There’s No Conspiracy Regarding Accusations Against Eric Swalwell; More Cuts to the U.S. Forest Service–Coachella Valley Independent’s Indy Digest: April 13, 2026

Indy Digest: April 13, 2026

The California governor’s race, which was already chaotic, has gone completely off the rails in recent days

CNN reported this afternoon:

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell announced Monday he planned to resign from Congress following explosive allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

The announcement from the California Democrat comes after mounting pressure from both Democrats and Republicans to step aside from his role in the House of Representatives. Swalwell had already suspended his California gubernatorial bid—though that did not tamp down the calls that he leave his job.

“I am deeply sorry to my family, staff and constituents for mistakes in judgement I’ve made in my past,” Swalwell said in a statement posted to X. “I will fight the serious, false allegation made against me. However, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make.”

CNN and the San Francisco Chronicle reported last week that a former staffer accused Swalwell sexual assault, describing a night of drinking that ended with him having sex with her when she could not consent. In addition to the allegation of sexual assault, three other women who spoke with CNN alleged other sexual misconduct, including that Swalwell sent unsolicited nude photos and graphic messages.

Swalwell has previously strongly and repeatedly denied allegations of sexual assault.

The congressman was facing calls to resign or be expelled in Congress, which he referenced in his Monday statement.

Swalwell had been in Congress since 2013, and the timing of these accusations—coming at the point when Swalwell was emerging as the Democratic frontrunner in the California’s governor race—has led some people to question their legitimacy.

It’s an interesting theory … until you actually stop and read the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN pieces referenced above.

Swalwell, of course, is innocent until proven guilty—and nothing has been proven. But it’s VERY clear that both the Chronicle and CNN did what all good journalism organizations are supposed to do: They did a LOT of research and fact-checking before moving forward with their stories.

As for the Chronicle’s piece, here’s the lede: “A woman who worked for nearly two years for Rep. Eric Swalwell, a leading candidate for California governor, said she had sexual encounters with him while he was her boss and alleged he twice sexually assaulted her when she was too intoxicated to consent.”

Later on—after the Chronicle mentions that reporters reviewed text messages and medical records, and interviewed both a friend and ex-boyfriend to corroborate her story—you’ll find these paragraphs:

In recent weeks, political influencers and other social media accounts have alleged sexual misconduct by Swalwell. The online posts have not included any specific evidence, but gained enough attention that Swalwell issued a public denial, saying he had never behaved inappropriately toward or slept with female staffers during his seven terms in Congress. …

Reporters looking into the broader allegations against Swalwell reached her while contacting dozens of his former staffers.

The woman said she largely kept quiet about Swalwell’s behavior for years out of fear she would suffer personal and professional consequences.

“He was the foundation of my career. I had nothing to fall back on or anyone to vouch for my skills outside of my colleagues in that office and Eric himself,” she told the Chronicle. “I knew if I came forward, it would define me and undermine my credibility.”

The woman began speaking with a Chronicle reporter last month as she considered whether to make her allegations public. When rumors about Swalwell’s conduct began circulating online, the woman said she was confused because she had told only a small circle of family and close friends about what had happened to her. She said she was “petrified” that Swalwell had told people about their encounters or that her name had appeared in an opposition research file compiled by a rival campaign.

CNN would follow up with a story including three other accusers—and like the Chronicle, CNN did their homework:

CNN found corroboration for key elements of each of the women’s claims, including the former staffer who said she was sexually assaulted. … For the woman who connected online with Swalwell over Democratic politics, a family member and two friends confirmed she told them last year about the incident where she ended up intoxicated in his hotel room. CNN also reviewed messages between her and Swalwell, including a photo he sent her that matches footage of him during a CNN interview in her city on the night they met in person.

The women described a similar pattern of events: Swalwell, who is married and has three children, showed close interest in their lives when they were in their twenties and finding their footing professionally, making them feel special and even starstruck. Then, they said, he would send them increasingly sexual messages. Many said they reciprocated and engaged with him in part because of his position of power. In some cases, those inappropriate exchanges escalated to alleged unwanted physical touch or sexual assault, often tied to episodes of heavy drinking. …

CNN reviewed screenshots of dozens of messages Swalwell exchanged with the women, many of which are flirtatious in nature. None of the messages reviewed by CNN are sexually explicit. The women said Swalwell generally sent more graphic messages via Snapchat, where messages are automatically deleted after short periods of time. Snapchat also warns senders if screenshots are captured. …

Rumors about misbehavior by Swalwell have circulated on social media in recent weeks, broadcast by a group of progressive social media influencers. Most of the women who spoke to CNN initially reached out to one of these influencers, and said that before the social media attention, they had assumed they were alone in their experiences with Swalwell.

There’s no conspiracy here. What is here: Women who were brave enough to come forward (and are being threatened with legal action by Swalwell as a result) when good reporters started asking questions.

