scandal

SACRAMENTO — California Democrats caught a huge break with Eric Swalwell’s sexual assault scandal. It surfaced in early spring rather than midsummer.

Just think of the Democratic debacle that could have occurred.

What if the accusations of sexual misconduct, including alleged rape, had come to light after the gubernatorial candidate had triumphed in the June 2 primary and qualified for the November ballot?

Under California law, it would have been impossible to remove him from the ballot and insert a Democratic replacement.

“It would have been pretty devastating,” notes Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who heads the Assembly Elections Committee.

“It has given us a lot to think about.”

There’s a glaring flaw in California’s election system that should be fixed for the future. But exactly how is trickier than it might seem.

Here’s what I’m talking about:

Prior to April 10 — doomsday for Swalwell — the then-congressman from the East San Francisco Bay was leading the large field of Democratic candidates for governor. Just barely. But he was starting to pull away, based on polling and endorsements.

A survey conducted by the independent Public Policy Institute of California just before Swalwell’s accusers went public showed him leading all candidates — Democrats and Republicans — with 18% support among likely voters.

He was closely trailed by Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, with 17%. Another Republican and a Democrat — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer respectively — were tied for third at 14% each. Democratic former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter followed at 10%.

You can now toss all those numbers in the trash. But the point is that Swalwell was headed for victory in the primary. His next stop was the governor’s mansion because no Republican has won a statewide race in California in two decades.

The Democratic front-runner was raking in endorsements from interest groups and democratic politicians. He was considered the safest bet in a generally unimpressive field, a regular middle-class guy — and a white male, the only ethnicity and gender that has ever been elected governor in California.

Former state Controller Betty Yee, a Democratic darkhorse candidate for governor, was pretty much on target when she observed after Swalwell’s campaign collapsed:

“The obsession with who looks the part [of governor] almost got us an alleged sexual predator in Sacramento — ignoring the reality we need to actually fix our fraught state.”

But what if the victims of Swalwell’s alleged sexual improprieties — five women at last count — had waited a few more months to go public? And that’s conceivable. After all, they had remained silent for years. Apparently the nightmare of their alleged assailant becoming governor inspired them to talk now.

Although Swalwell quickly dropped out of the race, there’s no way to erase his name from the primary ballot. But at least voters can choose among seven other “major” Democratic contenders.

If he had already won in the top-two primary, however, and a Republican had also qualified for the November ballot, Democratic voters would have been left high and dry.

Presumably no sane person, no matter how partisan, would vote to elect an alleged rapist as governor. But the only other choice would have been a Republican lackey of President Trump. He’d undoubtedly win by default in a landslide.

“If Democrats had been stupid enough to nominate Swalwell, they’d have been stuck with him,” says Tony Quinn, a Republican elections analyst.

“Even dying doesn’t get you off the ballot. You don’t want to be the party nominee? So what, you are.”

No write-in candidacies are allowed in California’s general elections, although they are in the primary. That’s an inexplicable flaw.

“I’ve thought for years there should be a write-in option to deal with such a problem,” says UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, an expert on elections law.

Also, he points out, California’s top-two primary system — which advances only the top two vote-getters regardless of party — “cuts out minor parties from being relevant. You ought to be able to write in a minor party candidate.”

One reason a candidate can’t be removed from the ballot, election officials claim, is that tens of millions ballots have to be printed early enough to mail to every registered voter one month before election day.

Nonsense. In this era of rapidly expanding technology, you’d think that dilemma could be resolved even within snail-paced government bureaucracies. If nothing else, mail out a supplemental ballot just for the governor’s race.

But a bigger question is exactly who would choose the replacement for a departed candidate.

In a presidential election, the party hierarchy — a convention or national committee — would choose another nominee.

But there are no party nominees in California’s top-two open primary system. Parties don’t choose candidates for the November election. Voters regardless of their party do. So, in Swalwell’s case, the Democratic Party alone wouldn’t be entitled to select his substitute — unless the law were changed.

