This has dramatically reduced how much weight I’m giving her Platner accusations from “a lot” to “nearly none.”
It strains credulity that some longtime GOP operative in NoVa really thinks the NYT duped her to *aid Platner*, doesn’t know how factcheck works, etc.
But it’s perfectly calibrated for a partisan conservative audience and to raise her own standing.
Like I’m sorry but your best friend is Bethany Mandel, you worked in DC, you live in blue northern Virginia right now—you’re an establishment Republican, in other words, but you really can’t discern that a NYT reporter who has a history of Zionist activism *probably* isn’t in Platner’s corner? Or that the NYT in general isn’t exactly boosting him?
I don’t believe for one second this kind of experienced political professional can’t discern between the populist left and the establishment liberals. Just like anyone on the other side can distinguish between establishment Republicans and right-populist MAGA.
I also don’t believe that she would be this naive about the factchecking process and see it as surprising, let alone a setup. She presents herself as this wilting Christian mom naïf, taken for a ride by the big bad liberal NYT.
That’s just not the story of someone from her background with her experience who’s telling an honest narrative, but it is the story of someone who’s doing this whole thing in a calculated way to advance a political and professional agenda. Sorry but this just tanked her credibility in my eyes.
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.
But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.
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)?
Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?
Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).
Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?
The editors said it was too much, they explained.
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.
It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. 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.
And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.
Still fawning after all these years.