Eric Swalwell is being accused of being a sex pervert

[Legato]

25 minutes ago, West said:

Forgot this pervert was also behind the Kavanaugh fiasco. Sick person

 

He does like Kung Pao Chicken.

[West]

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

They won't let a Repub take over Cali even if Swalwell had a basement full of underage kids. 

That's true but as i understand it there's two democrats vying for the seat. 

[gatomontes99]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's true but as i understand it there's two democrats vying for the seat. 

There are like 17. 16 have zero chance. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have r4ped E. ...

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com › Politics › The Fix

Jul 19, 2023 — What the jury found Donald Trump did to E. Jean Carroll was in fact r4pe, as commonly understood, even if it didn't fit New York law's ...

Thanks for proving you're LYING. "Prepared to accuse" is NOT "accused." Duh LMAO

E Jean Carroll herself said that Trump did not r4pe her, and no one can argue her point.

By her own story, and the verifiable facts of the case, she was a 52 yr old woman, out walking the streets of NYC by herself in 4" heels, an the middle of winter. 

That's not a crime, she had every right to do that, but she just looked like a ho, and she got propositioned like a ho:

1. Trump made a profoundly sexual overture right in the first moments they made contact
2. Carroll played coy, but by her own admission she consented to his request to "model lingerie for him", because she took lingerie into a changeroom where he simply "closed the door behind him" 
3. Now, her bringing him into the changeroom with her to model lingerie for him does not not constitute "implied consent for rough, full intercourse", but it was by any reasonable reckoning "implied consent for him to try to go to the next base", which he did by pushing her against the wall and kissing her.   
4. In her own words, she never described offering any resistance at all at that stage, she said that "she just giggled"
5. I dunno if they made out for 30 seconds or whatever, but they did it for long enough for him to get his fingers into her cooter, and again, she never described offering any resistance at all to him at that stage, she said that she just "giggled again"
6. At this point, he's standing in the changeroom with her, his fingers are in her cooter, he starts fumbling with his belt or whatever, and she did the exact opposite of what robo would have done in that situation: she gave the very first sign that she was rejecting his advances, by pushing him with one arm
7. By her OWN STORY, the 120-lb, 52-yr-old lady, in 4" high heels, pushed him one time, with one arm, and was able to exit the changeroom. He's 6'3 and weighs 225 lbs by the WH medical records. That's not her escaping, that's him letting her go instantly.

So tell me robobigot: at what point above did that alleged encounter rise from the level of "sleazy encounter" to "r4pe"? 

Was it r4pe when she brought him into the changeroom? 

Did he commit "kiss-r4pe", when he kissed her and she giggled?

Was it "giggling finger-b4ng r4pe" when she giggled as he put his fingers into her va-j-j?

Was it r4pe when she shoved him and then he let her go? 

Describe for me, at what point of her own story, did she get r4ped?

FYI she even said that she never considered it a r4pe until her friend suggested it was a possible r4pe. How does a woman not know that she was r4ped herself, the day it happened, and for days after, but you do, after only hearing of it 25 years later? 

Is it considered "r4pe" in your books whenever a guy tries to get to the next base and is rebuffed? What if he pretends to go back to the previous base and then tries for the next base again when he feels like she will go for it? Is trying twice r4pe, robobigot? 

Robobigot, I don't need a judge to tell me what a r4pe is. And I read her story, and she never called it a r4pe either. 

1. This is an alleged incident
2. from "either 1995 or 1996"
3. it allegedly happened in an extremely public place at the very busiest time of year but somehow there were zero witnesses
4. the accuser hasn't described a r4pe of any sort
5. she never considered the alleged incident a r4pe, her friend suggested it to her

and no one in the entire history of the United States is considered a r4pist under those circumstances. 

 

For your edification, here is an example of a "non-r4pe" by a member of the Kennedy family:

The William Kennedy Smith r4pe case is the high-profile legal matter often associated with the Kennedy family compound in Palm Beach, Florida (sometimes metaphorically referred to as "Camelot"). On December 11, 1991, a jury acquitted William Kennedy Smith, the nephew of Senator Ted Kennedy, of all charges after just 77 minutes of deliberation. 

