← 10 Minute Drill
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Thanks for tuning into a special Friday update of 10 Minute Drill. I wanted to spend just a couple minutes on this New York Times story because we've been covering Graham Platner very closely, particularly all of his different sort of liabilities and things that he's done in the past and scandals that he's had. There's been a story brewing for quite a while. People on social media have been teasing it for a long time of things that were even more troubling than what we've seen thus far. And that story came out on Thursday. New York Times Several women who dated Graham Platner recall unsettling behavior the Democratic candidate for Senate and Maine could be charming, women said in interviews, but some found his actions intimidating and disturbing. Now I'll preface this by pointing out the fact that Graham Platner's primary defense of some of the crazy comments that he's made downplaying rape, suggesting that he went to war because he really wanted to kill people. A lot of other violent things he said, homophobic things, racist things, the things that we outlined that were called out by the View. He's tried to dismiss those as just sort of online comments on his worst possible. But what's been important to understand about the drip drip of these stories, it's a pattern that highlights serious character flaws and temperament issues. And what the New York Times story gets into, I think takes that a big step further. But I also think it's important to note that there are other stories out there about Graham Platner's violence that didn't get included in this for whatever reason. That will come out before November. But let's get into what's in this story. On Tuesday evening, after a whirlwind day in Washington, Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, rushed home. Rumors were spreading from Portland to the Potomac about Mr. Plattner's messy personal life. After news reports that he sent sexual messages to women while married, Democratic senators were pressing him about whether more damaging revelations were coming. Journalists were swarming, staking out his hometown. Now this is really important because Platner held his in person meetings with Democrat senators and he assured them there was nothing else to come. No other revelations in the works, which he had also done previously. Before the story about his Nazi tattoo came out, before the story came out about the affairs about having illicit images sent to women who weren't his wife, things like that. And so every part of this, he's hung his own defenders out to dry. And yet everyone from Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren to Chuck Schumer, to Kristen Gillibrand has continued defending him, essentially saying there is no line he could cross that would make them withhold their endorsement of him because they simply want that Senate seat. That will get more difficult both with this story and the other themes that it alludes to, that there will be more to come on. In extensive conversations over the past two months, three other women who'd been romantically involved with Platner offered a more complicated assessment, describing volatile and toxic relationships that were unsettling and at times emotionally wrenching. Mr. Plattner could be charming and charismatic, they recalled in interviews, but also demeaning to women. In at least one case, even physically threatening. He drank heavily and was regularly unfaithful, they say in at least one case there because there are stories that were left out of this for whatever reason. Nobody really knows why, but they're out there. And there are women who have clearly shown they're willing to talk to media about this. But the one woman who did go on the record in this story is Lindsey Fifield, 40, a Virginia conservative who's worked for right leaning groups in Republican campaigns, recalled him as cavalierly contemptuous of women's emotions, of our weakness. Ms. Fifield, who dated Mr. Plattner from roughly 2013 to 2015, said that his offensive online posts reminded me of just how much he hated women. Now this is really important here. Democrats were warned that this story was coming when the Platner team was asked for comment from the New York Times. Their first move was to try and discredit it, saying she's a Republican operative. Disclosure. I know Lindsey really well. She's a fantastic person. I also know her to be incredibly strong and not the kind of person that would ever make up or embellish her experiences with anybody. And so the fact that she went forward with this, even though the New York Times in several different places throughout this story, frames it as here's why you shouldn't believe her, even though she gains nothing out of this. She's not working for any campaigns. She's not doing any political work for party committees. And I think one thing that's valuable to note is this story itself doesn't appear to have any ties to the Collins campaign, the Republican National Committee or the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is one way you can know that is the fact that it's coming before the primary. If Republicans were pitching this out and dropping it, they would be doing it after Graham Platner was already locked in. But what it seems to have actually happened here is the New York Times tracked down former girlfriends of Platner, asked them if they were willing to talk about their experience with them, and Lindsey seemed to be the one who was willing to put her testament to the record. And what she describes in this is incredibly disturbing and disqualifying. And the other women involved likely also had terrible things to share, but for any number of reasons didn't necessarily want to go on the record, which may have precluded their stories that could have been worse. The at least in that previous quote is really important. Those didn't get included here, but does mean that there's still more things out there. But let's go back to Lindsay's story. Mr. Platner could be rough with her, Ms. Fifield said, particularly when they were drinking, leaving her shaken and sometimes afraid. In the interviews, Ms. Fifield grappled with how to process her experiences. 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. Eventually, Ms. Fifield said, she fell asleep and left the next morning. It hurt, she said. But she added, it didn't cause an injury. It didn't break my arm. That's a horrific account. Shoving a woman who is smaller than you in a room, hurting her shoulders, holding the door shut, is kidnapping. And I think he can say in the heat of a moment things got out of hand. This is very clear textbook abuse. And if I found out someone did this to one of my sisters, it would be very difficult for me not to physically injure them. So people will try and downplay some of this, in part because a number of Democrat operatives who knew this was coming Preview that there's going to be very clear sexual assault outlines in this story, and it did not make it in. But this in itself shows a temperament that in my mind is still incredibly disqualifying. But throughout this story, the New York Times also highlights the fact that they tried actively to discredit Lindsay's story. We have gone from believe all women and the sort of standards and ethics that we saw during the Kavanaugh hearing, where people were given anonymity as long as they wanted to make any accusations, they possibly could to this case with Lindsay, where they have things like this. Mr. Plattner strongly disputes any claims of physical intimidation or altercations. His