How Swalwell Got Away With It For So Long
His clean-cut image was belied by years of rumors.
I must admit, I was highly skeptical when four women came out of the woodwork to accuse Eric Swalworth of sexual misconduct all at once. After all, he’s been in Congress since 2013, served as impeachment manager for Trump’s second impeachment trial, ran unsuccessfully for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and has been running for California governor for five months and was the frontrunner among Democratic contenders. So, he’s been a very-high-profile figure for quite a long time, during which there has been ample opportunity to come forward. Let’s just say that the timing seemed convenient.
Yet, as in so many other high-profile cases, it turns out that there have been rumors for quite some time that somehow did not make the mainstream news.
POLITICO (“The whisper network that caught up to Eric Swalwell“):
Five months before Arielle Fodor, better known on social media as “Mrs. Frazzled,” helped set in motion the downfall of Rep. Eric Swalwell, she was singing his praises on Instagram.
“You know how I love to tell you when I meet a politician who acts like a normal human and not a robot!” she posted the day after the California Democrat launched his campaign for governor. “Eric is that.”
It was a fairly anodyne post for Fodor, a prodigious professional poster. But it drew an unusual response: Three people privately warning her that Swalwell was no good.
Those messages were the embers of a firestorm that in short order incinerated Swalwell’s campaign, and is now engulfing what remains of his political career.
Swalwell suspended his campaign Sunday, days after multiple news outlets reported on allegations that he sexually harassed women, had sexual relationships with subordinate staff and, in two cases, committed sexual assault. Swalwell has denied accusations he had nonconsensual sex with anybody, though he acknowledged “personal failings.”
The broad contours of Swalwell’s alleged behavior, if not the specifics, did not come as a surprise to many working in and around politics, especially in Washington. The 45-year-old cable news darling and Trump antagonist had developed a reputation for unsavory and sometimes unwanted behavior toward women. Those warnings were shared in whisper networks but rarely traveled outside the circle of political insiders.
That is, until Swalwell sought a promotion to lead the nation’s most populous state and a pair of content creators worked to spill that open secret into public view. His breakneck undoing is a testament to the striking power of a new media ecosystem in which influencers with huge audiences can not only publicize politicians, but control the political conversation. Their growing clout has thrust campaigns into a new digital Wild West, where long-buried allegations and unsubstantiated rumors can find their earliest stages of vetting, a warning for politicians at all levels, including in the run-up to 2028.
[…]
Swalwell did not respond to a request for comment on a detailed list of questions. This account is based on 20 interviews with campaign staffers, content creators, lawmakers, and people from major labor and business organizations. Many were granted anonymity to speak candidly about private discussions.
Together, they tell the story of Swalwell’s political implosion — and a political establishment now confronting its own role enabling his rise.
“Were we willing to delude ourselves or not ask questions that should have been asked? One thousand percent,” said one veteran Sacramento lobbyist who worked with interests backing Swalwell. “Did people see what they want to see or hear what they want to hear or not ask the questions they didn’t want the answers to? One thousand percent.”
Through his ubiquitous cable news hits and prominent roles in President Donald Trump’s two impeachments, Swalwell had made himself a national figure in Democratic politics. But when he launched his campaign for governor on Nov. 20, he was essentially a stranger in California’s political circles.
[…]
But as he courted political insiders, Swalwell’s blank slate became the pitch. People could see what they wanted to see — to progressive labor unions, he was an anti-Trump warrior, to business groups, he was a moderate ex-prosecutor. His campaign strategists would acknowledge to lobbyists he was light on policy, but argued that just meant he was still malleable.
The “something for everyone” pitch arrived precisely when Sacramento power players were feeling especially gloomy about the governor’s race. Many had waited to see if Kamala Harris would jump in and then pinned their hopes on Alex Padilla; both opting out of the race threw the contest wide open. Now it was November, and practically none of the major interests had chosen a candidate. Operatives were getting antsy.
The top three contenders — Swalwell, Katie Porter and Tom Steyer — were all relative outsiders to the insular world of the Capitol. Swalwell relied on two of his House colleagues, Reps. Adam Gray and Jimmy Gomez, who both served in the state Legislature, to introduce him around town. Gradually, key members of Gavin Newsom’s circle joined his campaign, and the governor’s chief consulting firm Bearstar Strategies stood up a pro-Swalwell independent expenditure committee. Newsom never endorsed in the contest, but having his team on board boosted Swalwell’s credibility.
But as Swalwell was cruising into the upper echelons of the political class, he was dogged by a social media post that Mike Trujillo, a longtime political consultant, had dashed off in early December.