 

• Incident Details
• Date & Location: The alleged assault occurred in the early hours of March 30, 1991, on the grounds and beach of the Kennedy family’s oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Florida.
• The Parties: The accused was William Kennedy Smith, then a 30-year-old medical student. The accuser was Patricia Bowman, a 29-year-old single mother.
• The Lead-up: Earlier that evening, Smith had been out at a local nightclub called Au Bar with his uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, and his cousin, Patrick Kennedy. Smith met Bowman at the club, and she later drove him back to the Kennedy compound.
• The Allegation: Bowman alleged that while walking on the beach behind the estate, Smith tackled her and forcibly r4ped her. She testified that she repeatedly said "no" and that Smith called her a "b1tch" during the attack.
• The Defense: Smith maintained that the sexual encounter was entirely consensual. He testified that Bowman became upset and slapped him only after he mistakenly called her by the name of a former girlfriend, "Cathy".

 

• Key Trial Highlights
• Excluded Testimony: The prosecution attempted to call three other women who claimed Smith had previously assaulted them in the 1980s. However, Judge Mary Lupo barred their testimony, ruling it did not establish a specific enough pattern of behavior to be admitted under Florida law.
• Physical Evidence: A hospital examination documented bruises on Bowman's body and semen in her vagina, which the prosecution argued supported a forceful attack, while the defense argued it was consistent with consensual sex.
• Kennedy Involvement: Senator Ted Kennedy was called to testify about the family's activities that evening, drawing further global media attention to the "Camelot" legacy. 

 

Key differences:

• specific date and time of day, vs unknown year lol
• several witnesses that the two actually met vs no witnesses that they ever met during that entire "season"
• defendant's admission that at one point during the encounter she slapped him vs Trump saying he was never even with her
• victim feeling that it was an attack, while it was happening, vs victim playing along in a very sexual manner and then only giggling while the encounter was happening, and never offering any resistance until the exact moment it ended
• victim goes directly to the police with bruises all over her body and calls is a r4pe vs victim doesn't even consider it a r4pe for days, until a friends suggests that it might have been one. 

Do you see how hard it is to get an actual r4pe conviction?

What you are describing between Trump/Carroll  is nothing more than "he said/she said" story.

 

By using that farcical story as an accusation of a r4pe, you are lying again, robobigot. You actually have no clue whatsoever whether or not she was even treated disrespectfully in said encounter, or if they ever even met at all.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

There are like 17. 16 have zero chance. 

Sounds like their just the age democrats like!   Oh,  wait, i see what you mean now. 

[Deluge]

On 4/6/2026 at 10:34 AM, WestCanMan said:

let's see if a bunch of women claiming that he's a predator matters to Dems

 

It'll matter only if it hurts Trump or helps dissolve borders somehow. 

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

E Jean Carroll herself said that Trump did not r4pe her, and no one can argue her point.

By her own story, and the verifiable facts of the case, she was a 52 yr old woman, out walking the streets of NYC by herself in 4" heels, an the middle of winter. 

That's not a crime, she had every right to do that, but she just looked like a ho, and she got propositioned like a ho:

1. Trump made a profoundly sexual overture right in the first moments they made contact
2. Carroll played coy, but by her own admission she consented to his request to "model lingerie for him", because she took lingerie into a changeroom where he simply "closed the door behind him" 
3. Now, her bringing him into the changeroom with her to model lingerie for him does not not constitute "implied consent for rough, full intercourse", but it was by any reasonable reckoning "implied consent for him to try to go to the next base", which he did by pushing her against the wall and kissing her.   
4. In her own words, she never described offering any resistance at all at that stage, she said that "she just giggled"
5. I dunno if they made out for 30 seconds or whatever, but they did it for long enough for him to get his fingers into her cooter, and again, she never described offering any resistance at all to him at that stage, she said that she just "giggled again"
6. At this point, he's standing in the changeroom with her, his fingers are in her cooter, he starts fumbling with his belt or whatever, and she did the exact opposite of what robo would have done in that situation: she gave the very first sign that she was rejecting his advances, by pushing him with one arm
7. By her OWN STORY, the 120-lb, 52-yr-old lady, in 4" high heels, pushed him one time, with one arm, and was able to exit the changeroom. He's 6'3 and weighs 225 lbs by the WH medical records. That's not her escaping, that's him letting her go instantly.

