Just a moment...
www.politico.com

A woman who dated Maine U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.

The woman, a 41-year-old Maine resident named Jenny Racicot, detailed the alleged incident to POLITICO in three interviews over the past two weeks. POLITICO also spoke with a man Racicot dated and confided in the years after the alleged incident, and reviewed documents, including emails between Racicot and her therapist and messages between Racicot and an acquaintance whom she warned against getting involved with Platner years before he ran for office.

Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner, who is now the Democratic Senate nominee in Maine, for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.

“I remember him grabbing my pelvis and being really forceful of me,” she said. “I remember the specific moment where I thought to myself, like, ‘This is no longer my choice.’”

  • LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    192·
    2 days ago

    Wonder what all of the people calling us purity-testing republican plants for seeing the blatant signs he was a piece of shit have to say now

    • velma@sh.itjust.worksOP
      195·
      2 days ago

      They’re going to ask why this woman is coming forward now and cast doubt on her claims.

      They’re already doing it in this thread.

        • velma@sh.itjust.worksOP
          92·
          2 days ago

          Oh yeah, we’re going to see a lot of Dems and leftists doing the thing they swear only Republicans do.

        • LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          11·
          1 day ago

          my decision to use the block and report buttons at the drop of a coin keeps paying dividends.

          Ever since all the KHive and facebook moma moved in bluesky has been unlivable

        • velma@sh.itjust.worksOP
          83·
          2 days ago

          If you read the article, she explains why.

          But you’d rather cast doubt than take a few minutes to read the context.

          Racicot previously described “reckless” and “unsettling” behavior by Platner to The New York Times, but says she didn’t go public with the specific assault claim because she didn’t want to be known as a rape victim.

          Racicot said she later felt compelled to go public about her experience because the reaction to the Times story was dominated by controversy about another woman, Lyndsey Fifield, who alleged Platner mistreated her and faced attacks because of her ties to the Republican Party. (Contacted by POLITICO, Fifield stood by the allegations she made to the Times and declined to comment further.)

          “My part of the story was just a read-over,” Racicot said in an interview. “And the story was Lyndsey, and the accusations of her being politically motivated.”

          Racicot said she was torn over coming forward in part because she agrees with Platner politically.

          • TheRealKuni@piefed.socialEnglish
            51·
            2 days ago

            I think you’ll notice I deleted my comment once I saw that. And also I wasn’t casting doubt. I believe her. And I supplied a possible reason that, as it turns out, was her reason.

            • velma@sh.itjust.worksOP
              48·
              2 days ago

              Saying you aren’t casting doubt when you are in fact casting doubt doesn’t negate it.

              Thanks for deleting your comment and reading the context.

              • TheRealKuni@piefed.socialEnglish
                43·
                2 days ago

                Saying you aren’t casting doubt when you are in fact casting doubt doesn’t negate it.

                Ah yes, the black and white fallacy. A sneaky version of it, but it’s here nonetheless.

                I think explaining the opposing viewpoint and then disagreeing with it is a useful rhetorical tool. It is far more likely to convince someone they are wrong if you are able to state their position clearly and accurately. Saying, “I can understand why someone might doubt this person because of this reason,” and then saying, “I don’t doubt them, here is a possible answer” is more useful than just shitting on people.

                • velma@sh.itjust.worksOP
                  46·
                  2 days ago

                  That’s easy for you to say with your comment deleted.

                  You were casting doubt and there was a reason you deleted your comment when I pointed that out. I was sincerely thanking you for deleting your comment.