We like to win, and it’s easy to make exceptions in emergencies. Humans suck, basically. We can rationalize anything.

Why is water wet?

they would have got another Dem in that seat.

Unforced error.

Why tolerate this?

before this, it should have been addressed a long time ago instead of letting it get to this point.

The very first blurb I heard (and it was a breaking news "blurb" sans details, was 4:47 PM on Friday (MT) and literally a paragraph later updated as the story started to come out from other sources. Immediately, my response was to not rush to judgement, but take a breath until the facts came out--which they did fast and furious within the next hour(s).

So, yeah. It appears the pump was fully primed on Friday within the circles who fully "knew" but amazing to me, did not get picked up by MSM much earlier. I know damned well that I am not the only one who had not seen, heard, read the "rumors" and thus was caught off guard on this. It is inexplicable why that should have been the case with a so-called "Open Secret" situation.

The campaign asked for her endorsement a couple of weeks before the recent revelations and she gave it. (Felt terrible about that later, and of course, rescinded.) My daughter liked Swalwell, but had been hoping to vote for Kamala or Eleni (currently Lt. Gov.), so was disappointed when they chose not to run.

What she has since learned (just yesterday!) is that there were rumors he was a cheater. But she had talked with someone higher up in the party last week (as this was unfolding less publicly), who knows Swalwell somewhat, and that person hadn't heard even that.... so I don't think "everybody" knew even that less damaging (but still damaging) part about him being a cheater. When they were trying to figure out the veracity of the allegations (before the Chronicle and CNN pieces made the situation much clearer), that person told my daughter that maybe he could be considered flirtatious. NOT a groomer of young women or rapist, or even the cheating part. It may only be people in his targeted demographic who knew the first part, and "some" who knew the cheating part. My daughter is not unconnected, and we live in the Bay Area, and she didn't know that, and this other person, who is more connected, was also unaware.

I think we have to have zero tolerance for cheating, though. If enough people knew he was cheating that some thought he was "known" as a cheater, that's demonstrates he was reckless, and also he could be blackmailed. (Even without the alleged criminal behavior or grooming.) KNOWING he had a huge Republican target on his back, and how they were still hammering him about supposedly sleeping with a Chinese agent...I mean, forgetting the immorality of cheating (and the betrayal of wife and family)... and setting aside the much more serious grooming and criminal allegations... at least he could have been discreet enough (when "just" cheating) that there were no "rumors" about his behavior. So, even for candidates/electeds who are not engaging in criminal or exploitive behavior, the cheating itself (especially if "known" to some, and especially "serial" cheating) should be disqualifying. We are in precarious times and can't afford unnecessary distractions, so candidates/incumbents who don't have the requisite impulse control to refrain from cheating while in office should also not be tolerated.

there are “bystanders”
If there were some in influential circles that got a whiff of his “misconduct” and chose to not address, it is a concern.

If this was common knowledge, why didn't someone say something? This is a tactic used by those who could have said something to defend their own silence.

was that it's California and I assumed that their congressional delegation would take such behavior seriously.

Apparently not.

Madoff ran the most obvious Ponzi scheme in history. There had to be tens of thousands of people who knew something was wrong, including most of the major banks and wealth managers. Goldman was steering clients away for years.

Harry Markopolos, a small time CFA, was the only person who went to the SEC, starting in 1999, and he got harassed and threatened for it.

Everyone else was a coward. I feel the same way about those speaking up now about Swalwell. His whole staff can piss off.

governor, paid the child's expenses and helped the mother buy a home. During his 2003 gubernatorial campaign, multiple women accused Schwarzenegger of sexual misconduct and "groping"; he later apologized, saying he acted "inappropriately." Maybe Swalwell thought California governors can get away with this sort of thing?

And that tolerance doesn't extend to only Republicans like Trump.

Reading DU over the past days has been very disheartening. It's crystal clear to me now why so many Republicans don't believe that Trump raped people, including children.

Even when facts are evident, lots of DUers immediately went primitive.

"Why didn't she come forward earlier something stinks why did all four come forward now the timing is fishy why did she stay on his team I hear Roger Stone is involved why would she go back wasn't that leading him on I hear an influencer who went to Katie Porter's same law school is behind this Katie Porter is behind this Nancy Pelosi is behind this if this was true his staff would have stopped it wait if his staff knew they're complicit he's a good Democrat!"

