When Graham Platner won the Democratic primary and was likely to win a Senate seat in Maine, it looked as though the reckoning might take years. The online creators relentlessly defending him would celebrate his victory, and, when inevitably disappointed by his actions, would distance themselves and shrug it off, distracting the audience with current issues.

His loudest promoters included Hasan Piker, The Majority Report, Kyle Kulinski, Breaking Points, The Young Turks and Ryan Grim. They rapidly formed a clique backing this random candidate chosen by consulting firm Fight Agency, focused on finding and promoting so-called progressives to fight the corrupt establishment. This was, of course, mere aesthetic, detached from the candidate’s actual personality or intentions.

Is it legal to knowingly manufacture a candidate’s persona and fool people? Yes. Should it be? I hope they go bankrupt after this scandal.

Lo and behold, things didn’t get as far as post-election disappointment, as a few days ago, Platner was outed as a rapist by a former partner, with corroborating evidence, making her account difficult to dismiss.

Prior to Jenny Racicot coming forward, Platner’s own admissions had outed him as a man who:

  • Had joined the Marines “for an adventure and to kill some people”;
  • Had served 3 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan;
  • Had worked as a mercenary for Constellis, formerly Blackwater;
  • Would still be in the army given the right conditions;
  • Found nothing more thrilling than winning by killing or capturing enemy combatants (locals defending themselves against a US invasion);
  • Had been a security guard at Abu Ghraib prison, internationally known for torture;
  • Had urinated on the corpses of locals killed by US soldiers in Afghanistan;
  • Had rigged weaponry to continue to target civilian areas with explosives, disobeying the orders of his superior, who wanted to reduce civilian deaths;
  • Had had a Nazi symbol, the Totenkopf, tattooed on his chest for 20 years;
  • Had fantasised about partaking in other wars, such as the genocide of the Native Americans;
  • Had shown enthusiasm for an US invasion of Syria, claiming hundreds of thousands of dead Syrians were worth it to spread the American way of life;
  • Had blamed women who had been raped for the company they kept;
  • Planned on reforming the army by incentivising more people to enlist;
  • Envisaged a war with China down the line, describing it as inevitable.

This is just from memory; I’m sure I’m missing some things, but altogether, they paint a picture – that of a man easily suspected of psychopathic traits and still, to this day, highly militaristic, despite the progressive umbrella he operated under. There were posts from as recently as 2021, showcasing his horrid views and lack of empathy.

Everything was written off by the above-mentioned creators as “baggage” that had helped Platner “grow as a person”. Ted Bundy didn’t get that grace, unfortunately for him. Emma Vigeland and Hasan Piker portrayed the above-mentioned as just another job.

Please note that this lot had celebrated Julian Assange’s liberation from prison just one year prior. They had covered Chelsea Manning as well over the years. Assange and Manning sacrificed years of their lives to expose the exact behaviour described above by US soldiers during the Iraq war.

Moreover, they painted Platner as the whistle-blower and as anti-establishment, when he had committed war crims for two decades to serve said establishment.

From later investigations and disclosures by another former partner, Lyndsey Fifield, the following was revealed regarding his treatment of women:

  • He was/ is a serial cheater, including while married to his current wife, using online profiles to meet other women;
  • He had a habit of removing protection during sex, known as stealthing, which breaks consent and exposes women to pregnancy and STDs; this is a crime in many countries;
  • He was controlling, isolating Lyndsey from her social circle;
  • He had manhandled her and pushed her into a room, locking the door and leaving her there for hours (this is also illegal, known as false imprisonment ); mind that he was used to capturing people and depriving them of liberty;
  • He would discuss fantasies of raping intruders as a way to show dominance;
  • He absolutely knew what the Totenkopf was.

Because Lyndsey is conservative, she was dismissed altogether by the Platner fan club, which had whitewashed his image for months. The way they treated this woman simply based on her political affiliation was disgusting.

According to Kyle Kulinski, the golden boy of the online left, the above-mentioned (including the false imprisonment) was a mere description of Platner being “a bad boyfriend”. He added that if there had been credible SA allegations at the time, “they would’ve had them bitches right and centre”.

About a week ago, Jenny Racicot, who also had a relationship with Platner years back, felt so aggrieved by the way the media (particularly the so-called alternative media) treated Lyndsey that she came forward with her account of being raped by him in 2021, while he was in a drunken stupor. The irony, especially considering everyone calling this political targeting, is that she probably wouldn’t have disclosed had they not been so horrible to Lyndsey in the first place.

She had disclosed the rape to other people years before Platner entertained the possibility of running for Senate. She was able to prove it. Had she not shown corroborating evidence, she would’ve been treated the exact same way as Lyndsey – as a political tool.

Most in his clique of promoters distanced themselves immediately, as this time the allegations were credible and were coming from a Democrat. Kyle Kulinski made sure to emphasise the latter, as if women of other political persuasions couldn’t possibly be abused. They did not apologise for having whitewashed Platner’s image for months, despite a significant portion of their audiences pointing out their delusion or manipulation. Everything Platner has done or has been accused of before the SA doesn’t matter, they continue to argue.

“Progressives” minimising rape

Some persisted in their defence of him, or rather, in their defence of their own credibility, suggesting that this was a smear campaign, potentially orchestrated by Israel, as if Israelis were responsible for Platner raping his partner 5 years ago, when he had no political aspirations. Most notably, this crowd features The Young Turks and Ryan Grim, whose otherwise respectable platform is tarnished by this scandal.