Or, perhaps the No. 3 vote-getter in the primary could automatically be elevated to the general election. We then could wind up with two candidates from the same party. But at least there’d be a better choice than an alleged sexual predator.

“I kind of miss those days” when parties nominated, says Pellerin, who was Santa Cruz County’s chief elections official for 27 years. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about — whether this is the best primary system.”

As I recently wrote, my vote would be to junk the top-two system and return to pre-”reform” party-nominating primaries.

Advocates of the top two primary — including myself — thought it would produce more centrist officeholders. It really hasn’t. It has just caused additional problems — like occasionally sending two candidates of the same party to the November runoff.

Meanwhile, all California voters should be grateful that Swalwell’s accusers courageously went public in April, not August.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Swalwell supporters scramble after he drops out of governor’s race. Who will benefit?
California love: Californians are pouring money into Democrats’ Senate races in other states
The L.A. Times Special: There’s a wide gap between rumor and fact. That’s where Eric Swalwell lurked

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Keir Starmer is facing renewed calls for resignation after fresh revelations surrounding the appointment and vetting of former UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson. The controversy has reignited scrutiny over governance standards inside the Labour government, coming at a politically sensitive time just months after Labour’s landslide election victory in 2024.

The Vetting Controversy:
The core of the scandal centres on reports that Mandelson did not properly pass security vetting before being appointed as ambassador. Despite this, official communications suggested that clearance had been confirmed. Downing Street has since dismissed a senior Foreign Office official, intensifying questions about how the appointment was handled and who within government was aware of the vetting status.

Political Fallout Inside Government:
The issue has exposed tensions within the Labour Party, with some lawmakers expressing concern over administrative failures while others defend the Prime Minister. Senior minister Darren Jones said Starmer was “furious” about not being informed of the vetting issues, while acknowledging serious breakdowns in communication between departments.

Opposition Pressure and Leadership Questions:
Opposition figures, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, have accused Starmer of misleading Parliament and questioned his credibility. The central allegation is whether the Prime Minister knowingly misrepresented the status of Mandelson’s clearance when defending the appointment. These accusations have intensified calls for resignation from political rivals.

Wider Political Context:
The controversy comes at a politically sensitive moment for Starmer, as Labour prepares for key local elections across England, Scotland, and Wales. The government is also managing broader foreign policy challenges, including Britain’s positioning in global conflicts involving the United States and Middle East tensions, adding further pressure on leadership stability.

Institutional and Governance Concerns:
Beyond individual accountability, the scandal has raised broader concerns about administrative competence within the Foreign Office and Downing Street. The dismissal of senior officials has highlighted breakdowns in communication and vetting procedures, raising questions about how high-level diplomatic appointments are approved and overseen.

Analysis:
The Mandelson vetting scandal has evolved from a procedural controversy into a wider test of political authority and administrative control for Starmer. While there is no clear evidence yet that the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament, the perception of mismanagement and lack of oversight has created significant political vulnerability.

At its core, the issue reflects a deeper challenge of governance: maintaining institutional trust while managing complex bureaucratic systems. Even if the government survives immediate calls for resignation, the damage is likely to linger, particularly if further inconsistencies emerge. With elections approaching and internal party tensions rising, Starmer’s ability to project control and competence will be central to whether this episode becomes a temporary setback or a longer-term political liability.

WASHINGTON — Eric Swalwell’s downfall has raised the possibility of a broader reckoning on Capitol Hill as congressional staffers, reporters and opposition researchers race to verify long-standing rumors of a sordid underground culture among the city’s most powerful.

Former lawmakers across the political spectrum have warned for years of a hushed congressional bacchanal marked by inappropriate revelry and sexual misconduct. But a sense of growing momentum gripped Congress on Tuesday, as Democrats grappled with Swalwell’s resignation and Republicans called for other lawmakers to face scrutiny.

The 72-hour collapse of Swalwell’s political career has shifted attention not only to his closest associates in Congress, but also to a larger set of sitting lawmakers from both parties suspected of lurid sexual activity. Several members have claimed that Swalwell’s alleged behavior was an open secret amid a cacophony of rumors on social media of other potential offenders.

