Graham Platner and Sexual Assault

The singer Steve Earle has a song titled "Christmas in Washington" which he introduces by saying that it is not about Christmas and not about Washington. Similarly, this post is not really about Graham Platner and not about sexual assault. What it is, or at least what I mean it to be, is a discussion of a New York Times article that, depending on your perspective, is either a failed hit job on Graham Platner, an accurate description of a serial abuser, or a "gift to the Platner campaign." It is sometimes suggested that if you are being criticized from both sides, you must be right. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, though in the interest of full disclosure, I have probably used it a time or two in my own defense. Regardless, in this particular case, I think the Times has simply published a poor article that probably should have been rethought.

The article in question is titled "Several Women Who Dated Graham Platner Recall ‘Unsettling’ Behavior." The main thrust of the article is:

But in extensive conversations over the past two months, three other women who had been romantically involved with Mr. Platner offered a far more complicated assessment, describing volatile and “toxic” relationships that were unsettling and at times emotionally wrenching.

In all, six women who had previously been romantically involved with Platner were interviewed. Three had been referred to the Times by the Platner campaign and, not surprisingly, stood up for Platner as a great guy. Of the other three, two were critical of Platner for his drinking, womanizing, and disrespect for women. The third, Lyndsey Fifield, was most prominently featured in the article, and her description of Platner's past behavior was the most damning.

According to Fifield, Platner "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." She also alleged that:

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.

Fifield also claimed that Platner has been lying in his claim not to have known that the tattoo he had was associated with the Nazis. According to her, he had referred to the tattoo as "my Totenkopf" and discussed its links to Nazis.

My criticism of this article is twofold. One is that I don't think that it lived up to its billing. The Times has apparently been working on this story for almost two months. During that time, there have been a number of rumors of what might be reported. Suggestions circulated that Platner could be accused of sexual assault or sex with children. In a post on X, Fifield herself asked, "Where are their accusations of sexual assault?" There is no evidence that Fifield made such allegations herself, but she appears to believe that others did.

The article does a convincing job of describing Platner as having been a heavy drinker and womanizer. He seems to have juggled multiple romances at a time and not treated women very respectfully. However, the three women who were critical of Platner ended their romantic involvement with him over ten years ago, and Platner has repeatedly said that he regrets his behavior from that time. Moreover, Platner has denied most of Fifield's allegations. As a result, we are left with an article that simply does not reveal much that is new.

In two long X posts, Fifield described the Times article as "a set up" and "a gift to the Platner campaign." In Fifield's telling, she was convinced that a number of additional women would be featured in the article and would provide more serious accusations about Platner. She also feels that she was not presented fairly in the article. If Fifield is to be believed, the Times reporters convinced her that they had considerably worse information about Platner. Either that was true and the Times withheld it, or the reporters were not truthful with Fifield. Neither alternative is particularly good for the Times. Another possibility is that Fifield is simply not trustworthy.

I am not here to call Fifield a liar. What I do want to do, however, is suggest that the New York Times did not provide readers with sufficient information about Fifield so that they could make their own judgements about her veracity. The Times does acknowledge that Fifield is a conservative who has worked for a number of conservative organizations. The article says:

Ms. Fifield, who is affiliated with Independent Women, a conservative group, insisted that her political beliefs had nothing to do with her choice to come forward. She worked briefly on Nikki Haley’s 2024 presidential campaign and before that for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Ms. Fifield said she had not been paid by any campaign or political entity since Ms. Haley’s campaign.

Ms. Fifield said she had no connection to the campaign of Senator Susan Collins, Mr. Platner’s likely Republican opponent. She acknowledged that Independent Women had been supportive of Ms. Collins but said she had not been active with the organization recently.

As described, Fifield's connection to Independent Women is confusing. Fifield is said to be "affiliated with Independent Women" and having "not been active with the organization recently." Factually, Fifield is currently listed on Independent Women's website as a visiting fellow. Based on another post on the website, Fifield appears to have joined the organization in July 2023. In addition, a press release by the Republican Study Group documents Fifield's participation in a Tax Day event on Capitol Hill that took place on April 15 of this year. The press release quotes Fifield and identifies her as "Lyndsey Fifield, Stay-at-Home Mom, Independent Women's Forum." I would suggest that this shows that Fifield was active with the Independent Women's Forum less than two months ago, or during the time that this article was being researched.

One reason that this is important is due to the connection of Independent Women to Susan Collins. Ryan Grim of Drop Site News posted a video on X that shows Heather Higgins, the chair of Independent Women, describing the organization's role during the confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. In the video, Higgins says:

We wrote a memo. It was used by a lot of members of the Senate and the House, Fox News, and elsewhere. Most important, Susan Collins told me that without that memo, she would not see how to support him. And if you look at the speech she gave on the Senate floor, it’s entirely the playing out and architecture of how we said to structure the argument — what to say and how to say it, which is just so gratifying. We’re watching TV and we’re like, ‘That’s ours! That’s ours!’

More interesting still is the fact that during the Kavanaugh hearings, Fifield, along with Inez Stepman (who at the time was employed by Independent Women's Forum), created an organization called "Ladies for Kavanaugh." Fifield is quoted as saying at the time that "in the wake of the baseless, 11th-hour accusations orchestrated to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation, we couldn't stay silent anymore."

According to the Times article, Fifield was involved with Platner "from roughly 2013 to 2015." She now describes that relationship as abusive, the impact of which "lingered for years." Yet, in 2018, she co-founded an organization for the explicit purpose of discrediting an alleged victim of sexual assault. Perhaps ironically in hindsight, Fifield appeared on OAN where she said, "the actual orchestrated destruction of a good man's reputation over politics and over this issue is just disgusting." I think that it is reasonable to have the same doubts about Fifield that she clearly had about Christine Blasey Ford. Yet, the New York Times did not provide this information to its readers.

Moreover, the Times article was not the first attempt by Fifield to politically harm Platner. In October of last year, the Jewish Insider had an article about the tattoo that Platner had at the time (and has since had covered). The article quoted "a person who socialized with Platner when he was living in Washington" as saying "this is my Totenkopf." When I read the Times article, I was struck that the exact same quote appeared. It turns out that is not a coincidence. Fifield was the source of the quote in both cases. She confirmed this herself in today's post on X saying, "Yes, the day I saw him announce he was running I wanted to make sure people knew he had a Nazi tattoo — and I was terrified he would find out it was me." It was also confirmed by her friend Bethany Mandel, a topic from time to time on DCUM and even an occasional poster. Fifield and Mandel used to co-host a podcast called Ladybrains. Mandel posted on X that "She came forward with the tottenkompf many months ago, naively believing that a Nazi tattoo would be disqualifying." This suggests that Fifield has been hoping to damage Platner's political prospects for some time. She may have a perfectly valid reason for wanting to do so, but the Times owes it to its readers to provide such information. It failed to do so.

Setting Fifield aside, the Times article is not particularly revealing. It describes boorish and disrespectful treatment of women over a decade ago by a drunk who was fighting his inner demons. Platner does not deny any of that and argues that what was described does not reflect who he is today. More problematic is Fifield. But she clearly has an axe to grind. Whether that is justified and legitimate or the result of politics is not something that I can determine. However, I do contend that the New York Times failed to provide sufficient context of Fifield's background to its readers. Moreover, as I said above, I think that it is completely justified to have the same doubts about Fifield as Fifield clearly had about Blasey Ford. Fifield is clearly a compromised source, perhaps not fatally compromised, but compromised far beyond what the Times led its readers to believe.