Politics
Swalwell accused of sexually assaulting female staff member
Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democratic front-runner in the hotly contested California governor’s race, was accused of sexual assault by a former staff member in a report published on Friday.
The woman said she and the Northern California congressman had a consensual relationship at times, but that he sexually assaulted her twice when she was too inebriated to consent, according to a report by the San Francisco Chronicle.
The woman was 21 years old when she started working for the congressman, who is nearly two decades her senior, and said she did not report the incidents to police because of fears she would not be believed.
“I have no skin in the game of who becomes governor of California, but I feel people have a right to know whether the person who leads a state that is a safe haven for so many women actually treats women with dignity and will protect their rights,” this woman, who was not identified because she is the alleged victim of sexual assault, told the Chronicle. “No one protected me from him, and so I have to protect the other young women like me who aspire to work in this field and he could prey upon.”
Swalwell on Friday denied the accusations.
“These allegations are false and come on the eve of an election against the front-runner for governor,” he said in a statement. “For nearly 20 years, I have served the public — as a prosecutor and a congressman and have always protected women. I will defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action. My focus in the coming days is to be with my wife and children and defend our decades of service against these lies.”
State Supt. Tony Thurmond and San José Mayor Matt Mahan, other Democrats running for governor, immediately called on Swalwell to drop out of the race.
Allegations of inappropriate behavior by the congressman have been circulating on social media and in political circles for weeks. On Thursday, an attorney representing Swalwell sent a cease-and-desist letter to a person demanding that they stop accusing the congressman of sexual assault.
Two days earlier, the congressman denounced online claims that he had inappropriate relationships with young congressional staff members.
“It’s false,” he told reporters after a town hall in Sacramento, saying he had never behaved inappropriately with female staff members or had a sexual relationship with a staff member or an intern, and denied allegations that his staff members were asked to sign nondisclosure agreements or entered into legal settlements.
The allegations of inappropriate behavior come at a pivotal time in the race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. The primary is June 2, but ballots will start landing in voters’ mailboxes in less than a month.
The race to lead the nation’s largest state remains up for grabs, with eight prominent Democrats and two top Republicans jockeying to finish in first or second place in the primary and advance to the November election.
Swalwell, 45, is among the leading Democrats. He had the support of 13% of likely voters in a recent UC Berkeley poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. That places him tied for first place among Democrats with former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, with billionaire Tom Steyer not far behind.
Swalwell has won the support of powerful unions, including the California Teachers Assn., along with Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and many of his Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives.
CTA President David Goldberg called the allegations “incredibly disturbing and unacceptable.”
“We are immediately suspending our support. Our elected board will be meeting as soon as possible to follow our union’s democratic process to determine next steps.”
Rusty Hicks, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, said victims must be believed and also reiterated his call for Democratic candidates to gauge their viability.
“The allegations against Congressmember Swalwell are deeply disturbing,” he said in a statement. “Any person engaged in misconduct must take responsibility and be held accountable for their actions — including a Member of Congress and candidate for Governor. Finally, my call for all — repeat, all — candidates for Governor to ‘honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign’ still stands. In fact, that call is more important now than ever before.”
Concern began brewing among Democrats before the allegations were published on Friday.
The woman told the Chronicle that she was hired in 2019 to work in Swalwell’s Castro Valley district office when she was 21. He quickly began pursuing her, sending messages and then nude pictures on Snapchat.
In September of that year, she said she had drinks with the congressman, blacked out and could feel the effect of intercourse when she woke up naked in Swalwell’s hotel bed, according to the report. In 2024, when she no longer worked for Swalwell, she said she attended a charity event honoring the congressman and others and met him for drinks afterward. She was intoxicated, but recalled Swalwell forcing himself upon her and pushing him away and saying, “No,” according to the Chronicle.
The Chronicle corroborated her report with texts she sent a friend at the time and interviews with the friend and the woman’s then-boyfriend. The Chronicle’s reporters also reviewed medical records about a pregnancy and STD texts a week after the alleged assault. She told them she had kept quiet about the alleged assaults because of fears about professional and personal repercussions.
