WEBVTT - Eric Swalwell's Defense: "Regret Is Not Rape" 

0:00:02.080 --> 0:00:02.800
<v Speaker 1>Hey there, folks.

0:00:02.880 --> 0:00:08.639
<v Speaker 2>It is Thursday, April sixteenth, and Eric Swalwell's defense might

0:00:08.680 --> 0:00:12.120
<v Speaker 2>be starting to take shape because it stars with this

0:00:13.080 --> 0:00:16.600
<v Speaker 2>regret is not rape and with that, welcome to this

0:00:16.640 --> 0:00:19.200
<v Speaker 2>episode of Amy and TJ roholds. That's going to be catchy.

0:00:19.280 --> 0:00:22.040
<v Speaker 2>It's going to be repeated to regret is not rape.

0:00:22.120 --> 0:00:26.840
<v Speaker 2>His attorney is speaking, his defense attorney, and she seems

0:00:26.880 --> 0:00:30.200
<v Speaker 2>to be going after a particular line of defense.

0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:35.680
<v Speaker 3>Yes, she is categorically denying that Eric Swalwall ever, ever

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:39.919
<v Speaker 3>participated in non consensual sex. And so she's talking about

0:00:40.360 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 3>specifically two of the women who have come forward who

0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 3>have talked about rape, saying years later, she's basically painting

0:00:47.640 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 3>a picture that yes, maybe they were in a relationship

0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:54.160
<v Speaker 3>at a time, maybe they regretted having sex with him,

0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:57.480
<v Speaker 3>and this is what now they're saying based on those feelings.

0:00:57.520 --> 0:01:00.840
<v Speaker 4>And that's a powerful statement. That is catchy.

0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:04.200
<v Speaker 1>You know what what But yeah, oh yeah, the regret rape.

0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:07.760
<v Speaker 2>But we just heard her, and yes, he does have

0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:11.640
<v Speaker 2>a female attorney out there publicly defending him for Robes

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 2>to hear her.

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:17.039
<v Speaker 1>She's doing her job, first of all, she's a defense streight.

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:19.119
<v Speaker 2>But Robes, when when you talk about, and you hear

0:01:19.160 --> 0:01:21.959
<v Speaker 2>about and so much reporting about women not being believed

0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:25.920
<v Speaker 2>when they tell their stories. To hear this woman kind

0:01:25.920 --> 0:01:29.680
<v Speaker 2>of just knocking it down completely, almost dismiss him. Maybe

0:01:29.680 --> 0:01:33.000
<v Speaker 2>you were in a relationship and you had some shame,

0:01:33.560 --> 0:01:36.959
<v Speaker 2>or maybe you weren't supposed to this, or maybe she

0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:43.240
<v Speaker 2>suggested all of these things that kind of flippantly dismissed

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 2>what has been a week of hemous details being released.

0:01:47.960 --> 0:01:51.480
<v Speaker 3>What these women are describing is is not just rape,

0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:54.560
<v Speaker 3>but violent rape. We're not talking about and I hate

0:01:54.560 --> 0:01:57.080
<v Speaker 3>to even try to put a category of rape, like, oh,

0:01:57.200 --> 0:02:00.440
<v Speaker 3>just a nonder sensual, I'm barely awake, I don't know

0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 3>what happened. No, we're describing, or we're hearing being described

0:02:04.520 --> 0:02:08.000
<v Speaker 3>choking to the point of losing consciousness, feeling like you're

0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:11.840
<v Speaker 3>going to die. The former staffer saying she had bruises

0:02:11.919 --> 0:02:12.960
<v Speaker 3>and bleeding, so.

0:02:13.200 --> 0:02:15.919
<v Speaker 4>This wasn't just you know, he said.

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:19.480
<v Speaker 3>She said, these accusations are incredibly serious, and she did

0:02:19.520 --> 0:02:23.200
<v Speaker 3>recognize that. She said, what's being leveled or levied against

0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:26.880
<v Speaker 3>him is certainly very serious, but she questions the seriousness

0:02:26.919 --> 0:02:28.200
<v Speaker 3>of the claims themselves.

0:02:28.200 --> 0:02:30.639
<v Speaker 2>Okay, let's start with who this attorney is. Her name

0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:34.600
<v Speaker 2>is Sarah Azeri. She is now representing Eric Swalwell. She

0:02:34.760 --> 0:02:38.600
<v Speaker 2>has done a couple of media appearances, but Rose has started.