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

And if you come forward early it doesn’t change much. God forbid you happen to be a flawed human woman.

I am dealing with year 15 of being a “Crazy lady” and thrown away myself.

I have mixed feelings about pretty much my only secret being marijuana use.

On the one hand it is a lot less icky than the shit women have to deal with if they don’t live in a damn nunnery. Aversion to human contact has had its pluses for me. Today more than ever privacy is important when it will be so icky for so many women unless they married a creep at 18 and churned out kids and have nothing to report unless a collection of masked men broke into their homes and assaulted them.


Otoh psychiatrically speaking it makes it easier to fall into psychiatric systems that permanently label you schizophrenic for ordinary behavior when angered by sleazy systems.

I don’t know which is worse. The scarlet letter or something where dems especially can be frustratingly unwilling to admit that psychiatry isn’t the same as regular medicine and has higher potential for abuse.

I am far from the Apple Cider Vinegar type/RFK or Laura Delano type. I am not an anti vaxxer. But to let privacy violating surveillance capitalists try to force a straight edge agenda that is worse for one’s health in this shitty society.

I am not even anti-psychiatry. Half the shrinks I have met have been cool. But the others are so by the book it is just not good medicine.

It is a crappy understanding of human behavior. Hell I think “Mad in America” can be too ott though they do grasp the civil rights implications too often spoken about in hedging ways.

Psychiatry has a history of political abuse (gay conversion therapy anyone? “Sluggish schizophrenia” in Russia and China).

There are simply too many blatant conflicts of interest in allowing Facebook, Google etc to force deals and rubberstamps with hospitals increasingly owned by shitty private equity.
It is shitty for marijuana and psychedelics etc and for patients.
And this bible banging undercurrent of sobriety pushing when alcohol, a known carcinogen is legal..

They find ways to screw women over disproportionately. As if all those douchey frat boys are sober. The difference is that I am not going to let some privacy violating, informed consent and IrB free VR experiment run by creepy charlatans in a hell break the web of life with creepy Yimbies and Facebook and Google times year after year getting away with harassment and Human Terrain System style garbage “anthropology” and MIt Media Lab and Alex Pentland adjacent rot.
Bollocks to all this.

Uhhh right..sorry. Lol.

I know several of us have gone from thinking this was a one-off, possibly he said/she said, and even possibly rat-fucking.

But as the accusations built up and the credibility of those accusations became more apparent, I think a lot of us have moved thoroughly into the "he needs to go away; and be prosecuted as much as possible".

Any one who still supports him either hasn't caught up yet (and hopefully will soon), or unfortunately supports your thesis.

Immediately blaming every woman in sight is something else.

I'm not calling out anybody in particular. I don't keep notes. I know what I read on DU over the past three days was both deeply discouraging and eye-opening.

Which I also was hesitant to do with partial information.

I am going to file misconduct, malpractice and harasssment allegations alleging that I do not and cannot know who is involved with the exception of people I have directly met where with the exception of three random creeps (early 2010, July 2014 and either 2016 or 2017) and the creeps who used and use my street deliberately between 2023 and the present and whoever sent them here) it was more like an annoying and unpleasant vaccination/induction. But I can and will initiate a probe. I get it now. And these idiots have out themselves on camera as if there is any similarity between a complainant overtly admitting they DIY their mental health and harassment in groups publicly.


I an embittered at being in this position as someone who has no martyr complex and would much rather get high then speak truth to Idiocracy. But having gotten involved I have to now file complaints.

This is why I avoid other humans. Too damn stupid to even be sleazy less ineptly. Like you should at least know where to try this bs.

It is this low grade torture porn carried out by many misogynists than a simple tangible harassment case, but it is too connected with this alarming attempt to liken the real world to the bloody net and it has been too creepy, misogynistic and exploitative to not report.

And this convinces me that there is no point in expecting sanity. One has to take the initiative.
Open secrets and mob mentality work to protect creeps and the powerful.

