Eric Swalwell’s gubernatorial campaign and the implosion of his once-promising political career have raised a lot of questions from the smoldering wreckage.
Questions about his character, judgment and shocking recklessness.
The question – as confusing as it is unavoidable – is why his accusers did not come forward sooner. (My columnist colleague, Anita Chhabria, addressed this poignantly, discussing the nature of buried trauma and the credibility hurdle faced by many victims of sexual assault.)
The question then becomes how and why Swalwell’s creepy and alleged criminal behavior remained hidden from the public eye for so long — especially after the impossible-to-miss cable TV fixture launched a high-profile campaign to lead the nation’s most populous state.
There were widespread whispers about Swalwell, 45 and married, with a reputation for paying inappropriate and unwanted attention to young women. The rumors – vague, unproven – were a frequent source of gossip among political insiders and were also widely circulated online. (There are, however, no more serious allegations of sexual harassment.)
The curtain was finally lifted last week when San Francisco Chronicle published A graphic account of a woman accusing Swalwell of having a sexual relationship with her when the Democratic lawmaker was her boss. She said he sexually assaulted her twice when she was too drunk to give consent.
a few hours later, CNN released a report That three other women had reported various types of sexual misconduct. On Tuesday, another alleged victim came forward and said Swalwell drugged and raped her in 2018.
The former congressman has clearly and vehemently denied criminal wrongdoing, admitting unspecified “mistakes” and apologizing.
Those vocal, clear denials were enough to influence politicians and union leaders who had supported Swalwell’s gubernatorial bid, until the weight of the evidence made Swalwell’s claims untenable.
If the allegations are true and Swalwell is indeed a liar, evil, and a sexual attacker, why has this not been widely reported until now? Was this carelessness or naivety on the part of the political press corps? The short answer is that a wide gulf exists between rumor and fact and Swalwell lurks in that gray space, living and thriving in the shadows between provenance and denial.
Rumors about financial, sexual or other peccadilloes associated with participating in a campaign are not uncommon. They are often trafficked by political rivals, which automatically creates suspicion and invites special suspicion.
Most chatter never goes beyond the relatively small, dirty realm of political gossip because alleged misdeeds, while provocative, do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Or legal challenge. This is the baseline for many news outlets to air or publish a story. Call them whatever you want – legacy, corporate, mainstream, lamestream – many of the largest, most influential sources of news and information will not put forward allegations they cannot independently verify and, if necessary, defend in court.
The challenge is to verify all that nonsense.
Politicians don’t wear body cams, or broadcast their lives 24/7. (Okay, Beto O’Rourke was livestreamed from a Texas laundromat during his 2018 Senate bid, grabbing a wet pair of underwear when he addressed the “boxers or briefs” question. But he’s an exception.)
Journalists do not have subpoena power and cannot force people to tell what they know. A reporter is only as good as his sources, their knowledge, truthfulness and credibility.
Reporting on misdeeds of an intimate nature can be particularly difficult and complex. There are rarely black and white documents, like a money trail leading to a hotel bedroom. It is difficult to find eyewitnesses or reliable third parties who can confirm what happened in person behind closed doors. It takes time and trust to develop sources that can corroborate incidents of sexual misconduct, assault or abuse.
Swalwell clearly did an excellent job of deceiving those around him, including some congressmen and campaign staffers who had known him for years and worked closely with the seven-term lawmaker day in and day out. They were shocked by the statements of his alleged victims; The words “double life” have come up several times.
If Swalwell managed to trick those closest to him, it is easy to see why journalists had difficulty grasping the first-hand details and other facts necessary to publicize his findings.
When it comes to reporting on scandals, the question of timing often arises.
In 2003, the Times was widely criticized for publishing details of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s misconduct – touching women in a sexual manner without their consent – ​​just days before the California gubernatorial recall election. Despite reports that Schwarzenegger did not contest the election, voters ousted Gray Davis and replaced him with the Hollywood super-duper star.
In 1992, the Washington Post and the Portland Oregonian were widely criticized for their failure to publish about Senator Bob Packwood’s misconduct – including unwanted sexual advances and touching women without their consent – ​​until weeks after he was elected to his fifth term. Packwood resigned in 1995 after the Senate Ethics Commission voted unanimously to expel him.
The allegations against Swalwell came to light before the June 2 primary. Not so fast for those who are asking how he managed to get away with his violent behavior for so long. But there was ample time to inform California voters before considering his candidacy.
Public attention will soon shift. But for Swalwell, the legal and other ramifications are just beginning.
