denial

For weeks, salacious talk swirled in campaign circles, ricocheted through email chains and was served up, like a buzzy side dish, over gossipy lunches from Sacramento to San Diego.

The talk revolved around Eric Swalwell, the 45-year-old congressman from the East Bay and one of the top Democratic contenders for California governor. The rumors involved allegations of inappropriate behavior with young staffers.

Pressed by rival camps, pursued by the political press corps, the claims were largely confined to unvetted corners of the internet until this week, when Swalwell’s campaign — knowing the whispers were getting louder — issued a public statement denying any wrongdoing.

The move was a prebuttal. Strategists figured it better to get out front of the chatter and address the online innuendo, even if it meant exposing the allegations to a much wider audience. The campaign’s statement was followed hours later by a categorical denial from the congressman.

“It’s false,” Swalwell told reporters Tuesday night in Sacramento. He said he never behaved inappropriately with female staff members or had a sexual relationship with any staffer or intern. There were no quiet legal settlements, he said. No hiding behind nondisclosure agreements.

Then, on Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle published a lengthy report — filled with highly specific and graphic details — quoting a woman who worked nearly two years for Swalwell, stating she had sexual encounters with him while he was her boss. Twice, she alleged, he sexually assaulted her when she was too intoxicated to consent.

The woman, who is 17 years younger than Swalwell, said the congressman began pursuing her within weeks of her hiring at age 21 to work in his district office in the East Bay Area. That was in 2019.

The woman said she largely kept quiet about Swalwell’s behavior out of fear she would suffer personal and professional consequences. She told the Chronicle she did not share her account with authorities because she was afraid they would not believe her. The newspaper said medical records show the woman obtained pregnancy and STD tests a week after one of the alleged assaults.

Swalwell issued another categorical denial.

“These allegations are false and come on the eve of an election against the front-runner for governor,” he said in a statement, somewhat overstating his status in the neck-and-neck gubernatorial race. “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,” Swalwell said. “My focus in the coming days is to be with my wife and children and defend our decades of service against these lies.”

Even before the Chronicle published its article, once the privately bandied rumors were suddenly the open, you could almost hear the sound of a dam bursting. Swalwell’s competitors were quick to amplify the assertions, grappling for advantage in a race that remains stubbornly knotted up.

“Very, very troubling,” said fellow Democrat Katie Porter. “Deeply troubling,” echoed Betty Yee, another of the Democratic hopefuls.

A third Democrat running, Antonio Villaraigosa, was more inventive, accusing Swalwell “of skipping town” — he did not attend a Wednesday candidate forum in Sacramento — “as more and more women come forward with sexual harassment allegations.”

At that point no one with firsthand knowledge had come forward to contradict Swalwell’s denial of wrongdoing.

But with Friday’s article in the Chronicle, opponents escalated their attacks. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and state schools superintendent Tony Thurmond both called on Swalwell to quit the race.

One of his highest-profile backers, Democratic Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, withdrew his endorsement and expressed regret he had defended Swalwell on social media prior to the Chronicle’s account. Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles also withdrew his endorsement and urged Swalwell to abandon his candidacy.

Behind closed doors, other major Swalwell backers were reassessing their support.

It’s understandable — and probably necessary — for the congressman to retreat, as he suggested, to spent time with his wife and family.

But in light of the Chronicle’s report, and its damning allegations, he’ll need to do more than issue strongly worded statements on threatened legal action if he has any hopes of salvaging his gubernatorial candidacy and political career. (Swalwell gave up his congressional seat to run for governor.)

If the allegations are false, he needs to refute each and every detail in thorough, incontrovertible fashion. If they’re true, then what could Swalwell possibly have been thinking — not just forcing himself on his alleged victim, but running for governor knowing what he’d done? Was he convinced his behavior would never come to light? Did he believe that adamant denials would allow him to brazen his way through?

Swalwell has a lot of explaining to do — about his behavior, his disclaimers, his judgment.

And even though the June primary is still many weeks away, he has very little time to do so.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed Friday to block the Trump administration from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon, agreeing with The New York Times that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington sided with the newspaper and ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including from the Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials. He ruled that it violates the First and Fifth amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s (credential),” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government attorneys wrote.

Times attorneys claim the policy is designed to silence unfavorable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.