Well..not what I had in mind. I initially fought back daily and then I gave up, especially after losing my mom and this cycle will pass. But what won’t change and is always reliable is the right thing without purity and martyr complexes but some goddamn principles that can stand the test of time. Not what I am especially contemptuous of - “transactionalism” and lack of the kind of intelligence it takes to have any damn self awareness and humility.
Humility is non optional in science snd medicine. That is not sackcloth and ashes.

It is recognizing the limits of just forcing your way ahead in life fueled only by bombast and cults and mobs. That is the type of worldview I see.

So no unfortunately way too many people believe victims only when it's convenient.

take (or allow) a drunk woman to go to his hotel room? What did he THINK would happen?

Insinuating they were paid by the RW to lie about Swalwell.

They point out that the ballot is already printed and his name will be on it.
I hope I'm misunderstanding their posts.

What I don't understand is how anyone who read the women's accounts did not see the pattern of grooming.

Like you it sickened me to see fellow duers use the same victim blaming statements that was used on the epstien victims

Okay maybe you don’t get it if you have no experience with it. And I do find that it is something men, even cool men, don’t grasp as intuitively. The one poster who does seems to work in those areas.
I am not American so I know people here in the global south or even rural America can say things that rub people the wrong way without being malicious or creepy.

But it is such a human female instinct instinct.

What really is grotesque is how language and thought are manipulated by predatory people to make points that can seem occasionally reasonable- except in some completely different context.

I read about this immediately grasped it, especially with everything else. It is an establishment predator’s behavior.

And sometimes systems are really hard on some low level flunky who is not creepy or malicious and that is bullying the other.
But that is not powerful elite men with an entitlement complex.

I hate this suck upwards, bully downwards mentality. Where I do accept grey areas some it would be lower down and with way less serious transgressions.
Power is dynamic any which way.

I altogether embittered by everything. How is this my job?

Ironic, of all his kids that we know of, the illegitimate son with the housekeeper looks the most like Arnold. So it's not like it would have been difficult to figure out who the father was.

He's not the only one who should look for another job.

It was really strange. As the Prospect notes, it was an open secret. Like Spacey or Weinstein in Hollywood, if you moved in Bay Area political circles, you knew the guy was a total sleazebag at best with a bevy of scandals just waiting to burst forth.

And then he started getting endorsement after endorsement, moved up in the polls, and the party seemed totally fine with this.

When he announced, my political friends - none of whom went to work on his campaign - were messaging amongst themselves. They couldn't believe the audacity of it. He worked fine as a media personality, but just in reaching for that office, he was guaranteeing future shit.

And what sticks in my craw a bit is this is California. It's not some random red state where maybe you have one or two viable Democrats to run in a race, so you're sitting there like, "Well, this is the best we've got, so we kind of have to go along with it and pray nothing happens." We have a deep, deep bench of Democratic politicians who did not have this bomb waiting to go off. That's what makes it crazy. With so many options, the party at the highest levels went with this ragingly sociopathic misogynist.

In California.

A friend in Long Beach who worked for Maxine Waters for years joked, "Who does he have blackmail on?"

It's a question people in the know in California politics have been asking from the word go. And I still kind of want an answer on this one. Why did they line up behind him like that? In this day and age, with social media and all the rest, open secrets do not remain secrets for long once some critical mass was reached.

The man could have ended up our general election candidate. They really played a lot of unnecessary dice with this election.

Then they would have unleashed all this right before the general election.

Exactly that happened in NC's gubernatorial election in 2024, only it happened to the Republican, thanks be.

It feels like it's just some generalized phrase to hang one's hat on, because there isn't much else to there recommend defending him.

The timing really is a bullet dodge for Democrats. We should be grateful for it. As you note, it could've been so much worse.

Somebody could write a thesis about it.

But this bit us in the ass!
Didn't hurt Herman Munster

After reading DU over the past few days it's clear to me why we have a death of accountability in this country.

Too many people - including plenty of Democrats - view politics as a cage match where their guy can do no wrong.

Virtue is only virtue when it is practiced during times it is difficult to do so.

The way women who experience abuse were thrown overboard at the drop of a hat because the abuser wears a blue shirt.

Big yikes.

Could not believe the shit I was reading. It isn't "Listen to victims . . . unless we really like the guy victimizing them!" Feel like I missed that poster at the last Me Too rally.

