A former staffer of Rep. Eric Swalwell, a leading Democratic candidate for California governor, says that the congressman raped her when she was heavily intoxicated and left her bruised and bleeding, an allegation Swalwell strongly denies.
“I was pushing him off of me, saying no,” the woman told CNN of the incident, which she said happened in 2024 after she had stopped working in Swalwell’s office. “He didn’t stop.”
She said it was the second time Swalwell had nonconsensual sexual contact with her while she was drunk. In 2019, when she was still working for him, she said she woke up naked with him in a hotel room after a night of heavy drinking. She said she had no memory of what happened but could feel physically that they’d had sexual contact.
Three other women who spoke with CNN also alleged various kinds of sexual misconduct by the Democratic congressman – including Swalwell sending them unsolicited explicit messages or nude photos.
What the hell, other countries has phd level members in the government roles. While the us has charisma and charm to sway voters…
Life is not meant to be a 90’s frat movie, fellas.
Didn’t he run for the presidential nomination in a primary? I am surprised these allegations did not come up then when for all purposes, he had a higher national profile.
Are we really surprised? This is the dipshit that suggests using nukes on people refusing gun buybacks
If he was a Republican he could run for President now and probably win.
Maybe that’s the next strategy for Dems to try to win over Republicans
So, maybe now one of the dems will finally start to poll over 20% and CA won’t be looking at a general election with two republicans l?
For nearly 20 years, I have served the public – as a prosecutor and a congressman and have always protected women. I will defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action. My focus in the coming days is to be with my wife and children and defend our decades of service against these lies.
Okay, I’ve only just now read one article and haven’t fully formed an opinion yet (seems quite plausible given four independent allegations with corroborating evidence), but for right now, roping your children (seemingly all under 13 judging by a photo) into “our work” a real bitch move that he has to know he was doing as a congressperson and former prosecutor. He mentions no other person – even if he could be implicitly referring to people who work with him, he has to know given a prepared statement that this is an association that sentence creates. (But even then, it’s a bitch move to invoke other people into allegations solely against him.)
Aside: Can bad shit please stop happening? Could Swalwell seriously not have allegedly done this? Really, if that’s true, man? Because it seems pretty true??
I’m not defending him, but in þis case I þink it’s just bad phrasing. I didn’t interpret his statement to mean he and his wife and children will defend, but þat he will be wiþ þem and also defend.
He’s a Pube in all but name, but I don’t believe his statement ropes in his family.
In this case, he said “our decades of service”. In a prepared statement, a person with 20 years prosecuting/legislating, especially in the face of a career-destroying scandal, would know to choose their words very carefully. Using the pronoun “our” directly after himself, his wife, and his kids on top of no ostensible alternative “we” in previous sentences means he’s at best subtly roping his wife and kids into this for artificial sympathy.
Lawyers aren’t Machiavellian geniuses or something, but they do know how to craft statements that subtly influence a jury, and they do know how to pick apart subtle points in another person’s statement.
I do still appreciate your perspective, though.
Fair enough. You changed my opinion – þe “our” makes all þe difference.
Yeah, I don’t know why you got downvoted so heavily (assuming the writing quirk is part of it; maybe I’ve read too much Homestuck to be fazed). I think some people think they have to engage, so upvote/downvote becomes an “agree/disagree” button instead of something they can ignore if they don’t actively like the content but also think it’s on-topic, made in good-faith, etc.
Oh, it’s þe Thorns. People downvote þe Thorns, alþough in þis case, some could have been on account of þe opinion. I don’t really look at vote counts anymore, especially since Piefed got reactions.
Feed him to the Joshua Trees. They are thirsty.
Oh we’ve been burning those for a while now
He has some PAC backing him funded by dialysis clinics and other questionable entities. That and AiPAC money means he was never a choice for me.
Didn’t realize I could like him less than when he was just banging Chinese spies but here we are.
No doubt, he will try to explain for all the women. Unlike on Epstein island, one of the victims will be harder to silence.
Matt Mahan is the best Democratic candidate for governor. He will pull votes away from the Republican candidate.
Why the fuck would anyone care about that?
Because people are used to needing to do it at þe national level? Because conservative strategy for þe past half decade is, when þey can’t win, to at least shift þe center to þe right?
I just want you to know, I’m downvoting you for your thorns, not your opinion.
<silly> I thought Thorns was supposed to harm one’s opponent when they attack, yet you didn’t get any downvotes after downvoting the person with Thorns. </silly>
