Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Woman Who Dated Graham Platner Says He Raped Her In 2021; Platner Denies Accusations Of Non-Consensual Behavior; Trump: I Asked FIFA Chief To Review "Horrible" Red Card Call; Man Alleges ICE Officers Targeted Him Over Email Criticizing ICE Chief. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired July 06, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:00]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.
The Lead tonight, a woman who dated Maine's Democratic Senate nominee, Graham Platner, told me today that he raped her in an encounter in 2021. Jenny Racicot told me in an interview this morning in Bangor, Maine, that she first met Graham Platner in 2019 on a dating app. She says they began seeing each other off and on for two years. She told me about an evening in 2021 when Platner came to her house after she explicitly told him not to, and he initiated a sexual encounter, non- consensual, after she explicitly told him no.
Now, in a statement to CNN, Platner's campaign says, quote, these allegations are very serious, and Graham vigorously denies them. They are also coached and coordinated by out-of-state establishment operatives. For a year, opponents of this campaign have thrown everything they can at Graham, calling him a Nazi, a war criminal, and a communist. None of it has been true, and this is no different. It is not a coincidence that this story comes a week before the ballot deadline, just as the previous false allegations came a week before the primary.
Graham began this campaign to fight for Maine where everyone is treated with dignity and where Mainers are put first, and no amount of desperate smears will stop this movement from seeing that vision through, unquote. Platner also released a video statement on social media this afternoon. Here's part of that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GRAHAM PLATNER (D), MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically false.
Over the last ten months, I have been deeply humbled by the faith Mainers have put in me. You have welcomed me into your homes, into your places of work, into your restaurants, into your houses of worship. You have shown that a different kind of politics, one that puts the interests of people over corporations, is not just possible, but is inevitable.
This movement we have built, the largest volunteer base in the history of Maine politics, the hundreds of thousands of grassroots donors, and the supporters across the ideological spectrum, we were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, and a focus on defeating Susan Collins.
So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins. Those were the goals when we launched this campaign, and they remain my goals today.
On June 9th, 154,058 Mainers, the most in primary history, voted to reject a broken politics beholden to Washington and the donor class. They voted for hope, for change, to take back our economy, to take back our power, and to take back our Senate seat. Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me, and I will not turn my back on you now.
Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated, and we will use every tool at our disposal to do so. As Maine goes, so goes the nation.
As always, thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: Now, I just want to clear up one thing because of what Platner said -- his campaign said in that statement. I first got in touch with Jenny Racicot not because of any out-of-state coordinators, as he alleged. Her name appeared in a New York Times story, and my bookers found her phone number, and I called her and began texting with her, and that is why this interview happened today.
Earlier today, Jenny Racicot and I talked about what happened that night in 2021 and her relationship with Aaron Platner and his candidacy and why she's coming forward now. I'm going to play you some of our conversation now. I do want to warn you that this report includes some strong language and details of an alleged rape, which may be deeply disturbing, and it may also be triggering for any survivors of sexual assault.
Here is part one of our interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: So, you described your relationship with Graham Platner as a very good example of what modern dating is like.
JENNY RACICOT, GRAHAM PLATNER ACCUSER: Yes.
TAPPER: What do you mean by that?
RACICOT: What I mean, by that is that I think there's a lot of situationships. I think people are dating multiple people at the same time, whether that's known or not known by the people involved. So it was just a very, very common practice, is what I viewed it as. TAPPER: And kind of casual?
RACICOT: Yes, very casual.
TAPPER: And when did you meet him and how did you meet him?
RACICOT: Met him on Bumble, actually, in 2019. And I had known who he was. He grew up in the next town over. We had like a mutual family friend, so I always knew of his existence, but that was when we actually met.
[18:05:05]
TAPPER: And what did you think of him?
RACICOT: At first, I thought he was great. He's very well-spoken. He's intelligent. He's charming. You know, I thought a lot of good things. We had a great first date. It went and flowed really well.
TAPPER: He has described himself as self-medicating with alcohol.
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: He has described himself that way.
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: So, I would think maybe that would have reared its head.
RACICOT: Yes.
And, unfortunately, that's something that I think a lot of people are desensitized to, in general, heavy drinking, and especially out of the relationship that I had just come out of. So, it wasn't anything abnormal to me. I remember we were out one night and he was drinking, and that's when he told me that he has PTSD.
TAPPER: When The New York Times story came out, you were in it, but you didn't go as far in that story as you are today.
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: Why not?
RACICOT: I didn't want to. I didn't want to have to violate this huge level of privacy to my own life to be able to infer that this person is not honest and trustworthy. I felt really protective of my own privacy throughout this whole process. And I -- it got to a point where my privacy was no longer going to happen. And that was when I kind of just made the decision that like I'm going to say my piece and get it out there.