Cheyenne Hunt, a Laguna Hills attorney and executive director of a progressive advocacy group, and social media influencer Arielle Fodor, known online as Mrs. Frazzled, are among those publicizing the allegations online. Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, who has sparred with Swalwell in the past, amplify the allegations on social media as well.
The Times has not independently corroborated reports of inappropriate behavior.
Many politicians have survived allegations of sexual impropriety, notably President Trump, who was accused of rape before winning the White House in 2016; former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who admitted in the 2003 recall election to behaving improperly during his movie career, and Newsom, who admitted to having an affair with a married staffer while mayor of San Francisco.
Swalwell, a former prosecutor, is married and has three children. The Iowa native briefly ran for president in 2020. On Thursday, he canceled a town hall in Palm Desert, reportedly because he was sick.
He has previously spoken out against sexual misconduct, most recently in support of women who told the New York Times that they were assaulted by legendary farmworker organizer César Chavez.
“The women who have come forward are carrying years of pain. Speaking about that takes real courage,” Swalwell wrote in a tweet last month. “Ana Murguia, Debra Rojas and Dolores Huerta are speaking with clarity and strength. I stand with them and condemn all instances of sexual assault.”
The congressman also defended women who accused Brett Kavanaugh, then a nominee to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, of sexual misconduct in 2018.
“The more and more cases that are separate and independent that look the same, pretty soon a prosecutor starts to say to a jury … that the arrows are pointing in the same directions and what are the chances that three or four women independently, who never met each other, would have similar experiences with one person,” he said on MSNOW’s Ari Melber in September 2018 amid Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.
In Congress, Swalwell has been a prominent critic of President Trump, serving as a manager of the second impeachment of the president and frequently blistering Trump on cable news shows.
In late March, the Washington Post reported that FBI Director Kash Patel may release documents about a decade-old investigation about Swalwell’s connections with a suspected Chinese spy. Swalwell cut off ties with Christine Fang, or Fang Fang, in 2015 after intelligence officials warned him and other members of Congress about Chinese efforts to infiltrate legislators’ offices. Swalwell was was not accused of impropriety.
After news of the potential release of the files broke, Swalwell accused Trump of trying to sway the gubernatorial election and weaponizing the federal government against his political enemies.
Swalwell’s attorneys filed a cease-and-desist letter with Patel and the FBI. No documents have been released as of Friday.
He was previously accused of mortgage fraud by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte. Swalwell sued Pulte last year but dropped the suit this month.
In the gubernatorial race, Swalwell has faced criticism from fellow Democrat Tom Steyer that he was ineligible to run for governor because he did not truly live in California. Earlier this year, a Sacramento County judge ruled against a similar claim made by a conservative filmmaker.
A splintered Supreme Court on Thursday declined to rule in a case dealing with how states should assess the intellectual disabilities of capital defendants to determine if they should be spared the death penalty.
Two decades ago, the court barred the execution of people with mental disabilities as a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
That ruling, in Atkins v. Virginia, gave states leeway to determine their own processes for deciding who was intellectually disabled. It led to follow-up cases from Florida and Texas in which the court further limited capital punishment.
Twenty-seven states permit the death penalty, but they differ in how they determine intellectual disability.
On Thursday, a majority of justices took a pass on deciding how states and lower courts should resolve cases in which defendants had taken I.Q. tests multiple times and received varying results, as well as the extent to which states must consider a broader evaluation of evidence beyond I.Q. test scores in deciding if a person is disabled.
The case involved Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama man, who was sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering a man he planned to rob in 1997. In the years before and after the murder, Mr. Smith took five I.Q. tests with scores ranging from 72 to 78.
The state sought to execute Mr. Smith, noting that the key part of Alabama’s law on mental disability turned on whether defendants had scored 70 or lower on the test. But a lower court found Mr. Smith was intellectually disabled, in part because the tests had a margin of error. Alabama asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
The court’s brief unsigned order dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices punted, and sent the matter back to the lower courts.
As a result, Mr. Smith will be spared the death penalty and resentenced, his lawyer said on Thursday.
“The District Court listened carefully to experts on all sides and concluded that Mr. Smith is intellectually disabled. The Supreme Court declined to disturb that finding,” his attorney Kacey L. Keeton, of the Federal Defender office for the Middle District of Alabama, said in a statement. “For Mr. Smith and his family, today brings profound relief.”