—Jimmy Boegle

More News

• A coalition of news outlets were successful in their efforts to get the warrants unsealed in the case of Chad Bianco and the hundreds of thousands of Riverside County ballots. Our partners at Calmatters report: “Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s investigators had no insider tipsters, no witnesses and no independent analyses from forensic experts when they approached a local judge and asked to take the unprecedented step of seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots. Instead, the evidence they showed Judge Jay Kiel were claims from a group that one independent elections expert described as the equivalent of ‘flat earthers’ alleging possible voter fraud. The county’s top elections official says their claims of miscounted ballots are based on flawed and incomplete data. Kiel, whom Bianco endorsed when he was running for the bench, signed the search warrants anyway, allowing the sheriff to take the highly unusual step of seizing 650,000 ballots from California’s 2025 election amid his own campaign for governor. … After reviewing the documents, experts had mixed opinions on whether Bianco’s investigators had enough evidence of probable cause to justify the raid. Some said the lack of evidence in the investigators’ affidavits raises troubling questions about how easy it was for Bianco to seize the ballots with the appearance of judicial oversight.“

• After judges blocked the Trump administration’s attempted deportations of students who expressed pro-Palestinian views … the Trump administration fired those judges. The New York Times (gift link) reports: “The firings of the judges, Roopal Patel and Nina Froes, marked the latest efforts by the Trump administration to reshape the country’s immigration courts. The administration has dismissed dozens of immigration judges and, according to those on the bench, has put judges under pressure to deny asylum claims and order deportations. Unlike federal judges in the independent judicial branch, immigration judges work for the Justice Department and are hired and fired by the attorney general. The two judges, who were terminated alongside four colleagues on Friday, oversaw two high-profile cases filed by the government against the students, Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi. Mr. Trump has aggressively sought to reshape the immigration courts since he won a second term, with dramatic results. Judges are ordering a record number of people deported and granting asylum at the lowest rate since at least 2009, the first year for which reliable data is available.”

• The Trump administration is making major changes, including cuts, to the U.S. Forest Service. Fast Company says: “The U.S. Forest Service announced that it will be closing three-quarters of its research facilities as part of a reorganization. Now, experts are worried not only about the number of scientists who might be leaving the agency, but also about how the disruption could affect the gathering and dissemination of crucial wildfire and climate change data. The restructuring comes as parts of the U.S. face what is expected to be a catastrophic wildfire season. The most recent wildland fire outlook shows that wildfire activity is already ‘well above average,’ with more than 16,000 wildfires reported this year. Under the reorganization plan, the Forest Service will close 57 of 77 research facilities, as well as move its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah. It will also close all nine of its regional offices; some states will then get their own offices, but others will be consolidated.”

• Here’s an attention-getting Wired headline: “Meta Is Warned That Facial Recognition Glasses Will Arm Sexual Predators.” Yikes! Details: “More than 70 civil liberties, domestic violence, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+, labor, and immigrant advocacy organizations are demanding that Meta abandon plans to deploy face recognition on its Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses, warning that the feature—reportedly known inside the company as ‘Name Tag’—would hand stalkers, abusers, and federal agents the ability to silently identify strangers in public. The coalition, which includes the ACLU, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, Access Now, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, is demanding Meta kill the feature before launch, after internal documents surfaced showing the company hoped to use the current ‘dynamic political environment’ as cover for the rollout, betting that civil society groups would have their resources ‘focused on other concerns.’ Name Tag, as revealed in February by The New York Times, would work through the artificial intelligence assistant built into Meta’s smart glasses, allowing wearers to pull up information about people in their field of view. Engineers have reportedly been weighing two versions of the feature: one that would only identify people the wearer is already connected to on a Meta platform, and a broader version that could recognize anyone with a public account on a Meta service such as Instagram.”

• Today’s recall news involves … cough drops! The Independent (U.K) says: “An ongoing cough drop recall has been elevated by the FDA over health concerns. China-based company Xiamen Kang Zhongyuan Biotechnology Co., Ltd. is behind the recall that was initially announced March 20. The FDA then upgraded the recall to a Class II as of April 10, meaning consumers who ingest affected products could face health consequences. An August 2025 inspection of the manufacturing facility behind the products prompted the FDA to initiate the recall. Additional details were not supplied. A full list of the lot codes and expiration dates for each product can be found on the FDA’s website.”

• And finally … here’s yet more proof that speaking out and fighting back indeed works. The Associated Press, via SFGate, reports: “The Trump administration said Monday it will resume flying a rainbow Pride flag on a federal flagpole at the Stonewall National Monument in New York City, reversing course two months after removing the banner from the first national monument commemorating LGBTQ+ history. The government revealed the decision in court papers as it agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by advocacy and historic preservation groups who had sought to block the Feb. 9 removal. A judge approved the deal. The Interior Department and National Park Service ‘have confirmed their intention to maintain a Pride flag at Stonewall,’ lawyers for the government and the groups wrote in a joint court filing. The flag—one of several Pride banners at the 7.7-acre (3.1-hectare) park—won’t be removed, except for ‘maintenance or other practical purposes,’ the filing said.”

Support the Independent!

Our print version? Free. Our newsletters? No charge! Our website? No paywalls or subscription fees! All of our journalism is available for free to anyone who wants it—but we spend a LOT of time and resources to report, write, edit and distribute that content. Help us out, if you can, by clicking the button below and becoming a Supporter of the Independent. Thank you, as always, for reading!