So tell me robobigot: at what point above did that alleged encounter rise from the level of "sleazy encounter" to "r4pe"? 

Was it r4pe when she brought him into the changeroom? 

Did he commit "kiss-r4pe", when he kissed her and she giggled?

Was it "giggling finger-b4ng r4pe" when she giggled as he put his fingers into her va-j-j?

Was it r4pe when she shoved him and then he let her go? 

Describe for me, at what point of her own story, did she get r4ped?

FYI she even said that she never considered it a r4pe until her friend suggested it was a possible r4pe. How does a woman not know that she was r4ped herself, the day it happened, and for days after, but you do, after only hearing of it 25 years later? 

Is it considered "r4pe" in your books whenever a guy tries to get to the next base and is rebuffed? What if he pretends to go back to the previous base and then tries for the next base again when he feels like she will go for it? Is trying twice r4pe, robobigot? 

Robobigot, I don't need a judge to tell me what a r4pe is. And I read her story, and she never called it a r4pe either. 

1. This is an alleged incident
2. from "either 1995 or 1996"
3. it allegedly happened in an extremely public place at the very busiest time of year but somehow there were zero witnesses
4. the accuser hasn't described a r4pe of any sort
5. she never considered the alleged incident a r4pe, her friend suggested it to her

and no one in the entire history of the United States is considered a r4pist under those circumstances. 

 

For your edification, here is an example of a "non-r4pe" by a member of the Kennedy family:

The William Kennedy Smith r4pe case is the high-profile legal matter often associated with the Kennedy family compound in Palm Beach, Florida (sometimes metaphorically referred to as "Camelot"). On December 11, 1991, a jury acquitted William Kennedy Smith, the nephew of Senator Ted Kennedy, of all charges after just 77 minutes of deliberation. 

 

• Incident Details
• Date & Location: The alleged assault occurred in the early hours of March 30, 1991, on the grounds and beach of the Kennedy family’s oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Florida.
• The Parties: The accused was William Kennedy Smith, then a 30-year-old medical student. The accuser was Patricia Bowman, a 29-year-old single mother.
• The Lead-up: Earlier that evening, Smith had been out at a local nightclub called Au Bar with his uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, and his cousin, Patrick Kennedy. Smith met Bowman at the club, and she later drove him back to the Kennedy compound.
• The Allegation: Bowman alleged that while walking on the beach behind the estate, Smith tackled her and forcibly r4ped her. She testified that she repeatedly said "no" and that Smith called her a "b1tch" during the attack.
• The Defense: Smith maintained that the sexual encounter was entirely consensual. He testified that Bowman became upset and slapped him only after he mistakenly called her by the name of a former girlfriend, "Cathy".

 

• Key Trial Highlights
• Excluded Testimony: The prosecution attempted to call three other women who claimed Smith had previously assaulted them in the 1980s. However, Judge Mary Lupo barred their testimony, ruling it did not establish a specific enough pattern of behavior to be admitted under Florida law.
• Physical Evidence: A hospital examination documented bruises on Bowman's body and semen in her vagina, which the prosecution argued supported a forceful attack, while the defense argued it was consistent with consensual sex.
• Kennedy Involvement: Senator Ted Kennedy was called to testify about the family's activities that evening, drawing further global media attention to the "Camelot" legacy. 

 

Key differences:

• specific date and time of day, vs unknown year lol
• several witnesses that the two actually met vs no witnesses that they ever met during that entire "season"
• defendant's admission that at one point during the encounter she slapped him vs Trump saying he was never even with her
• victim feeling that it was an attack, while it was happening, vs victim playing along in a very sexual manner and then only giggling while the encounter was happening, and never offering any resistance until the exact moment it ended
• victim goes directly to the police with bruises all over her body and calls is a r4pe vs victim doesn't even consider it a r4pe for days, until a friends suggests that it might have been one. 

Do you see how hard it is to get an actual r4pe conviction?

What you are describing between Trump/Carroll  is nothing more than "he said/she said" story.

 

By using that farcical story as an accusation of a r4pe, you are lying again, robobigot. You actually have no clue whatsoever whether or not she was even treated disrespectfully in said encounter, or if they ever even met at all.

