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.
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.
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.