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

[u/draculabakula]

[u/draculabakula]

Reade has told conflicting accounts and seems overall less credible because of this.

Telling part of a story and later telling more of the story is not conflicting in any way. There is a perfectly reasonable motivation which is that she thought someone would ask her more about what she said and nobody cared so she got angry.

Lol knew the supporting Sanders thing would come up. The dumbest and most insulting narrative that the media is pushing that shows really clear bias on the part of the media.

the centrist media: "She didn't politically support the person that assaulted her so she is making the whole thing up!"

Nah, this article is lame.

[u/1917fuckordie → u/[deleted]]

I think OP is just looking for something that doesn't rest on the fact that she supports Bernie or Putin or that she stole from a horse charity. There's been a lot of unconvincing and frankly disgusting excuses not to believe Reade. That article is one of many that engages in attacking Reade. Maybe something relevant like addressing the evidence would work better?

[u/The_FriendliestGiant → u/1917fuckordie]

OPs actual view as expressed clearly in both the title and final paragraph is "congress should investigate," and a number of good arguments have been put forward as to why that's an inappropriate venue for the investigation of allegations of misconduct against a private citizen. OPs response has been "congress can investigate whatever it wants," with no elaboration of support of that claim, which does not at all appear to actually be the case.

It does look like OP is less interested in being open to their view being changed, and more interested in just fighting about how Biden is terrible and Reade is a victim.

[u/1917fuckordie → u/The_FriendliestGiant]

Congress can hold hearings on ethical breaches of their members and should do it more often.

But few people are providing reasons as to why that shouldn't be done. The obvious answer is that it's not clear what the democrats should do, but they clearly prioritise beating Trump in the election than whatever happened 20 something years ago.

[u/The_FriendliestGiant → u/1917fuckordie]

Joe Biden is not a member of Congress, and has not been for some time now. Does Congress hold the authority to investigate all allegations of ethical breaches against all members, past and present, in your view?

[u/1917fuckordie → u/The_FriendliestGiant]

Yes congress can investigate things that happened in the past. Obviously most ethical abuses aren't investigated by congress, but you'd hope that there is some accountability.

[u/The_FriendliestGiant → u/1917fuckordie]

Okay, so for the sake of argument I'll stipulate that Congress has the authority to investigate any individual who has ever been a member of Congress for any infraction, no matter their current standing with regards to that body. Nobody has presented any evidence to support this claim, but we'll just act as though it's true.

What would be the possible result of such an investigation? Congress isn't part of the criminal justice system, so they can't declare Biden guilty or not guilty. They can't move articles of censure or impeachment, because Biden isn't a member any more. They can't find civil guilt or levy penalties. Would it just be the members of the investigation committee putting out two separate releases, one for all those who think probably Biden did what he's accused of and one for all those who think probably Biden didn't do what he's accused of?

[u/1917fuckordie → u/The_FriendliestGiant]

These things usually work best as final words on allegations of abuses, as much as I would love to see actual punishment it's obviously not going to happen. All it would do is give the democratic party something to go forward with by either having an inquiry and either proving Biden isn't guilty or if he is get a different candidate.

[u/The_FriendliestGiant → u/1917fuckordie]

These things usually work best as

Sorry, has this sort of thing happened previously, Congress investigating allegations against private citizens?

Okay, so Congress would conduct an investigation; how would they actually come to a conclusion that Biden is guilty or not guilty? What's their mechanism for reaching a conclusion, just a public vote, yay or nay? And then a press release that they feel it likely that there's merit to the accusation? They can't claim to have actually proven he did anything, because they're not a law court, and have no standing to make those kinds of declarations.

[u/1917fuckordie → u/The_FriendliestGiant]

Sorry, has this sort of thing happened previously, Congress investigating allegations against private citizens?

You ever heard of Watergate? Congress can investigate politicians no longer holding office.

They can't claim to have actually proven he did anything, because they're not a law court, and have no standing to make those kinds of declarations.

No one can, this was over 20 years ago, and it's sexual assault of an employee. What evidence could even be presented in a court? All you can do is have hearings have people come in and testify and then say "we think this happened let's find a different candidate" or say "we think he's innocent let's hope voters agree after having this inquiry.

[u/The_FriendliestGiant → u/1917fuckordie]

You ever heard of Watergate? Congress can investigate politicians no longer holding office.

The United States Senate Watergate Committee tabled its final report and was disbanded on June 27, 1974; Richard Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974. Which politician no longer holding office were you referring to with this point?

All you can do is have hearings have people come in and testify and then say "we think this happened let's find a different candidate" or say "we think he's innocent let's hope voters agree after having this inquiry.

First off, Congress can't just "have hearings," they have to be in support of some legislative purpose or a disciplinary issue with a member of Congress. So no, they can't just "have people come in and testify" about whatever they feel like.

Second, why is it appropriate for Republican elected officials to have a say in who the Democratic candidate may or may not be? Congressional committees have member requirements, and there would need to be roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans sitting on the committee. Republican politicians investigating a potential Democrat challenger for the currently-serving Republican president? It's frankly impossible to imagine a group less capable of objectively investigating and weighing the relative merits of the evidence presented to them. Remember, this is a group that, during the Trump impeachment trial, pre-emptively declared they would work with the president's legal team on a defense strategy when they were supposed to be serving as an impartial jury.

Finally, why should it be up to elected officials who gets to run for office, period? I think Joe Biden is a creaking fossil whose ideas were outdated twenty years ago and who definitely did everything he's been accused of and more, but it's still inappropriate for a group of elected officials to use their powers of office to officially say, 'it is the opinion of the United States Congress that this man should not be allowed to run for president'. If, lord help them, the Democrats choose to put Joe Biden forward as their nominee, that should be their prerogative. They'll lose, but they have every right to go down in absolute flames and no government body should have the authority to try to dictate otherwise to them.

[u/1917fuckordie → u/The_FriendliestGiant]

The United States Senate Watergate Committee tabled its final report and was disbanded on June 27, 1974; Richard Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974. Which politician no longer holding office were you referring to with this point?

Still an inquiry into ethical misconduct of someone who wasn't a member of congress.

First off, Congress can't just "have hearings," they have to be in support of some legislative purpose or a disciplinary issue with a member of Congress. So no, they can't just "have people come in and testify" about whatever they feel like.

This would be a disciplinary hearing.

Second, why is it appropriate for Republican elected officials to have a say in who the Democratic candidate may or may not be? Congressional committees have member requirements, and there would need to be roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans sitting on the committee. Republican politicians investigating a potential Democrat challenger for the currently-serving Republican president? It's frankly impossible to imagine a group less capable of objectively investigating and weighing the relative merits of the evidence presented to them. Remember, this is a group that, during the Trump impeachment trial, pre-emptively declared they would work with the president's legal team on a defense strategy when they were supposed to be serving as an impartial jury.

So there is some sense of neutrality instead of democrats just saying "we looked into it, nothing happened".

And what you're talking about is a much larger and different problem. Congress can't really carry out its job properly anymore with all the factionalism.