The notion that Swalwell was "flirty."

I'm seeing this inane word "flirty" in the context of Swalwell's downfall.

In the Politico article "'I fell for it:' Gallego gives emotional remarks following Swalwell sexual assault allegations/The Arizona Democratic senator said he regrets not seeing the signs that his colleague was “a predator'" (Politico).

“I let this man into my family … it hurts me that this man hurt a lot of people,” [Senator Ruben] Gallego, who chaired Swalwell’s 2020 presidential campaign, said in emotional remarks where he at times appeared on the verge of tears.

While Gallego conceded he had long heard rumblings that Swalwell was “flirty,” he insisted he was unaware of the severity of the charges being lodged against Swalwell by former staffers — including rape....

The NYT has "Gallego Dismissed Rumors of a ‘Flirty’ Swalwell, Highlighting a Culture of Silence/The admission by Senator Ruben Gallego that he had heard, but disbelieved, rumors about Eric Swalwell and women showed the attitude on Capitol Hill toward men accused of behaving badly." 

Senator Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona, acknowledged on Tuesday that he had long heard rumors that Representative Eric Swalwell was “flirty” with women, but had allowed his longtime friendship with the California Democrat to cloud his judgment and never said or did anything about it.

I could give you many more links to reports of Gallego saying "flirty" to distance and absolve himself of knowledge of anything serious Swalwell may have done.

Nothing I found gave any substance to the characterization "flirty," which sounds like a quality you'd attribute to a school girl or a low-status woman.

When has a man ever been called "flirty"? Why would you call a powerful man flirty? I can only think that you're going out of your way to avoid saying "creepy" or "predatory" or one of those other words that are normally flung at men. Did Swalwell go up to women and say things like "Ooh, I like your dress" — things like that — and only things like that? If not, to say "flirty" is to continue to hide your part in covering for the sexual abuses of your colleagues.

Can we talk a little bit about beauty filters?

I'm told this is Rosie O'Donnell, inviting us to "talk a little bit about Eric Swalwell. If she's actually ready to get serious about the interests of women, why is she presenting herself like this?

Rosie O’Donnell speaks out about her past support for Eric Swalwell.

“It’s heartbreaking to me. And I wrote him a little message. And I said ‘Bill Clinton broke my heart and you did too.’ The conclusion I’ve come to- men suck.” pic.twitter.com/QP1nBuQDUc

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) April 16, 2026

She's used some kind of filter that makes her look like a little girl. That actually fits the substance. She's posing as an innocent girl whose "heart" was broken when men she supported revealed themselves to be abusers of women. She wants us to be angry at them because they hurt her — they broke her heart. First Clinton and now Swalwell. Her conclusion is babyish: "Men suck." 

Then she takes on a believe-the-science attitude: "The way that [men] are physiologically, they can't, sort of, control their sexual urges." After saying that, she touches her nose and cheek in a way that makes me think she knows she's bullshitting.

Notice that it's basically the same bullshit theory we were talking about 2 days ago in "The problem is less a 'boys will be boys' tolerance than a sense of resignation among politicians, staff and other members of official Washington that powerful, ambitious men are built differently."  That post title is a quote from a NYT column. The columnist, Michelle Cottle did not detail this "built differently" hypothesis, so I paraphrased it: "the idea is if we want truly great men in our positions of power, we need to accept the component of their psyche that is a drive for sex — a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women."

"The problem is less a 'boys will be boys' tolerance than a sense of resignation among politicians, staff and other members of official Washington that powerful, ambitious men are built differently."

Writes Michelle Cottle, in "How Many People Heard About Swalwell and Did Nothing?" (NYT).

Cottle does not delve into this "built differently" hypothesis or the reasons why people believe it and choose to condone bad behavior. She seems to hope to light a fire under these weaker people and motivate them to oppose the "powerful, ambitious men" who — supposedly — are fueled by sexual desire. 

Maybe she doesn't delve into the hypothesis because she thinks it's true and self-evident. Maybe she's too puritanical to open up the subject. "Built differently." Say it clearly and explicitly. When I was a child, circa 1960, I asked my mother how babies were born. That was long ago, but I remember her answer verbatim: "Well, you know how men and women are built differently."