I had tried to give the impression that something worse happened, and that's when I was like I refused to comment further.
TAPPER: You definitely alluded to a bad night. RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: So bad that you never saw him again afterwards.
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: But just to underline the point, you're not coming forward because you have any political motivation?
RACICOT: No, not at all. That was actually one of the huge reasons that I didn't come forward and still struggled. Like that was a huge moral conflict to feel like --
TAPPER: Because you would like a Democrat to be in the Senate?
RACICOT: Yes, Yes. I like the things that he speaks about. They're important. They're important to people. I'm one of those people.
TAPPER: But, at the end of the day, you feel he's not being honest?
RACICOT: He's not being honest, no.
TAPPER: And we should note this is 2021 we're talking about. It's only five years ago. Tell me about that. When was it?
RACICOT: It was at the end of 2021. I remember it being shortly after I moved back into my winter home, because that is where it happened. And it was a night where him and I were texting back and forth, and he had taken something that I said as an invitation, and that's not how I meant it, and I quickly clarified. And he sent a message back indicating that he would come over. And I said, no, don't come over. Like I'm not in the mood, don't come over. And I was more stern with that message.
And then I didn't hear back from him. So, I thought that that meant he got the message or gave up on it or whatnot.
And so, like, like half-an-hour later, I heard a noise outside my door, and then he came in. He just came into my house. It was unlocked. I live in an area where you don't usually have to lock your doors. I do now. So, he came in. And I realized, okay, he didn't listen. He's in my home. And I was laying on the couch. It was probably pretty late at night, and I was getting -- I was already ready for bed. I just wasn't in bed. And so he had kind of like jumped on top of me and indicated that he had intentions that were sexual in nature.
And I remember just at first being like, hey, I'm not into this. Like, don't. I'm not in the mood. Like, don't, whatever. And it got to the point where I was like, okay, I feel like I have said this enough times. Like he's not listening to me or he's not hearing me, and I looked at him.
And I remember this very specific look in his eyes. And I could smell alcohol, and I was like, this is different. He is heavily intoxicated. Like -- and that blank stare was kind of like a photographic memory that I still have of that night, and his -- that was me recognizing what the situation was, and this wasn't just like, oh, hey, somebody showed up and I'm going to tell him to go home. like he was heavily intoxicated, had intentions with me, and wasn't listening when I said no. And --
TAPPER: And you were saying, no, don't, no, don't, over and over?
RACICOT: I remember -- you know, obviously, I have had to recall a lot of this. This is something that I tried for many years to forget. And so small details might get past me, but, yes, I remember very specifically saying, I'm not into this. In my message previously, I had told him I had had an old back injury and I remember saying like I'm not into this.
[18:10:04]
I have had a long day. My back hurts, like I was in that kind of mood, like the leave me alone mood.
And there was a little bit of like a scuffle, like altercation. The house that I live in has like this antique sewing kit that I kept beside the couch, and that got knocked over. He like backed into it, or something was maybe pushed into it by me, or something happened in that moment, and that thing got spilled. And --
TAPPER: Do you remember pushing him away?
RACICOT: I remember potentially pushing away with my legs, like -- and then as he backed into it, it spilt, and all of the sewing needles and tape and yarn and everything went everywhere. Everything had fallen onto the floor.
And in that moment, I evaluated my safety. Like a drunk person who's blackout drunk is in my home, has these intentions with me, you know, has already caused this amount of destruction, and not listening to me. And so I basically felt safe is just complying.
TAPPER: You normally use protection?
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: And this time, he didn't?
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: And you didn't want that.
RACICOT: No.
TAPPER: And he didn't care?
RACICOT: No, I don't think -- I -- my words were falling on deaf ears and drunk ears.
TAPPER: And you were still saying, don't do this, or I'm not into this? RACICOT: I remember specifically him like grabbing at my chest, and I like hit his hand and I said, don't touch me. And I remember that during the altercation specifically.
TAPPER: And then he kept going?
RACICOT: Yes. And it was this weird mix of like coming in and out of -- I don't think consciousness is the word, but like coming to and kind of falling back into that drunken I don't know what I'm doing state. And, yes -- and he just -- he would apologize in those moments and then go back to doing what he was doing.
TAPPER: So, he was aware that he was doing something wrong?
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: He was saying sorry?
RACICOT: I feel like he was in moments.
TAPPER: Is there any way that he thought this was consensual, or no? Just because --
RACICOT: I don't believe that you can think that that scenario was consensual. You have to -- you have to understand that wasn't, when somebody is repeatedly -- I mean, when somebody in the middle of it says, don't touch me, like that's obviously not consensual.
