Below is my column in The Hill on the Graham Platner controversy on the eighth anniversary of the Kavanaugh nomination. It now appears that there are some women who are not to be believed . . . when the Senate may be in the balance.
Here is the column:
“It’s clear the fix is in.” Those words from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). came with her vote against confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Warren was outraged that her fellow senators refused to believe a woman who came forward with a decades-old allegation against Kavanaugh that lacked any corroboration.
It now appears that Kavanaugh’s former accusers are making the case that he was treated unjustly at their hands. At least they are now willing to swap “Me Too” for Maine.
Warren’s words were part of a mantra from Democratic members that either you believe women about sexual harassment and assault, or you are enabling abusers.
It was almost exactly eight years ago, in July 2018, that President Trump nominated Kavanaugh to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh, who was at first a very uncontroversial nominee, suddenly became the target of a well-financed, well-orchestrated campaign that would continue to resonate in that fall’s election campaigns. At the time, your failure to accept the word of Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh had assaulted her in high school was just proof that you and the system were sexist.
Long after the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh, the left continued to claim that his presence on the Supreme Court “rests on a mountain of misogyny.” In Ms. Magazine, actress Kathleen Turner reminded people that not believing women was furthering misogyny: “Survivors who come forward break the rules of silence a sexist society demands, and society expects them to pay a price.”
If you recall, the lack of evidence led to the Senate Judiciary Committee combing through Kavanaugh’s personal calendars. Denials that such a thing had ever happened, coming from childhood friends, were treated as still more evidence of sexism.
There was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who grilled Kavanaugh about using the term “boofing” (apparently referring to passing gas) with a high school friend as if it were a confession to a rape. His inquisitorial barrage was something straight out of the McCarthy period.
Whitehouse expressed disgust that some would not take Ford’s word for it, declaring, “Today I stand with women who are brave enough to come forward with their stories of abuse and mistreatment. They deserve to be heard and credible allegations must be investigated. We must believe survivors, not bully them.”
Whitehouse is now a major donor and supporter of Graham Platner, the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Maine. He dismisses the New York Times accounts from women of Platner’s physically and mentally abusive behavior. Instead of believing these women, he reportedly attacked Lyndsey Fifield, who “bravely” came forward publicly with her story at the request of Times reporters.
Whitehouse is quoted as saying that he was “unimpressed” by the allegations and the multiple women coming forward “seems like a lot of nothing.” He suggested that he is not prepared to believe a woman if she is a conservative. “I mean, the only one who had anything to say that seemed ‘unsettling’ was a woman who works for right-wing political operations,” he said.
That attack was picked up by others like writer Krystal Ball. She too had denounced those who did not believe Ford in the Kavanaugh controversy. In the past, she claimed at that time, “women just didn’t come forward. They knew they wouldn’t be believed.”
Now she cannot imagine why anyone would believe these women, particularly Fifield. “NYT published uncorroborated accusations against [Platner] of ‘unsettling’ and ‘toxic’ behavior that came from a Heritage staffer who previously worked for a conservative org that backs Collins,” she posted online.
Fifield, after sharing stories with the Times of Platner’s alleged abusive behavior, went public to complain that the newspaper had failed to include the corroboration she had provided. She posted that the paper not only failed to include that she has supported Democrats for office, but also asked, “Why does it say ‘nobody could corroborate’ when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?”
She added, “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.”
If true, that is a strikingly different approach from the one taken by the media in reporting on the Kavanaugh allegations.
All the familiar faces are now attacking or dismissing these allegations. That includes Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who campaigned for Platner this week. Khanna had previously pounded his chest in public over the Kavanaugh allegations: “I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.”
Some of the usual suspects are now quiet, and for good reason. Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) dismissed Kavanaugh’s claims of innocence but later resigned from their respective offices after accusations of misconduct and harassment.
Of course, the sexual misconduct and mistreatment of women is not the only controversy surrounding Platner, who has reportedly ridiculed a wounded veteran, dismissed rape victims, and made other comments on his since-deleted Reddit account about Blacks and rural Mainers that would be considered disqualifying for most candidates. He made many other posts that were deeply offensive and some that were, frankly, gross.
Nevertheless, figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would not even address the allegations, simply repeating awkwardly, “We’re going to … take back the Senate.”
Back in 2018, Schumer was proclaiming on the Senate floor, “For too long, when women have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case.”
For her part, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) proclaimed her faith in any woman making such allegations in 2018. Now, she repeats, like Schumer, “I’m very optimistic we’re going to win Maine.”
In “A Man for All Seasons,” there is a scene where Sir Thomas More confronts Richard Rich, a former protege who lied in court to convict him in exchange for being named attorney general of Wales. As Rich passes by, More asks: “For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales!”
