Believe all women, except the ones accusing socialists. Billionaires shouldn’t exist, except the ones funding socialists. NYT is communist propaganda, always has been since they covered up the Holomodor. And they would happily do it again. MSM reaches new lows every day.
What this episode - and others just like it - says about NYT is damning.
Even more damning is what it says about NYT readers. How many times does this sort of thing need to be exposed before they stop believing what they read there?
NYT doesn't often flat-out lie, although that does happen. But it frequently fails badly in telling the WHOLE truth.
Alex, if the NY Times lied about this, what else have they lied about, and what else are they going to lie about? They have not really retracted any of the lies they have committed in the TDS Era.
His nephew beat the hell outta that girl with a golf club and got away with it for decades and did squat for time. The Dems forever on the wrong side. Recall they fought FOR SLAVERY!
Ryan, Is that when the MSM started to spiral on a downward trajectory? I wonder if that is when more and more critical thinkers started to pay attention and then question everything? Haven’t they ALL lost ALL credibility?
In a state that every single county voted blue in 2024, no other state had 100% Democrat totals besides real small ones of less than five counties. What does that say about mass-of-two-s**ts?
Think about it, California, New York, Illinois, even Washington and Oregon had at least a couple of red majority voting counties
Alex you sound shocked, shocked, to learn that the New York Times is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Well it's not just a subsidiary, it is a pillar of the party.
if dem primaries were real, there is a very, very good chance the nation would be on fire and we would be trying our best to recover from the incalculable damage done by two terms of president bernie
Platner is falling in the polls. The internals must be bad. Susan Collins has been in Maine politics a long time and knows how to win. Jenny R. is a democrat and wants the Democrat Party to win the Senate seat because they need to flip seats to take majority. Politico is leftist publication. I would say that the party wants Platner out and gave the go ahead for the sexual assault story or is there more to come. The party likes this type of candidate with secrets in the past because they are easy to control. By the way where is Eric Swalwell
"She hadn’t publicly mentioned the rape allegations, in part because she supported Platner’s political views."
What the actual F? This to me is the most disturbing aspect of this whole thing. This woman was willing to allow him to get away with rape because his politics aligned with hers? This should stop any rational person in their tracks.
I think it goes beyond that in all seriousness. There is something intrinsically broken in someone that would let a person get away with raping them because it benefits their political position. I read another story where a young woman was raped in Haiti while there literally to defend Haitian men accused of assaulting women and somehow blamed the white man for it. This inability to accept reality is worrisome. Our young women have been so damaged by all this constant bombardment of woke nonsense that they are literally sacrificing their lives for a political ideology. 30% are gay, 50% are fat androgynous blue haired pincushions that dress like skaters from the 90's. And all of that 80%+ truly believe in this idiocy!. No wonder our population is declining. We are in the middle of a mental health crisis in the West.
But I don't give them a nickel. I get their daily newsletter 'This Morning', and get to play Wordle and Spelling Bee free. If there's an article I'm interested in, I use archieve.is on Firefox to read it.
same, except i use free a subscription through my library.
it does help balance some of the information i genuinely do not get from some of the trump-friendly sites, but also helps me understand what the other half of the country is being told about certain things.
"I gave them the names of other men I dated who might have remembered him following us around the hill and showing up on my stoop after we walked home from dates to confront us. I gave them emails to my landlord urgently ending my lease and moving to an apartment across town and diary entries talking about it - all time marked."
Tara Reade must be feeling a sense of schadenfreude right now. I remember when Trump completely blindsided Hilary Clinton during one of their debates by introducing a woman in the audience who had been one of Bill Clinton's accusers. Hilary was speechless.
In March 2020, during that year's election campaign for President of the United States, congressional aide Tara Reade alleged that Democratic nominee Joe Biden had sexually assaulted her in 1993 in a Capitol Hill office building when she was a staff assistant in his office. Biden denied Reade's allegation. Reade worked for Biden as a Congressional aide in 1992 and 1993, and later attended Antioch University and Seattle University School of Law.
