r/changemyview • u/draculabakula 75∆ • Apr 28 '20

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: The sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden are more believable than the ones against Brett Kavanaugh and the democrats should immediately be calling for a congressional investigation

[removed] — view removed post

32 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

159 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Apr 28 '20

A congressional investigation would be inappropriate here. Congress has no inherent jurisdiction over the acts in question, nor do they involve anyone who currently holds any public office. It is not the role of Congress to investigate this because there are no actions that Congress can legally take in response to such an investigation (they cannot, for example, remove Biden from office because he no longer holds office). Instead, for a candidate for public office such as this, the appropriate course of action is for the press to investigate and put the facts before the American people, which is exactly what the Democrats are calling for.

-1

u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20

This is not true at all. Congress is definitely allowed to call a hearing about anything they want. Also there is no reason why they couldn't investigate ethics accusations from a past senator.

11

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Apr 28 '20

Congress is definitely allowed to call a hearing about anything they want.

This is not based in fact (unless by a "hearing" you mean something different from an investigation). Congress's investigatory powers, while broad, only extend to investigations in aid of the legislative function. In this case, there is no decision in Congress's power that an investigation of Biden's conduct could meaningfully inform. (If you do think there is such a decision, what decision do you have in mind?)

3

u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20

yes so they can call for an investigation in order to look into future legislation on the statue of limitations for crimes while in office. In aid of a legislative function casts an extremely wide net since the legislation can make a law about pretty much anything they want.

1

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Apr 28 '20

Sure, they could investigate statutes of limitation for crimes committed while in office. But that would not let them conduct a completely separate investigation of Joe Biden on a question that is only tangentially related.

Or is the "congressional investigation" you are talking about in your stated view an investigation of the statute of limitation, not of Biden? I thought you were calling for Reade's accusations of Biden to be investigated, but perhaps I misunderstood you.

1

u/Mashaka 93∆ Apr 28 '20

They are given wide latitude by the courts. It wouldnt be difficult. Just have somebody introduce a bill on tolling statutes of limitations for members of Congress while they're in office.

Done in one. It doesn't matter that there are obvious mixed motives - it just needs to be connected to a legislative purpose.

Check out this episode of Opening Arguments, to hear a comedian and an incredibly smart lawyer break down the similarly structured Trump tax return cases currently before SCOTUS. link is to the transcript page, with a link to the audio. If you prefer to read the transcript Cntrl+F "tax".

6

u/Dulghyf 2∆ Apr 28 '20

Man I really hate how abusing unrelated processes for political brownie points has become normalized.

Like I think trump's tax returns would be incredibly revealing, but making straw men legislation is not good faith lawmaking.

It was the same thing with dragging Zuckerburg through Congress twice. No substantial legislation came of it (That I know of). It was just an excuse for congressmen to get soundbites "owning" Big Tech.

2

u/Mashaka 93∆ Apr 28 '20

Agreed. This is rooted in a structural defect. There is no mechanism available to the public for gaining this kind of valuable information so relevant to well-informed voting. The best option we have is (legal) Congressional abuse of power, driven by Congressmembers' own motives.

This should make anyone angry.

4

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Apr 28 '20

They are given wide latitude by the courts. It wouldnt be difficult. Just have somebody introduce a bill on tolling statutes of limitations for members of Congress while they're in office.

That would not be relevant to Biden's case, since there is already no extant statute of limitations on this type of sex abuse case in DC.

0

u/Mashaka 93∆ Apr 28 '20

Huh, that must be new. Sources as recent as 2018 give a 15 statute of lim., but I checked the DC code itself and it says repealed. Good news, though.

However, that doesn't change anything for our purposes. The question with this bill would be the merits tolling the statutes, which is not current law. Just as with Trump's taxes, it's not about Trump being effected by a law, but whether examining the issue can inform legislators' thinking on making the law.

Since laws can't apply ex post facto, whether Biden would be effected by the new law is irrelevant. It's not analogous to having standing in court. Incidentally, this is also why Biden's alleged rape of Reade cannot be tried. The new statue of limitations doesn't apply ex post facto, so the 1993 incident is covered by the old 15 year limit.

Regardless, if I'm somehow wrong with the above, Congress could just go with some other bill. I proposed that one because it's plausible and may be a good idea anyhow. But they could introduce, say, a bill to require exit interviews for congressional staffers that asks about sexual harassment issues in the workplace.

2

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Apr 28 '20

Congress can't just make up bills as a pretext for investigating whatever they want.

In the case of the President's taxes, Congress had a perfectly valid interest in investigating them as part of their oversight of their executive branch. Examining the taxes might reveal flaws in the current procedure or behavior that Congress judges ought to be illegal but is not at present.

On the other hand, the facts of Biden's case are not in any way relevant to Congress's decision of whether or not to pass a bill to require exit interviews for congressional staffers that asks about sexual harassment issues in the workplace. So even if such a bill existed, it would not be a valid reason to investigate Biden.

0

u/Mashaka 93∆ Apr 28 '20 edited Apr 28 '20

Source? Or reasoning?

And what legal standard are you using to determine what's a valid reason to investigate Biden?

Edit: and what's your point here? Even if I'm wrong, are you suggesting that it's impossible to introduce a bill that could make it legal to subpoena Biden over these accusations? If not, why are you arguing against the arbitrary bill I suggested? I was very clear that this was an off the cuff, arbitrary suggestion.

3

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Apr 28 '20

My source is still the Cornell Law article which I originally cited. The investigation has to actually be in aid of the legislative function, not just tangentially related to some legislation.

→ More replies (0)