“I think that many people knew about this for a while,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, said in an interview with The Times.

Luna, who planned to lead the charge to expel Swalwell before he resigned, alleged that young staffers would talk among one another about Swalwell’s conduct. Lawmakers should have done more to approach him about the rumors, she said.

Multiple current and former female staffers who spoke with The Times described a broader culture of warning one another about lawmakers with reputations for inappropriate conduct.

But the warnings, passed privately among junior aides, have focused on “sleazy” activity and boundary-crossing behavior, said one former legislative aide, who asked to remain anonymous. Whispers about sleazy behavior generally do not meet the coverage threshold for traditional newsrooms, which are bound by strict ethical standards.

Another former aide said that quiet guidance shared among female staffers focused on behavior that is legal, but nevertheless viewed as unprofessional and unbecoming of members of Congress — a line that has prevented many from speaking out publicly.

Now, a race is on for leverage between two political parties facing comparable strategic risks — each with members facing growing questions over their alleged conduct — and for scoops among news outlets, seeking to break the story first.

The Monday resignations of Swalwell and Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales, who faced his own sex scandal, was also forcing lawmakers to address the issue publicly. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) — one of Swalwell’s closest friends in Congress — answered questions from reporters at length Tuesday, telling them he should have confronted Swalwell when he heard rumors about his behavior.

“You let your guard down. I let him into my circle. … I deeply regret it,” Gallego said.

He denied knowing about Swalwell’s alleged misconduct when asked about the behavior.

“Look, we socialized. We went out. But I never saw him engage in any of the predatory behavior, harassment, sexual assault,” Gallego said.

Notably quiet was President Trump, who has faced sexual assault accusations of his own and frequently parried with Swalwell throughout his presidency. Although Trump posted an article reporting Swalwell’s resignation on social media, he has not commented on the matter in his own words.

The unraveling scandal comes at a time when lawmakers have come together across party lines to push for transparency in the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the late sex offender and alleged sex trafficker whose network of powerful associates included Democrats and Republicans alike.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, details of the Swalwell scandal continued to unfold Tuesday, as a Beverly Hills woman accused him of drugging and raping her in 2018. The Times could not immediately reach his attorney; he previously denied allegations of rape and sexual misconduct made by multiple women in published accounts last week.

Sex scandals are not a new phenomenon on Capitol Hill, which has seen over a dozen members embroiled in controversy over the last decade, including Katie Hill of California, Cory Mills and Matt Gaetz of Florida, and Blake Farenthold of Texas, among others.

But several prominent former members — including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — have warned of a more widespread cultural problem.

“Every member in Congress knows not to let any young staffer get around Swalwell or Matt Gaetz. It’s not a secret there,” McCarthy said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Luna had pressed lawmakers to address alleged sexual misconduct on Capitol Hill. In February, she called on the “predatory freaks” in Congress to leave office as she complained about the process to get ethical complaints handled.

“It pisses me off because while some of us are actually working and busting our asses, these clowns are sexually harassing their own staff, doing illegal crap, insider trading etc,” Luna wrote at the time.

Luna said Monday that she was encouraged to see bipartisan support for expelling Swalwell and Gonzales.

A longtime staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity said Tuesday that allegations against Swalwell have sparked conversations about how to do more to help staffers report sexual misconduct, such as reforming procedural rules that would allow staffers to report any of their concerns directly to ethics panels, and about the need for ethics investigations to move more quickly.

“Congress has a short-term memory, that is the difficulty here,” the staffer said. “After these guys leave their seats, there needs to be a concerted and consistent effort for reforms to be established and be made permanent.”

SAN DIEGO — While their spring convention was held beneath mostly sunny San Diego skies, delegates and leaders of the California Republican party basked in a different sort of glow over the weekend as the campaign for a leading Democratic candidate for governor imploded because of allegations of sexual assault and misconduct.