“I guess Swalwell can enjoy today but folks know he slept with many of his interns while he was married, sexually harassed others while engaged, has a ton of weird texts late at night saved on former interns phones still, he gets he will have to answer for his [sic] later in the campaign, right? Endorse at your own peril people. Yo [sic] have been fully warned, just doing my public service today,” he wrote.
Swalwell had been on Trujillo’s radar since 2017, after he said he heard a story — which has not been independently confirmed by POLITICO — about a friend of a friend who had a negative experience with the congressmember. Throughout the years, he had collected similar accounts, especially during Swalwell’s short-lived presidential campaign in 2019. When Swalwell went back to being one of 435 members of Congress, he found women who had been willing to talk lost interest in sharing their stories. But now, Swalwell was seeking a more powerful job.
Trujillo’s post went viral, getting more than 140,000 views. And it caught the attention of the Swalwell campaign, which sent him a cease-and-desist letter. Trujillo complied, but figured it was inevitable that Swalwell’s behavior would come to light.
“I thought, ‘Holy shit, everyone knows this is a thing. This’ll be the easiest story ever,’” Trujillo said. He continued to pitch reporters on what he knew.
Swalwell’s allies were quick to discredit the source, as Trujillo is known for his social media bomb-throwing. He is also a longtime aide to Antonio Villaraigosa, who is running for governor, and was working on an outside committee to support the former Los Angeles mayor.
[…]
Swalwell’s campaign aides encouraged Sacramento insiders to ask him directly about the rumors. Surrogates and staffers amplified his denials, passing the message along: There’s nothing to worry about. Allegations circulating are just rival campaigns looking to drag Swalwell down.
“I told him, ‘They’re going to ask some really tough questions.’ He answered them all perfectly. Everyone called back and said, “‘He denied this, denied that. We’re satisfied,’” a senior campaign leader said. “The dude deserves a fucking Academy Award for liar of the year.”
To Sacramento insiders used to politicians hedging their language, the flat denials sounded definitive.
“We’re so used to the qualifiers … and [he said] ‘I have never had any kind of relationship with anybody that I work with,” said one influential operative. “I feel so fucking stupid.”
Members of Congress said they also took Swalwell and key surrogates at their word. Two dozen of his colleagues endorsed him, lending his campaign credibility and a veneer of establishment backing. They have all since pulled their endorsements while voicing shock at the allegations.
“These members, if they thought there was anything — do you think they would have endorsed him?” said one lawmaker who supported Swalwell.
Many players took his assertions at face value or put perfunctory effort into digging around themselves. Meanwhile, the money was beginning to flow, and both pro-Swalwell and anti-Steyer outside groups were hitting the airwaves.
“He was about to be the next governor,” said the senior campaign leader. “He was a week or two shy. You could feel the momentum. Everybody believed it.”
Most of the rest of the story focuses on the social media campaign that ultimately brought him down was orchestrated. While interesting, the real story would seem to be how the DC and California media missed the story completely for years. I strongly suspect it was for the same reasons as his big money donors went along: he’s a charming guy and they wanted to believe him.
Swalwell never did it for me. I’m not saying I knew he was a sex creep, but he never connected.
Yesterday I was complaining that mainstream Christians lack the courage to do what they should long ago have done with white evangelicals. People should police their own, insofar as they can. In these cases I look not just at the male perpetrator but at other men who knew, and I guarantee you there were men who knew. It shouldn’t be on the women to stop men like this, he should have been flagged by male staff as well. Sorry to go old Boomer Man here, but that is core male duty: you protect women from predators, whether leopards on the savannah or pigs in the office.
@Michael Reynolds:
While I understand the sentiment, I would suggest that history shows us, especially in cases like this one, that Boomer Men (indeed, most men in general) have not been great on this count.
Can you think of four actual women (or men) who are professionally close to you and who would falsely accuse you – just like that – of sexual misconduct in exchange for career advancement or a decent chunk of cash?
Think of how incredibly improbable that would be. (Or could you actually name four?)
And that’s leaving aside that the accusations would have to be credible as well.
I can get being skeptical in case of a single accusation. But four? Realistically speaking, the odds of that being a set-up are just so vanishingly small.
It is a good thing that there are other viable Democrats in the race because the pressure to keep supporting the front-runner if the race was comeptitive against a Republican would be fierce.
It is easier to rationalize when the stakes are high, and harder to withstand the pressure when the collective you belong to doesn’t really need you.