The Alabama attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Although the Supreme Court did not resolve the key question in Mr. Smith’s case, it prompted several separate opinions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the record in Mr. Smith’s case was incomplete and the court could not use it to “provide any meaningful guidance” on how lower courts should assess multiple I.Q. scores.
“Proceeding without a more developed record or lower court opinions is especially perilous. That is because the differences between methods used to assess multiple I.Q. scores raise complicated questions on which even experts may disagree,” she wrote, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Four justices dissented, saying the court had failed to address a recurring question that has “led to confusion and unsound analysis in lower courts.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the majority “shies away from its obligation to provide workable rules for capital cases,” doing a disservice to state criminal justice systems and “victims of horrific murders.”
Without clear rules, court hearings over multiple I.Q. scores will be “little more than battles of experts” and “whether a defendant lives or dies will hinge on which expert a judge finds more credible,” he wrote, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.
Writing only for himself, Justice Thomas said the court should go even further and overturn its decision in the landmark Atkins case — a move that would significantly scale back protections against executing the mentally disabled.
Nothing in the nation’s history, he wrote, “suggests that there is anything unlawful about executing murderers now protected by Atkins — let alone one such as Smith who reads at an 11th-grade level and has never scored below 71 on a single I.Q. test.”
Medical and disability groups have warned that a narrow, test-focused approach conflicts with previous Supreme Court rulings and could increase the risk that people with intellectual disabilities are executed.
The Trump administration, which lifted a moratorium on the federal death penalty last January, supported the state’s position in part. D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, said states had discretion to determine whether a defendant was intellectually disabled and urged the court to defer to Alabama’s assessment.
Under Alabama law, to avoid execution, defendants like Mr. Smith are required to show “significant subaverage intellectual functioning at the time the crime was committed, to show significant deficits in adaptive behavior at the time the crime was committed, and to show that these problems manifested themselves before the defendant reached the age of 18.”
After lengthy litigation in state and federal court, a district court judge found in 2021 that Mr. Smith should have the opportunity to show he was intellectually disabled. When a score is close to but higher than 70, the judge said he “must be allowed to present additional evidence of intellectual disability.”
The judge noted that even one score of 72 could mean Mr. Smith’s I.Q. was actually as low as 69 because of the standard error of measurement. The district court judge also found Mr. Smith deficient in social and interpersonal skills, self-direction, independent living and academics.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the ruling, citing two Supreme Court decisions that said that when a test score, adjusted for the margin of error, is 70 or less, the defendant must be able to provide additional evidence of intellectual disability.
In response to an earlier request from the Supreme Court in the matter, the 11th Circuit said its finding was based on a “holistic approach” and review of evidence, not just a single low score.
Politics
Senate GOP erupts over Trump DOJ ‘anti-weaponization’ fund, punts ICE, Border Patrol funding
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Senate Republicans are pressing pause on their push to fund immigration enforcement after a tense, closed-door meeting.
But it’s not over internal divisions. This time, the fury is directed toward the Trump administration and the surprise “anti-weaponization” fund created by the Department of Justice (DOJ). It comes as Republicans were near the finish line for their $72 billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol.
For now, Republicans are calling it a day and leaving Washington, D.C.
“We will pick up where we left off,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said.
REPUBLICANS RECOIL AS TRUMP’S BILLION-DOLLAR DOJ ‘SLUSH FUND’ FOR ALLIES THREATENS ICE, BORDER PATROL PLAN
Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate GOP leaders are pushing forward with budget reconciliation to fund the final piece of government that had been shut down by Senate Democrats’ opposition to President Donald Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu)
That makes President Donald Trump’s June 1 deadline effectively impossible to meet, but Republicans contend that it’s the administration’s actions that have further complicated an already rocky process.
“The message to the administration is this: we were on a glide path to passing this bill until these announcements,” a top Republican aide told Fox News Digital.
The timing of the settlement between Trump and his family and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the subsequent creation of the fund derailed Republicans’ sprint to the finish line.
“We don’t know where the votes are on reconciliation right now,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said.