I was a NY Times subscriber for over 30 years. In about 2017 after realizing over several years that its former journalistic “standards” had deteriorated into pure partisanship for Democrats and against Republicans and most definitely the newly emerging Trump-MAGA movement I decided to cancel my subscription. With the departure of Bari Weiss as an editor and ever since it has become abundantly clear that that was the right move. The NYT is a pathetic rag that is beholden only to its woke newsroom staff and their political views.
I listened to NPR for decades. I liked the tone of voices; and extended reporting. Then, it just got obviously BIASED! I overlooked all the feminist slant in the 80's to get more 'in-depth STORIES.' As alternate sources emerged, I ditched the left. Now, I only read, but widely. I hear that NYT was FOR Hitler in the 30's. Has its ownership been a liberal British Empire plant for its entirety?? Historically, newspapers always had a slant. How did we get 'sold' that news outlets were UN-biased? Like Walter Cronkite! 'America's voice' NOT really. I think, even THAT 'neutral' positioning was all propaganda/spin. Was radio, then, even more TV, what really narrowed the viewpoint options. It was all controlled, just various personalities. Then, they tried the 'opposing voices.' Does TV still inundate viewers with all that bombast? Probably exacerbated divisions, rather than informing people.
Here is Bari Weiss's exit letter from the NYT. This might give you an answer.
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper's failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn't have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election-lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free
But the lessons that ought to have been learned from the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—were instead learned by a new crop of literal-minded activists. They have transformed the paper into a sort of premium subscription service for a narrow, self-selected audience, rather than a broad-tent publication where anyone interested in the world can read about it and think for themselves.Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow an independent electorate to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where head editors routinely weigh in. There, some coworkers insist that I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will have any sort of consequence. They never do.There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that I have been left without protection from the company’s management.I do not expect every coworker to agree with my perspectives or to like me. But I do expect them to adhere to the paper's own standards of professional conduct, and I expect management to enforce them. Instead, a new consensus has emerged: that truth is not a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.This consensus has created an environment where self-censorship is the default. Intellectual curiosity is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers when we can assure them of their own righteousness? Why publish something that might provoke a backlash when we can just publish something that will get a round of applause?The rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in line with the new orthodoxy, they and their work go unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the online mob. Crucial stories go uncovered because they require asking the wrong questions. Editors who should be guiding their writers instead ask: “How will this land on Twitter?”The paper has become a place where the only thing that matters is the safety of the group, not the pursuit of truth. The civil war inside The Times that played out over the Tom Cotton op-ed was the most public example of this. But it happens every single day in the private choices of editors and writers who know that to stray from the path is to risk social and professional ruin.I have always believed that a great newspaper should be a forum for all shades of opinion. It should be a place where we challenge each other, where we argue, and where we change our minds. That is the tradition of Adolph Ochs, who wrote in 1896 that it would be the paper's duty “to give the news, all the news, in concise and attractive form... to make the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”Ochs’s vision is a beautiful one. It is the vision that drew me to journalism in the first place. And it is the vision that I will continue to pursue, even if I have to do it outside the pages of The New York Times.Thank you for the opportunity to work here.Sincerely,Bari Weiss
I was mightily impressed with her professional courage to depart the NYT in the way she did. She’s no MAGA Republican - but she’s not a woke knee jerk liberal either. And she believes strongly in the role of the media to present facts without an overarching agenda that has to be served by how any given story is presented. She’s one of the good guys in our relatively insane media environment.
It took a live debate to remove the dem’s plausible deniability regarding Biden’s cognitive ability to serve as president. Likewise, this shameful reporting removes the plausible deniability of the left that pretends the Times is impartial and balanced!
It was never plausible to anyone who was an impartial observer. You just had to compare his speeches while President to those while in the Senate. Or while he was VP. I knew when he was running in 2020, because of how he reacted when challenged on guns. He went off on the guy and his handlers were trying to get him to back off. Just like my father-in-law who had diagnosed Alzheimer’s when he was challenged. That’s why they ran him from the basement for the campaign. Not to protect people from the virus. It became clearer during his term in office, but the media gladly ignored and the denied the obvious.
Like all the failed liberal outlets, the NY Times is not supported by advertising dollars. They are supported by partisan billionaire donors who tell them what to say. Not that this is an epiphany or breaking news, but it needs to be said again..........99% of journalism is partisan because that's where the support comes from. This is true from Fox to NPR.
