This means he can be replaced with another Democrat

Per the NYT

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.

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t know about Maine, but obstruction is itself a crime. If they know, and present this kind of high level denial…

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            22 hours ago

            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.)

          • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              lying to my friends, telling them I earn a massive salary at a high-status career.

              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?

              • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 day ago

                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!

            • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              23 hours ago

              . Think destroying incriminating evidence when you know you’re under investigation.

              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.

              • velma@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                Platner could release his side of the texts. They don’t disappear because one person deleted their side.