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:42.120
<v Speaker 2>She did put out a statement on X This was

0:02:42.320 --> 0:02:45.600
<v Speaker 2>really the first indication. But Rose, they're making clear here

0:02:45.600 --> 0:02:48.760
<v Speaker 2>and I think in her interview she's making clear that

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 2>he's saying, yes, he had sex.

0:02:51.520 --> 0:02:52.080
<v Speaker 1>With these women.

0:02:52.120 --> 0:02:55.000
<v Speaker 2>Correct, But that's a first that we're hearing. He's only

0:02:55.000 --> 0:02:56.600
<v Speaker 2>said before I've made mistakes.

0:02:56.840 --> 0:02:59.520
<v Speaker 3>Yes, he hasn't gotten too specific about that, and he's

0:02:59.520 --> 0:03:03.040
<v Speaker 3>apologized first and foremost to his family in any statement

0:03:03.080 --> 0:03:05.040
<v Speaker 3>he's made, and then his constituents.

0:03:05.080 --> 0:03:07.320
<v Speaker 4>But this is what his attorney had to say.

0:03:07.360 --> 0:03:12.560
<v Speaker 3>Congressman Eric Swalwell categorically and unequivocally denies each and every

0:03:12.600 --> 0:03:15.919
<v Speaker 3>allegation of sexual misconduct and assault that has been leveled

0:03:15.919 --> 0:03:20.840
<v Speaker 3>against him. These accusations are false, fabricated, and deeply offensive,

0:03:21.240 --> 0:03:26.320
<v Speaker 3>a calculated and transparent political hit job designed to destroy

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:28.880
<v Speaker 3>the reputation of a man who has spent twenty years

0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:29.720
<v Speaker 3>in public service.

0:03:29.880 --> 0:03:33.720
<v Speaker 2>Qut I went back every he denies every allegation of

0:03:33.760 --> 0:03:38.040
<v Speaker 2>sexual misconduct, correct, everything, not just am I reading this

0:03:38.080 --> 0:03:40.160
<v Speaker 2>the way he's saying, where you are that everything that's

0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:41.680
<v Speaker 2>been put out there, not just the rapes.

0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:45.800
<v Speaker 3>Yes, and they're basically saying that they think this was

0:03:46.040 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 3>a co coordinated, calculated, political, politically motivated hit job to

0:03:53.960 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 3>make sure he did not become California's next governor. Okay,

0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:01.040
<v Speaker 3>she goes on to say, yes, the timing nature and

0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:05.279
<v Speaker 3>coordinated rollout of these vile and heinous allegations speak for themselves.

0:04:05.840 --> 0:04:08.920
<v Speaker 3>This is neither about justice nor the truth. This is

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:14.119
<v Speaker 3>a ruthless and shameless attack or attempt to smear Congressman Swallwell.

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:15.640
<v Speaker 1>Former Congressman Swallwell.

0:04:15.680 --> 0:04:17.000
<v Speaker 4>That's actually a very good point.

0:04:17.560 --> 0:04:21.279
<v Speaker 3>Congressman Swalwell has devoted his career to defending the Constitution,

0:04:21.839 --> 0:04:25.719
<v Speaker 3>protecting civil liberties, and standing up to those who abuse power.

0:04:26.080 --> 0:04:28.680
<v Speaker 3>He has never wavered in that fight, and he will

0:04:28.720 --> 0:04:32.800
<v Speaker 3>not waver now. We will fight these despicable and baseless

0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:36.920
<v Speaker 3>accusations with the same tenacity, courage, and conviction that has

0:04:36.960 --> 0:04:40.520
<v Speaker 3>defined the Congressman's public service. You know she was talking

0:04:40.560 --> 0:04:43.159
<v Speaker 3>about how he was a former prosecutor.

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:47.920
<v Speaker 4>I actually didn't know that. That's fascinating, dude, Lawyer.

0:04:48.600 --> 0:04:50.599
<v Speaker 2>Even one of the I can't remember which one it was,

0:04:50.640 --> 0:04:52.800
<v Speaker 2>who said they feared him, and that was a part

0:04:52.839 --> 0:04:53.000
<v Speaker 2>of it.

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:54.599
<v Speaker 1>It's like this guy used to be a prosecutor. He

0:04:54.640 --> 0:04:59.120
<v Speaker 1>knows law. But yeah, this. I was surprised by that.