The judge talks and you walk. Duh

Why do you Canucks believe your amateur legal opinions matter HERE? LMAO

[West]

On 4/7/2026 at 5:13 PM, robosmith said:

The judge talks and you walk. Duh

Why do you Canucks believe your amateur legal opinions matter HERE? LMAO

as expected. 

 

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, West said:

as expected. 

 

Anonymous "former staffer" for two years is a huge red flag right before an election.

Why are you quoting me from an UNRELATED POST?

[Barquentine]

On 4/6/2026 at 2:40 AM, CdnFox said:

Don't really know of the man  but we'll have to see if the women's claims are credible or likely.  Can't condemn the guy just yet without more info even if he is a dem.

The timing is suspicious but they sound credible. I think he's toast.

 

[Nationalist]

Giggle...bye bye Eric.

[WestCanMan]

Left4rds have no choice but consider Swallwell guilty now, because a woman said that he r4ped her. 

• she doesn't have to say what year it happened
• she doesn't need to have any witnesses
• there doesn't have to be any evidence of any kind whatsoever
• her story doesn't even have to include any non-consensual activity in it
• she can just say that "her friend felt like she might have been r4ped"

and Swallwell is "GUILTY!" by left4rd judges' accepted standards.

Dang. I guess he needs to go to jail. 

[robosmith]

30 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Left4rds have no choice but consider Swallwell guilty now, because a woman said that he r4ped her. 

• she doesn't have to say what year it happened
• she doesn't need to have any witnesses
• there doesn't have to be any evidence of any kind whatsoever
• her story doesn't even have to include any non-consensual activity in it
• she can just say that "her friend felt like she might have been r4ped"

and Swallwell is "GUILTY!" by left4rd judges' accepted standards.

Dang. I guess he needs to go to jail. 

So you also "guess" that Trump needs to go to jail if you're not a complete hypocrite, right.

[West]

55 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Left4rds have no choice but consider Swallwell guilty now, because a woman said that he r4ped her. 

• she doesn't have to say what year it happened
• she doesn't need to have any witnesses
• there doesn't have to be any evidence of any kind whatsoever
• her story doesn't even have to include any non-consensual activity in it
• she can just say that "her friend felt like she might have been r4ped"

and Swallwell is "GUILTY!" by left4rd judges' accepted standards.

Dang. I guess he needs to go to jail. 

Possibly roofied too

 

 

[West]

it does look like he denies the allegations 

 

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, West said:

Possibly roofied to0

Swallwell's only "done" if the leftists have a stronger candidate. That way they can afford to throw him under the bus. Otherwise "that b1tch is loonie".

Luckily for Swallwell, the whole world can see Kamala's ret4rdation, Newsom's hypocrisy/scandals/failures, AOC's anger and stupidity, and the leftists all know that Josh Sahpiro is a Jew. 

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, West said:

it does look like he denies the allegations 

That means nothing.

By the left's own established standard, aka "legal precedent", the accusation alone stands as 100% proof of guilt, regardless of a complete lack of evidence, or even a year the event allegedly took place. 

And it's not like this is a weaker accusation than the one against Trump. From Google AI search:

• 2019 Incident: An accuser alleged that in September 2019, while still part of his staff, she woke up naked in his hotel room one morning, following a night of heavy drinking, with little recollection of the previous night.
• 2024 Incident: The same staffer alleges that in April 2024 [3 years after she quit working for him], after a gala in New York, she was heavily intoxicated, and Swalwell forced himself on her in his hotel room. She stated she pushed him away and said "no," but he continued, leaving her with signs of physical trauma, including bleeding and bruises.
• Corroboration: The woman’s 2024 account was corroborated by friends she confided in at the time, her former boyfriend, medical records showing she sought testing for STDs, and text messages sent to friends shortly after the alleged incident.

 

 

 

I'm gonna admit right here that I had to edit the info in the AI reply in order for it to make sense. Look at this blatant BS that it spewed:

• 

The blue highlighted text in the photo contains all the info that I used above.... I put the events in chronological order, so that there's no mistaking the way things happened, and changed the wording a bit, just for the sake of clarity.

For "some reason", the events were written out of their chronological order in the AI reply, and then they strengthened the misdirection with the use of the word "still" in the next paragraph:

• "2019 Incident: The same staffer alleged that in September 2019, while still working for him," 

The way the AI search is written, it seems like she kept on working for him after he committed the r4pe which she actually has memories of, which makes readers think: "why would she have kept working for him if that really happened? It seems false."