TAPPER: Especially if he's apologizing on occasion.
RACICOT: Yes, yes.
And that, next morning -- so, after everything ended, I ran to the bathroom, which is just beside my bedroom, and I was in there for a while and just trying to like comprehend things, like --
TAPPER: Were you crying? Were you --
RACICOT: I honestly don't -- I don't think I was crying. I was like more in shock, and, yes, just trying to understand like what had just happened, especially like this is a person I have known and have trusted and have had very consensual relationships with, you know, like all along, until it wasn't. And so that was a really hard thing to understand that this was a person I trusted.
And so I spent a little bit of time in the bathroom, and when I came back out, he was asleep in my bed. And at that point, I didn't know what my options were. Like, obviously, I don't want this person in my house. And when I, you know, earlier had realized how drunk he was, I knew that he'd driven over that way. Like I'm surprised he made it to my house. And if I woke him up and sent him home, like I'm now making the decision to put somebody that drunk on the road. And I didn't want to live with the fact that like if he got into an accident or hurt somebody else.
And I remember thinking that I could call -- I could tell him to leave, and I could call the police immediately, and I could at least get him caught for drunk driving. So, I was like, I'm going to let him sleep, and the second he wakes up, I'm going to tell him to leave.
And so he slept. I lay there in like a state of panic all night. And I remember turning on -- I have like one of those noise machines that you sleep with, and I turned it on ocean waves, and I'm like, I will just try to meditate. And it didn't work.
So, in the morning, he woke up. And he went to go put his arm around me, and I was like, whoa, and realizing this person doesn't know that what happened wasn't okay. And so I remember taking his arm and throwing it back at him, and I said, are you fucking serious, Graham? And he's like, what? And I'm like, do you not remember what happened last night?
[18:15:00]
He was like, no. And I'm like, okay. I need you to get dressed and leave and never talk to me again. Like nothing that happened was okay. And he did. He just got up and got dressed and left and didn't seem concerned.
TAPPER: He didn't ask you --
RACICOT: He didn't ask me -- he didn't ask me a single question.
And, I mean, in the moment, I was like not wanting to talk about it anyway, so maybe I felt fine about that in the moment, but I was still like how can somebody that you have been in a -- you know, some type of a relationship with for this long tells you to never speak to you again about something that you did, and you didn't even ask what you did.
So, he left. He didn't -- he didn't talk to me. And I waited a couple weeks, because I knew that with what had happened, I could have gotten pregnant, and I wanted to wait and to make sure that that wasn't the case. And so I waited until that happened. And I sent him kind of like a final send-off message. And --
TAPPER: What did it say?
RACICOT: I remember -- I remember a few pieces of it. And I remember saying that like nothing that happened that night was okay or consensual. And I waited on Instagram. You see when it says seen. And so I gave it a couple days. It said that it was seen, and I still didn't hear back out. And at that point, I had blocked him on everything. I deleted his number. I blocked and deleted his text phone number as well, because text and Instagram are I think the two ways that we had communication. And I have -- I have never heard from him since.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: We're going to have much more of our conversation with Jenny Racicot in moments, excluding her -- including her explanation as to why she has decided to come forward now. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
TAPPER: Welcome back to The Lead.
I want to bring you the second part of my interview with Jenny Racicot, who dated Maine's Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner for two years and told me earlier today that he raped her in 2021 during the course of their relationship.
Platner today categorically denied what he is calling false accusations of any nonconsensual behavior.
Here's part two of our interview with Jenny Racicot.
And a warning, as before, it includes strong language and a graphic description of an alleged rape, which could be disturbing and triggering to any survivors of sexual assault and rape.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: He posted a comment on Reddit about a video promoting underwear designed to prevent rape. And he wrote, quote, rape is a real thing. If you're so worried about it to buy Kevlar underwear, you would think you might not get blacked out, fucked up around people you aren't comfortable with.
RACICOT: Right.
TAPPER: What did you think when you saw that?
RACICOT: I thought, here's a man who was drunk, and who, by dictionary definition, raped me, and he's blaming drunk women. So, I just felt like that was a very odd take to have on that.
And I also feel like with all of the comments that he made about women, sexual assault, rape, even the comments that he had made that was in The New York Times article about threatening people with rape, like why does this person have this issue scattered throughout their life throughout their commentary, like it's on their mind? Why do they have such a strong opinion about women coming forward with allegations? Like I just feel like this isn't the first time.
TAPPER: I know that you have been very reluctant to tell this story.
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: Very reluctant.
