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 (Felt terrible about that later, and of course, rescinded.)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.

It is such a shitty thing to do to your partner.
In fact it is a common fear most decent humans have. Fear that you may feel attracted to other people while in a monogamous relationship.

My ex and I have a Jerry-Elaine dynamic and still chat daily. We were basically room-mates for some time before formally splitting up (it just saves on rent).
I am usually shocked at stories of acrimonious divorces, infidelity etc. Hard to believe there was ever any love in such marriages.

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.

I must have missed that. Could you post a link?

Over the past three days I've seen the following women blamed for this:

- the victims themselves
- their female attorney
- Katie Porter
- Nancy Pelosi

How about blaming Eric Swalwell?

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.

is a woman responsible if she gets drunk and has a car accident. Not about any man or hotel room.

In fact:

"170. So, if a woman goes to a bar, gets totally wasted, gets into a car and drives and kills someone

She isn't responsible for her behavior?"


That is incredibly disingenuous of you.

The poster has since deleted it, but here's the quote.

"The one victim is dicey at best because the bar they went to, she got drunk, I mean really drunk and he offered to put her in an Uber. She wanted to.go.home with him. I mean kinda person gets drunk with a man and then goes back to his apartment? Then she comes back 4 years later to get drunk with him again? Something ain't right here."

So no, I'm not being disingenuous. You might want to consider what you're being in falsely attacking me. Presumptuous is a word that comes to mind.

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.

Immediately, on Friday night, Porter's own words spoke for her:

Link to tweet

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.

Or not try to dissuade him?

Or even slip him an anonymous note: "I saw what you did, and I know who you are!"

Was Swalwell unaware of the open secrets about him everybody else knew?

Everybody just turned a blind eye and went about their lives "for years"?

Yes. Look up Missing Stair theory.

Look how hard people were/are working here to dismiss, sweep under the rug, or conspiracy away the allegations when they broke.

People in power or in power's orbit do all kinds of things to protect and justify their own self-interest.

It's a big club, and you and I ain't in it.

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.

Dems are relying on MAGAts for info on other Dems??

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.

In what world is that something to !ignore and just let continue? Surely behaviour doesn't have to rise to the level of SA before leaders take action?

No one is questioning Pelosi on this apparent inaction because she's a WOMAN but because she's a LEADER.

If she knew, I can't give her or anyone else who knew - man or woman - a pass.

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.

...no names, just Dems knew.

This wasn't actually the first take in this theme I read, most of them coming right after the revelations, making essentially political points against Democrats without proof.

That's a red flag for me. Moreover, it diverts from Swalwell's blame or accountability.

It's basically specious, like a post on this thread that suggests Democrats 'liked his attacks oj Trump' and ignored what they claim everyone knew.

I haven't read anything that suggests someone in the leadership, for example, was informed of abuses or complaints. Suggestions I've seen that it was known and ignored in favor of some political viability for Swalwell are basically just projected opinion, and don't come with anything more than speculation.

I mean, the quickness in which people correctly withdrew their support has even been suggested as proof they must have already known something, which is really a sad representation of what was the correct and typically prompt repudiation of Swalwell from Dems and supporters to the publicized reports.

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.

...basically par for that to be definitive enough for some to attack Democrats with that broad brush.

What you describe looks to me like 'inside' gossip that some people now feel comfortable to present as factual.

There's enough compelling proof in the accusations that were publicized for Swalwell to address, that it's a question to me why some feel this is some imperative to make a blanket condemnation of a party that regularly responds forcefully and without equivocation to credible charges.

It just doesn't add up, and it's incredibly cynical to believe that Democrats would be willing to soft pedal or be willing to conceal sexual abuse. That's not been the history, especially in the past decade or so.

It's specious, on its face, especially given the quick and unequivocal responses from supporters and fellow Dems.

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).

Tell me more -- I haven't heard anything about H.W. Bush. Could you direct me to some info?

Thanks

I only mentioned him because a) it was Bush's black monk, Lee Atwater, who put Donna Rice up to it (not that Gary needed much encouragement); and because b) Hart would've run against Bush, had he won the '88 Dem primary (which he would almost certainly have).

As for Old Man Bush, I first read about that in Kitty Kelley's 1991 biography on Nancy Reagan.

Republicans, as you can imagine, tried to see the heck out of Ms. Kelley - but couldn't pass muster on discovery, such was the quality of her research and sources.

And there was that well-publicized incident in 1989 wherein gay prostitutes were shown to have been in the White House. At night.

Not too prudent.

I have heard nothing about H.W. Bush's sexuality because he married George Washington. (Sorry Barb)

He did have a little bit of fey energy, but I chalked that to the blue blood.

Interesting interesting.

I have a distant link to the House of Savoy (the Italian royal family until 1945), and am a little bisexual myself - though I've never acted on it.

Besides his trickle-down nonsense and proclivity to war, what bothered me about Bush at the time (I was in high school - and had been bullied a good bit), is that he very much made a battle horse of "family values" - knowing that he himself was far from that ideal.

Small potatoes compared to Cheeto's Idi Amin-style depravity though.

I was in 4th grade when Bill Clinton was inaugurated - I remember because the teacher brought in the TV to watch and it was one of those special "TV days" in school...

H.W. Bush, through the lens of history, has been treated quite nicely. His hypocrisies have been somewhat reduced in the light of his son's war crimes and Trump's well... everything.

Obviously, H.W.'s (or anyone's sexuality) shouldn't matter to anyone, but the information you've provided adds a layer of memetic information I was not aware of before -- some of Dana Carvey's impersonations have a little extra depth.

Fascinating.

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.

Perfect example of the difference between the way the two parties handle sexually inappropriate behavior.

Jon Edwards was a rising Democratic political star...until his affair was revealed. Then he was DONE. OVER. OUT. KICKED TO THE CURB. I don't even know if he is still alive.

If he had been a Republican, his sickening dalliances, while his wife was dying, would NOT have disqualified him from any of his political goals.

Thanks for the reminder.

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.

The party that's understood to have the blessing of the elites, gets a pass on improprieties and even crimes almost no matter what. Certainly on most of their (many) failures.

The other parties though (typically more left-wing ones), they're expected to make sure every last official of theirs is like Pope Francis or Gandhi.

The Big Media outfits in said countries make sure of that.

He was "different"

Meanwhile, Gandhi was challenging that abstinence in his own way. He set up ashrams in which he began his first "experiments" with sex; boys and girls were to bathe and sleep together, chastely, but were punished for any sexual talk. Men and women were segregated, and Gandhi's advice was that husbands should not be alone with their wives, and, when they felt passion, should take a cold bath.

The rules did not, however, apply to him. Sushila Nayar, the attractive sister of Gandhi's secretary, also his personal physician, attended Gandhi from girlhood. She used to sleep and bathe with Gandhi. When challenged, he explained how he ensured decency was not offended. "While she is bathing I keep my eyes tightly shut," he said, "I do not know ... whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap." The provision of such personal services to Gandhi was a much sought-after sign of his favour and aroused jealousy among the ashram inmates.

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