It was remarkable. The immediate assumption was that Eric Swalwell was the victim of a concerted attack by a group of women, including the accusers, Katie Porter, the accuser's female attorney, Nancy Pelosi, and his female staffers.

Horrible things were said about all those women here on bland DU, while Swalwell was held up as a shining beacon of goodness and courage in the face of unfair attacks. Imagine what the rest of the internet is saying.

That's EXACTLY how MAGA acts toward Trump and his accusers.

beause so many are painting her as the evil schemer - you know, like women are - rather than him as a perpetrator.

Sarcasm on women being evil schemers for any who don't get that.

How dare she be an intelligent strong woman, how dare she run against a man.

It's clear why the U.S. isn't ready for a woman president. We are a very primitive country.

It seems clear that his dog-ness was an open secret, but she dared to publicly say he should step down. That makes her evil and scheming.

I have to say, she did misread that situation. She would have benefited more if she said nothing. But I think we all misread that situation. We never remember that we will be blamed when we talk about wrongdoing against women by a man. Especially a popular man.

For the simple fact that she's a good woman - and therefore far less likely to have philandering issues than any man (even Tom Steyer, whom I like a lot as well).

Let's face it: men are horndogs (I know I am). Women, on the other hand, generally stay focused - which is what one wants from one's elected leaders.

That said, this speaks to how much higher Democratic standards are than our GOP friends' - who brazenly embrace an orange bag of shit who's like a cross between Caligula and Idi Amin.

We do set a higher bar for our lawmakers - as it should be.

a tough position. She would be among those for whom his behavior was an open secret - even if the full extent was not known. If she stayed silent, she would now be asked to defend that.

Simultaneously many also resurface accusations that she had problems with her congressional staff and comments that she was mean. (I never remember seeing that said of a male legislator.)

I wonder if it is part misogyny and part hoping to chip away enough at her support to push her out of the top Democrats category.

But we need to be. If we're going to be the party of truth, fairness, real morality, and having women's backs, we've got to walk the walk and not just talk it.

As a male, I do not view keeping one's goddamn pants zipped as on of those times it's difficult to practice virtue. It ain't. What it does show is very poor judgement and that should disqualify him by itself.

If Dems are going to take the moral high road on sexual abuse, and we most certainly should, we've got to keep our own house clean. Otherwise, we're no better than Republicans, or magats for that matter.

The morality of this aside, it shows extreme poor judgement on Swalwell's part. That in itself should disqualify him. Keeping your pants zipped is not that hard.

...except for this editor's word.

Maybe it was, but this article is gossip.

Author claims, "There is no believable way, given what I know about how news travels on Capitol Hill, that these people who backed Swalwell weren’t aware of at least rumors and more likely very credible information about this serial conduct."

Nothing but his word for charges that basically smear the entire Dem party, and he doesn't offer a speck of evidence. It's essentially just rumormongering, which I'd guess should be expected with this story going forward.

Not saying they aren't true, but a report like this with nothing but the author's word is weak sauce, and not the stuff of evidentiary reporting. Should get him some teevee appearances, though.

I think the charges that have come out are credible and devastating enough without resorting to smearing Democrats who worked with him.

The minute the woman came forward, Dems dissociated themselves with Swalwell's campaign and called for investigations. THAT'S the party's attitude toward these abuses, not this opportunistic swipe at the party by this 'Prospect' editor.

It reads like he wants to both sides the parties responses to sexual assault, and he's seriously demagoguing the only party that actually acts on charges instead of perpetually defending each and every perp, as republicans reflexively and repeatedly do.

I live in the Bay Area and am friends with people who work in local and state politics.

People knew.

What was not an open secret is that it reached the level of an actual sexual assault and the extent of the sexting and who he was doing it to.

But prolific womanizer with potential scandals waiting in the wings? Yes, that was absolutely known about for years.

To "know" is one thing. "Gossip" is another.

The Tony Gonzales thing started after a woman killed herself. It was sort of an "open secret". Gonzales is currently my congressman (although I have never met the guy). I certainly don't run in their circles, but I think it was known in Uvalde Field Office that he was having an affair with Regina and that the affair had destroyed her marriage. There were also rumors that she was five months pregnant and that he wanted her to get an abortion and she had refused. However, the autopsy shows that she wasn't pregnant. So the pregnancy part wasn't true.