Why did you ultimately decide to do it? Why come forward?
RACICOT: A few reasons. One of the biggest ones is that I think that there are a lot of men in this world relying on the silence of women and -- to be where they are. And I don't want to contribute to that. I also want to just get my life back.
TAPPER: There are going to be people, maybe even his campaign, certainly his supporters, who say this is politically motivated. What would you say to that?
RACICOT: I couldn't disagree more. That was actually one of the reasons that I didn't come out.
TAPPER: Because you agree with his politics.
(CROSSTALK)
RACICOT: I do. I really agree with his politics. I think we need somebody with those political stances and who are willing to do the work.
And I see his political videos. They get me fired up as well. I understand why people want someone like him in office. And I felt like me coming forward would essentially, potentially take that away. And I felt really uncomfortable with the responsibility of and the weight of my story and what that might do.
TAPPER: When people hear this from you, are you saying you should not vote for him because of what happened?
RACICOT: I'm not going to go as far as to say that. I'm just here to tell my story, to give a clearer picture of who he is and the type of past that he has. And I just think it's fair to the democratic process to let people know who they're voting for.
TAPPER: This has obviously been very difficult for you to talk about for five years. And even when you're telling the story, you don't use the word.
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: So, let me just be -- and I apologize.
[18:25:01]
Let me be as direct as I can. Did Graham Platner rape you?
RACICOT: By definition, yes, absolutely.
TAPPER: Because he had nonconsensual sex with you?
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: Forced himself on you, even after you had told him no and fought him off?
RACICOT: Yes. He violated multiple layers of consent that night by coming into my home when I asked him not to, and by advancing on me when I told him not to, and, furthermore, another incident that I had told him not to do and --
TAPPER: With protection.
RACICOT: Yes. Yes, so -- yes, by the way that my nervous system reacted to this experience, absolutely.
TAPPER: There are going to be Democrats who say, I believe you, but I don't care.
RACICOT: Yes.
TAPPER: I'm going to vote for him anyway, because we need a progressive voice in the United States Senate. Are you going to be okay with that? Are you going to be able to handle that? I'm not saying it's the right answer or the right response, but --
RACICOT: No, I have friends who feel that way. And that's been a hard pill to swallow. And I guess I need to not ask, potentially. Maybe I need to not ask in order to not care what they do.
I understand. I understand that the state of our political environment is so much so that we need a lot of change. And he's offering that change. And, you know, I'm not mad at anyone who has voted for him all along. If he wasn't who he was, I would be voting for him as well. And going forward, I don't know what's going to happen.
TAPPER: There's something you said that I just want to find out more about. You said he was forcing himself on you, it was getting violent, you were pushing him off, you were kicking him off, needles and sewing equipment was falling all over.
And walk us through the process where you decided that the safest thing you could do was just let him rape you.
RACICOT: Yes. I had never been in that situation before. And I realized -- I remember it being an instant where I had recognized that he wasn't listening to me. It wasn't just that he wasn't hearing me or whatnot. And then I recognized his level of intoxication, and I knew in that moment I wasn't safe.
And I don't think I was -- I don't think I was safe to physically fight back. He's big. He's strong. And I just had to evaluate my safety and come up with the least worst outcome to the situation. And so I felt like complying for my safety was the least worst option.
TAPPER: But that's not consenting.
RACICOT: No, complying is not consenting.
TAPPER: Complying is letting him rape you?
RACICOT: Is getting it over with.
TAPPER: So, that he didn't hurt you even more?
RACICOT: I don't -- I don't know what this person is capable of. I don't -- I don't think anybody does. And even people you know for years and trust, you don't know the depths of what they're capable of. And --
TAPPER: You were afraid for your safety?
RACICOT: Yes, I was afraid for my safety.
TAPPER: Beyond -- not that rape isn't a horrific thing, but beyond --
RACICOT: Right?
TAPPER: -- rape?
RACICOT: I didn't want to find out how unsafe I could get that night or how harmed I could be that night.
TAPPER: I know this is probably one of the toughest things you have had to do in your life, so I just want to thank you for trusting us and sitting down with us.
RACICOT: Yes, thank you. I appreciate you guys being here to do this and help share these stories very kindly and delicately.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: Again, Graham Platner categorically denies any allegations of sexual assault. His campaign says, quote, these allegations are very serious, and Graham vigorously denies them. They are also coached and coordinated by out-of-state establishment operatives. For a year, opponents of this campaign have thrown everything they can at Graham, calling him a Nazi, a war criminal, and a communist. None of it has been true, and this is no different.
