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.
Basically your saying the higher ups will block any young hopefull that has ideas, and make sure another old white dude with money is the choice, right?
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!
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.
Nah, it’ll be an old rich white woman this time: Janet Mills, probably…
Bingo. Platner got Gary Hart’d. Spoiler alert: there will be no rape charges, and two women will get a lucrative book deal.
Yeah this woman totally started sowing the seeds of his political upheaval years before he ever got into politics lmao gtfo rape apologist
Bruv, misogyny is a bad look, man.
So is being overly credulous when a staunch critic of Israel gets relentlessly smeared this close to an election, especially when he’s a democratic socialist.
But sure, I’m sure the real issue here is misogyny… 🙄
Yeah, Israel knew so far in advance that he was going to run that they had this woman raped and talk to her friends and therapist in person and via text JUST IN CASE Platner got far enough in an election cycle to worry them years down the road.
Certainly more believable than a man with a drinking problem and violent tendencies forcing himself on a woman he had a casual relationship with /s
Folk also are too dumb to realize:
IF this was some evil campaign to make the Democrats lose… they would have just waited a week until platner couldn’t be replaced. Why run against anyone but the violent nazi mercenary who rapes people and who knows what else at this point?
Because the AIPAC-supported establishment Dems felt every bit as threatened by Platner as they would by Susan Collins, and would relish the opportunity to replace him while there’s still time…
And THEY chose to wait until the last minute to all but guarantee a loss? Rather than do this any time in the past since there had been plenty of facebook groups and the like that talked about platner being really dangerous and to never date him?
It’s not for lack of trying, as you so astutely pointed out.
Removed by mod
And I’m not surprised you’d rather believe conspiracy theories than women.
“Conspiracy theories”?
A democratic socialist that establishment dems and magats alike hate and fear, who’s vocally critical of israel and has been relentlessly smeared since his campaign was launched, yet managed to remain popular because he was offering people what they really want (common sense, pro-worker, socialist policy). His pro-war, AIPAC-sponsored opponent drops out weeks before the primary because the writing is on the wall, it looks hopeful that Dems might reclaim a senate majority, and get a DSA member on the Senate besides, and then suddenly someone remembers this thing that *totally happened* to her 5 years ago, and it gets published in Politico, which is a well-known right wing zionist rag.
Oh but all of the “evidence” amounts to “trust me bro,” “yeah there were totally texts, I just happened to delete them,” and “look I talked to my therapist about it a couple weeks ago, see these emails?”
You say “women” as if they’re a monolith who never lie. That’s kinda anti-feminist, don’t you think? This isn’t “women.” It’s “a woman,” and you’d think a feminist would understand the difference. I guess Susan Collins could never lie either, right? Would you rather have her in the Senate than a progressive man? Is it misogynist to say “No more Susan Collins please.”?
I have no problem believing women with credible accusations, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is an obvious political hit piece. And the mentality that we should “believe women” absolutely 100% of the time in every case just makes it easier for the right-wing and centrist dems to do character assassination any time a candidate who’s too progressive starts getting popular. If you can’t see the unintended consequences of that then you lack foresight.
By the way, Emmett Till’s murderers believed a woman unconditionally. We see how that went…
If the left is really gonna compare Graham Platner to Emmett Fucking Till, then maybe we actually deserve to lose
Who are you gonna defend next, Brock Allen Turner?
I’m not going to read this slop.
They’re a fed. Or a useful idiot. We lost this week. With the margin being what is is we may have lost overall.
deleted by creator
Poster is absolutely being misogynist by asserting that both of these women are lying in order to get paid and get book deals.
Democrats will stop rapists until someone on their team does it. Then all women are liars and cheaters. No sexism here at all!
The Platner supporters are getting really desperate here, too. I’m completely disgusted by some of the reactions on the left to this.
Just goes to show that 2026 Democrats are 2016 Republicans. Rape doesn’t matter now. Who cares what some women say, we have a white man to elect!
Thanks for chiming in on this thread. I really appreciate it :)
The reductiveness of this comment is what’s disgusting. This isn’t about “rape doesn’t matter” or “we have to elect a white man,” this is about having a healthy dose of skepticism when uncorroborated claims suddenly pop up that could derail an attempt to change the balance of the senate.
The fact that so many people insist on viewing this as otherwise tells me there’s very little hope for stopping fascism.
There’s a difference between disagreeing with “No women ever lie” and saying “All women always lie.” You’re literally trying to deal in absolutes and attempting to smear anyone who won’t fall into one of those two extremes.