campaign said the Times could not independently corroborate Ms. Fifield's account of the altercations. The Times reviewed texts between Ms. Fifield and Mr. Plattner, along with the Google chat exchanges, texts and Facebook messages between Ms. Fifield and her friends during and after the relationship. The Times also reviewed some of Ms. Fifield's diary entries from after the relationship had ended and spoke with two of her friends who confirmed that the pair had an emotionally volatile relationship with, but could not corroborate the physical altercation or the most controversial comments she described. But Ms. Fifield said she did not expect her friends to offer that corroboration because she did not tell anyone at the time, saying she had been embarrassed. The impact of the relationship on Ms. Fifield's life lingered for years. She said she referred to him in a diary entry in June 2016 as the most toxic, literally abusive man on earth who destroyed my life. Those closer encouraged her to move on. Do not call Graham, a friend messaged her that year. This story spends more time describing her Republican affiliations and all the different ways they tried to poke holes in her account than they actually do describing the account. But I also think it's important to note they talked to three different women, they say in the text here, three different women who describe troubling relationships. They only got one person's firsthand account of what happened there, and it's likely because they said if you don't go on the record here with your account, we won't print it. And other women might not have wanted their name to be out there with a story like this, to be targeted by the Democrat operatives that are now targeting Lindsey for being brave enough to go out and tell her story. Lindsey gets nothing out of this. She has small children. I think she would have perfectly loved to continue having the anonymity around this. But the New York Times standards and practices are significantly different if you are a Republican who happens to be talking about being abused by a Democrat. And I think that's horrific. But there's a number of other themes in this story that are incredibly important, one of them being Graham Platner and the Nazi tattoo. Graham Platner has consistently said he did not know what his tattoo meant when he got it. He thought it was a simple skull and crossbones. And when he learned from national news coverage just a few months ago that it was a Nazi sign. He got rid of it. But Lindsay tells a very different story here. Now. First they quote Platner, I absolutely would not have gone through life with this on my chest if I knew that. And to insinuate that I did is disgusting. Ms. Fifield called that a lie. Mr. Plattner, she said, knew when they were dating years ago that the tattoo was a Nazi symbol. And he called it my Totenkopf. I would never have known what that was. She said he would joke about it being a Nazi tattoo. Reporters have noted numerous times that Graham Platner is essentially a World War II history buff. So again, the idea that he didn't know what it is is insane. Also, in his kick profile, the profile that he made so that he could use an app that is strongly tied to exploiting underage girls and connecting older men with younger women who are under the age of 18, he's hiding the Nazi tattoo in the profile. So he may have known what it was there. And according to Lindsey's account, he was open about it being a Nazi tattoo, which once again makes all his Democrat defenders who have said things like, it's an accidental tattoo, he couldn't have possibly known what it means look foolish. But one more thing I want to highlight in this story that I think is really important is the casual way he talks about violence and sexual assault, which once again, is something that he was called out for doing previously in Reddit posts that he tried to dismiss as kind of a one off thing. It wasn't. He had what she described as a warrior ethos and would fantasize about killing people he deemed a threat. She said he also told her that rape was about power. It was something that stuck with her throughout the years. Ms. Fifield said he said this a lot. If anybody ever broke in here, I would rape them. She recalled saying that he added, it would not be in a sexual way, not in a gay way. He was like, I would rape them to show them that I'm dominant. Asked about those remarks, a Platner campaign official did not dispute them. Again, which is a very, very bizarre thing, but not when you have a pattern of treating sexual assault like it's not a big deal. And that is an underlying theme throughout this story. There's one person's anecdote involved here that has a major gap that I think is going to raise more questions than it answers. And it involves an actual Democrat. Jenny Racicot, 41, a Maine Democrat who said she dated him casually off and on between 2019 and 2021, said the post deepened her belief that he did not respect women. When I saw the comments he'd made online, she said, I recognized a version of him that I had experiences with. Now, as Platner's defenders in his campaign are trying to sort of dismiss this story and undermine it by saying Lindsey Fifield is a Republican operative. They also talked to a Democrat who actually supports Platner's policies, who also described troubling interactions. And troubling, I think, is really downplaying a lot of this. But she was not shocked, she said, when she saw the incendiary comments he'd made about women that have surfaced during the campaign. I was like, that makes sense, she said. This person does not respect women. Ms. Rascott also said that in 2021, he arrived at her house drunk after she had asked him not to come over. She declined to elaborate, but said she cut off contact soon after that episode and found his behavior reckless and unsettling. She declined to elaborate. There are millions of reasons that a woman would not go into further detail about what could have happened in this interaction, but she's very brave for coming forward, giving her name, describing these troubling interactions, even though, as she says there, she agrees with a lot of his policies and she's a Democrat. But she has seen plenty of things to one, highlight the fact that he doesn't respect women, and two, showcase the fact that he has violent and scary tendencies. Now, we don't know what happened with Ms. Rascott on that night. We do know that there's a lot more out there and Democrats are going to have to square this as they continue to make excuses for what is one of the worst candidates we have ever seen, who now appears to be putting Democrats in the position, making them eat all of the words they've ever said about believing all women and on so many other issues, all the ways that they've stood up for character and said that character counts. And the final, final point that I would make in this is as you hear more and more about Graham Platner being so terrible, consider the fact that these Democrats are willing to burn down their credibility because they want to defeat Susan Collins, who is literally the most independent minded Senator we've seen in modern history. She votes against her party quite often because her North Star is what's the best for the people of Maine. And it frustrates Republicans all the time. But it's the reason that Democrats normally say, we need more people like Susan Collins. And for them to come out and say we must burn it all down for this troubled person who needs help much more than he needs a Senate seat, is just a shocking state of affairs. Thanks for tuning in.