It is not a coincidence that this story comes a week before the ballot deadline, just as the previous false allegations came a week before the primary. Graham began this campaign to fight for a Maine where everyone is treated with dignity and where Mainers are put first, and no amount of desperate smears will stop this movement from seeing that vision through, unquote.
Of course, you at home can ascertain Jenny Racicot's credibility for yourself.
[18:30:01]
And let me also just say, if you or anyone you know has experienced sexual assault or rape, you are not alone, and there is free confidential available to you 24/7 through the National Sexual Assault Hotline, 1-800-656-4673, 1-800-656-4673, or online at RAINN.org. That's R-A-I-N-N, two N's, dot org. There is someone there for you to help you through your pain.
Amid these new allegations, Platner says his campaign is, quote, taking the time to reflect on the best path forward. Already, some members of Congress are rescinding their endorsements of Graham Platner. We're going to have much more on this breaking news next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) TAPPER: I'm back with the breaking news, and there is reaction to the revelations from Jenny Racicot, as you just heard her in our interview.
[18:35:03]
Democrats already reacting to what she said Graham Platner did to her in 2021 when they were dating. He showed up at her house uninvited, intoxicated, and, according to her, raped her. Platner categorically denied what he's calling false allegations of any non-consensual behavior.
In a video that he posted on social media today, here's an excerpt of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLATNER: Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.
Those were the goals when we launched this campaign, and they remain my goals today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Our panel is here in studio. We have Julie Roginsky and Alyssa Farah Griffin, and in D.C. we have Lulu Garcia-Navarro. So, let me start with the fact that reacting to Jenny Racicot's interview today, two prominent Democrats have withdrawn their endorsements of Platner, Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego and California Congressman Ro Khanna, both of them major backers of Platner.
And the Maine Democratic Party leadership is now calling for Platner to withdraw, saying they, quote, stand with women and survivors, and that principle does not bend based on party affiliation.
Julie, obviously, this isn't the first scandal he's weathered. There is the Totenkopf tattoo, which, by the way, we didn't include in the interview because it was a big interview and she said a lot of important stuff, but she said she saw it, but she didn't know what it was. It was just a -- to her it was just a skull and crossbones, if anybody was wondering. But he's had other scandals. What is it about this that makes it different, do you think, for people like Gallego and the Maine Democratic Party to be saying he should leave?
JULIE ROGINSKY, CO-FOUNDER, LIFT OUR VOICES: That's a great question. I don't know, because it shouldn't be anything different. We're a party that claims to believe women. We are a party that claims to be the party of Me Too, and all of a sudden what it means to be a Democrat these days apparently is a noun, a verb, and AIPAC sucks, right? That's all it takes to get some people to fall behind somebody like a Graham Platner. These are not new allegations. Multiple women had come forward previously. I don't know why they weren't believed. And for Ro Khanna, who I think has done the Lord's work on the Epstein files, why he believes those women but for some reason did not believe enough the previous women to withdraw his endorsement way before today, is puzzling to me.
It doesn't make any sense to me as to why a man who went on blogs and criticized black people, criticized women, had a problematic tattoo that he claims either he did not know was a Nazi symbol or is lying that he didn't know was a Nazi symbol, why none of that was enough to withdraw their endorsement.
So, look, I look at these people today, and now, all of a sudden, you know, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. But why is this the straw that broke the camel's back? Why is it that when a Republican came forward with allegations that were similar, all of a sudden, well, she's a Republican, we don't believe her? Since when does anybody ask for your voter registration before they harass you? They don't.
And so I'm glad that it looks like he's going to be out. I'm glad that he's not going to be the Democratic standard-bearer. But I implore my party to do better than just to get on board with somebody who throws AIPAC as a talking point, and that apparently is enough to excuse every other problem that he's ever had in his life. And that's not just Graham Platner, it's a lot of other candidates, too.
TAPPER: To be clear, he has not withdrawn.
ROGINSKY: Not yet.
TAPPER: And, you know, it doesn't just -- you know, two endorsees withdrawing their support and the main Democratic Party saying no doesn't mean he will. But I understand where you're coming from. You're reading the tea leaves. What was your reaction to the interview, Alyssa?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I thought that it was credible. It was heartbreaking to listen to. It's devastating to listen to a woman recount that. But I really appreciate you mentioning Lyndsey Fifield, who also came forward to The New York Times and talked about different allegations, but allegations of what I would consider emotional abuse and physical abuse that she endured from Graham Platner.
He denied those allegations. But her claims were ignored by many prominent Democrats. Why? Because she's a Republican operative. I've known her for nearly 20 years. I believe her claims. Those were credible.
