Skip to main content

Graham Platner suspends Maine Senate campaign after sexual assault allegation

▶ Watch Video: Graham Platner drops out of Senate race amid new sexual assault allegation

Washington — Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner announced Wednesday he is suspending his campaign after a woman accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were dating five years ago, ending a Senate run punctuated by personal controversies.

Platner announced his decision in an 11-minute social media video. He vehemently denied the sexual assault allegations, calling them “false” and “not real,” but said the pressure from state-level and national Democrats had made it impossible for his campaign to continue. He blamed the “political establishment” for the situation.  

“This is incredibly difficult, because I know that some will think it’s an admission of guilt, and it most certainly is not,” he said. “We’re not doing it because of the allegations, we’re doing it because of the structures that are being taken away from us by those in power.” 

Platner said in the video that he intends to file paperwork with the Maine Secretary of State’s office to officially withdraw from the Senate race. He told campaign staff that he does not plan to file the paperwork until Monday — the final deadline to do so under state law — according to sources familiar with the conversation. His planned timeline was first reported by Axios.

The move will disrupt one of the most closely watched races of this cycle, as Democrats seek to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins in a contest that could determine control of the Senate. Under Maine law, the state party will have until July 27 to select a new nominee. 

The party said earlier Wednesday it would hold a nominating convention to choose a new candidate, adding that more details on the process would come “soon.” The party has also said that Platner will not have a role. Several high-profile Maine Democrats have launched Senate campaigns in recent days.

Platner urged the Maine Democratic Party to use an “open, transparent and democratic” process to replace him, and said the decision shouldn’t be made by “party apparatchiks.”

“My name might be on the ballot right now, but that ballot line belongs to the people of Maine,” he said in his video Wednesday.

A Maine woman, Jenny Racicot, told Politico and CNN that Platner entered her home without permission in late 2021 when he was drunk and forced himself on her, ignoring her demands for him to stop. Racicot said the two met on a dating app in 2019 and had a casual, consensual relationship before the night of the alleged assault.

Racicot told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Platner, “by dictionary definition, raped me.”

“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,” Racicot said, referring to his alleged refusal to use protection.

She said: “In that moment, I evaluated my safety. … I basically felt safest just complying.”

Platner called the allegations “categorically false” in a video shortly after Politico broke the story Monday, before Racicot’s CNN interview. In a statement, his campaign called the allegations “desperate smears” that were “coached and coordinated by out of state establishment operatives.”

In his video announcing the end of his campaign, Platner said he learned about the allegations through press inquiries “with no time to truly respond, no time for investigations before a corporate media system and the political establishment got to act as judge, jury and executioner.”

“Accusations are supposed to be the beginning of things, not the end,” he said. 

“This was the last week to try to get me off of the ballot, and that’s why this is occurring,” he added.

The allegations led the Maine Democratic Party to call on Platner to withdraw earlier this week, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who chairs Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The DSCC said it would not invest in the race if Platner remained on the ballot, and the Senate Majority PAC said in light of the allegations, it was redirecting resources away from the Maine Senate race, severely limiting his campaign’s viability going forward. 

And a number of Platner’s highest-profile supporters in Congress — like Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona — also took back their endorsements shortly after the story became public.

On Tuesday, independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he spoke with Platner and “recommended that he step aside.” The statement carried significant weight, with Sanders having been a key supporter of Platner’s.

Late Tuesday, with Platner still in the race and a June 13 deadline to remove his name from the ballot rapidly approaching, the Maine Democratic Party accused his campaign of trying to “put their thumb on the scale” and influence how a new nominee is chosen. A Platner spokesperson denied that the campaign was trying to control the process, but said Platner wanted to ensure that the decision was made by “voters and volunteers.” Some former Platner allies urged state Democratic leadership to replace Platner with a fellow member of the party’s progressive wing.

Meanwhile, Republicans have suggested they expect the allegations against Platner to reverberate in the general election, even as his campaign ends. In a statement shortly after Platner’s withdrawal, Republican National Committee Chair Joe Gruters said: “Democrats rolled in the mud with Platner, and now they are completely stained by their association with this sick monster.” 

A 41-year-old veteran and oyster farmer from coastal Maine, Platner emerged from obscurity last year, drawing nationwide attention and support from prominent progressives like Sanders. Platner easily won the Democratic Senate primary last month, facing virtually no major opponents since Gov. Janet Mills withdrew from the race.

