Before and during World War II, Europeans resisted the German Nazis’ plan to exterminate the Jews by hiding them from the jackbooted thugs who would collect them and ship them to concentration camps. Now, instead of hiding the Jews from the National Socialists, the American Leftmedia is hiding the National/Democratic Socialist from the public.

Yesterday, I relayed the story of how — this just in — Maine Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner, the self-proclaimed communist with a Nazi tattoo and otherwise checkered history, is a bad guy. Somehow, this was a shocking revelation to many Democrats.

Maybe that’s because the Democrats’ primary super PAC, the Leftmedia, did such a thorough job of promoting Platner.

As of this writing, Platner has still not dropped out of the race, despite nearly every Democrat now running to the nearest microphone to denounce him and pretend they are utterly surprised and appalled by allegations that he raped a woman. He only has until July 13 to make that decision, though he reportedly wants something for making it — namely, picking his successor.

Hey Graham — no means no!

Well, not only have we already known for months that Platner has a history of being a lousy man with women, but The New York Times may have specifically known about the aforementioned rape allegation for at least a month. In fact, given the timeline for producing the kind of story the Times published in early June, its reporters may have known Jenny Racicot’s full story weeks earlier.

What did Katie Glueck and Lisa Lerer know, and when did they know it?

Racicot told Politico for its Monday blockbuster that, in Politico’s wording, “she didn’t go public with the specific assault claim because she didn’t want to be known as a rape victim.”

According to the Times (roughly 70 paragraphs deep), “Ms. Racicot also said that in 2021 he arrived at her house drunk, after she had asked him not to come over. She declined to elaborate, but said she cut off contact soon after that episode and found his behavior ‘reckless’ and ‘unsettling.’” That episode is precisely what she elaborated to Politico. But did she also reveal it to the Times? Did she tell the Times about the rape off the record?

Racicot certainly indicated that the way the Times handled her story, burying it under a far lesser story about a Republican accuser named Lyndsey Fifield and not bothering to include other accusers, was a key factor in her decision to tell her entire story.

As for Fifield, she soon realized that “this really was a set up all along.” A day after the Times report, she posted on X:

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?

Democrat activists and media talkingheads dutifully circled the wagons, attacking Fifield to discredit her.

Yesterday, Fifield elaborated:

The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite 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.

Despite being on Platner’s side of the political aisle, Racicot decided that she had to go elsewhere to tell her story. It’s actually quite believable that sharing such an intimate story against a man she ideologically supported must have been difficult. She evidently hoped that other women would take Platner down, and that she wouldn’t have to share. Yet the dishonest framing from the Times kept that from happening, prompting her to overcome that fear.

As Hot Air’s David Strom explains, “The Times engaged in the journalistic practice called ‘Catch and Kill,’ in which a news outlet rushes to get ahead of a story that damages one of their favorites by getting the story and either completely burying it, or doing a ‘modified limited hangout,’ in which the allegations are addressed, but in such a way as to make them less damaging or even non-credible.”

“It worked,” Strom added. “Platner’s best fundraising day was the day the New York Times story came out.”

At least one Times columnist is doing some soul-searching. “While I’m assigning blame, I shouldn’t leave out myself,” opines Michelle Goldberg. “Last October, when stories about Platner’s tattoo and Reddit posts first broke, I went to Maine to write about him. I tried to convey what I saw: a campaign that was electrifying angry Maine voters. But I deeply regret that, impressed by Platner’s political charisma, I wrote that he was ‘nothing like the edgelord caricature I encountered online.’ If anything, he seems to be significantly worse.”

That’s all well and good, but it significantly undersells just how much the Times was a cheerleading section for Platner.

It’s still true.

“The accusations against Graham Platner are not classic #MeToo accusations,” explained Jodi Kantor, the Times reporter whose intrepid journalism about Harvey Weinstein won her a Pulitzer Prize and led to a movie being made about her.

Oh? Do tell, Ms. Kantor.

“They’re not about a boss and a young female employee being subjected to sexual advances,” she said on CNN, and are “not like classic abuse allegations.” She went on: “These are pretty different accusations than, say, the one that, the ones that President Trump faced … and so I think it speaks to the kind of confusion … in which, like, gender-related accusations get bundled together. But they’re actually very different.”

Sidenote: Where does Brett Kavanaugh go to get his reputation back? Kantor previously asserted that the pathetically dubious allegations against him were a good fit for #MeToo, despite the standard she just laid out to defend Platner, and despite the fact that the Kavanaugh allegations were almost certainly false.

Here, it seems fitting to mention Elizabeth Warren. She told a fanciful and false tale about her own Indian Native American ancestry, and she has suffered virtually no consequences for it. So she knows all about autobiographical lies. Yes, she has now thrown Platner under the bus, but she was one of the strongest of his many Democrat supporters for months. Never forget that she called him “my kind of man.”

Graham Platner is a drunk sex criminal with a Nazi tattoo, and the Democrats and their Leftmedia propagandists propped him up and covered for him. Now they don’t much like lying in the bed they’ve made.

Which is why this story came out now. Fox News host Dana Perino sussed it out, saying, “It’s because the recent polling shows that Graham Platner was going to lose to Susan Collins. And they thought, wow, we only have two weeks to figure this out.”

Bingo. If polls showed Platner winning, he’d still be surrounded by the Democrats’ wagon circle.

Follow Nate Jackson on X.