This woman, this is even more devastating and regardless of how she voted, those are credible. But it should've been enough when he insulted Purple Heart recipients, when he made homophobic slurs, that he had a Nazi tattoo. When it becomes winning at all costs, and I've seen this in my own party, I call it out when it's Republicans, too, you end up elevating some of the worst people. This should be a moment of reflection. And, by the way, I do think he will drop out because there's a narrow window that Democrats can replace him with somebody who doesn't have all of this baggage. There's about a week that they can act and do that, and I think that's very much the direction the party should go.
TAPPER: Lulu, in Platner's campaign statement, it reads in part, quote, these allegations are very serious and Graham vigorously denies them. They are also coached and coordinated by out-of-state establishment operatives. Now, that's not accurate.
But there is a group that's been -- that Jenny Racicot describes as helping her.
[18:40:03]
It's a group called Reckoning America. It's launched by a Democratic lawyer named Cheyenne Hunt, who we've had on the show before. She helped coordinate survivors who alleged various horrific acts by former Congressman Eric Swalwell over sexual abuse allegations.
And what Jenny Racicot says is that Cheyenne Hunt reached out to her and to provide her help, to provide her with resources and counseling and that sort of thing. But she did reach out.
What do you make of Graham Platner's campaign basically attacking this group trying to help survivors of sexual abuse?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It sounds like the desperate gasp of a dying campaign. I mean, this is not the first allegation. This is not the second allegation. This is a series now of allegations that are credible, that have been well-reported in the mainstream media with reporters who have investigated them, who have corroborated the information, and now this woman is coming out publicly to you and to others to tell her story.
And so at this point, I do not see a path forward for Graham Platner and his campaign. And, you know, the question here is what did they know and when did they know it? Because the campaign has seen these allegations swirling for quite some time. I interviewed Graham Platner before all of these allegations came out. I asked him point-blank if anything else was coming his way, and he denied it. But this clearly is not news to them that this was coming.
TAPPER: You know, Alyssa, one of the other things I asked Jenny that didn't make this cut because we were -- you know, we taped it and we came here and it was trying to make the slot, trying to make air, but one of the things that I did ask her about is, like would things have been different if at any point Graham Platner had come to you and taken any ownership of what happened?
You heard her describe how the next morning she said, you know, you don't remember what you did last night? And he didn't -- according to her, he didn't ask her what it was, he just left. And then she texted him a few weeks later after she realized she, you know, wasn't pregnant with his child, given what happened in the alleged rape, and again said a similar thing, and he didn't ask her what happened.
She was in The New York Times about a month ago, a vague description of a horrible night, didn't go into detail, but a vague description of a horrible night after which they never talked again. And he could've reached out after that. And she said basically that she didn't know. She had thought about that too but she didn't know.
But one of the things that strikes me after talking to her is that the act was horrific, and then the lack of accountability was also horrific. That stood out to me as well.
GRIFFIN: Listen, this is an issue of character. There has been an effort by his campaign to try to pin this on his PTSD. I've worked with veterans who have PTSD. That does not excuse, nor would they hide behind excusing it, to commit what are actually crimes. These allegations, it's a crime, what he -- she is accusing him of. And to hide behind that I think is incredibly wrong.
I also want to underscore that rape and sexual assault are some of the most underreported crimes because victims come forward and they know that they're often not going to be believed, and so is domestic violence.
And I think the fact that in that New York Times piece, which was carefully reported, I have some issues with how it was covered, that Lyndsey Fifield came forward with what she said there, and there were so many who were so quick to discredit what she said purely because of political reasons.
I hope that that is not done now to this woman who put herself out that, there and is going to have to for the rest of her life have this story follow her, that people will believe her and we will actually stand by it when we say we believe all women. It won't be partisan. It won't be based on how you vote in the voting booth.
TAPPER: Yes. And people can listen to her story and decide whether or not they want to believe it. I personally found her story very compelling and very credible. And I know from having been trying to get her to talk to me even just, you know, on background or for a cnn.com digital piece, she's been very reluctant to do this, very reluctant to do this.
And talk about that, if you would, Julie, just like how difficult it is for people to do this.
ROGINSKY: Listen, I came forward against the former chairman and CEO of Fox News, Roger Ailes about being sexually harassed by him, allegedly, I have to say that, about almost a decade ago. And I will tell you, it is incredibly difficult. Nobody does this for fun. This is an incredibly -- especially when something is this high profile and the perpetrator, alleged perpetrator, is as high profile as Graham Platner is as high profile as Roger Ailes was. This is no fun, and you don't do this unless you really feel compelled to do it.
And I am a Democrat. When I came forward, I heard a lot of the same thing that Lyndsey Fifeld heard, which is, oh, she's a Democrat.