Couching his defence of Platner in thorough journalism, Grim set out to investigate the text messages sent by Jenny Racicot to Platner that night, which had concluded with “don’t come over”. Apparently, at some point before that, she had mentioned in a text that she needed a glute massage, which he may have perceived as an invitation, as he was getting wasted in a bar. That’s it. That’s the bombshell, according to Grim. This is apparently equally important as what followed:

  • She texted him not to come over;
  • He drove drunk to her house;
  • He let himself in through the unlocked door;
  • He groped her forcefully despite her repeated insistence that he stopped;
  • She got away and hid in her bedroom;
  • He followed her in there and raped her;
  • He exposed her to the risk of pregnancy.

Grim might as well have asked what she was wearing, to analyse whether it attenuated the seriousness of Platner’s behaviour. In 2026, we’re back to she was asking for it or it wasn’t all that serious. The fact that he was blackout drunk went in his favour, apparently.

It turned out he had known Platner for years, from the time the latter worked as a bartender; this was not unbiased reporting of any kind. When it backfired in terms of the public’s reaction, he tried to backtrack, claiming he hadn’t meant to invalidate the account of the rape altogether, like Ana Kasparian had. His tone was derisive and his insistence on the bombshell and breaking news left no doubt of what he was doing.

What she texted, and whether he perceived it as flirtatious, doesn’t matter. If someone asks you (never mind shouts at you repeatedly) to stop touching them, you stop. It’s as simple as that.

Platner’s origin story was a fib concocted by Fight Agency

The morally dubious consulting firm Fight Agency, involved in multiple Democratic campaigns, managed to turn Platner into candidate material by forging a “man of the people” identity for him. Content creators peddled the poverty draft story, which didn’t apply to him, as he was and is part of a wealthy family and did not need to enlist in order to make a living, as a last resort.

When Platner’s past came to light (his flurry of confessions on Reddit), it was reshaped into a redemption story – the Disney type Americans love. He was a changed man who wanted to fight the establishment for the good of ordinary people. Anyone finding it unacceptable for a man like him to seek power was obtuse, puritanical, inefficient as a voter.

Platner had the aesthetics Fight Agency were going for – rugged, currently an oyster farmer, no political career, confidence and a military past many in the US still respect (while condemning the wars themselves), many seeing soldiers as victims of the establishment, even if they enlist voluntarily and go back again and again. To his image, they added strong condemnation of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians as a prop, as so many care about this issue. It didn’t bother anyone that Platner had done in Iraq and Afghanistan what the IDF are currently doing in Palestine.

The delusion that Platner was going to change foreign policy on Israel and Palestine

Comment sections are full to the brim of simple-minded people who assume that Platner’s emotive, performative message was going to translate into action once he was elected. They argue those opposing his candidacy don’t care about Palestine or are actively harming the effort to stop arming Israel. They referred to him as the only hope, and quite often, to his detractors, as Zionists or Zionist tools.

Here are the reasons, with some help from Copilot, why one freshman senator has no ability to impact foreign policy:

  • Foreign policy is controlled by the Executive Branch;
  • Senators cannot unilaterally change military aid;
  • Foreign policy committees are seniority-based;
  • US-Israel policy is bipartisan and deeply entrenched;
  • Senators cannot change UN veto policy;
  • Foreign policy requires coalition building;
  • Senators cannot override treaties or strategic alliances;
  • Freshman senators have almost no legislative power;
  • Foreign policy shifts require decades, not one election.

Perhaps this illustration would be easier to understand:

Part of the US left-leaning public shows its true colours

While their infatuation with Platner is largely to blame on the so-called alternative media mentioned above, one must take personal responsibility for certain framings. Comment sections have been vile.

One infamous take belonged to Stephen King, who lamented on Twitter that Platner might drop out, adding “Let him without sin cast the first stone” – basically calling the US a nation of rapists, or one that should tolerate or minimise rape.

The number of criminals (including rapists) occupying the highest seats in the country speaks to a culture that needs to change, not to the seriousness of said crimes. Add one more is not the right attitude.

In short, these are the attitudes encountered:

  • I would still vote for him knowing that he’s a rapist, he’s still the better choice;
  • What about Republicans, Israeli crimes, corrupt Democrats, the Moon landing?;
  • Jenny Racicot is probably being paid by AIPAC;
  • This is not how a rape victim behaves, why didn’t she call the police?

Etc. etc. etc.

Kasparian’s victim blaming tropes

They were not exclusive to her, of course, but she was by far the most acidic in stating she didn’t find Jenny Racicot’s account of being raped credible. I will try to keep my language polite enough.

Why didn’t she call the police at the time?

According to RAINN and other credible sources, the vast majority of rapes are not immediately reported to the police (or at all). Victims tend to seek support elsewhere. Of those that are reported, only a small percentage ends up in criminal charges, and of those, an even smaller percentage result in convictions. It appears to be an uphill battle and perhaps more difficult than remaining silent. Claiming that not reporting immediately was disqualifying is plain lying.

Having a relationship with the attacker is another layer as in the US, claims of rape against the partner or husband are routinely dismissed.

Why did she let him sleep it off in her house?

It’s infuriatingly disingenuous for Kasparian to pretend that it’s safe to confront a very drunk and violent man, especially one that has already (just) assaulted you. Anything could happen in a split second. Jenny’s second and very valid reason was that Platner had driven drunk to her house, and would have driven again to leave, risking a car accident.

Why didn’t she leave the house?

To go where? Wonder the streets? It was her house. Where does someone feel safe after such and attack?

Why did she only come forward years later?

He was seeking political power, using a false image crafted for him by a consultancy firm. That can be aggravating for people who were harmed by such a person.

Perhaps there is someone in your life who has caused harm and is hypocritically supporting certain causes in public, while being an aggressor, enabler, victim-blamer or DARVO “assistant” in private. Perhaps there is no use in confronting their public image while avoiding them is enough, and perhaps seeking conflict is not in your nature. But there comes a time when the hypocrisy is just too aggravating.