Unassigned

Lyndsey Fifield Goes STRAIGHT-FIRE on NYT: Couldn't Corroborate Platner Abuse Claims? BS! They Wouldn't

Man oh man, The New York Times has REALLY stepped in it this time.

Remember back in June when Lyndsey Fifield came forward with her Graham Platner allegations? And they all but served her up as some evil Republican trying to ruin his campaign? Yeah, we do.

Advertisement

And clearly Fifield does as well.

Now that new accusations have emerged and a key filing deadline looms, the same stories are being treated as urgent and disqualifying.

Funny how they suddenly care since it's a woman who's a Democrat.

Huh.

Fifield detailed how Times reporters selectively followed up on the evidence she provided and why she believes the initial coverage served a clear political purpose rather than straightforward journalism.

Post continues:

... talking to two of my friends.

I gave them the contact information for five friends.

They called the two who I clarified would not know about the abuse but would be able to affirm our relationship timeline, events, etc.

They simply did not call the other three.

I also gave them the names of all my former roommates who remembered him stalking our row house (which was about 5 houses down from his) and waiting for me to return. I gave them screenshots of messages between these roommates and I discussing it.

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.

I told them that during pre-marital counseling I had spoken to my ex-fiance about the abuse because I had to explain to him why I reacted with such terror any time he lost his temper. They said oh NO we don't need to bother HIM (or my priest). Besides, I had written about it in my diary in detail, they reassured. 

As the weeks dragged on I stopped trying to give them evidence because the amount I had already given them seemed to overwhelm them and I thought it meant they clearly had more than enough to verify my every claim.

My friends might not have known the details of the abuse, but they affirmed that yes, I had told them that he was abusive—long before he ran for Senate.

Besides, they assured, my part in their reporting would be small. I thought my details would only serve to affirm Jenny and the other anonymous woman.

Jenny and I - having never met or spoken - both shared with these reporters terrifyingly similar details of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and cycles of abuse/love bombing. The third unnamed woman in the story did as well.

But tell me again how they “could not corroborate.”

Advertisement

They could, they just wouldn't.

Negligence.

Now, that's a scary word, ain't it, New York Times?

Despicable.

Let's hope it does get very ugly for them.

============================================================

Related:

Aww, Commies Can't DEAL! Hasan Piker FLIPS OUT in ALL-CAPS on Scott Jennings Over Graham Platner and LOL

Dems Have a Violent MAN Problem: Looks Like Maine Dems' 1st Choice to Replace Platner May ALSO Have Issues

Well, WHAT Do You Know?! Biden Really DID Hose Housing ... By Letting in MILLIONS of Illegals

DataRepublican Torches Candace Owens With HER OWN WORDS in Detailed, Damning, MUST-READ Thread

Jeremy Boreing Just ENDS Candace Owens for Her Latest and Most BIZARRE 'Demonic' Charlie Kirk Post Yet

============================================================