Woman who dated Graham Platner says he sexually assaulted her (www.politico.com)

submitted 2 days ago by velma@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world

97 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.’”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 14 points 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.

[-] JollyG@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

And elsewhere

[-] LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 23 hours 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.works 7 points 1 day ago

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

[+] TheRealKuni@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago

[deleted]

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.works -4 points 1 day 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.social 1 points 1 day 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.works -2 points 1 day 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.

this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026

53 points (80.5% liked)

politics

30319 readers

2293 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News