Can we please grow up and say it bluntly? There's no reason to be polite here. Powerful, ambitious men are built differently... the idea is if we want truly great men in our positions of power, we need to accept the component of their psyche that is a drive for sex — a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. We're diminishing ourselves if we filter out the men who have it. Look at JFK. Look at Trump. And by the way, it's also the reason why none of the women are truly great political leaders.

That's not my personal belief. That's the hypothesis Cottle gestures at, and I'm just putting it bluntly. Maybe you can put it more bluntly, so I'll turn the conversation over to you.

Swalwell says he's "deeply sorry to my family, staff, and constituents for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past" and he "must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make"...

... but he's also determined to "fight the serious, false allegation made against me." He's fighting and it's false but he's sorry and he did make mistakes and he's got to take responsibility and he is resigning from Congress.

That's what it says here in "Eric Swalwell resigns from Congress after heinous sex assault accusations" (NY Post).

Does it seem incoherent? Not if you see it all in terms of "distraction": It's "wrong," he says, for him to be "distracted from my duties." The fighting will need to take place where we won't care about it anymore — on the outside of any campaign or political office. And now, presumably, we don't need to think about Swalwell for one more second. He has become nobody. Move on. That went by fast.

ADDED: Tony Gonzales, the Republican Congressman, is also resigning, also based on a sexual accusation (NYT link).

"We want a full house cleaning. Get the garbage out of here. These jerks are destroying Congress, for the American people and for all of us who came here to do good work."

Said an unnamed House Democrat, quoted in "Swalwell scandal threatens cascade of House expulsion votes" (Axios).

But: "Many rank-and-file House members are territorial about their prerogatives and terrified of the precedent it would set to expel someone on the basis of allegations that haven't been fully adjudicated — even when they are highly unsavory."

"In a stunning political reversal, prominent supporters of Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for California governor withdrew their support Friday..."

"... after the congressmember denied allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman twice, including when she worked for him. Swalwell was among the leading Democrats in the race to replace outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom. But in just hours, he saw his most prominent supporters - including U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and powerful labor unions - drop their endorsements and call for his exit from the race.... This turmoil in the race came after the San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday that a woman said Swalwell sexually assaulted her in 2019 and 2024.... Uncorroborated and nonspecific rumors that Swalwell behaved inappropriately with female staffers have circulated on social media for weeks, but the Chronicle’s story is the first reported account of someone making a direct accusation...."

I'm reading "Allies yank support for Swalwell’s California governor run after sexual assault allegations" (AP).

"Pam Bondi is a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year. Pam did a tremendous job..."

"... overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country, with Murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900. We love Pam, and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future, and our Deputy Attorney General, and a very talented and respected Legal Mind, Todd Blanche, will step in to serve as Acting Attorney General. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

Trump, at Truth Social.

The spin at the NYT: "The firing of Ms. Bondi, 60, ends a turbulent 14-month tenure as attorney general in which she tried desperately to appease a boss who demanded unimpeded control of the Justice Department to pursue politically motivated investigations against targets of his choosing, even when prosecutors warned that there was no evidence to do so.... Yet Mr. Trump remained annoyed by Ms. Bondi’s inability to secure indictments of people he referred to as 'scum' during a speech in the department’s Great Hall about a year ago.... He has also complained about her shortcomings as a communicator and TV surrogate — a role he thought would suit her talents.... In mid-March, five Republicans on the House Oversight Committee blindsided their own leadership — and Ms. Bondi — by joining Democrats to vote to subpoena her to testify under oath behind closed doors about the Epstein case...."

The spin at The Daily Mail: "Trump's reasoning for the sudden dismissal comes in part because the President believes Bondi tipped off Eric Swalwell about the FBI's efforts to release investigative documents related to his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy."

Speaker McCarthy pithily states why Schiff and Swalwell will no longer serve on the House Intel Committee.

 

The questioner tries to make it about Santos — a ridiculous distraction that McCarthy rebuffs: the lies of Schiff and Swalwell are more relevant and consequential. McCarthy doesn't get sucked into trying to minimize Santos's lies. He just maximizes Schiff and Swalwell's lies. Maximizes or right-sizes.