That's why Alex Berensen and the like are so popular. Their readers may disagree at times with what is written, but they know the writer isn't working for a political party....the writer is working for a political idea instead. Important! Very important!
No doubt The Times whitewashed it. But I'll tell you, I do not believe the Democrat party isn't behind this in some way like they were with the Brett Cavanagh thing. And I also do not believe this white supremacy thing is legitimate. They had ringers in Trump's rallies years ago stirring up trouble. I think they did some of that on Jan. 6, though they didn't realize themselves it would get so out of hand. I have seen too much of how they operate. Why is she just coming forward now. I can't stand Marjorie Taylor Green who is a total conspiracy fruitcake, but she did have a point. I never like this kind of crap. I guess the argument is it's such big news it protects her against him if he retaliates. That's the only excuse I can find for it since she didn't care if he did this to other women enough to speak up. Like the whole MeToo thing. They play along because it's in their interest to do it, and they come forward for the same reason. I can't stand Graham Platner and they had plenty before to not endorse him. But Democrats are slimy people.
Believe all women, except the ones accusing socialists. Billionaires shouldn’t exist, except the ones funding socialists. NYT is communist propaganda, always has been since they covered up the Holomodor. And they would happily do it again. MSM reaches new lows every day.
What this episode - and others just like it - says about NYT is damning.
Even more damning is what it says about NYT readers. How many times does this sort of thing need to be exposed before they stop believing what they read there?
NYT doesn't often flat-out lie, although that does happen. But it frequently fails badly in telling the WHOLE truth.
Simple: confirmation bias.
Let's not forget how much they love the Castros, Ortegas, and Chavez along with every other South and Central American communist.
Can’t hate them enough!!
Yes you can.
Haven’t been cancelled yet…
Alex, if the NY Times lied about this, what else have they lied about, and what else are they going to lie about? They have not really retracted any of the lies they have committed in the TDS Era.
In this day and age Times reporters like this get promotions and raises.
Sadly, true.
Ha. Is that a rhetorical question?! Past is prologue.
Ted Kennedy LITERALLY left a young woman to drown in a car overnight and got reelected and canonized by the media.
The woman he knocked up, y'know.
I totally forgot that.
His nephew beat the hell outta that girl with a golf club and got away with it for decades and did squat for time. The Dems forever on the wrong side. Recall they fought FOR SLAVERY!
Ryan, Is that when the MSM started to spiral on a downward trajectory? I wonder if that is when more and more critical thinkers started to pay attention and then question everything? Haven’t they ALL lost ALL credibility?
Yes. They have.
The good news is whatever the MSM is reporting is usually the inverse of the truth.
They’ve certainly made it easier to determine what the truth is.
In a state that every single county voted blue in 2024, no other state had 100% Democrat totals besides real small ones of less than five counties. What does that say about mass-of-two-s**ts?
Think about it, California, New York, Illinois, even Washington and Oregon had at least a couple of red majority voting counties
Yeah and when the POS died they tried to canonize him.
Alex you sound shocked, shocked, to learn that the New York Times is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Well it's not just a subsidiary, it is a pillar of the party.
if anyone needs help understanding the timing:
- they went with him to win the primary
- he needs to be made to drop out before july 13th
- then he can be replaced by the party by july 27th with the real, controllable candidate they secretly planned to run against collins
they simply spiked this particular rape story until the needed date
Oooh... I think you're onto something. It makes sense now. I couldn't figure out why Collins' campaign would drop it this early; it wasn't Collins.
It's MILLS
Wow. This should be a freaking novel.
A very dark satire.
btw, i like all of this!
if dem primaries were real, there is a very, very good chance the nation would be on fire and we would be trying our best to recover from the incalculable damage done by two terms of president bernie
Platner is falling in the polls. The internals must be bad. Susan Collins has been in Maine politics a long time and knows how to win. Jenny R. is a democrat and wants the Democrat Party to win the Senate seat because they need to flip seats to take majority. Politico is leftist publication. I would say that the party wants Platner out and gave the go ahead for the sexual assault story or is there more to come. The party likes this type of candidate with secrets in the past because they are easy to control. By the way where is Eric Swalwell
More probable than not for sure!