The "gossip" about Tony spread fast after Regina died. This happened in Uvalde, which is about 70 miles away. But someone always is always "from there", so the gossip spread locally and on social media. However, the MSM didn't touch it until they couldn't ignore it. They would say, "Some are saying..." and left it at that. His affair with Regina did not become "public" until after the primary. The San Antonio Express-News got the scoop and the texts...

short of the sexual assault.

But all that behavior leading up to the sexual assault ENABLES the very rat-fucking that some initially thought this was.

Um, maybe don't get in that position in the first place?

Which, of course, is an absurd notion. An autopsy here would be essential for American politics, especially for Democrats.

GOP former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy confirmed on camera that Congressional leadership privately warned each other to keep young staffers away from Eric Swalwell — while the women were left on their own. Survivors deserve better.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t-s&p=Kevin+McCarthy+on+Swalwell#id=4&vid=ab03872c44e1a5ae3c40e69b320b6b2d&action=view

...same curious equalizing of a party that always responds forcefully, from a party that always covers up and excuses.

And were there really opportunities for young Republican staffers to work personally with Swalwell? And wouldn't My Kevin have informed the Republican smear machine about Swalwell's behavior at the time? (Until this, they seemed to still rely on his alleged affair with the Chinese spy.)

Maybe it's a stopped clock situation, but it's also important to remember that My Kevin is an unprincipled opportunist who will do anything to remain relevant.

morphed into “ assault”

I’m sorry, at this point without more information I find it very hard to grasp how Nancy Pelosi et al, would turn an eye away from “assault.”

What does that then say about the bystanders if the correct word is “assault.”

This is ridiculous. None of us knows all the facts but the picture that is emerging is that Swalwell was known to be inappropriate with young female staffers. That's bad but not assault. The accusations of sexual assault came out a few days ago and Pelosi immediately spoke out against Swalwell - for which she was blamed on DU.

Now she's being blamed for not preventing his behavior.

Men shouldn't need a momma to tell them not to assault women. It's Swalwell's fault.

Blame the male perpetrator for once instead of deflecting blame to any woman in sight.

Sheesh.

if a party member of influence heard, saw, was told or knew of his “misconduct” be it philandering or otherwise and turned away then no matter their last name, they are a bystander not an upstander.

What if what they KNEW was that he had consensual affairs and made suggestive comments that were inappropriate, but not illegal, but they did not think they reached the level of harassment. Even his statement speaks of actions he apologized for, while rejecting what he characterized as untrue allegations.

What was different here is that the charges are criminal if they are proven. Their knowledge of his known behavior and the fact that she was a former staffer and her claims show that, even if consensual, were wrong because he was her boss.

More than one DUer has posted on this thread that they were aware of Swalwell's reputation before this. That is consistent with the "open secret" label; people in certain circles are well aware of the problem, but the general public does not.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

...what did both of these men do other than this political chit-chat on social media?

THEY obviously knew something, but projecting this to others is specious and looks opportunistic to their desire to appear knowledgable. Whatever their motive, it's not victim oriented. It doesn't look like a pursuit of justice.

It's political. I mean, that's the way both have wielded this inside knowledge they claim to have of Swalwell's sexual misconduct. Pretty much like the behavior that they decry.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

atm, like it is going to be Steyer as the Dem vote leader in the jungle primary. I do not see Mahan winning, nor Porter. Would be nice if it ends up 2 Dems in the general, but I suspect MAGAt Hilton will sneak in.

Steyer openly reversing his opposition to single-payer was a big positive for me.

During his 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign, Steyer opposed Medicare for All; his campaign ran ads against progressive candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders' proposed single-payer healthcare plan. In December 2025, Steyer reversed his position, posting to a video to social media in which he stated he was "wrong" to oppose single-payer healthcare, saying "Bernie Sanders was right" and that after looking at data, he came to believe that single-payer was the best choice.