The party did not endorse a candidate for governor on Sunday because neither of the top Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News host Steve Hilton — received the support of 60% of delegates. Bianco won 49% while Hilton had 44%; 7% of delegates voted not to endorse in the race.

“We’re very happy,” Bianco said after the vote. “We got the popular vote here, right? Ultimately, our goal is to win California, and you win California with the popular vote … Californians are looking for a leader. Californians are looking for integrity. Californians are looking for honesty. And they want someone that they know is going to be looking out for them, working for them, and that’s why I won this vote.”

Hilton also said he was pleased by his showing.

“Chad came into this convention thinking he had it in the bag,” Hilton said. “I think we made a lot of progress this week and I think the endorsement of President Trump is the one that’s gonna be decisive in the primary.”

The convention took place as a former staff member for Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) accused him of forcing himself on her twice when she was too intoxicated to consent, according to reports published by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN. Three other women also accused Swalwell of misconduct that included sending and soliciting explicit photos and messages.

Swalwell has not withdrawn from the race, but within hours of the allegations top supporters withdrew endorsements of the East Bay Area congressman, including Sen. Adam Schiff, campaign co-chairs Reps. Jimmy Gomez and Adam Gray, and prominent labor unions including the California Teachers Assn.

The collapse of Swalwell’s campaign brought a surge of energy to leaders and hundreds of die-hard members of a state Republican Party that holds a superminority in the state Legislature and no statewide elected offices. The news broke Friday, just as the party convention was getting underway at the bayside Sheraton San Diego Resort and hours before the Artemis II crew splashed down off the nearby coast.

Sean Spicer, a former press secretary during President Trump’s first term who is promoting a new book, joked during a Saturday brunch panel about landing in San Diego just in time to see “the fall.”

“Sorry, I was talking about Swalwell,” he said to laughter. “It was also cool to see Artemis come back down.”

Republicans have not won a statewide election since 2006 and some hoped Swalwell’s controversy would fuel voters already beleaguered by the cost of living to consider supporting GOP candidates this year.

“Quite frankly, Californians are, by and large, looking for viable alternatives. They’re looking towards the California Republican Party,” Chairwoman Corrin Rankin told reporters.

Republicans running to succeed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom shared similar visions during five-minute speeches at a Saturday afternoon candidate forum.

“We meet here today, full of energy and hope and optimism, with a spring in our step on this beautiful spring day. Why? Because every party has its season, and for the California Democrats, the leaves are cascading from the trees,” Hilton told delegates.

Hilton, who served as a top political advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, argued that 16 years of Democratic rule has led to dysfunction, chaos and scandal that alarmed voters in the overwhelmingly blue state even before the Swalwell scandal.

“And now, it’s been a couple of hours, so I think we’re due for another Eric Swalwell intern eruption,” he said.

Hilton touted Trump’s endorsement, describing it as a “tremendous asset for us, the energy, the resources, the precious gift of having the boost that makes the biggest difference in a midterm year turnout.”

Bianco emphasized his decades serving in law enforcement in the state, one of his main selling points to Californians concerned about liberal criminal justice policies of past Democratic administrations.

“I have spent every day serving California residents, making our lives better and safer. I have fought for you, and I have bled for you,” Bianco said.

Bianco refuted Hilton’s allegations that he coddled undocumented immigrants, sympathized with Black Lives Matter protesters and threatened county residents with punishment if they did not abide by mask mandates during the pandemic. He said he was the first law-enforcement official in the nation to defy a lockdown order after the pandemic. Bianco said that while he prayed with protesters in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, he also “forcefully” expelled “rioters and domestic terrorists” from his county.

Bianco also obliquely referred to attacks Hilton has lobbed against the sheriff on the campaign trail.

“This was never supposed to be about a dishonest smear campaign and bullseyes,” Bianco said, referring to a mailer Hilton’s campaign sent to voters that pictured Bianco’s head with circles around it that resemble a shooting target.

As Bianco walked through the bayfront convention hotel after the forum, he was swarmed by supporters chanting his name.

