Update: Just when you thought the media couldn’t try harder to force Graham Platner out of the race for Senator from Maine, WaPo is out with a new one: that ‘sneaky’ oysterman was secretly shucking his condoms off during sex – or so an ex-girlfriend told the deep state’s favorite paper of record.
“He would pull condoms off,” claims Lyndsey Fifield, who says she dated Platner from 2013-2015 in Washington DC – and previously accused him of physical abuse. “He would do it in a sneaky way. He wouldn’t tell me.”
And just like how the NY Times withheld key details until the dam broke thanks to Politico (read below), WaPo knew about this accusation since June 20.
Fifield initially told The Post about the alleged condom removal during a June 20 interview that was off the record. She said she decided to speak publicly about it Tuesday in part because, she said, she wanted to show that Racicot was not alone in experiencing issues with Platner involving sexual consent. -WaPo
In other words, this was ‘off the record’ until she ‘decided to speak publicly about it Tuesday’ in order to support a fellow accuser. WaPo then writes:
“Removing a condom during sex without consent, known as “stealthing,” is classified as a form of sexual assault in several countries, including Britain, Canada and parts of Australia. In the United States, Maine, California and Washington state have laws that address the nonconsensual removal of condoms during sex.”
…
She estimated that Platner removed condoms without her consent at least six times when they had sex at both of their residences in D.C. during their two-year, on-and-off relationship. She said she told him that she was upset about it but that he would make light of the situation.
So – he stealthed Fifield an alleged six times – and she continued letting him inside of her vagina after said stealthing was an established maneuver, your honor.
“I confronted him both during and after [sex] because he knew that I was not on birth control and how dangerous that was,” she told the Post, which waited until now to tell the world. “He would act like cute about it, like ‘Oh sneaky me.’“
Sneaky indeud. But not sneaky enough to save his 2026 run for Senate a decade later, it would seem.
Platner’s campaign has denied Fifield’s allegation, calling her claim “categorically false and politically motivated.”
Now it’s over…
Q: How much more gross can P-Hustle get before the end?
— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) July 7, 2026
* * * BEFORE YOU GO – If you want amazing meat, pick up some of this BMS 7+ Wagyu from veteran-owned KC Cattle Co. Salt & pepper, pan sear / oven finish, and it needs nothing else. NO stringy meat, each bite is seriously packed with flavor, and the fat just melts as you chew. This happened not 6 days ago at house Durden. And yes the dogs got some too.
Earlier: Graham Platner’s Senate campaign is imploding after Politico published a detailed account on Monday from Jenny Racicot, a 41-year-old Democrat from Maine, who accuses the progressive darling of rape. Donors are heading for the exits, Democrats are withdrawing endorsements, and calling for Platner to drop out.
But there’s another scandal hiding in plain sight, and it involves the New York Times, which published an exposé last month featuring three women who dated Platner, who had each accused him of domestic abuse.
Racicot also appeared in the New York Times‘ story on Platner last month. The paper interviewed her and spoke with another anonymous woman as well. Yet when the Times published its June report, it omitted the sexual assault allegations from Racicot and the anonymous Democratic woman who had dated Platner. Instead, the story centered on another accuser, Lyndsey Fifield, a Republican operative whose partisan resume became a central focus of the article.
“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)?” Fifield asked after the story was published.
According to Fifield, reporters contacted her in early April and pressured her past her initial refusal. They told her there were other women and they needed to “band together.” They also promised to protect her. She eventually relented. “I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists,” she wrote on X, turning down other outlets and sitting quiet through weeks of delays.
Then she handed them everything a reporter could want: five friends who could corroborate her story, former roommates who watched Platner stalk her row house from five doors away, screenshots, landlord emails documenting the lease she broke to escape him, and time-stamped diary entries. Reporters called just the two friends who could confirm the relationship timeline rather than the abuse, and told her they saw no need to contact the ex-fiance she confided in during pre-marital counseling since the diary covered it.
The published story claimed nobody could corroborate her account. “Why does it say ‘nobody could corroborate’ when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?” Fifield asked. Friends had confirmed to the Times that she disclosed the abuse years before Platner announced a run for anything. That corroboration never made print.
Three women who had never met, Fifield, Racicot, and the third anonymous accuser, described the same cycle of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and love-bombing. The Times had all of it but gave readers mostly a deep dive on the Republican woman’s employment record instead. “It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along,” Fifield wrote. “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.”
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.
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026
Politico’s Adam Wren appeared on MSNOW’s “Morning Joe” to walk Mika Brzezinski through the vetting of Racicot’s story. Brzezinski noted the absence of any police report and asked, “Given the very high standards Politico has before they write something like this and publish it, what aspects of this story brought it to the level of publishable?” Wren explained how Racicot “had confided into a number of people, including her therapist, in almost real time.” The corroboration consisted of “email exchanges between she and her therapist” and conversations with people she confided in during the months that followed.
When Brzezinski pressed Wren on what tied Platner to the act itself, he cited an Instagram message Racicot sent the next day, as well as messages to others afterward. Therapist emails and secondhand descriptions of unrecovered messages cleared Politico’s bar, but eyewitness roommates, screenshots, landlord emails, timestamped diaries, and friends confirming contemporaneous disclosures fell short at the New York Times, which lied to America by claiming nobody could corroborate Fifield’s story, and completely omitting Racicot’s claims of sexual assault.
Morning Joe spends 5 minutes grilling Politico’s @adamwren for running a story on Platner’s ex accusing him of rape. “Given the very high standards Politico has before they write something like this and publish it, what aspects of this story brought it to the level of… pic.twitter.com/JgLW17ZF4y
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 7, 2026
Platner’s campaign will likely die in the coming days, but the New York Times’ credibility went first.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/07/2026 – 22:01
