Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / What Did Democrats Know—and How Long Did They Protect Eric Swalwell

Transcript

What Did Democrats Know—and How Long Did They Protect Eric Swalwell · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Some of some Republicans and others are saying that Democrats
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: turned kind of a blind eye, that they knew what
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: he was up. Now, that's that is absolutely positive.
• 0:09
  Speaker 2: It's true that they may say that, but it.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Is absolutely not I had no idea, none whatsoever, none whatsoever.
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: I had none whatsoever.
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: You're listening to the forty seven Morning Update with Ben ferguson.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: Good Tuesday morning. It is nice to have you with
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: us on the forty seven Morning Update and breaking over nine.
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: One of the biggest advocates for attacking Donald Trump and
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: impeaching him, Eric Swalwell, is out of Congress after shocking
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: misconduct accusations. The fallout is just beginning. So why do
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: the Democrats turn on him so quickly? We explain all
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: of it to you. It's the forty seven Morning Update
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: and it starts right now.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: Story number one.
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: The question every American should be asking right now is
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: what do the Democrats know, when do they know it?
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: And for how long have they been covering up the
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: abuse at the hands of Congressman Eric Swalwell. Now multiple
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: women at least four have now come forward accusing Swalwell
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: of sexual misconduct, including allegations of sexual assault, non consensual contact,
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: sending explicit messages and images, and in the most serious case,
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: an allegation of rape involving a former staffer. One accusation
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: involves an allegend counter in twenty twenty four that prosecutors
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: are now reviewing. Swalwell has denied the most serious allegations,
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: calling them false as he's resigned from Congress, but acknowledges
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: mistakes and judgment as he described it, and said his
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: resignation was meant to avoid becoming a distraction. Now, the
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: other part of this story that's really important to understand
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: is why all of this and the investigations are now
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: becoming the center point of Eric Swalwell's demise. This was
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: done by design. Democrats knew for quite some time about
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: what was going on behind closed doors with Eric Swalwell,
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: and they did everything they could to protect him and
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: make sure that none of what they're now reporting on
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: saw the light of day. The only thing that changed
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: was Eric Swalwell was going to ruin. They believe their
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: chances in the Governor's mansion could cost them the Governor's
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: mansion in California, and that is why they decided to
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: get rid of him now, which brings us to all
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: of the known investigations. This is what has been confirmed
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: so far. Number One, there was a House Ethics Committee
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: investigation investigating the alleged sexual misconduct, including towards a staff member,
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: that could have led to discipline or expulsion if he
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: stayed in Congress, which is part of the reason why
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: why he decided to resign. Now, to be clear, the
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: same Democrats that are saying we got to kick him
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: out or the same ones protecting him when apparently he
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: was sleeping with a Chinese spy, Which brings us to
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: number two. The Manhattan District Attorney criminal probe that is
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: now investigating at least one allegation of sexual assault, and
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: it focuses on a reported twenty twenty four incident in
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: New York City. The question becomes obvious again, what did
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: the Democrats know and when did they know it? Number
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: Three an additional local prosecutor review in California, Yes, Liberal California.
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: The LA Times has said that authorities there are reviewing
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: whether criminal conduct occurred in their jurisdiction. We go back
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: to the same question, what did the Democrats know, when
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: did they know it? And how long have they been
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: covering it up. And then there's the fourth investigation that
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: we know about. It involves the Department of Homeland Security
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: looking into claims involving in nanny allegedly working without proper authorization.
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: Now at least three separate investigative tracts are happening. That
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: would be congressional, criminal, and federal. They're all active at
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: the same time. Now, these aren't the only controversies that
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: have erupted over the last week. There's now the new
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: nanny controversy that is separate from the misconduct allegations. It's
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: another controversy that has absolutely exploded because Democrats are willing
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: to destroy Eric Swalwell to protect the governor's mansion in
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: California from going to a Republican. They knew about this
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: for quite some time. The allegations are this that he
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: continued to employ her after her visa status lapsed, paying
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: her in properly or even under the table, and using
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: campaign funds to cover childcare expenses for his own family.
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: Now Here are the key distinctions that you need to understand.
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: All of these claims are under investigation. They originated from
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: a formal complaint, but that complaint was filed by a
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: figure described in reporting as a conspiracy theorist, which raises
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: credibility questions. I wish I was joking. I'm literally not,
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: but the Democrats said, let's do it anyway. Federal agencies,
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: including DHS, are reviewing the allegations, but no findings of
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: wrongdoing have been announced yet. But the damage had already
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: been done. And that was the whole plan of the
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: Democratic Party, which brings us back to the big question
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: I mentioned at the beginning. What did the Democrats know
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: and when? And that is where the facts matter the most.