SENATE REPUBLICAN THREATENS TO DERAIL ICE, BORDER PATROL PACKAGE OVER TRUMP’S BILLION-DOLLAR REQUEST
The White House referred Fox News Digital to Trump’s comments Thursday when asked if he would be amenable to no ballroom security funding and restrictions on the DOJ’s nearly $1.8 billion fund, or veto the package outright.
“I don’t need money from the ballroom,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, and touted that the actual construction was being done through private funding.
“But this is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots that spent a lot of money,” he continued. “We’re building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world. If they want to spend money on securing the White House, I think it would be very — very much a good expenditure. But the ballroom is being built.”
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was dispatched to the Hill Thursday morning to tamp down lawmakers’ concerns over the “anti-weaponization” fund, which several lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have dubbed a “slush fund.” But instead, he was berated behind closed doors.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department told Fox News Digital that Blanche had a “healthy discussion on the settlement.”
“He made clear that the Anti-Weaponization Fund announced Monday has nothing to do with reconciliation. Indeed, not a single dime from the money the president is seeking in reconciliation would go toward anything having to do with the fund,” the spokesperson said. “We will continue to work with the Senate to get critical reconciliation funds approved.”
TRUMP DEMANDS SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN’S OUSTER FOR AXING BALLROOM SECURITY FUNDING
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was dispatched to the Hill Thursday morning to tamp down lawmakers’ concerns over the “anti-weaponization” fund. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Sources told Fox News Digital that over two dozen Republicans demanded answers from Blanche on what kind of guardrails could be put into the fund, and specifically if those convicted for assaulting police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, riots could be excluded.
Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., erupted at Blanche, and Thune was uncharacteristically frustrated by the situation.
Several Republicans leaving the meeting had little to say about what happened inside, while others reiterated that they were focused on funding ICE and Border Patrol and nothing else.
Those concerns were validated with several people who were pardoned by Trump earlier this year, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who declared that he would make a claim this week.
There have been discussions of including those guardrails into the reconciliation package, given that the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the DOJ, is a major part of the process.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“I did raise that issue, and that seemed to be what [Blanche] was saying, but you know, we haven’t seen language,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said.
Further complicating matters are plans Senate Democrats had for the package with their flurry of amendment votes.
Sources told Fox News Digital that one of the first amendments in the pipeline would have prevented any of the DOJ’s funds from going to convicted rapists and forced the package to be sent back to committee, sending the GOP back to square one on a politically perilous vote.
“This was all 100% avoidable,” a senior Republican aide told Fox News Digital.
President Trump, it’s well known, is into gold. Every day brings new evidence that he’s thoroughly enjoying the “golden age” he pronounced in his inaugural address — as few other Americans are — with stock trades, crypto profiteering and much more, even a new taxpayer-financed slush fund to reward his allies.
As for me, I’ve gone into silver. That is, I constantly look for the silver linings in Trump’s heinous acts.
One silver lining, of course, is his cratering job-approval numbers in the polls, especially among the young and Latino voters who made his reelection possible. But here’s another: By his humiliating failure to bring Iran to heel, nearly three months after starting a war that he said would last weeks at most, Trump has brought new, more positive attention to what he again this week derided as “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.” (The emphasis on “Hussein” is Trump’s, always.)
The president, along with his Republican cheerleaders, counts his first-term abrogation of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as a signature achievement. This week, yet again, he falsely claimed that had he not done so, Iran would have a nuclear weapon. In fact, his action in 2018 taking the United States out of the multinational deal subsequently led to Iran’s rebuilding of its nuclear program, the emboldening of the Iranian hard-liners now in power and the Middle East morass in which the United States is now mired.
That quagmire has left Trump seeming desperate for a deal — almost certainly a worse deal than the one Obama struck. Call it JCPOA Lite.
If he were able to get Iran’s sign-off on the sort of detailed, restrictive agreement that Obama and other world leaders won 11 years ago, he’d be trumpeting himself as the world’s greatest dealmaker. (He does that anyway, but his record proves otherwise.) Instead, by his own failure to date, Trump has invited reconsideration of the very agreement he decried as the “worst deal ever” on his march to election and reelection.
