The focus on Eric Swalwell’s gubernatorial campaign and his once-promising political career has left many questions from this smoldering tragedy.
Questions about his character, judgment and incredible recklessness.
The question – as it is inevitably wrong – is why his accusers did not come out sooner. (My colleague, Anita Chabria, spoke candidly, discussing the nature of repressed trauma and the belief barrier that many victims of sexual abuse unfairly face.)
Then there is the question of how and why Swalwell’s appalling and allegedly criminal behavior remained hidden from the public eye for so long – especially when cable TV launched a high-profile campaign to lead the country’s most populous country.
Swalwell, 45, also married, has been widely criticized for his reputation for showing inappropriate and inappropriate attention to young women. Rumors – vague, unsubstantiated – have been a constant source of contamination among political insiders and are widely circulated on the Internet. (However, they are not the most serious allegations of sexual abuse.)
The veil was finally lifted last week when the San Francisco Chronicle published a graphic account of a woman who says she slept with Swalwell while the Democratic congressman was his boss. He said he raped her twice when he was drunk and unable to confess.
A few hours later, CNN followed up with a report that three more women were reporting various types of sexual misconduct. On Tuesday, another alleged victim came forward, saying that he was raped by Swalwell in 2018.
The former congressman has categorically and vehemently denied wrongdoing while admitting and apologizing for inadvertent “mistakes”.
That blunt denial was enough to sway politicians and union leaders who supported Swalwell’s gubernatorial bid, until the weight of evidence made Swalwell’s claim unanswerable.
If these allegations are true and Swalwell is a liar, a rapist and a sex offender, why has it not been widely reported until now? Was it carelessness, or the obsession of a political party? The short answer is that there is a wide gulf between rumor and truth and Swalwell lurks in that gray area, living and thriving in the shadows between discovery and denial.
It is not uncommon for rumors about finances, sex or other peccadilloes to attend the campaign. They are often trafficked by political rivals, which automatically raises suspicion and invites some suspicion.
Much of the discourse never gets past the narrow, shameful realm of political gossip because such imagined evils, while appalling, do not stand up to close scrutiny. Or a legal challenge. That is the basis for most news outlets to broadcast or publish the story. Call them what you will – heritage, corporate, mainstream, lamestream – most news and information sources will not pass on allegations that they cannot independently verify and, if necessary, defend themselves in court.
The challenge is to verify all that loose talk.
Politicians don’t wear body cameras, or broadcast their lives 24/7. (OK, Beto O’Rourke went live from a Texas laundromat during his 2018 Senate bid, holding a wet undergarment while answering the “boxers or pants” question. But he’s different.)
Journalists do not have the power to subpoena and cannot force people to tell them what they know. A journalist is only as good as his sources, his knowledge, truth and honesty.
Reporting errors of a close nature can be very difficult and complicated. There are no black and white documents, such as a money trail leading to a hotel room. It is difficult to find an eyewitness or a reliable third party who can testify to what happens between people behind closed doors. It takes time and trust to build sources that can prove incidents of sexual misconduct, assault or harassment.
Swalwell apparently did an excellent job of manipulating the people around him, including congressional staffers and campaigners who had known him for years and worked closely with the seven-term president, day in and day out. They were shocked by the statements of those accused of being his victims; The words “double life” came up again and again.
If Swalwell was able to hide those closest to him, it’s easy to see why reporters had a hard time refuting the first-hand accounts and other facts they needed to make their findings public.
When it comes to reporting scandals, there is often a question of timing.
In 2003, the Times was widely criticized for publishing an account of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s misconduct – touching women sexually without their consent – just days before the California gubernatorial recall election. Despite this report, which Schwarzenegger did not dispute, voters kicked out Gray Davis and replaced him with a super-duper Hollywood star.
In 1992, the Washington Post and the Portland Oregonian were widely criticized for their failure to publish accounts of Sen. Bob Packwood – unwanted sex and touching women without their consent – only a few weeks after he was elected to his fifth term. Packwood resigned in 1995 after the Senate Ethics Commission voted unanimously to fire him.
The allegations against Swalwell were revealed before the primary on June 2. It didn’t take long for those to question how he managed to get away with his bad behavior for so long. But there’s plenty of time to inform California voters before they get on his mind.
The public’s attention will soon change. But for Swalwell, legal and other processes are beginning.