"She hadn’t publicly mentioned the rape allegations, in part because she supported Platner’s political views."
What the actual F? This to me is the most disturbing aspect of this whole thing. This woman was willing to allow him to get away with rape because his politics aligned with hers? This should stop any rational person in their tracks.
Psychotic TDS.
I think it goes beyond that in all seriousness. There is something intrinsically broken in someone that would let a person get away with raping them because it benefits their political position. I read another story where a young woman was raped in Haiti while there literally to defend Haitian men accused of assaulting women and somehow blamed the white man for it. This inability to accept reality is worrisome. Our young women have been so damaged by all this constant bombardment of woke nonsense that they are literally sacrificing their lives for a political ideology. 30% are gay, 50% are fat androgynous blue haired pincushions that dress like skaters from the 90's. And all of that 80%+ truly believe in this idiocy!. No wonder our population is declining. We are in the middle of a mental health crisis in the West.
Anyone reading the NYT today is a fool. Anyone still reading them after this is worse than a fool.
HEY! I play Wordle!
But I don't give them a nickel. I get their daily newsletter 'This Morning', and get to play Wordle and Spelling Bee free. If there's an article I'm interested in, I use archieve.is on Firefox to read it.
same, except i use free a subscription through my library.
it does help balance some of the information i genuinely do not get from some of the trump-friendly sites, but also helps me understand what the other half of the country is being told about certain things.
it is https://archive.ph/ on DuckDuckGo or Google.
Clicking on your archieve.is link sent my desktop spinning......
That's my method, yup. I don't give the NYT a dime--and I don't believe they benefit from archive clicks.
Typical liberal hypocrisy. Platner embodies everything liberals say they hate.
"I gave them the names of other men I dated who might have remembered him following us around the hill and showing up on my stoop after we walked home from dates to confront us. I gave them emails to my landlord urgently ending my lease and moving to an apartment across town and diary entries talking about it - all time marked."
That's just terrifying.
Tara Reade must be feeling a sense of schadenfreude right now. I remember when Trump completely blindsided Hilary Clinton during one of their debates by introducing a woman in the audience who had been one of Bill Clinton's accusers. Hilary was speechless.
he brought 4 of bill's victims to that debate!
In March 2020, during that year's election campaign for President of the United States, congressional aide Tara Reade alleged that Democratic nominee Joe Biden had sexually assaulted her in 1993 in a Capitol Hill office building when she was a staff assistant in his office. Biden denied Reade's allegation. Reade worked for Biden as a Congressional aide in 1992 and 1993, and later attended Antioch University and Seattle University School of Law.
I was a NY Times subscriber for over 30 years. In about 2017 after realizing over several years that its former journalistic “standards” had deteriorated into pure partisanship for Democrats and against Republicans and most definitely the newly emerging Trump-MAGA movement I decided to cancel my subscription. With the departure of Bari Weiss as an editor and ever since it has become abundantly clear that that was the right move. The NYT is a pathetic rag that is beholden only to its woke newsroom staff and their political views.
In his interview with Matt Taibbi 6 years ago, Chris Hedges said the NYT was unrecognizable from the time he had worked there.
I listened to NPR for decades. I liked the tone of voices; and extended reporting. Then, it just got obviously BIASED! I overlooked all the feminist slant in the 80's to get more 'in-depth STORIES.' As alternate sources emerged, I ditched the left. Now, I only read, but widely. I hear that NYT was FOR Hitler in the 30's. Has its ownership been a liberal British Empire plant for its entirety?? Historically, newspapers always had a slant. How did we get 'sold' that news outlets were UN-biased? Like Walter Cronkite! 'America's voice' NOT really. I think, even THAT 'neutral' positioning was all propaganda/spin. Was radio, then, even more TV, what really narrowed the viewpoint options. It was all controlled, just various personalities. Then, they tried the 'opposing voices.' Does TV still inundate viewers with all that bombast? Probably exacerbated divisions, rather than informing people.
Mark, is Weiss that Great? Have heard that she is a “Woke Liberal” with very little talent? I honestly do not know.
Here is Bari Weiss's exit letter from the NYT. This might give you an answer.