[18:45:02]
She's doing this to bring down, you know, this Republican right- leaning organization. No. No. You do it because it's the last alternative that you have. Most people do everything possible not to come forward. I now run a nonprofit called Lift Our Voices that deals with these kinds of issues all the time.
I have spoken to probably over 1,000 women in the last decade, and let me tell you something. They don't ever talk to anybody about this because they're worried they're not going to be believed. They have documentation, they have recordings, and they still don't come forward because they're worried they're not going to be believed.
So, I implore my party, the party that is making a very big deal about Jeffrey Epstein right now, please believe women, irrespective of whether the person they're bringing down is your political hero, irrespective of whether you agree with him on Gaza, or you agree with him on billionaires, or you agree with him on marginal tax rates, or universal healthcare.
If you're Bernie Sanders, if you're Ro Khanna, surely whatever you saw in somebody like Grant Platner could not be more important than the survivors who told you time and again what was happening. This is not new.
This is the part that enrages me. This is the part that disappoints me. What happened today was the last straw, but it shouldn't have been the last straw. This is years of documented misbehavior, and yet, because he wasn't a Chuck Schumer acolyte, because he wasn't somebody who AIPAC supported, all of a sudden, this is somebody that had to get behind.
You can't find somebody else in the entire state of Maine. who's not a Chuck Schumer acolyte or somebody that AIPAC supports, it had to be this very flawed candidate? Why? And look, in this rush to turn the page on the current establishment in the Democratic Party, they're not doing the vetting they need to do and they're not taking seriously allegations that women are coming forward with, people of color are coming forward with and so on and so forth.
It's not just in Maine. It's here in New York City and other places as well.
TAPPER: And, Lulu, I can't help but think about Congressman Jake Achenschloss from Massachusetts refused to endorse Platner from the state just to his north, and he got a lot of heat from Democrats. A lot of heat from Democrats for that. There is definitely, when it comes to partisan politics, and certainly the Republican Party is guilty of this as well, and we've been covering that for 10 years now.
But he must not feel good today, but he must feel at least a bit like he doesn't have to rescind any endorsements today.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, he doesn't. And I think to the broader point of where does this leave the Democratic Party, I think it leaves them in a very, very difficult position. They have a week to determine who else might run for this race if indeed Graham Plattner drops out of this race, as seems likely from his own statement. And beyond that, I do think that there is some soul-searching that needs to happen about exactly what kind of candidates the party is putting forward while it looks to retake political power.
So, you know, this is a very, very serious and very important moment where I think a lot of people are going to be doing some soul- searching.
TAPPER: All right, thanks to our panel. Not an easy conversation, but an important one.
Tonight, the sports lead meets the politics lead when the U.S. takes on Belgium in the World Cup, but there is a big twist involving who's going to take the field, and it could have a bit to do with President Donald Trump. We break down the controversy next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:52:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I asked for a review because I didn't think it was a foul. We're going to have a full team, and Belgium's going to have a full team. And you know what? If they beat us, then they can be really proud. The other way, if they beat us, we'll say it was -- I say it was rigged, just like the election was rigged in 2020. But I won't --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: In our sports lead, Donald Trump's own goal, his red card phone call with the head of FIFA, looms over tonight's knockout match between Team USA and Belgium. FIFA's under intense scrutiny now after suddenly reversing its one-game suspension for USA's top scorer, Folarin "Fo" Balogun. Balogun is he's officially back in the starting lineup. FIFA denied Belgium's appeal just hours before kickoff, arguing Belgium has no standing, didn't participate in the game between the U.S. and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
CNN's Alayna Treene is at the White House for us now.
And, Alayna, what else did Trump reveal in his phone call with the president of FIFA? Do you sense that he has any understanding that he's just cast a pall over the entire Team USA?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It doesn't appear so. I mean, not only, Jake, did he confirm this morning that he had called Infantino and asked him to review that red card decision. He went on to call it horrible and unfair, and also questioned the integrity of the referee. I want you to listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I can't tell him what to do, but -- and I don't believe he made the decision. I think it was a committee that made the decision. And they made the right decision because, number one, it wasn't a foul.
And I think the referee's call was horrible. And nobody talks about that. They talk about the red card like it's fine. This referee, who is a little bit suspect, if you check his -- if you check his past.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TREENE: So really not parsing words there or trying to hide any sort of opinion, Jake. And I will say, in the conversations I've been having with people here at the White House today, it doesn't seem like the president believed that calling Infantino his good friend for many years now. crossed his mind as being anything out of the ordinary or unethical.
And I do think that's part of what's garnering so much of this controversy. It's not just that he picked up the phone and called Infantino, but it's about the close relationship they've developed over recent years. The president inviting him to a series of events. He's been in the Oval Office with Trump many times.
