Also what sources do you have to show people speaking on his character?

Oh you have no idea about Platner's history at all but you're going this hard against his victim?

Mr. Platner could be rough with her, Ms. Fifield said, particularly when they were drinking, leaving her shaken and sometimes afraid. In the interviews, Ms. Fifield grappled with how to process her experiences. She was quick to note that he “never hit me, he never punched me.”

But she said he regularly grabbed her by the shoulders — sometimes hard enough to leave marks — and, on one occasion, yanked her out of a cab by her wrist after an argument when she wanted to stay in the car.

During one argument, she recalled, he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out, telling her to remain there until she was “calm.” Eventually, Ms. Fifield said, she fell asleep and left the next morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/us/politics/platner-maine-senate-girlfriends-relationships.html

Sure, that's up to the victim etc.

And as far as I'm aware, being a felon doesn't make someone ineligible for running for Senate.

He should also have other women in his life that he’s dated speak on his character.

We've already heard from other women in his life and y'all soundly rejected what they had to say.

Warrants to get the cell phone pings of his location, the instagram data that was supposedly deleted can still be retrieved.

Gonna call the victim's evidence weak and then posit that this will exonerate him? All the instagram data is her messages to him. If he didn't delete his side, he could produce them himself.

The evidence the victim has already produced is compelling.

So by your numbers, there's a greater than fifty percent conviction rate once the thing actually goes to trial. And I see no reason this case can't go to trial, as the accuser has already taken the most difficult step of going public. The hardest part is just getting to the point of public accusation and trial. If the evidence is compelling as everyone here is saying, then there should be no problem convicting him.

Do some rapists go free? Yes. But even beyond sexism, that's simply a function of the foundations of our justice system. Most rape occurs in a setting where it's one person's word against the other. Hell, what starts as a private consensual act can turn into rape. (Not what's being alleged in this case.)

Have you forgotten the basic foundations of our justice system? Did you receive that poor of a civics education? Have you forgotten, "it's better for ten guilty men to go free than for one to be wrongfully punished?"

Well I actually believe that. I don't want to see anyone guilty go free. But I also don't want to see our country become a place where people can easily be falsely convicted of crimes based on little evidence. (And people still end up falsely convicted.) I want to see rape convictions be as successful as possible. But if you actually care about human rights and justice, you have to acknowledge that the conviction rate for rape is always going to be lower than other crimes. It's just the nature of the crime itself.