This means he can be replaced with another Democrat
Graham Platner can be replaced as the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine if he withdraws from the race by next Monday, and state law would then give the state Democratic Party until July 27 to name a replacement.
This feels, like, more-so-than ever before, like pressure from Israel/ AIPAC. I just, it would be literally insane for Platner to deny this if its in any way true. At least like this. As categorically as its being done. And now, as I’m listening to coverage in real time, its all “I told you so’s” from Democratic party talking heads.
This feels insanely corrupt.
Yeah. I agree. If he does face trial for this, his press conference where he vehemently denies the rape will be played on repeat during the sentencing as evidence of a lack of remorse. Hell, lawyers would tell you not to publicly deny it, just in case some details of your public denial later serve as evidence to damn you.
However, I give this a 0.01% chance of actually going to trial. Inevitably the accusers will have a relapse of their PTSD and be unable to press charges.
I don’t know about Maine, but obstruction is itself a crime. If they know, and present this kind of high level denial…
Well simply denying a crime isn’t obstruction of justice.
Is it if you have specific knowledge of a crime occurring?
Obstruction of justice requires a physical, usually forceful, act. Like physically blocking cops from serving a warrant.
Simply being like “I didn’t do it” or whatever his statements were… is not obstruction.
None of that matters here. He’s unelectable. He can’t win. Doesn’t matter if he did, doesn’t matter if it’s fair. Trials can’t happen that quickly any way; and there’s plenty of other shit that he can’t power through.
(I do happen to believe the allegations. Maybe not fields… that’s a bit suspect… but the others.)
I believe it generally requires concrete actions. Think destroying incriminating evidence when you know you’re under investigation. Alternately, lying to police and especially federal investigators might get obstruction of justice charges. But unless you’re lying to the FBI during an interrogation, then just defending yourself in public is not obstruction of justice. After all, it’s generally perfectly legal to lie. Lies that produce certain material ends (such as fraud) can be crimes, but simply lying about something is not a crime. If I wanted to, it would be perfectly legal for me to go around lying to my friends, telling them I earn a massive salary at a high-status career. Lying itself isn’t illegal. However, if I lie to a bank, and use my fake job claim to secure a loan, then I’ve crossed the line into fraud.
Whoa whoa whoa. Your telling me that wood scientist isn’t a massive salary, high status career?
So youre telling me Brude Hoadly lied to me?
I actually do have that book! The username comes from the fact that I did enroll in a wood science PhD program for several years. I didn’t end up finishing, ADHD really did a number on my writing. But did learn quite a lot!
Well you don’t have to have a PhD to be a scientist. But its quite hilarious you have that book.
The only people who destroyed evidence was his accuser. No prosecutor would touch this case, even Lionel Hutz would bring up the 5 year delay and timing with politics.
Platner could release his side of the texts. They don’t disappear because one person deleted their side.