Saturday night, Bianco hosted a western-saloon themed party for delegates. Attendees wearing cowboy hats line danced, petted fluffy white calves and posed for pictures in front of an inflated cactus.

A Hilton-hosted party took on the feel of a candidate forum as he and Republican allies running for other statewide offices gave another round of speeches, often punctuated by shushing attendees who chattered in the back of the room.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two leading candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. For weeks, Hilton and Bianco have led polls while eight prominent Democrats including Swalwell split the support of liberal voters, stoking anxiety among Democrats that the party could end up shut out of the November election.

The chances of that happening diminished with Swalwell’s fall from grace and Trump’s endorsement of Hilton, political experts said, but those in the conservative wing of California politics celebrated the apparent downfall of the once-powerful Democrat.

Swalwell is “in denial right now, but once he realizes he doesn’t have any friends left and his campaign team is leaving him, people are laughing at him in the restaurant, I think, and I hope for his sake, he has enough self-awareness that he’ll quietly drop out and go to the south coast of France and put on a wig,” said Republican National committeeman Shawn Steel.

One of the convention’s celebrated speakers, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took shots at other California Democrats during a Saturday evening banquet, describing Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass as “the Democrats’ national ambassador for disaster management” and Newsom as a contender for “Texas Realtor of the year, because no person in human history has sold more homes in the state of Texas.”

“Look, as a Texan, I gotta say, just isn’t fair. [You have] an economy that has been a monstrous engine driving America forward for decades, and yet you were cursed with idiot politicians,” Cruz said.

While Hilton‘s and Bianco’s campaigns have sparred about their respective records, the candidates largely avoided direct confrontation until a debate earlier this month in Rancho Mirage. The two GOP candidates tore into each other about issues such as immigration, their credentials and their honesty.

Delegates also sparred about Bianco and Hilton’s records in the halls of the convention.

Shiva Bagheri, a Bianco supporter from Beverly Hills, said that Hilton’s political positions are not constitutional.

“Steve said that anybody that makes under $100,000 shouldn’t pay [income] taxes,” said Bagheri, 52. “That’s against the 14th Amendment. I’m a constitutionalist.” She said she preferred Bianco’s plan to cut income taxes for everyone to avoid class warfare.

Celeste Greig, a Hilton supporter from Northridge, initially supported Bianco and donated to his campaign. But she grew troubled after hearing about Bianco’s comments about immigration, seeing images of the sheriff taking a knee alongside BLM protesters and learning of what she believes was an unlawful arrest of a person outside of President Trump’s 2024 rally in the Coachella Valley.

Some Republicans longed for a return to a bygone era when state lawmakers regularly worked across the aisle. State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) described teaming up with Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla when they served in the Legislature, adding that he still considers Padilla, now the state’s senior U.S. senator, a friend.

“We’re in a divided era right now,” Strickland said. “If we actually pick up a few more seats, I think it will give more comfort to some of those moderate Democrats to come over and work with us.”

OLIVIA Attwood has confirmed she’s undergone a cosmetic procedure just weeks after splitting from husband Bradley and her new budding Pete Wicks romance.

The reality star and documentary maker posted a series of serene photos to her Instagram page, showcasing her latest cosmetic treatment.

The former Love Islander looked fresh-faced in the pics, showcasing a glowing complexion and a plump smile – as a result of having new lip fillers.

“I had some lip filler for the first time in 2 years and I can’t stop pouting,” she wrote alongside the snaps.

Olivia has faced a tricky couple of months, revealing the end of her marriage to footballer husband Bradley Dack.

As well as the scandal surrounding her ex’s fidelity, Olivia, 34, saw her marriage exposed as a sham and swirling rumours that she is now dating long-time pal Pete Wicks.

Read more about Olivia Attwood

EX FACTOR

How Pete Wicks’ secret romance with Olivia Attwood’s best pal could spark trouble

brutal snub

Olivia Attwood’s ‘betrayed’ family finally cut ties with ex Brad after cheating

Yet her carousel of photos showed fans that she’s still thriving, not letting the whisperings get her down.