Yes, the dates are in there, but a lot of people will "feel the chronology" in the order that the claims are presented to them, without keying in on the dates. And again, the use of the word "still" in the second paragraph reinforces the chronological misdirection.   

The start of the Google AI reply is shown below, just so that you can see everything they wrote before the section I quoted:

 

Google has a well-established history of promoting and protecting leftists, and omitting information that's unflattering for them from searches. At times like this, when they can't get away with a full omission, we are presented with misleading garbage like what I just copied and pasted.

[robosmith]

@WestCanMan

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

So you also "guess" that Trump needs to go to jail if you're not a complete hypocrite, right.

Swalwell has a long way down to go, to catch up with your hero Trump's LONG records of misconduct.

AKA until you hold Trump to the same standard you're applying to Swalwell, we KNOW you're JUST LYING.

A HUGE difference is, Trump was so proud of his sexual assault, he BRAGGED ABOUT IT.

Quote

As of October 2024, at least 28 women have publicly accused Donald Trump of various acts of sexual misconduct—ranging from unwanted kissing and groping to sexual assault and rape—dating back to the 1970s. [1, 2]

• Rape Accusations: Writer E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s. In 2023, a federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll. The presiding judge later clarified that this finding met the common definition of rape. His former wife, Ivana Trump, also described a violent assault in a 1990 divorce deposition, though she later walked back the use of the term "rape".
• Sexual Assault & Misconduct: Accusations include forcible kissing, groping, grabbing genitals, and walking in on pageant contestants while they were undressing.
• Other Accusers: Notable accusers include former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos, businesswoman Jill Harth, and model Amy Dorris.
• Legal Rulings: In 2023 and 2024, juries ordered Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll over $88 million in total damages for sexual abuse and defamation. [1, 2, 3]

Donald Trump has denied all of the allegations, often calling the accusers liars or stating that the incidents did not happen.

 

[Reg Volk]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/11/politics/manhattan-da-investigation-eric-swalwell

Is anyone surprised that this pig of a human being (he's a Democrat so it goes without saying) is being investigated?  California truly produces some of the worst people, who all end up in the corrupt and awful Democrat party.  California needs to wake up and to stop electing these scum Democrats once and for all.

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

@WestCanMan

Swalwell has a long way down to go, to catch up with your hero Trump's LONG records of misconduct.

 

 

So stupid.  Just moronic whataboutism.  This Swalwell scumbag is a monster, a sickening pig of a man, who of course, is embraced by the sickening pigs in the Democrats.  What a rotten party the Democrats are, full of truly rotten people.

[robosmith]

29 minutes ago, Reg Volk said:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/11/politics/manhattan-da-investigation-eric-swalwell

Is anyone surprised that this pig of a human being (he's a Democrat so it goes without saying) is being investigated?  California truly produces some of the worst people, who all end up in the corrupt and awful Democrat party.  California needs to wake up and to stop electing these scum Democrats once and for all.

So stupid.  Just moronic whataboutism.  This Swalwell scumbag is a monster, a sickening pig of a man, who of course, is embraced by the sickening pigs in the Democrats.  What a rotten party the Democrats are, full of truly rotten people.

Thanks for proving what a HUGE HYPOCRITE you are. LMAO

[Reg Volk]

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for proving what a HUGE HYPOCRITE you are. LMAO

I've never supported the pig-human Swalwell, so no, not a hypocrite.  Democrats are disgusting, and their apologists are even more disgusting.

[West]

45 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for proving what a HUGE HYPOCRITE you are. LMAO

Yeah yeah release the swalwell files 🙄 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for proving what a HUGE HYPOCRITE you are. LMAO

Did I hear you say that Swallwell is a r4pist?

You need to come out and state clearly and unequivocally, in no uncertain terms, that Eric Swallwell is a r4pist. Otherwise you are the epitome of a hypocrite.

[CdnFox]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Did I hear you say that Swallwell is a r4pist?

You need to come out and state clearly and unequivocally, in no uncertain terms, that Eric Swallwell is a r4pist. Otherwise you are the epitome of a hypocrite.

Otherwise? Two things can be true at the same time you know