I will add that the culture of the Democratic Party is such that it is more likely, as a collective actor, to turn on people like Swalwell, but as the post notes, this has been known for a while, and people often don’t want to believe these things.
And before anyone suggests I am both-sidings (because that’s not the point): I keep thinking about wanting to quip that he should switch parties, as the Republicans seem not to really care about this kind of thing.
I am glad he is gone from the campaign and the Congress. And I’m glad that all this seems to have gotten Tony Gonzalez out as well.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Indeed. But failure to perform one’s duty does not remove the obligation.
Has there been a public figure, charming or not, whose career was ended by sexual assault or harassment quickly after the attack itself? It’s not atypical for misconduct allegations remain just whispers for years or even decades after the fact. Rumors are rumors until they’re not rumors anymore.
Some of us queers know someone (or know someone who knows someone) who says they’ve been hired for sex by some publicly antigay politician or celeb. But no reporter is going to out the hypocrisy till said someones decide they’re not opposed to having their names and faces in the news and associated with prostitution. I’m still waiting for such news to finally break about a certain warmongering neocon senator. But to date the gays involved are not interested in being public figures known for sex work.
This reporting indicates previous efforts to publicize the Swallwell rumors were stymied by the victims/accusers’ understandable desire for privacy and anonymity. The likelihood of Swallwell gaining executive control over the world’s 4th largest economy seems to have prompted reconsideration and urgency. Including a desire to not repeat the Cal Cunningham error and instead fully vet Swallwell before the general election — the women involved are Dem staffers who, in addition to everything else, probably also factored in looming political peril.
@drj:
I frequently sexually harass the only woman I work with. Well, I say frequently, but not as frequently as in my younger days.
@drj: It just struck me as coordinated. I strongly suspected Katie Porter’s campaign, given her track record. Granted, I was out of town and reading a lot less news coverage than I normally do, so only saw the headline coverage of the accusations.
This idea that a politician wouldnt flat out lie ie not use qualifiers if they were innocent seems kind of dated. Just flat out lying seems to have become more the norm especially as it often seems to work with the people you want it to work with, maybe because they want to believe.
While I agree with Michael that other men should speak up and take action if they know something I have often been surprised at how much women will keep to themselves. Several years ago I found out that one of my docs was sexually harassing (unwanted touching, trying to kiss, suggestive comments, staring at body parts, etc.) my female staff. At the beginning I thought it was just him making comments and I thought we could send his to counseling. However, more and more kept coming out so I fired him. Even today, years later, people tell me new things.
I regularly have breakfast with the woman (and a few other people) who was my chief nurse for years. We reminisce, talk about our families and as she is still working talk over work related stuff. We have talked this over several times as it turns out the guy had tried to corner and kiss her, while she was pregnant. She never told me until a few months ago. I asked her why and she told it’s kind of just part of being a woman. (Note- She is attractive.) When younger she had some self doubts and wondered if she was sending out false signals. When she got older as long as it wasn’t awful she just took it as the normal course of things. Now, she wouldnt tolerate it and would report it right away but she is also very secure in her job.
Steve
I remember when multiple women in short order accused W. Clinton of sexual harassment and assault, this was a common allegation. Too convenient. And I distinctly remember sitting in the offices of the ACLU of all places when sex pest allegations against Cosby popped up, and staff there saying that its too convenient, the women wanted fame.
But what I can’t remember, in my life, is an instance of multiple women accusing a man of assault and it turning out those women were full of it, that it was a coordinated hit job with no substance.
One person? Absolutely. Tara Reade just a few short years ago; the duke lacrosse case a couple decades back. Multiple women? When has the “too convenient” factor ever proven true? That’s an honest question–have there been well known instances in our nation’s recent history where multiple women decide together to ruin a man’s career because of fame/money/nebulous other reason?
As to the “why now” question. My read is that when women individually come forward, it is assumed they are liars seeking fame or settlement money, so they don’t raise their voices. Then, one brave soul says “fuck it, shoot your best shot I’m telling the truth” and the other women find courage to come forward quickly.
As to the timing:
well, seeing your rapist embark on a career path that will place him as the leader of the 7th largest economy in the world, and give him a shot at becoming President, may motivate one to brave the inevitable accusations of being a money-grubbing fame-hunting slut. And, the media is more likely to take your accusations seriously and even look into them while an active governor or presidential campaign is ongoing. So yeah, the timing is convenient–it is more convenient to raise up your story when it will be taken seriously and could have an impact, than when it might not.
