A former staffer of Rep. Eric Swalwell, a leading Democratic candidate for California governor, says that the congressman raped her when she was heavily intoxicated, an allegation Swalwell strongly denies.
If he did this, throw the book at him. I just don’t want to see the Republicans pulling another Al Franken. Let the reporters dig for a couple of days, then we get the pitchforks. The dems can be so freaking stupid sometimes. This all may be justified, we just don’t know yet.
Al Frankens main accuser was a republican trying to add to her star power and the story was first published by her republican radio station that openly admitted to not fact checking. The reporters here DID dig. It’s in the article. They saw texts, spoke to people who were told of the events at the time, and have medical records. This guy is being accused by people who used to work for him and are openly on the left. I understand wanting to wait for more information to come out or more to be corroborated, but it feels dismissive to compare this to the Al Franken situation regardless. This is being published by a reputable outlet and they seem to have a lot of people willing to back up these accounts with contemporaneous evidence.
To use the defensive letter saying “well you asked for a letter of recommendation” as evidence that this is at all like the Al Franken thing seems like a misunderstanding of who accused these people and of what.
And yet, you are all acting exactly the same. CNN can NOT be trusted. Again, I’m not saying he didn’t do it, let’s wait a few days before we tar and* feather him.
I’m not acting any way about him. I haven’t called for his resignation or even an apology. I originally pointed out that having stayed in contact is not a valid defense against abuse. When you reiterated a concern regarding a similarity to the situation with Al Franken, I pointed out the ways in which this differed. You can disagree if you feel as though a CNN article that states text evidence was obtained has an equivalent journalistic value to a right wing radio station running with a story their host brought, but I was just pointing out how this situation differs.
It seemed to me like you felt you had to rush to his defense because of a letter in which he stated there was ongoing contact between them. I think wanting to see how things shake out is fine, but quoting his defense and comparing it to the Al Franken situation makes it seem like you think it’s a lie. That’s ok if that’s your perception and you’d like to share that, but it didn’t come across as “wait and see” it came across as a defense. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
If he did this, throw the book at him. I just don’t want to see the Republicans pulling another Al Franken. Let the reporters dig for a couple of days, then we get the pitchforks. The dems can be so freaking stupid sometimes. This all may be justified, we just don’t know yet.
Al Frankens main accuser was a republican trying to add to her star power and the story was first published by her republican radio station that openly admitted to not fact checking. The reporters here DID dig. It’s in the article. They saw texts, spoke to people who were told of the events at the time, and have medical records. This guy is being accused by people who used to work for him and are openly on the left. I understand wanting to wait for more information to come out or more to be corroborated, but it feels dismissive to compare this to the Al Franken situation regardless. This is being published by a reputable outlet and they seem to have a lot of people willing to back up these accounts with contemporaneous evidence.
To use the defensive letter saying “well you asked for a letter of recommendation” as evidence that this is at all like the Al Franken thing seems like a misunderstanding of who accused these people and of what.
And yet, you are all acting exactly the same. CNN can NOT be trusted. Again, I’m not saying he didn’t do it, let’s wait a few days before we tar and* feather him.
I’m not acting any way about him. I haven’t called for his resignation or even an apology. I originally pointed out that having stayed in contact is not a valid defense against abuse. When you reiterated a concern regarding a similarity to the situation with Al Franken, I pointed out the ways in which this differed. You can disagree if you feel as though a CNN article that states text evidence was obtained has an equivalent journalistic value to a right wing radio station running with a story their host brought, but I was just pointing out how this situation differs.
It seemed to me like you felt you had to rush to his defense because of a letter in which he stated there was ongoing contact between them. I think wanting to see how things shake out is fine, but quoting his defense and comparing it to the Al Franken situation makes it seem like you think it’s a lie. That’s ok if that’s your perception and you’d like to share that, but it didn’t come across as “wait and see” it came across as a defense. Just my 2 cents on the matter.