No sooner was the 2015 deal signed than Trump and Republicans succeeded in defining it as a giveaway to Iran that assured, not hindered, its development of a nuclear weapon to threaten Israel and the world. Opponents condemned the agreement for not addressing Iran’s other threats, notably its support for militant proxies throughout the Mideast. Some Democrats, notably Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, were among the foes. Other Democrats, cowed by opposition to the agreement by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government and pro-Israel lobbyists, were all but mute in the pact’s defense.
Now some Democrats are belatedly finding their voice (and, post-Gaza, some willingness to defy Israel). Along with nonpartisan experts, those Democrats are drawing comparisons between the 2015 agreement, flawed yet successful, and Trump’s promised yet ever-elusive alternative. What’s ironic for Israel and Netanyahu, still implacably against negotiating with Tehran, is that they could end up, under Trump, with a nuclear deal that gives Iran more leeway than the hated JCPOA did.
As Americans are being reminded, the 2015 deal wasn’t just between Iran and Obama, as Trump has long suggested; other signatories were China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the 27-nation European Union. Reconstituting that group would be all but impossible today.
The pact’s 159 highly technical pages and five appendices — a far cry from the short-lived one-pager that Trump officials teased earlier this month — required Iran for 15 years to limit its nuclear program to civilian purposes, forfeit more than 97% of its enriched uranium and submit to intrusive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure compliance. In return, Iran gradually got relief from some, but not all, international economic sanctions and access to Iranian funds that were frozen after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Presumably, after 15 years, the agreement would have been extended somehow.
By all accounts, including those of Trump’s first-term intelligence and national security officials, Iran was complying when he abandoned the deal. Its “breakout time” for building a nuclear weapon was about a year — time enough for the world to intervene — instead of two to three months. Now, though the president boasts he barred Iran from having that weapon by breaking the Iran nuclear deal, he incessantly tells Americans that he went to war against Iran on Feb. 28 because it was on the brink of a bomb — never mind that he also said he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program last summer, a program that was in a well-monitored box until he first took office.
If you’re confused, you’re paying attention.
A month ago, Trump posted online that he was close to a deal “FAR BETTER” than the 2015 accord. “I am under no pressure whatsoever, although, it will all happen, relatively quickly!” To several reporters, he suggested he in fact had a deal and that Iran had agreed both to suspend its nuclear activities and to forfeit all of its enriched, near-weapons-grade uranium.
Preposterous claims, given Iran’s current government, and Tehran promptly denied them. It was a sign of Trump’s squandered credibility that few, if anyone, believed him in the first place. Nor have folks believed his more recent talk of imminent success; oil markets, too, have learned not to trust the president, as prices at the pumps attest.
On Tuesday at the White House, amid a noisy tour of the billion-dollar-ballroom construction site, Trump told reporters he’d been “an hour away” from striking Iran again that very day but Mideast leaders asked for more time for negotiations.
Don’t hold your breath.
But for the tragic consequences, Obama might be enjoying some justifiable schadenfreude about Trump’s travails.
“We pulled it off without firing a missile. We got 97% of the enriched uranium out,” he told Stephen Colbert in an interview last week. Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that Iran was abiding by the nuclear limits, Obama added, “and we didn’t have to kill a whole bunch of people or shut down the Strait of Hormuz.”
That sure doesn’t sound like the “worst deal ever.” It wasn’t.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
-
Politics3 minutes agoJustices Decline to Rule in Death Penalty Case Over Intellectual Disabilities
-
Lifestyle39 minutes ago‘It’s one of my dreams,’ Rose Byrne says of her comic turn on Broadway
-
Education45 minutes agoVideo: Opinion | A Defense of a Liberal Arts Education in the Age of A.I.
-
Technology51 minutes agoPhilips’ new display has a screen on both sides
-
World57 minutes agoRecord number of climbers summit Mount Everest from Nepali side despite overcrowding concerns
-
Politics1 hour agoSenate GOP erupts over Trump DOJ ‘anti-weaponization’ fund, punts ICE, Border Patrol funding
-
Health1 hour ago‘Wild West’ peptide craze surges beyond GLP-1s as FDA faces pressure to ease access
-
Sports1 hour agoCollege football player William Davis cause of death revealed: report
