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.
I'd genuinely like to hear someone explain why Elon Musk doing an autistic wave at inauguration was proof that he is a Nazi who needs to be exiled from public life, but Graham Platner's "Totenkopf" tat is NBD and not disqualifying for a Senate run.
🚨 The House just voted 218-204 to move forward on the discharge petition to provide military aid to Ukraine and impose tough sanctions on Russia. The House will vote on final passage tomorrow. This is our Churchill moment and we must pass the test.
This letter from 60 Minutes’ new EP, Nick Bilton, is so telling and transparent.
It’ll be hilarious to listen to anyone defend Pelley after reading this. And when they do, they will do so dishonestly.
Letter from Bilton to Pelley below.
I do continue to crack up at this idea that Democrat politician moral fiber was so high at some point. When I started working, the Senate Democratic caucus was home to Sen. Killed That Girl in Chappaquiddick, Sen. Waitress Sandwich, and Sen. Klan Member
The truth is, the police mess up all the time.
And when it’s a black death, some people will claim it’s because they’re institutionally racist.
And when it’s a white death, other people will claim it’s because they have an anti-white bias.
All I know is it’s grim.
It’s depressing that every time Mike Pence posts, the replies fill with cries of “traitor!” and “you failed the biggest test!”
You don’t have to like the man. But he isn’t a traitor. When the Constitution was put to the test, he upheld it.
You’re just a clown and a cultist.
A five-year-old with special needs would be a more competent pick to serve as Director of National Intelligence than Bill Pulte, who is a dimwitted nepobaby bully. https://t.co/JDM6JyO3Ju