But Platner’s insurgent campaign was dogged by a series of personal controversies and allegations about his behavior. Last year, news outlets reported on a series of problematic posts on Reddit penned by Platner several years ago, and Platner acknowledged that he got a tattoo during his time in the Marines that is widely understood to be a Nazi symbol. He has since apologized for his internet posts and says he had the tattoo covered up. 

Then, after Mills dropped her campaign, The Wall Street Journal reported that Platner’s wife told the campaign he had sent sexually explicit texts to other women while they were married. Days later, The New York Times reported that women Platner dated had accused him of “unsettling” behavior, including an allegation that he was “physically threatening,” which he denied. 

Platner has said some of the allegations against him stemmed from a “very dark period of my life where I struggled with undiagnosed PTSD, too often self medicated with alcohol, and was a far from perfect boyfriend.”

Some prior Platner supporters — including his former political director — suggested he should drop out following the Times’ and Journal’s reports, fearing the controversy could make it difficult for Democrats to win. Collins has represented Maine in the Senate since 1997, and unseating her has been one of Democrats’ top objectives for more than a decade, but the moderate GOP senator has continued to win reelection even as Maine becomes increasingly Democratic.

Platner told MS NOW last month that “not once” had he considered dropping out of the race. 

“Amy and I knew early on that we were going to take lumps, and we just, we’re dedicated to this,” Platner said. “It has never crossed our mind to drop out of this thing. I am fully committed to this until the end.”

This is a breaking story; it will be updated.

Judge in Don Lemon indictment asks to see grand jury records, adding to growing scrutiny of Justice Department cases