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper's failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn't have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election-lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free
But the lessons that ought to have been learned from the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—were instead learned by a new crop of literal-minded activists. They have transformed the paper into a sort of premium subscription service for a narrow, self-selected audience, rather than a broad-tent publication where anyone interested in the world can read about it and think for themselves.Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow an independent electorate to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where head editors routinely weigh in. There, some coworkers insist that I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will have any sort of consequence. They never do.There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that I have been left without protection from the company’s management.I do not expect every coworker to agree with my perspectives or to like me. But I do expect them to adhere to the paper's own standards of professional conduct, and I expect management to enforce them. Instead, a new consensus has emerged: that truth is not a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.This consensus has created an environment where self-censorship is the default. Intellectual curiosity is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers when we can assure them of their own righteousness? Why publish something that might provoke a backlash when we can just publish something that will get a round of applause?The rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in line with the new orthodoxy, they and their work go unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the online mob. Crucial stories go uncovered because they require asking the wrong questions. Editors who should be guiding their writers instead ask: “How will this land on Twitter?”The paper has become a place where the only thing that matters is the safety of the group, not the pursuit of truth. The civil war inside The Times that played out over the Tom Cotton op-ed was the most public example of this. But it happens every single day in the private choices of editors and writers who know that to stray from the path is to risk social and professional ruin.I have always believed that a great newspaper should be a forum for all shades of opinion. It should be a place where we challenge each other, where we argue, and where we change our minds. That is the tradition of Adolph Ochs, who wrote in 1896 that it would be the paper's duty “to give the news, all the news, in concise and attractive form... to make the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”Ochs’s vision is a beautiful one. It is the vision that drew me to journalism in the first place. And it is the vision that I will continue to pursue, even if I have to do it outside the pages of The New York Times.Thank you for the opportunity to work here.Sincerely,Bari Weiss
I was mightily impressed with her professional courage to depart the NYT in the way she did. She’s no MAGA Republican - but she’s not a woke knee jerk liberal either. And she believes strongly in the role of the media to present facts without an overarching agenda that has to be served by how any given story is presented. She’s one of the good guys in our relatively insane media environment.
It took a live debate to remove the dem’s plausible deniability regarding Biden’s cognitive ability to serve as president. Likewise, this shameful reporting removes the plausible deniability of the left that pretends the Times is impartial and balanced!
It was never plausible to anyone who was an impartial observer. You just had to compare his speeches while President to those while in the Senate. Or while he was VP. I knew when he was running in 2020, because of how he reacted when challenged on guns. He went off on the guy and his handlers were trying to get him to back off. Just like my father-in-law who had diagnosed Alzheimer’s when he was challenged. That’s why they ran him from the basement for the campaign. Not to protect people from the virus. It became clearer during his term in office, but the media gladly ignored and the denied the obvious.
Like all the failed liberal outlets, the NY Times is not supported by advertising dollars. They are supported by partisan billionaire donors who tell them what to say. Not that this is an epiphany or breaking news, but it needs to be said again..........99% of journalism is partisan because that's where the support comes from. This is true from Fox to NPR.
That's why Alex Berensen and the like are so popular. Their readers may disagree at times with what is written, but they know the writer isn't working for a political party....the writer is working for a political idea instead. Important! Very important!
No doubt The Times whitewashed it. But I'll tell you, I do not believe the Democrat party isn't behind this in some way like they were with the Brett Cavanagh thing. And I also do not believe this white supremacy thing is legitimate. They had ringers in Trump's rallies years ago stirring up trouble. I think they did some of that on Jan. 6, though they didn't realize themselves it would get so out of hand. I have seen too much of how they operate. Why is she just coming forward now. I can't stand Marjorie Taylor Green who is a total conspiracy fruitcake, but she did have a point. I never like this kind of crap. I guess the argument is it's such big news it protects her against him if he retaliates. That's the only excuse I can find for it since she didn't care if he did this to other women enough to speak up. Like the whole MeToo thing. They play along because it's in their interest to do it, and they come forward for the same reason. I can't stand Graham Platner and they had plenty before to not endorse him. But Democrats are slimy people.
p.s. I think the Democrats wanted him out because he was doomed in the polls. Never believe what they say.
What's the problem? Platner sounds like he would fit into Congress just fine.
This is what the NYT sees as their journalistic job. They are very good at their job.