The story on Graham Platner that the New York Times dropped on Thursday painted the picture of a deeply sociopathic, controlling, and abusive man who shouldn't be elected dog catcher, much less to the United States Senate.
As RedState reported, the Times recounted the stories of three women who had been in relationships with the Bernie Sanders-backed Senate candidate from Maine prior to his marriage in late 2023. The most compelling was told by Lyndsey Fifield, a Virginia woman who the Times wrote "has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns."
Though Fifield claimed Platner "never hit me, he never punched me," she described a pattern of physically abusive behavior during the 2015-2016 time period they were together that she alleged involved regularly grabbing her by the shoulders, which would leave marks, jerking her by the wrist when she wanted to be left alone, and twisting her arm around her back to keep her confined in a room until she "calmed down" from an argument. Fifield also asserted that Platner would sometimes talk about how he would "rape" an intruder if one ever broke in, just to show dominance, but in “a sexual way, not in a gay way.”
READ MORE: Latest Platner Oppo Drop Is Brutal - Paints Ugly Pattern of Abuse
As often is the case, though, there is a story behind the story, and that definitely is the case with this one. For several days prior to the release of the Times piece, rumors had swirled that it was coming. Democrat operatives referenced the possibility on X, with a few suggesting it would have something to do with sexual assault allegations:
They’re about to say Platner SA’d a woman https://t.co/Gb2eUehJQd
— Keith Edwards (@keithedwards) June 4, 2026
This was intriguing because in the meeting Platner had with Democrat senators on Tuesday on the Hill, he reportedly stressed that there would be no "credible" allegations of sexual assault forthcoming. When the Times story broke, a lot of people read it and - while horrified - they wondered where the sexual assault allegations were.
Further, it wasn't lost on some that the Times gave Platner an awful lot of wiggle room with Fifield's story by repeatedly emphasizing that she was a conservative and not noting the physical abuse allegations until 22 paragraphs into the story, well after some folks would have stopped reading.
Daily Caller editor-in-chief Amber Duke called this out in a piece she wrote, alleging that the Times was in effect trying to do Platner a favor with what she called a "catch and release operation." In an X tweet, she detailed:
- A source tells @wupton that the NYT had two women prepared to make sexual assault allegations against Platner.
- Those details were revealed to Fifield, presumably to make her feel more comfortable coming forward
- They never made it into the story, allegedly being removed at the behest of NYT editors and Platner's lawyers.
- The Platner campaign was originally only given two hours to respond, but that stretched into 24 hours, contrary to what interview subjects were told.
In the piece she composed on Platner's ex's being "fed to the wolves," Duke explained what a "catch and kill" media operation is:
The term ‘catch and kill‘ refers to a shady practice where a public relations firm or consultant works with a friendly news outlet that was pitched or ‘stumbled’ upon a negative story about a client to effectively ‘catch’ and then ‘kill’ the story — or delay it until it no longer has impact.
A ‘soft catch and kill’ works similarly, though it mostly involves the publication still running the story in a timely manner, but the details are softened or buried deep in the narrative to soften the bite. The outlet can claim it did its job, but they’ve given the target just enough wiggle room to survive.
The goal, Duke stressed, "was to play Fifield for a sucker, give her story just enough air that the Democrat Party’s cretin media and consultant class could zero in on it and crush it."
Which is exactly what they've been trying to do for the last 18 hours or so.
Fifield, who said the paper sought her out for the story, has taken to X to share how she, too, wondered where the sexual assault allegations in the story were and how she felt the paper abused her trust:
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.
For observers of the Times' machinations, there was only one conclusion to draw:
The New York Times hung a domestic violence survivor out to dry because she is a conservative.
— David M. McIntosh (@DavidMMcintosh) June 5, 2026
That is where we are now. https://t.co/3dvdaqkliv
Is this the end of the allegations against Platner, though? Not by a long shot. Not only is the Washington Post allegedly working on its own story about Platner, but there is most assuredly a well-timed oppo dump coming at some point from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), as noted by independent journalist Mark Halperin in early May.
"The NRSC says they're going to go so negative on Platner," Halperin stated at the time. "I saw one of the spokespeople say he'll have to leave the state. He won't just lose the race, he'll have to leave Maine."
This is important - they've barely scratched the surface with Platner. https://t.co/yI6MgfPoTc
— Matt Whitlock (@MattWhitlock) April 30, 2026
Stay tuned.
Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
Help RedState continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member