The star was indeed seen pouting across the array of images as she stepped out in different outfits attending various events.

In some, she was seen sporting a bottle green fur jacket over checked black slacks.

Others saw her in a limo and at a party with pals, donning a plain black sweater and skinny stonewash jeans.

She snapped further images in a chocolate mini-skirt and matching blazer, a tie around her neck, blonde mane swept back in a tight, conservative ponytail.

Other images showed pet dogs, shopping trips, a pair of new high heels and behind-the-scenes snaps on set.

In a final image, Olivia was filmed stood in a lift, pouting again for the camera, showcasing her style in a black leather cropped jacket, matching shorts and knee-high boots.

Fans were pleased to see Olivia enjoying herself amid the various scandals circling her in recent times.

“Dump the boy get the filler… the only way is up baby girl,” one commented under the snaps.

Another penned: “Love to see you smiling and laughing!”

The post also appeared to confirm that Olivia has custody of the dogs she shared with Bradley, with many fans picking up on this in the comments.

“Great substitute for a man, dogs are life savers and your girls are beautiful,” one penned.

Another wrote: “My main concern has been he better not take the dogs from Liv!”

Olivia admitted this week that she is finally feeling good about herself again amid the drama, and that she’s dating again, after being seen kissing Pete Wicks.

Opening up about the recent scandals, the ITV star admitted she “covered up” much of what was going on in her marriage and even arranged therapy for her footballer ex.

In a statement posted on Instagram, Olivia said: “I have stood by Brad for the last ten years during which he lied & cheated on me multiple times. The breakdown of our relationship is because of this.

“I of course now feel like a f***ing idiot (Especially as more things come to the surface).”

This was the first time she had publicly addressed why her marriage was over, but has also suffered backlash amid a fakery row involving her TV wedding.

The Sun revealed ITV‘s “golden girl” Olivia was never legally married, yet she has insisted that she is “not pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes”.

Meanwhile, a pal of Pete and Olivia recently confirmed: “They have been spending a lot of time together and an unexpected romance has blossomed from friendship.”

“What were they thinking?”

This is the question on everyone’s mind of “The Bachelorette’s” producers, ABC, Hulu and the Disney legal team.

On Thursday, ABC announced that the heavily promoted new season of “The Bachelorette,” scheduled to premiere Sunday, would not be moving forward “at this time.” Why not? Well, the Bachelorette in question, “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” star Taylor Frankie Paul, was the subject of a second domestic assault investigation as a damning video from her first, in which she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, made the rounds courtesy of TMZ. Filming for Season 5 of “Mormon Wives,” which Paul executive produces, was also abruptly halted.

The disturbing video is hard to watch. Not so much because Paul puts on-again, off-again partner Dakota Mortensen into a headlock and then pelts him with metal bar stools — sadly, this is a scene that would not be out of place on many reality shows — but because a small child is in the room. After one of the stools bounces toward the camera, Paul’s then-5-year-old daughter Indy begins crying and Mortensen later says “help your child.” Even as the child cries “Mommy,” Paul continues on her rampage. When Mortensen belatedly attempts to help Indy, Paul screams at him to “get away from my child.”

And while “Bachelorette” producers and Disney lawyers may not have seen the video, which was introduced in the 2023 court case, the police report makes it clear that Indy was injured during the incident, noting a “goose egg” on the child’s head. Paul was charged with aggravated assault, child abuse and domestic violence in the presence of a child. Paul, who said she had been drinking before the incident, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault, a third-degree felony. The other charges were dismissed and Paul, who was put on probation, submitted a plea of abeyance. In August 2026, a court will review the assault charge and, if Paul complies with the terms of her probation, could lessen it to a misdemeanor.

Should a new criminal charge be made after the current investigation, all bets are off.

So was it the emergence of the video or the possibility of a felony conviction that caused ABC to put this season of “The Bachelorette” on ice? Does the reason matter?