The response by Democratic leaders today appears to be, “Well, yeah — not for Wales, but we’ll do it for Maine.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
When commenting about Democrats, particularly Democrat politicians, it never gets old to note: if hypocrisy did not already exist, they would invent it at breakfast if only to survive until lunch. Why people continue to vote for their treachery remains a mystery. Oh …, wait …, perhaps it’s TDS…?
Adolf Hitler experienced combat, and had PTSD. Hitler was an economic populist with massive support among the population. He portrayed himself as a man of the people who had experienced struggles, and a dark period in his life. Hitler missed out on getting a Totenkopf chest tattoo, though.
Mainer supporters of thst sort and their like-mindedDemocrat minions across the nation,are wet sacks of moral and ethical turpitude. but we’ve known that all along haven’t we. The corruption within the Clinton campaign of 2016, the detritus of the train wreck of a Biden administration, and that wretched corrupt son of his merely Reinforces it in our memories. “A constitutional republic, if you can keep it.“
I think the term here is hypocrisy. Just as Pres. Clinton got a pass for his sexual transgressions, I suppose Mr. Platner will get a pass from his supporters. Of course if incriminating photos appear that might be different. One can even blow those off as AI. People lie, Women lie, Men lie, families lie, spouses lie. Sit in a physician’s office for 46 years and you will hear some real stories and lies. Like everything else you have to see the context, the timing, the secondary gain that might be obtained., The state court in NY rode one of the thinnest stories I have ever seen to convict Mr. Trump of sexual assault.
I have no idea whether Mr Platner is guilty of these transgressions but that is for the voters of Maine to figure out, one way or another. Hope they get it right.
I have a female colleague who is a psychologist and she strongly felt that Christine Blasey Ford was lying. I felt the story was suspect but my colleague was one of the best Psychologists I worked with and so I asked her opinion and her response was stronger than mine.
Also wonder why the NY Times left out so much corroboration (according to other news sources) You don’t suppose they have some viewpoint bias?
The other thing you will see here today is the whatabout routine. Instead of dealing with Platner or what their own leaders are doing, some will immediately reach for “what about Trump” or “what about [insert Republican here]” as if pointing at other allegations somehow cleans up these ones.
That move does not defend a principle; it only defends a jersey. It is a way to own the hypocrisy instead of owning the standard. And in the process it trains people to believe that unproven accusations against their enemies count as “evidence,” while even well‑sourced reports about their allies are waved away. That is not moral reasoning; it is pure team sport, and it is exactly how you form citizens who can no longer tell the difference.
Maybe we should ask Bill Clinton about this. I’m sure he knows the ins & outs.
Anyone see his missing cigar?
The El Vulva Cohiba? Or the Johnson y Monique?
You stupid F.
An unmentioned factor is that Platner is, for the Democrats, what they had hoped Tim Walz would be: a he-man. While Tim showed us his he-man attributes by changing the air filter on his truck, Platner, they believe, could give it a tune-up. This translates to man votes. They love his baritone voice and take-command language, even though his past is riddled with misogyny, questionable associations, and parental help in finances.
It’s hard for Democrats to be consistent when they have no morals at all.
There is a different kind of consistency at work here, and X is about to prove it. When he enters this thread, as he reliably does, it will be to oppose whatever Professor Turley has written, to excuse the double standard, and to double down on the jersey flip. That is a kind of consistency too, but it runs in exactly the wrong direction: not toward principle, but toward defending the team no matter how far the hypocrisy goes.
Nothing new, as Ecclesiastes tells us. Tara Reade? Douglas Emhoff’s girlfriends? Juanita Broderick? And the beat (ings) go on…
This is the purest kind of jersey flip: the principle never really mattered, only the uniform did. That move does more than expose hypocrisy; it actively forms people. When citizens watch leaders treat “believe women” as absolute against Kavanaugh and negotiable for Platner, they learn that standards are temporary and team dependent. Over time, you don’t just get partisan double standards in Washington; you get citizens who instinctively ask not what is true or just, but whether the accusation helps their side.
The hypocrisy of the American left is truly stultifying. But it’s not just the hypocrisy, but the truly malign nature of it all. In the case of Kavanaugh, it was ginning up people who were very clearly not credible — and very transparently lying — to carry our character assassination of a nominee (whom one of their own later sought to truly assassinate once he became a Justice, but that doesn’t appear to be such a big deal to these people). In this case, all you need to do is to look at the guy’s own written and spoken communication, his own images, and his wife’s own admissions. The guy is a scumbag, but since he’s the left’s scumbag, he must be squeaky clean. Give us all a break.