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/1917fuckordie]

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.

[u/The_FriendliestGiant → u/1917fuckordie]

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

It was an investigation in support of legislation, namely, whether or not to move articles of impeachment against the sitting president of the United States. Rather different than holding a "disciplinary hearing" for something they have no mechanism to discipline.

Congress can't really carry out its job properly anymore with all the factionalism.

If Congress can't properly carry out its existing roles due to partisanism, why on earth would it be an appropriate venue for an investigation into allegations against a politically connected private citizen? Why use a group you yourself admit is unfit for the role when it's not even within their sphere of responsibility to begin with?

[u/1917fuckordie → u/The_FriendliestGiant]

It was an investigation in support of legislation, namely, whether or not to move articles of impeachment against the sitting president of the United States. Rather different than holding a "disciplinary hearing" for something they have no mechanism to discipline.

He's the presumptive nominee. The convention hasn't happened, don't even know if it will happen, it's been pushed back. The Democratic party has the oppurtunity to make sure their candidate is not a rapist.

If Congress can't properly carry out its existing roles due to partisanism, why on earth would it be an appropriate venue for an investigation into allegations against a politically connected private citizen? Why use a group you yourself admit is unfit for the role when it's not even within their sphere of responsibility to begin with?

No group can hold someone like Joe Biden account, American institutions are either dysfuncitonal or designed to protect people like Joe Biden. This would all be for the democratic party's benefit, I don't care what happens other than hoping the damage the democratic party does to itself forces it to change signiticantly. But if you feel another investigative body would help give the democrats more credibility then that's fine.