(CNN) — A federal judge in Minnesota will probe this week whether grounds exist to toss the Justice Department’s case against journalist Don Lemon. It’s the latest example of judges’ growing skepticism of whether the department is behaving ethically behind closed doors in grand jury proceedings.Judges across the country have signaled they are willing to give far less deference to federal prosecutors than in previous administrations and have raised concerns about DOJ’s apparent abandonment of regular practices.Federal judges in Wyoming, Illinois and Virginia have either thrown out charges or seriously admonished federal prosecutors for missteps in front of the grand jury. The botched grand jury presentments have prompted a historical review of cases in Chicago and, in some courts, new rules requiring defendants to be notified when a grand jury declines to indict.On August 18, Minnesota federal Judge Laura Provinzino issued a short but extraordinary order demanding the Justice Department provide her a wide swath of grand jury materials related to Lemon and his co-defendants, including presentations made by prosecutors and case agents, and the totality of communications prosecutors had with grand jurors resulting in their indictments.Provinzino set a Tuesday deadline to provide her with the presentation by federal prosecutors and case agents related to grand juries empaneled in January and February. Further, Provinzino told DOJ to provide any introduction, legal instructions, witness testimony, closing arguments, and answers to questions from grand jurors.Lemon’s team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials and had asked for either grand jury records to be provided to the defense or, at a minimum, reviewed by the judge privately, citing “irregularities” in the grand jury that resulted in his indictment.“There is substantial evidence of grand-jury irregularities in this case,” Lemon’s team wrote in a recent filing.“Multiple judges, including at the Eighth Circuit, found there was no probable cause to charge Lemon” and his co-defendant Georgia Fort, the filing said.Mark Wolf, a former Massachusetts District Court judge and federal prosecutor, said it is rare for defense attorneys to ask for grand jury transcripts in federal court. It is even more rare that judges grant the motions, he said.“There is a high bar to getting grand jury materials,” Wolf said. “You have to have some direct or circumstantial evidence that there has been some defect in the grand jury proceeding.”In her two-page order, Provinzino wrote that she weighed the necessity of maintaining grand jury secrecy against whether grounds may exist to dismiss the case due to a “matter that occurred before the grand jury.”She did not say she had already found evidence of any misconduct.The Justice Department’s initial attempt to charge Lemon in January for appearing alongside protestors who disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, was rejected by a federal magistrate judge, which “enraged” then Attorney General Pam Bondi, according to a source who spoke to CNN at the time.Lemon, a former CNN anchor, was later indicted by a grand jury along with several other defendants, including independent journalist Georgia Fort. Lemon has been charged with conspiring to violate someone’s constitutional rights and violating the FACE Act, which prohibits the use of force or threats to intentionally interfere with someone expressing their First Amendment right to practice religion.Lemon has pleaded not guilty to both charges. His team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials throughout the case, and earlier this month filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether.Justice Department losing credibilityWolf told CNN he does not believe the Justice Department’s credibility remains intact.“For good reasons, the Department of Justice’s reputation with judges generally has been injured,” Wolf said.In Chicago, defense attorneys urged Judge April Perry to release grand jury transcripts in the highly publicized case against protestors at an ICE detention facility outside the city.After reviewing those transcripts, Perry found federal prosecutors engaged in inappropriate actions, such as interacting with grand jurors outside the proceeding, ordering some jurors to leave in another hearing, and “vouching” to the grand jurors.Vouching is a practice where prosecutors present their own reputation while delivering their case to a grand jury. It is forbidden in grand jury proceedings because the practice effectively asks jurors to trust the prosecutor personally rather than only on the merits of evidence.“I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,” Judge Perry said during a May 21 hearing.US Attorney Andrew Boutros then dropped the case against the protestors. Later, after reviewing the prosecutor’s conduct, Boutros opted to drop at least two more criminal cases, ordered a historical review of more than 100 grand jury transcripts, and launched reforms such as more training on grand jury presentations.“If I was a federal public defender or a private defense attorney, every case I get that’s indicted, I’m going to file a motion that is asking the judge to review the transcripts,” said Mike Fox, a current Cato Institute fellow and former Colorado public defender.“In my view, at this point, it doesn’t matter in which court it is, doesn’t matter if I have binding case law,” Fox said. “Every single case, the defense attorney should be filing, and the judge should be inquiring.”In May, a panel of three federal judges in Wyoming dismissed felony drug and gun indictments against nine defendants after the judges found the acting Wyoming US Attorney referred to defendants as “bad guys,” and “murderers,” and handed out business cards to jurors outside of the proceeding.Prosecutors opted not to appeal the judges’ order. Later, Wyoming federal prosecutors empaneled a new grand jury which issued a new indictment. The case remains ongoing.Fox believes the remedy is a more engaged judiciary where judges routinely witness grand jury proceedings.The current law doesn’t require judges to listen to proceedings, but some courts are issuing new local rules to ensure greater oversight. This spring, the Northern District of Illinois, where Boutros is US Attorney, enacted a rule requiring grand juries to alert a magistrate judge when a grand jury fails to issue an indictment.A spokesperson for the Justice Department told CNN in an email the executive office of the US Attorney provides training for prosecutors which includes grand jury practice.“On rare occasions where there is an issue, as noted in our Chicago US Attorney’s office, we took immediate corrective action and provided renewed, in-depth instruction on ethics and grand jury practice,” the spokesperson wrote.“Our US Attorneys will always follow the law and prosecute cases without fear or favor. Nobody is above the law, regardless of political affiliation. Beyond that, we don’t comment on pending litigation.”Grand jury presentments in the spotlight last yearLast fall, in the most high-profile and politically charged example of a problematic grand jury presentment, then-interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, took a proposed indictment against former FBI Director James Comey through a grand jury on her own. A magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia, reviewed the transcript and found Halligan may have incorrectly presented the law to the grand jury. The judge called the debacle “profound investigative missteps … to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”Halligan later admitted to a judge the grand jury hadn’t supported the initial version of the proposed indictment of Comey, and the full grand jury hadn’t signed off on the final charging document. That Comey case was dismissed for a separate reason, when a federal district judge determined Halligan wasn’t serving as a legitimate prosecutor. The Justice Department is appealing.But the grand jury handling in the Comey case and other cases continues to hover over prosecutors.Comey’s defense team, for instance, is attempting to pry into grand jury records in the separate, newer case against him, out of Eastern North Carolina. He is charged there with threatening the president by posting on social media a photo of the numbers “8647” written in seashells on a beach.The phrase 86 is sometimes used to say nix or get rid of something. Trump is the 47th president. Comey has denied wrongdoing in the case.“The highly irregular procedures that led to the indictment create a significant risk that the government misrepresented key issues of fact and law to the grand jury,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in a recent court filing, citing federal searches of Comey that they question.If Comey’s defense cannot gain access to the grand jury transcript, they at least want a judge to look at it to check the Justice Department’s work.Wolf said he is deeply troubled by the Justice Department’s recent actions and told CNN he believes it shows the American people that the department will use the law for partisan purposes.“It sends a message that a Department of Justice that should institutionalize our ideal of equal justice under law is not doing that,” Wolf said. “And that means anybody is vulnerable.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story