Link to tweet

After reading your post yesterday (I had forgotten about the KHIVE, shudder), I leafed around. Yeah, launching a gubernatorial bid in the middle of a campaign finance scandal probably won't work out too great. Somehow I hadn't even heard of that one.

Although what does it say about prospects when you have a scandal and the reaction of everyone is basically, "Eh. Does it even matter?"

Inside knowledge stays inside until a victim is ready to go on some kind of record. In the meantime, this is what it looks like when people want to share the information they have. That's victim-oriented.

...not evident with a party which regularly responds forcefully to allegations.

Basically just a smear of Democrats without any proof.

We can know or hear all kinds of things - and some people like this man will talk about it publicly.

But unless someone with proof and direct experience comes forward in public, all people have is talk. Police cannot respond to a crime if they don't have a victim. Reporters cannot run a story based on hearsay without risking legal and reputational blowback.

After the past decade, we really shouldn't have to explain the myriad of reasons victims of abuse might keep quiet for years. Particularly victims of powerful people. As Democrats, we should especially know this as the party that is supposed to be supportive of women.

Hell, I knew the surface of this. Or at least I was told it over the past five or so years by people more well-positioned than me to at least be aware of what was being said. Do you think I was going to post about it on DU? What do you think the response would've been? Do you think people would have listened, or would it be a "How dare you speak of a good Democrat this way!" with some alerts to accompany it?

We both know the answer.

It is difficult to crack this kind of nut when so many people are personally and professionally invested in it not being cracked.

1. Regina (Congressional aide) dies in a fire - Sept 18
2. I heard gossip about a week or two later
3. Social media responses are "off the wall" via AK-guy etc.."Tony killed her"
4. Several weeks later, some outlets say that there are rumors that Tony and Regina were having an affair. Tony denies it.
5. Six months pass. Regina's ex-husband's lawyer leaks text messages between Tony and Regina to the media.
6. Affair is verified and is carried by the media.

Rumors or knowledge swirling around for a period of time. Power and influence being used to shut it down from being "officially" public. Then someone hears about it and decides to dig - and victims or people with evidence are willing to go on record.

Boom. And the house of cards falls down.

After the victims went public validates your point.

But look at the bright side. Yes, this sort of thing shows the flawed nature of many humans in general, but we are also bearing witness to courage and perseverance as well. We're seeing people taking a stand, even if it is their team.

And that can be encouraging.

Considering Swalwell had his attack lawyer on retainer file a C&D over a tweet, it seems pretty obvious no one was going to stick their neck out without the victim’s also coming forward.
All the talk about what happened is literally hearsay without victim/witness collaboration.
These types of predators double down on their gaslighting and threats because they know the victims are unwilling to come forward.
But boy howdy, when they do, all the skeletons come out of the closets.

The other party and their Fundamentalist Christian cohorts, are OK with it.

I am really disappointed in Swalwell. I like him and appreciated his toughness and intelligence.

His political career is over. (unless he changes parties)

Like Hart, Swalwell had charisma and sang all the right notes politically - but couldn't learn to behave.

And the senior George Bush? That great paragon of family values and old-money elegance?

He was a barely-closeted bisexual who was well known in Washington circles to give some Secret Service agents, well, lip service.

Very small potatoes of course, compared to Cheeto's Idi Amin-esque depravity - but it goes to show how long-standing GOP doublespeak is on that subject (and so many others).

Circumstances force the hand of TPTB.

RIELLE HUNTER HAD A BABY, FGS, AND YET MANY, MANY DEMOCRATS STILL WOULDN'T BELIEVE.

Our friends in the GOP, on the other hand, are perfectly happy with their Hepatitis-ridden cross between Caligula and Idi Amin.

And would be again - I ga'ontee.

He had charisma and checked all the right boxes politically - but couldn't learn to behave.

Quelle tragédie.

Couldn't keep his damn pants zipped.

I don't recall any allegations of sexual assault.

Who you have some degree of power over by virtue of being in Congress. Granted we didn't understand that back then, lots of men fooled around with their secretaries and all. But still creepy in retrospect.

H.R. 724 which applied if it was consensual or not. I don't believe it ever went anywhere.

Meanwhile, the more crooked and deranged the Republican, the more it is accepted.

IOKIYAAR and all that.