A fantastic montage of the wildest moments of 2019.

A juxtaposition in the New York Post inspires me to think that we will survive.

(Click to enlarge and clarify.)

Links:

"Reporter spotted chugging her coffee is hero of impeachment hearings"

"120-year-old photo sparks Greta Thunberg conspiracy theories"

"Goodwin: Why Dems are so worried after latest round of impeachment hearings"

"Surgeons cut pounds of petroleum jelly out of ‘Popeye’ bodybuilder’s biceps"

ADDED: From the Goodman column:

Vindman was a strong witness, but a strange one, too. He presented himself as an Alexander Haig-like “I’m in charge here” figure, when he was actually far down the pecking order.

His inflated sense of self-importance seemed to be key to his alarm over the phone call. As he put it, he believed “that if Ukraine pursued an investigation in the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play” and Ukraine would lose bipartisan support...

Adding to the surreal quality of the hearings is a crucial fact that gets too little attention: Trump’s policy toward Ukraine has been far stronger than President Barack Obama’s. Providing Ukraine with antitank weapons to counter Russian invasions is a direct slap at Vladimir Putin, a move Obama rejected because he feared it would provoke Putin.

IN THE COMMENTS: tim maguire asked (about the coffee drinker):

Why is that a thing? He testified for a long time. The people behind him are going to do stuff. I could see if she picked her nose or let loose a particularly large yawn, but drinking coffee? That’s pretty normal.

It's "a thing" because people get so bored and dull during long formal proceedings that something spontaneous gives joy. This is what I'm talking about when I say I am inspired. It means that we seemingly inert Americans are not sitting still and inertly receiving the program. We are thirsting for humanity — and when we feel we are down to the last drop, we invert the big cup onto our face with jaunty enthusiasm.

Speaking of "if she picked her nose or let loose a particularly large yawn"... just look at all the attention paid yesterday to the possibility that Eric Swalwell farted during a TV interview. The fart heard 'round the world means: We want to feel alive! We are human!!

"When congressional staffers, prompted by repeated media inquiries, asked Mueller’s team about his cognitive acuity, they were told — three separate times — that he was okay...."

"After Mueller’s halting, sometimes confused testimony before two congressional committees Wednesday, some lawmakers are privately wondering whether there was some truth to the rumors — and whether they were right to force him to testify against his wishes....  Democrats lionized Mueller, believing his investigation to be their best hope at exposing wrongdoing by Trump.... After Mueller’s investigation concluded — and Democrats pressed him to testify — his staff communicated to Capitol Hill in no uncertain terms: Mueller did not want to do it.... For a time, Mueller’s team pushed for the hearings to take place behind closed doors, and they advocated aggressively to limit each of the hearings to two hours. Members also were perplexed that panel staffers wanted them to shape questions so they could be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no.'...  Some Democrats recognized after the first hearing that Mueller was not as sharp as they would have liked. During a break, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who sits on both committees, warned lawmakers on the second panel to slow down, shorten their questions and speak louder so Mueller could follow better.... Democratic lawmakers are divided about whether they made the right decision in forcing Mueller to appear. Some — and most committee staff members — say they had no choice. While saddened by the attacks on Mueller post-hearing, they say it will pay off in the long run for their investigations, as the public event allowed Mueller to publicly confirm unflattering facts about Trump that they can further explore."

From "Mueller’s team told Congress his acuity was not an issue. Some lawmakers privately worry it was" (WaPo)(relying on anonymous sources).

I want to make a close study of a section of the transcript of last night's debate — the part about race that ended with Kamala Harris yelling at Biden.

I could not listen to the substance last night. With TV, I'm tuned into the images and emotion. I'm not going to be distracted by the substance, and I know I'll have the transcript later. (I got mine at WaPo.)

I feel that the emotional high point came when Kamala Harris was yelling at Joe Biden. Here's how Drudge depicts it:




It was the emotional high, so that means I was at my lowest substance absorbency. I need to parse the transcript to see exactly how that rolled out and how I think about it in the dark storm of morning.

