A woman who previously dated Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said he drunkenly forced her to have sex after she told him to stop, according to a Politico report released Monday, leading prominent supporters to pull their endorsements and throwing a must-win race for the party into turmoil.
Platner denied the allegation, but said he would be considering next steps for his campaign.
“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we’re taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said in a video released on social media.
Jenny Racicot, who lives in Maine, told Politico that Platner entered her home in 2021 while drunk and assaulted her. Racicot said she had been in an on-and-off relationship with Platner, but she cut off contact with him after that night and told him the incident wasn’t consensual. A voicemail left at a number listed for Racicot seeking comment did not receive an immediate response.
Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to an email and phone message from The Associated Press seeking comment.
“Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically false,” Platner said in his video.
Still, the allegation sparked a flight away from a candidate who has long been controversial. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who’d stood by Platner even as the insurgent candidate was hit with prior allegations, said Monday’s was enough. “I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” Khanna said. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”
Edit: holy shit, these comments are insane.
Regardless of what you believe with this, Platner likely cannot win anymore. He has a week to do the right thing and drop out before he's fully locked in. If he actually gives any sort of a shit (and doesn't just want power, like rapists seeking office tend to), he needs to drop out yesterday.
This is the nail in the coffin for his campaign. It's not time to defend him no matter what, because there's still a week where a new candidate can be put into place. Instead of being mad at people not wanting to vote for him, you should start vocally supporting another candidate.
I don't care if she's cynical or unlikable or politically motivated if he in fact raped her. He shouldn't have done that if he didn't want people to call him a rapist at inconvenient times.
I do care about her motivations, because motivations tell you a lot. It tells you that her first priority is politics. It's Schrodinger's assault - simultaneously so traumatic as to warrant making an accusation years later, yet so mild that the need for justice was so low that she was able to keep it to herself until the most opportune moment. It's suspicious as all Hell, and I wish folks like you just weren't so credulous.
You do realize that people lie, right? And Democratic politicians are particularly vulnerable to false accusations of sexual assault, as the base has been conditioned (for good reason) to by default believe victims.
But you have to keep your brain on. Believing victims is a good general rule. But only a Sith deals in absolutes. You should believe victims, but you also shouldn't be a naive fool. If all it takes for you to abandon a campaign is someone making a politically opportunistic assault allegation, then you will never see politicians you like elected.
Yes, as a general rule, false allegations are rare. But we're talking about a heated Senate seat, with millions of dollars on the line, where a false accusation can do real damage in the time it takes for the truth to come out. Normally there isn't a lot of motivation for people to make false assault allegations. But in cases like this, there's a huge motivation to do so.
This is media literacy 101. When someone has a huge motivation to spread false allegations, you need to treat them skeptically, even if "believe the victim" is generally a good first approach.
My issue with your comment was:
If she's telling the truth, I don't care if she's a political operative, because what she's telling the truth about is being sexually assaulted by Platner. If you are using the timing as a reason to believe she is lying, then I understand that. But I can't imagine caring about her motivation if she is telling the truth.
First, I'm not conceding that she's telling the truth. I can imagine caring about her motivations, because in this case, she is both a sexual victim and a sexual abuser, or at least an abuse enabler.
If she is telling the truth, consider who you're talking about here. You're talking about a sexual assault victim that is actively trying to harm other sexual assault victims. She's working to get a Republican elected to the Senate - the same Republican that played a role in getting Roe v. Wade overturned. You're talking about someone that is both a victim and an abuser. Collins winning will be a massive detriment to every citizen of Maine that is a victim of assault or rape.
That's why it matters. You don't get to play "believe every victim" card when you yourself are actively trying to victimize people.
Its 100% credible. She's got texts and e-mails with friends and a therapist from the time period.
Graham is done.
No. The therapist ones are recent. They have a few chat messages from friends, but only from people whose names Politico didn't disclose. She explicitly said she deleted most of her texts.
I watched the interview and I didn't make those conclusions. Its more than credible enough to just believe it. And I don't know that the fine detail matters. Graham said there was no more coming out and this came out. He has categorically denied it, but that was before the interview. I'd be surprised if he hasn't stepped down before the end of the night. It could be an outright lie (I dont think it is, I think its fully credible), and it won't matter now.
