. The Times used Platner's ex-girlfriend, Lyndsey Fifield, as its main focus for this story. She later explained how the Times botched it, saying that the ‘we could not corroborate’ line from them is fugazi—she provided people who could corroborate it. She responded in a series of tweets:

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.

As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word…
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.
As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.
But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.
After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, 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?
Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).
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.
It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. 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.
And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.
Still fawning after all these years.

Of course they made you the focus. They weren't going to try to smear the credibility of Democrat women. Of course they tried to downplay how bad it was and left out supporting evidence that it was in fact really bad. But anyone who reads that and says the guy who twisted her arm…
— Jennifer Sey (@JenniferSey) June 5, 2026

Platner campaign admitting he said he would rape men, but “not in a gay way.” pic.twitter.com/xd1ZdsgvxY
— Mike Berg (@MikeKBerg) June 4, 2026

Graham Platner appeared on MS Now to address the scandals engulfing his Maine Senate candidacy. The New York Times decided to water down its article to show they’re being tough on Democrats with a slew of ‘Me Too’ and Nazi baggage.

It’s all a show.

Look, even Democratic operatives are sounding off, saying this guy is dangerous and totally bonkers.

Graham Platner is a chronic liar who is mentally disturbed, sympathetic to Nazis, and dangerous to women. I’m disgusted to see members of my party make excuses for his behavior because it’s politically beneficial. He should be nowhere near our party and the U.S. Senate.
— Ally Sammarco (@Ally_Sammarco) June 5, 2026

I worked on taking down Eric Swalwell for 4/5 months during his rise here in CA. The cheating, the pics, the lawyers, the gaslighting all feels familiar. At no time was any victim telling me stories of sharpening axes or playing with guns. Voters of Maine, take it from this… https://t.co/JRwHMgQRgb
— Michael Trujillo (@mikehtrujillo) June 5, 2026

She further elaborated on her relationship with Platner here:

Anyone who has ever extracted themselves from a relationship with a narcissistic abuser knows it isn’t clean or easy.

I cringe remembering how many times I tried to play the “cool girl” or fawn in response to what was clearly abusive, coercively controlling behavior by Graham.…
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.