It began right after the break, with the second set of moderators, Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow. Maddow's first question, addressed to Pete Buttigieg, was very specific:

Time for Part 2 of the first Democratic Candidates' Debate.

1. I don't know if I'll have much to say. I can see my son John is set up and ready to live blog, so I point you over there. He's sure to have substance. I will, at most, have transitory feelings and stray observations. I hope something interesting happens. I don't care to hear them trot out their plans and policies. I prefer to consume that in writing. I'm only interested in seeing debating style and behavior and finding things weird or funny. But you can say what you like in the comments.

2. Joe is trying to intimidate Bernie by looking at him.

3. Kirsten Gillibrand gets away with interrupting... for a while, and then she's cut off. I don't listen to what she says because I'm noticing she's got the same mascara problem Amy Klobuchar had last night — just a few blots in the center of the lower lid. I assume that's accidental transfer of upper lash mascara. She also seems uncomfortable with her false eyelashes. She's blinking furiously. Oh, now she's interrupting again. So annoying. I'm literally getting a headache.

4. Andrew Yang is not wearing a tie. He's asked a question and he acts like he hasn't heard it.

5. Swalwell picked out his orange tie. He's also got an orange ribbon. Must mean something. I'm reading the Wikipedia article on the meaning of the orange ribbon. There are a lot of possibilities, including: "In the 1920s, an orange ribbon was used [in Sweden] for the national association of overallklubbar, clubs promoting a radical change in fashion meaning everyone should wear jumpsuits."

6. They're all talking at once! It reminds me of last night's audio snafu. Pure chaos. Kamala Harris gets off a joke: "America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we're going to put food on their table."

7. The tension and anger is cranking up, and I blame Bernie Sanders. It's catching, and several of the others are infected, notably Joe Biden. When they yell, I can barely listen.

8. The subject of health care is going on and on. I consider this mainly a legislative matter. I'd rather hear them talk about things that are specific to the executive power.

9. On the hand-raising question, Biden has a halfway gesture, holding up an index finger at nose level. Is he trying to say: I have a special statement to make. I guess that's okay. Why force people to accept or reject a dictated statement?

10. The Democrats are embracing completely open immigration, as far as I can tell. It seems that anyone can decide to move here and be welcomed and supported. I can't believe that is what Americans will vote for, and neither can Trump:

All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 28, 2019

11. Marianne Williamson is weird, but I find her eerily fascinating. And I love her outfit.

12. Kamala Harris is doing pretty well, but I didn't like her yelling at Biden. She did kind of get under his skin though.

13. Bennet looks like Karl Malden. And he speaks in a voice that's the voice most people use when saying the word "duh" sarcastically.

14. Biden is doing a good job of not looking like an old man. And it's late.

Eyewitness testimony versus circumstantial evidence.

The creases would indicate you've only been flying the LGBT flag for a few hours https://t.co/YT1NfuN7f8

— Kaitlin Bennett (@KaitMarieox) May 25, 2019

ADDED: A crease can ruin your dream of the Presidency, but don't forget that a crease can lift your dream. Remember?

I remember distinctly an image of — we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.

Based on the new polls, I'd say the hit job on Biden failed miserably.

Here's the graphic depiction, from Real Clear Politics (click to enlarge and clarify):



Biden hasn't lost any ground at all. And the rest of the pack seems rather pitiful. Yes, Buttigieg has risen from complete unknown to Booker level. I guess that looks positively burbling compared to the stagnation everywhere else.

ADDED: I went over to FiveThirtyEight to see how they were handling the dismal stagnation. The big article there is "How Eric Swalwell Could Win The 2020 Democratic Primary." A new funny name to replace the getting-old funniness of Buttigieg.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Swalwell hasn’t gotten a lot of attention as a potential presidential candidate. Only four pollsters have included him in early 2020 polls, and he has garnered only 0 or 1 percent in them. He has yet to bag any major endorsements. But Swalwell is reasonably adept at drawing attention to himself — he is a prolific user of social media and is a frequent guest on cable news shows....

You need to be better at garnering.