Well I'm going off the actual text in the Politico and NYTimes articles. If you want to cite a video, can you provide a time stamp? I don't have time to watch a 25 minute long video.
And the fine details do matter. Again, because we're dealing with what has an extremely high probability of being a political hit piece.
And Graham saying nothing more is coming out isn't damning at all. She herself claims Platner didn't remember the event. Even if she's telling the truth, Platner would have been completely honest when he said he didn't think anything else was coming out. She's claiming he was blackout drunk and had no memory of the event.
Yeah I think this was while you were engaged in the thread, Jake Tapper did an interview with the accuser. Also, can we just say Jake Tapper is also a piece of shit? He's like, goading certain responses out of here. I don't think she has an axe to grind here but Tapper sure does. Tapper also used language like "let him r*** you" and like, come the fuck on CNN. Like what the actual fuck.
Its gonna be a while before the clip chimps get their hands on this, but it was a CNN interview, so here is CNN's sub 3minute clip of the interview: https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=c2hyYJRhzhk
Longer form if you've got 10 minutes: https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=Hz5Nv4-DAnU
The accusation is that Graham broke into her house black out drunk and r****d her.
Not really. Not in politics and not in the broad superficial strokes of the US media apparatus. There are so many moving parts to a political campaign, and especially with a grass-roots, anti-corporate, anti-AIPAC campaign, its a massive blow, a death blow. Its 10PM Maine time? Platner either drops out in the next hour or tomorrow morning.
Again, can you provide any evidence of what you claimed - that in a video she claims to have contemporaneous therapist records? I watched the short one, but it doesn't support your claims.
I mean, if you are doing fucking lazy or deeply committed to not engaging with the story, why the fuck should I be bothered to give you anything more than a few clips to check out?
You want to know why I said what I said, show some curiosity and go watch the full interviews. I'm not the one making claims without having taken in that information, you are..
Here is a source that proves all my claims. I cannot provide time stamps. You'll just have to take my word for it. If you don't watch it all the way through, you're fucking lazy.
He provided a three minute video. You've spent more time shit posting
They watched the short video and it didn't have the information being referenced.
Here is the thing. You are being extraordinarily defensive about something that is at least credible enough to believe the accuser at face value. There is a primary source you can engage with which I've provided, and you just want to tut-tut and walk away. You've obviously had enough time to spend easily 2 hours plus in this thread. You could have listened to the entire interview by now.
"TropicalDingDong sexually assaulted me five years ago and I had texts to prove it but I deleted them all. See, look at these emails I exchanged with my therapist last week about it. If you don't believe me, just listen to my anonymous friends who I confided in at the time."
See how credible that is?
Look dude I took Graham at his word that there was nothing more to come out. If he's right, and he tucks his heels in and fights, he'll win.
Right now it looks like she's a credible accuser. The timeline, the MO, the story, the consequences, its all in alignment. And we can compare that with a not-credible accuser, like 3 weeks ago, via the NYT, which didn't have the corroborating evidence this does.
All I know is that the state of israel has a vested interest in preventing him from getting elected, as do the centrist democrats, and the entire republican party.
And this woman waits till now to bring this up? Smells like a hit job to me. Especially when you consider that this is Politico...
They are allegations, but he probably did. But did you know it's not illegal to run for senator when you have been convicted of a felony?
In a representative democracy, the rational way to go is to vote for the person who you think will vote on the same side as you on issues you care about. You're not choosing a friend or someone you will interact with on a regular basis.
Republicans understood this a long time ago. Billionaires understand it too, that's why they give money to candidates they think are more susceptible to return the favor.
Purity tests are something you have to put aside when your country is sliding into fascism... Otherwise you're giving an advantage to the other side.
Naw you don't have to vote for rapists.
So what's the other option in this election?
You don't have to worry about every single election. Do you even live in maine? Think longer term than what's right in front of us. Run for office if you have similar politics. Get involved locally. Build parallel power and help the community. Idk but supporting a rapist is not required.
Susan Collins is awful but she's a symptom. Electing a black water mercenary who raped someone isn't the path to a better world lol
It's not like he's this perfect political animal that would have single handedly brought down the oligarchy, he's just one guy. In America we get way too into individual politicians.
Are you saying the answer is to not vote? Honest question, I'm kinda dumb and not quite following what you're trying to imply