But most of it's on Swalwell. I am so bummed about this story, cuz I like Eric, & I love his fight, & we desperately need more outspoken fighters in our party, but damn.

Other dems knew and did nothing. This won't change until people step up before it's too late. Now it's a mess and a blight on our party.

Some of the arguments I saw used to defend Swalwell are ones that can apply to a very different type of leftwing male who is nothing like a very establishment friendly type of person like Swalwell, who is likelier to be popular with the national security types who would not like people like Yasha Levine who are honest.

Yeah politics is not straightforward. Its why I dislike Ralph Nader and Jill Stein etc.

But that’s different from shilling some types of narratives that are somewhat discredited like Russiagate.

I am very sympathetic to Zelenskyy and Ukraine and obviously Putin, like Xi Ping (that’s a serious blindspot the left has with the China humping and defending Hamas etc) is a dictator. But I still don’t like an aggressive dem national security state type that pushes narratives that are not true and they do help Republicans.

I don’t think the best parts of the left can pull off these scammy Republican tactics. Those work better if you are honestly warlord and cult sympathetic.

It is not that hard to have a consistent worldview. In fact I find the other thing a nightmare.

I would be more inclined to suspect sabotage if Christopher Ketcham or Yasha Levine, who are both left, but edgy the real way. Which is what I am sympathetic to. I don’t like a toothless, bloodless left as the sole option. No swearing. No joking. Edginess is the tool of the disempowered.

Those are two men I have worried would be attacked as sexist - total bs and in Yasha’s case even more disgracefully as some kind of Russian plant and in Ketcham’s case what I was always worried about spiteful slander as an “ecofascist”. That is the left sabotage I am wary of.

Nathan Robinson is correct enough that he doesn’t have to worry (not a bad thing - that is just his personality. We are all different). He is another person I respect. But he, Ed Zitron etc are less likely to end up getting ostracized for pushing back verbally in ways assholes like the creeps on my street can exploit.

I used to try to pretend to be toothless enough to pass. It was never a very good fit but I tried.
But between the real harassers at this moment being misogynists to the hilt as is typical of the locals and sabotage from a type of bogus “left “or “healthcare” I have been at my wit’s end.
Totally malicious the shit where I live.

Lucien Greaves has already faced that but from the type of left I wish well but think..even I think should find better priorites and not like Sam Miller Macdonald write entire opeds passionately making a case for men’s wear while giving Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald a pass, when they are both pretty compromised by now.

Actual real honesty without invasive surveillance and tests is the only way to weather this era.

Rape is a violent crime. He's right where he should be. OUT!

This is devastating in so many ways.

I felt lucky he was in our camp. Now I feel sick and very angry.

According to what sources? I am not saying this is untrue but it reads as just this writer saying it was an open secret with no evidence at all

Which isn't illegal.

NT

Look at all those at DU that fawned all over Michael Avenatti suggesting he was a viable presidential candidate. Other than being a media darling that loved to stick it to Trump, what other qualifications did he have?

He's a CON MAN and they say wacky things at time to cause confusion, and I see so many people falling for it, and wanting to respond, and that's exactly what a con man wants-responding to nonsense while they do their dirty deeds.

...except in this projection against Democrats who are the ONLY party that regularly and forcefully reponds to allegations of sexual abuse.

The rumors that are being discussed as being generally known are of consensual relationships, not sexual assault or rape. I don't believe the party is responsible for each others sex lives, including the alleged infidelity.

There's enough proof in the actual allegations to condem or rebuke Swalwall without smearing the party - something which is a political response that begs the question of what these people reporting and commenting today about DEMOCRATS did with what THEY personally knew before it became politically opportune to speak out?

Imo, this line going around the internet, and soon to be the reported news, about Dems knowing about abuses (without proof), is a way for some like Kevin McCarthy of deflecting from republicans who don't just keep quiet, but go to extreme lengths to coverup and defend their own members, up to the presidency.

We shouldn't be helping them with that speciousness.

whole sordid mess, neither pro, nor con, beforehand.

If Eric Swalwell did what he is accused of doing, I find it incredibly arrogant of him to think he should run for the governorship of California. Swalwell’s family, the women involved and his constituents deserve better.