I actually was in the Oval Offense once when Infantino and Trump were heaping praise on one another with the FIFA World Cup trophy sitting on the Resolute Desk. So that's adding to a lot of these concerns here.
Now, the president has continued to argue that he did not ask Infantino to intervene on behalf of the U.S., that he didn't tell him what to do other than that he should review it. But even if the president making that call was not a decisive part of FIFA's ultimate decision to allow Balogun to play, it does really risk perceptions of this not being ethical on the global stage.
And of course, leading to a lot of angst among a lot of fans, including those in Europe, about tonight.
[18:55:02]
TAPPER: All right. Alayna Treene at the White House, thank you so much.
And this just breaking news just in a statement from Senate Majority Leader -- I'm sorry, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, saying, quote, |The allegations reported today about Graham Plattner. are incredibly disturbing. Violence, abuse, and sexual assault are absolutely unacceptable. Graham Plattner needs to immediately withdraw as a Democratic nominee for Senate and allow Maine Democrats the opportunity to choose a new candidate who can defeat Susan Collins."
"The DSCC," again, "that's the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, will not invest in the Maine Senate race if Platner remains on the ballot." Turning to our law and justice lead, the fight over free speech is heading to federal court after a New York man, David Streever, says he was targeted by federal immigration officers over an email he sent criticizing the head of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by CNN.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, is suing the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. The lawsuit alleges that agents crossed a constitutional line by appearing at Streamer's home months after he sent a sharply worded email calling a top ICE official a, quote, "monstrous human being," unquote, following the death of Alex Pretti.
In a statement to CNN, a DHS spokesperson said, quote, "Any allegation DHS and its components are attempting to squash free speech is a categorically false. ICE investigates all credible threats towards its employees and officers, including threats to the ICE director," unquote. That's from DHS, which, of course, has never said anything that proved later to be false.
Joining me now is an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Adam Steinbaugh.
Adam, what happened when ICE showed up at Streever's home?
ADAM STEINBAUGH, ATTORNEY, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & EXPRESSION: Well, he wasn't there. His wife was, and the agents approached her and said they were looking for her husband because he, quote-unquote, "may or may not have made a threat to the ICE director." And she's an Episcopal priest, and she said that doesn't sound like the David I know.
And they handed her a form that says warning notice at the top, and it alleges that his speech may be in violation of federal law against threats to federal officials. And it essentially tells him that he needs to discontinue his, quote-unquote, "criminal activities, or they would take his receipt of this notice into further consideration."
Well, agents didn't wait for him to come home because he was on a trip to Europe with his seven-year-old daughter at the time. And the agents that Thursday night somehow, and he's not sure how, but they managed to track him down to a hotel where he was staying in New York City en route back to Rochester.
So, they repeatedly tried to confront him. They've left a warning notice with his wife. They've confronted his wife about his speech. And they've put out statements since then, including today, alleging that they are continuing a five-month investigation into a three- paragraph email.
TAPPER: So, I read the email, and it's certainly not nice. What are they alleging the threat was? I didn't see any threat at all.
STEINBAUGH: I've tried looking at it every which way, and no matter what way the sun shines off it, I can't get it to figure out what the threat is here. He's telling a federal official, look, your conscience is going to bother you in the future. You should start paying attention to it now. You should back down from defending this shooting in Minneapolis.
He was referring to the shooting of Alex Pretti. He -- you know, this is very clearly protected speech in the tradition of American politics. The director of ICE got pretty much the same reception from members of Congress when he appeared before a House committee not long after that. A member of Congress asked him if he thought he was going to hell. That's, you know, not far off from what David said.
TAPPER: How do you respond to the complaint, the claim from DHS that they investigate all credible threats against its officers and that's all this was?
STEINBAUGH: Well, I mean, if they were really investigating a threat, you'd think that they'd do it sooner than five months after he sent this email. That suggests that they're not investigating a threat at all. And when the agent showed up to talk to his wife, they said he may or may not have sent a threat. So, if they were skeptical about this being a threat, why isn't anyone else?
TAPPER: The other thing that's so weird is, I mean, I guess, It's no longer any weird, any strange, and it's no longer strange, but, I mean, President Trump did campaign saying that he would be an advocate for free speech. He said it in his first address to Congress.
STEINBAUGH: And J.D. Vance has made a very big point of talking to European countries and very rightly pointing out that they are backsliding on free speech by sending similar letters to citizens there, warning their citizens that your speech may be against the law. I don't think we want that happening here.
TAPPER: Adam Steinbaugh with fire, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.