ABC knew that Paul had been charged in a domestic violence incident that led to the injury of her child and somehow thought she would make an excellent Bachelorette anyway.

What were they thinking?

“The Bachelorette” Season 22 billboard starring Taylor Frankie Paul is seen on Thursday — the day her season was axed.

(HIGHFIVE / Bauer-Griffin / GC Images via Getty Images)

They were thinking that audiences like messy “authenticity,” and it doesn’t get any more authentically messy than 31-year-old Paul, who climbed to social media fame by founding MomTok, a TikTok community of married Mormon women dancing, joking and pushing against the traditions and restrictions of their faith. Pretty and profane, funny and frank, Paul amassed a large following. After Paul discussed the “soft swinging” she and her husband engaged in with other Mormon couples, the group went viral and led to the creation of “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” the first episode of which was titled “The First Book of Taylor.”

Chronicling the fallout from the “soft-swinging” scandal, the first season built on Paul’s frank discussions of her chaotic life; it was Hulu’s most-watched unscripted season premiere of 2024. The subsequent three seasons, in which the MomTokers deal with the pressures of fame, their romantic relationships and all manner of internal “Mean Girls” drama, have continued to grow the show’s audience even as ratings for “The Bachelor” franchise flagged.

To the algorithm, or a numbers cruncher, the hopes that Paul could bring some of the “Mormon Wives” magic to “The Bachelorette” might make sense.

Except Paul isn’t magic; she waves her red flags high and proud, and the good folks at ABC, Hulu and Disney charged at them with the oblivious desperation of so many trapped, maddened bulls. (It usually does not end well for the bulls either.)

The “soft swinging” led to her divorce from first husband, Tate Paul, with whom she has two children, including Indy. As chronicled on “Mormon Wives,” she began her turbulent relationship with Mortensen, with whom she shares a young son, Ever. Her 2023 arrest was a storyline — she called it one of the rock bottoms of her life, though in a recently resurfaced TikTok video, she brags about throwing things and being arrested — and in Season 4 she was found in bed with Mortensen, with whom she had allegedly broken up, on the morning she was supposed to fly to L.A. to film “The Bachelorette.” (She caught a later flight.) The season finale ended with the possibility that Paul might be pregnant.

Reality cross-pollination has become so increasingly popular — ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars” couldn’t live without it, and Peacock’s hit show “The Traitors” is built on it — that there seems to be little thought given to the apples-versus-oranges fact that not every reality show is the same. “Bachelorette” producers not only ignored the misgivings voiced by their own fans, many of whom did not think Paul would be approaching the show as a truly single woman searching for love, they reportedly extended her many freedoms denied other participants, including unmonitored use of her phone during filming.

They clearly wanted the ratings miracle that Paul’s unvarnished wildness had lent “Mormon Wives.”

Casting for maximum drama is a driving force in many reality shows. Even if one accepts that perfectly reasonable people are happy to live in a bubble with strangers for months in hopes of achieving love, fame or a cash prize, someone inevitably is cast to bring the crazy, er, conversation-sparking personality. And like all of television, reality is facing splintered and waning audiences so the decibel level of that conversation-sparking is often dialed way up.

Hence the ascendancy of Taylor Frankie Paul, queen of MomTok and “Mormon Wives,” a woman known for her lack of filter and habit of putting it all out there. For the purposes of our entertainment.

There is, of course, no point in mentioning the many past, and often show-derailing, scandals of the genre — the suicides, the racism, the sexual assault, homophobia, bullying, pedophilia, infidelity and just general ghastliness that has arisen from the popularity of people sharing their “real” lives. Audiences connect with these shows, the messier the better.

But, as it turns out, some messes are too big to leverage even for forgiving eyeballs of reality fans.

“The Bachelor” franchise should have known better. It’s been around for almost a quarter-century and has suffered its fair share of scandals during those years. But drafting a woman who was convicted of assault in an incident that harmed her own child, well, “The Bachelorette” knew it was playing with fire.

Clearly they hoped she would rekindle the dying embers of the show.

Instead, she burnt it down.