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: What is confirmed is this Democratic leaders quickly called for
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: accountability only after they saw the poll numbers showing that
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: Eric Squawell could be a spoiler. It is absolutely wild
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: how the Democratic Party literally covered up for Eric Swalwell
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: for decades because it suited their political purposes. In this
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: new wave of sexual assault, accusations against Squawell only hit
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: on Friday, and the time since, a number in the
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: media and the political sphere have claimed that they knew
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: all along that the California congressman was at best a
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: pest and at worst involved in behavior that might be criminal,
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: but they never went public with that information. For decades
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: as they enabled him, made him bigger, more powerful, and
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: even covered for him when it was exposed that he
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: was sleeping with a Chinese spy named Feng Feng. Local reporter,
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: for example, Stephen Tavares, author of The East Bay Insider,
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: said that he had been covering swah for more than
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: a decade, beginning when he was just a member of
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: the Dublin City Council, and that he and others had
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: been well aware of Swalwell's well excitement that he liked
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: in his life for years. Quote. I've covered Eric Swalwell
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: since he was a member of the city council shortly
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: after being elected to Congress in twenty thirteen. His behavior
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: towards women was known by all levels of our local
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: government and the Alameda County Democratic Party, is what the
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: reporter posted on X, adding don't get it twisted. Nobody
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: has been more critical of Swawell over the years. I
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: tried repeatedly to get those stories out. I can't force
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: women to speak out, and when they choose not to,
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: I didn't publish. I also knew that Swalwell was known
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: for threatening litigation, but his critics are pointing out and
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: I'm one of them. Knowing information like that and not
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: reporting it could put you young women on his staff
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: and around him at risk. Radio hosts Dana lash summed
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: it up this way, saying, quote, and at no time
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: did you think, gee, maybe I should report about this.
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: She's absolutely right. You're giving yourself a lot of undeserved
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: credit with the words covered. When you knew this information
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: for at least thirteen years before Swalwell was in Congress
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: and never reported it. Is what another conservative commentator said
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: about the local man that claimed, I've been covering him
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: for years and I wanted to report it, but I
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: just couldn't. And it wasn't just by the way local
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: journalists who said they had known for a long time
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: that they had dirt on Swalwell. Swalwell's situation was, shall
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: we say quote, widely rumored, and it's interesting that the
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: gossip doesn't seem to have made its way all the
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: way to the big shots out west, is what a
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg columnist wrote this morning. Progressive act and commentators also
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: are among those claiming to have known years earlier that
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: Swalwell's behavior was problematic, one of them saying this, okay,
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: justin show out in saying this is I was aggressively
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: hit on two separate times by Eric Swalwell, one after
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: DNC meeting at the hotel in front of a ton
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: of notable folks and one in my DMS. I don't
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: think he remembered me from the first time when he
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: hit on me or hit me up in DMS, is
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: what the liberal influencer posts on Saturday. I showed disinterests
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: and like many others, heard stories, which makes me wonder
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: why House leadership, who most certainly knew continue to protect
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: a member without looking into it. The liberal commentator continued,
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: and how pathological of him to pressure and allegedly essay
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: subordinates and think he was protected question mark. I hope
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: the New York AG's office investigates thoroughly and it sends
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: a message to other people in power who sexually abuse
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: and harassed to stop and get out of politics, and
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: for other survivors to know they have a voice and power. Now,
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: this goes back to the core question, how many years
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: or even decades did Democrats know what he was doing
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: and they did everything in their power to make it disappear.
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: That is the question that everyone needs to be asking
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: right now. Swalwell is done, but not because he did
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: anything wrong, but because the Democratic Party was worried they
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: could lose the governor's mansion in California. That is the
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: only reason why any of this is coming out right now,
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: and so if you think the Democrats are doing the
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: right thing, you're wrong. Thank goodness, they've gotten rid of him,
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: whether it was for the right or wrong reason, at
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: least now he's been exposed for exactly who he is.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to the forty seven Morning Update
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: with Ben Ferguson. Please make sure you hit subscribe wherever
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: you're listening to this podcast right now, and for more
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: in depth news, also subscribe to the Ben Ferguson podcast
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: and we will see you back here tomorrow