Years ago in one of my jobs, a senior director was credibly accused of sexual harassment by their underling. The harassment had started a year earlier and continued fairly regularly. The employees response was to look for another job instead of coming forward, since she knew that her harasser was locally popular, a rising star in the national nonprofit political world, and had a penchant for waging all out war on those who displeased her. When her harasser applied to be the leader of the organization we were working for at the time, she came forward. Just finding another job and moving on with her life was no longer enough for the victim. Different circumstances motivate people.
He got away with it because accusers fear they will be judged by others. The accused might go down, but so will the accuser. Look at Louis CK: everyone knew about that for years. He was abusing his power and doing it against women who were trying to make it comedy. Everyone knew that. And by everyone, I mean nice guys like Jon Stewart who wasn’t, I guess, out there abusing his power.
The thing about complicity is that you can misunderstand your complicity very easily up until the moment you are exposed. After that, you aren’t going to intentionally go after the accuser, but their existence is too awkward to acknowledge. Social awkwardness has always been a force for silence and conformity.
How about the other guy in DC, you know, the tired, old, demented moron, who was found liable for rape and assault in an actual court? When does he resign?
Ok guys, I have a sobering, if not downright depressing take on this stuff.
I remember maybe 20 years ago on a feminist website I used to read regularly, they posted a story about some bar in Boston where these two guys come in and pull out knives and proceed to threaten and harass a woman in the bar, for a significant period of time, until maybe the cops came in.
I recall some people on that site, surely women, but I’m not sure if it was the owner, the op, or commenters, asked, “Well, WHY didn’t the men in that bar do anything to stop those guys?”
My thought, which I did not share, because it didn’t seem like it would land was, “Because they were really big and had knives, perhaps? The same reason other women in the bar didn’t intervene?”
This is the foundation of my critique of the critique of “why didn’t Person X do something about Person Y’s behavior?”
Not everybody has the same amount of power. Maybe that’s physical, maybe that’s social, maybe that’s legal. It’s the same answer as you might give to “why didn’t those women say something?” Power is the exact problem that people who behave like this pose.
It’s different if you are the boss, of course. And lots of bosses are men. But there are lots more men that aren’t bosses, and would get steamrolled to no good effect if they tried to speak up or stop something.
Compounding this is the sense that attempts by a man to protect a woman from another man is easily interpreted through the lens of sexual jealousy.
Predators are well, predators. They don’t look for hard fights. They look for easy wins. Areas where they have most, if not all, of the power. If they know you to be the sort that might do something (and they tend to be good at spotting such people) they avoid you. They do things to “qualify” victims too, testing them to see what they do in certain situations. (This is wisdom handed down to me by the women I did martial arts with. There’s a whole set of things one can do to disqualify one’s self that they taught to other women.)
Admitting that you are weak and powerless is a thing that men do not do very much. Not much at all. So that’s why we never talk about this.
I don’t accept a binary, though. One can perhaps do something. Maybe offer assistance after the fact. Maybe take notes. Maybe (in my lead example) call 911. There is often something. But sometimes not.
And that sucks.
Is this story any different than John Edwards? Al Franken? John Conyers? Or Matt Gaetz? Tony Gonzales? Cory Mills? George Santos? Mark Foley? Dennis Hastert? Linsday Graham?
Apologies for Lindsay Graham, that one hasn’t broken yet – like the others is an open secret.
@Steven L. Taylor:
In my morning skim of conservative sites you’d be amazed how many posters and commenters say exactly the opposite. Motivated reasoning. If they can get around exhibit A on this subject, “they let you do it”, they can get around anything. Matt Gaetz and Al Franken, bothsides, right?
This story should not be written about, or spoken of, without it being mentioned that…
Emphasis mine.
@Kathy:
You’re right as usual.
If the president can be a low rent creep, it just means there’s a lot of creeps and weirdos in American society at large. So they’re gonna be in our politics, unfortunately. Abe Lincoln was the exception. We usually ain’t that noble + normal people don’t want to run to lead us, because Americans are a little nutty rn.
Maybe fewer would become creeps if American culture accepted bachelorhood, feminism, and open relationships. Having to hide one’s consensual affairs seems like a precursor to full blown rapey creep.
@DK:
I’m old, and there’s been a continuous drip of this sort of thing the whole time. While they don’t seem to need to be as dumb as they once did to get caught (for which see Wilbur Mills, 1974), I see no reason to believe this sort of thing isn’t still pretty common. Any more than I believe Epstein was the only successful procurer for the rich and powerful.
But I suspect cheaters and abusers are more common in politics. Politics draws on a degree of narcissism, manipulation, and flexibility with truth that would correlate with sexual abuse.