Horror novelist Stephen King took to X this week to publicly defend Graham Platner, the Maine Democratic Senate candidate whose ex-girlfriend has accused him of breaking into her home and raping her in 2021. King expressed hope that Platner would stay in the race, dismissed the gravity of the allegations by suggesting every member of Congress has hidden wrongdoing, and invoked scripture, drawing sharp rebukes from commentators on both the left and the right.

The episode is worth examining not for the literary celebrity's opinion, which carries no legal weight, but for what it reveals about the reflexive tribalism that now governs one side of the aisle. When the accused wears the right jersey, even a credible rape allegation becomes something to wave away with a Bible verse.

What Platner is accused of

Jenny Racicot, Platner's ex-girlfriend, told Politico in a report published Tuesday that Platner entered her unlocked home in 2021 while "almost blackout drunk," climbed on top of her while ignoring her protests, then followed her to the bedroom and forced himself on her. Racicot subsequently gave a televised interview to CNN anchor Jake Tapper, describing her experience in stark terms.

"I had recognized that he wasn't listening to me. It wasn't just that he wasn't hearing me or whatnot. I don't think I was safe to physically fight back."

Racicot told Tapper she "absolutely" believes she was raped "by definition." No arrests or criminal charges have been reported. Platner, an oysterman who won the Maine Democratic primary with 72 percent of the vote, has not been quoted responding to the allegations in the available reporting.

The fallout inside the Democratic Party was swift. Multiple Democrats pulled their endorsements and urged Platner to drop out. The precise number of defections has not been disclosed, but the New York Post described them as arriving in "droves."

King's defense, and its logic

Against that backdrop, Stephen King, Maine's most famous resident and a prolific progressive voice on social media, posted a message on X that read like a plea for leniency.

"Graham Platner may drop out. (I hope he doesn't, but.) Meanwhile, the Abuser in Chief just keeps on keepin' on."

In a follow-up post, King broadened his argument into a blanket dismissal of accountability.

"Tell you what, if you knew the whole truth about everyone in the Senate and House of Reps, those chambers would be dead empty."

He then added: "Jesus said, 'Let him without sin cast the first stone.'"

Set aside the theological cherry-picking for a moment. The logic King offered is worth parsing. His first post attempted to deflect from the allegation by pointing at someone else. His second post argued, in effect, that because other lawmakers presumably have undisclosed misconduct, a credible rape accusation against this particular candidate should be met with forbearance. His third invoked Christ's words to a mob preparing to stone a woman, a passage about mercy toward the accused sinner, not about excusing the sin or shielding the powerful from scrutiny.

It is a remarkable interpretive stretch, even by the standards of celebrity political commentary. The entertainment world has seen no shortage of public figures defending controversial conduct in recent years, but few have tried to use the Sermon on the Mount as a shield for an accused rapist running for federal office.

The backlash crossed party lines

What happened next was unusual: King got hammered from both directions. Conservative commentator Sara Gonzales summarized his position with acid brevity on X.

"'Who among us hasn't done a little rape???' -Stephen King, basically"

Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and no partisan Republican, posed the question King's logic invited.

"So because we don't know about hypothetical rapey legislators we should forgive the ones we do know about"

Professor and policy consultant Adam Cochran offered perhaps the most measured rebuke, noting that the bar King was trying to lower was already on the floor.

"I don't need them to be flawless. But I do need them to not be credibly accused of rape. That's a pretty reasonable ask Stephen"

That a progressive author, a center-right commentator, and an academic all arrived at the same conclusion, that defending a man credibly accused of rape is indefensible, says something about how far outside the mainstream King's position landed.

The 'Believe Women' double standard

For years, progressive institutions and Democratic politicians built an entire political framework around the phrase "Believe Women." The principle was deployed with maximum force during Supreme Court confirmation battles and against political opponents. Accusers were to be heard, believed, and centered. Due process was for courtrooms; the court of public opinion operated on a different standard.

Now a Democratic Senate candidate in Maine faces a detailed, on-the-record accusation from a named accuser who has gone on national television to describe what she says happened to her. And one of the most prominent progressive voices in American culture responds by quoting Jesus and suggesting everyone in Congress has comparable skeletons.

The contradiction is not subtle. It does not require commentary to identify. It simply requires placing the two positions side by side.

King's posts also raise a practical question his fellow Democrats have apparently already answered for themselves. If droves of the candidate's own party allies are pulling endorsements and calling on him to withdraw, what does it say that a celebrity with no accountability to Maine voters is urging him to stay? King lives in Maine. He will not have to govern alongside Platner. He will not have to explain the endorsement to constituents. He bears no cost for being wrong.

The broader cultural landscape has lately featured no shortage of public figures wading into territory where their credentials offer little guidance. From media personalities drawing political fire to commentators opining far outside their lanes, celebrity political engagement has become its own genre of performance, one where the performer rarely faces consequences.

What we still don't know

Several important questions remain unanswered. Platner has not been quoted responding to Racicot's allegations. No law enforcement report or legal action connected to the 2021 incident has been disclosed. It is unclear which specific Democrats withdrew their endorsements or how many did so. The New York Post also referenced additional controversies surrounding Platner, including allegations of extramarital sexting, behavior described as "unsettling," a tattoo resembling Nazi imagery, and a problematic Reddit history, but the full details of those matters were not elaborated.

Maine's Democratic primary produced an unusual result even before the rape allegation surfaced. Governor Janet Mills, who had suspended her own Senate campaign in April, still drew roughly 19.5 percent of the primary vote, a notable protest share for a candidate who was no longer actively running. That number suggested Democratic voters already had reservations about Platner before Racicot's account went public.

Whether Platner ultimately withdraws, and what mechanism would replace him on the ballot, remain open questions. What is not open to question is that his own party's elected officials moved faster to distance themselves from him than the famous novelist who shares their politics.

There are corners of public life where even the supernatural and the inexplicable get a more rigorous hearing than political accountability. One need only look at recent Washington controversies to see that pattern at work. But when a woman goes on national television to describe being raped, and a celebrated author's response is to quote scripture in defense of the accused, the failure is not mysterious. It is a choice.

The point King proved

Stephen King has spent a career writing about monsters. In his fiction, they lurk in storm drains and haunted hotels. In his political commentary this week, the monster was a credible rape allegation against a fellow Democrat, and King's instinct was not to confront it but to explain it away.

He told his followers that every legislator has secrets. He told them to put down their stones. He told them the real problem was someone else entirely. What he did not do, what he apparently could not bring himself to do, was say that a woman who says she was raped deserves to be heard on the merits, regardless of her alleged attacker's party affiliation.

That silence tells you everything about where "Believe Women" ranks when the accused is on your team. It was never a principle. It was a weapon, and weapons get holstered when they point the wrong way.