0:04:59.080 --> 0:05:04.479
<v Speaker 2>Paragraph from the statement because it almost signs him up

0:05:04.480 --> 0:05:07.120
<v Speaker 2>as a hero. It almost right says, oh, no, this

0:05:07.160 --> 0:05:09.200
<v Speaker 2>is a fighter. He has been standing up whether he's

0:05:09.279 --> 0:05:11.600
<v Speaker 2>going to key. I thought that was a it was

0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:12.200
<v Speaker 2>a choice.

0:05:12.240 --> 0:05:15.159
<v Speaker 3>It's funny you say that because she actually said I believe.

0:05:15.480 --> 0:05:18.560
<v Speaker 4>Listening to her make the rounds on the media, she used.

0:05:18.360 --> 0:05:21.840
<v Speaker 3>Words first of all, that she fully believes him, and

0:05:22.000 --> 0:05:25.400
<v Speaker 3>second because not all lawyers say that, and second that

0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:28.359
<v Speaker 3>she was proud of him, that she was proud of

0:05:28.400 --> 0:05:32.920
<v Speaker 3>him for putting his constituents first, his family first, and

0:05:33.000 --> 0:05:37.719
<v Speaker 3>by stepping down from office as a congressman and stepping

0:05:37.760 --> 0:05:40.240
<v Speaker 3>out of the race. Did not imply or mean in

0:05:40.320 --> 0:05:43.000
<v Speaker 3>any way, shape or form that he was admitting guilt

0:05:43.240 --> 0:05:47.000
<v Speaker 3>to committing any of these acts, but merely acknowledging what

0:05:47.080 --> 0:05:49.520
<v Speaker 3>a distraction this was. How could he possibly continue to

0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:52.719
<v Speaker 3>run for governor? How could he possibly serve his constituents

0:05:52.720 --> 0:05:55.280
<v Speaker 3>if he's fighting all of these attacks. So yes, almost

0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:57.960
<v Speaker 3>as if he took one for the team. Yes, that

0:05:58.120 --> 0:06:04.120
<v Speaker 3>he was basically sacrificing his own political ambitions for the

0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:06.520
<v Speaker 3>better of Californians.

0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:08.560
<v Speaker 4>That's basically what.

0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:09.799
<v Speaker 1>She was saying, and it was interesting.

0:06:09.960 --> 0:06:12.000
<v Speaker 2>I mean, this tact seems to be not just a

0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:16.800
<v Speaker 2>matter of keeping him out of jail, but also possibly

0:06:17.200 --> 0:06:21.159
<v Speaker 2>getting him back into the good graces of some voter

0:06:21.320 --> 0:06:23.919
<v Speaker 2>at some point down the road. I just thought it

0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:27.120
<v Speaker 2>was interesting that she went fully in that direction.

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:31.200
<v Speaker 1>The interview. I mean, the statement is one thing. I thought.

0:06:31.279 --> 0:06:32.839
<v Speaker 2>A bunch of the things she said in the interview.

0:06:33.640 --> 0:06:36.120
<v Speaker 2>Who do we see it with News Nation this week?

0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:36.719
<v Speaker 1>Was interesting?

0:06:38.560 --> 0:06:40.560
<v Speaker 2>Well, first of all, we should say we shouldn't be

0:06:40.600 --> 0:06:41.920
<v Speaker 2>hearing anything else from him.

0:06:42.160 --> 0:06:43.640
<v Speaker 1>She did say she advised.

0:06:43.279 --> 0:06:45.760
<v Speaker 2>Him not to speak, so don't expect any more comments

0:06:46.040 --> 0:06:53.800
<v Speaker 2>from him. She talked about this being two consenting adults.

0:06:55.160 --> 0:06:57.840
<v Speaker 2>This is significant that this would be and I'm not

0:06:58.040 --> 0:07:02.400
<v Speaker 2>reading Tea Leaves here. This is her acknowledging for the

0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:06.760
<v Speaker 2>first time that yes, in fact, aren't isn't he She

0:07:06.880 --> 0:07:11.120
<v Speaker 2>suggesting Robes that in both instances, that the incidents having

0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 2>to do with his staffer and the instance having to

0:07:13.960 --> 0:07:15.720
<v Speaker 2>do with a woman who just came forward this week,

0:07:16.080 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 2>that he is admitting to sexual relationships with both of

0:07:19.560 --> 0:07:20.040
<v Speaker 2>these women.

0:07:20.080 --> 0:07:22.480
<v Speaker 3>It sounded that way because she said, I don't care

0:07:22.480 --> 0:07:24.840
<v Speaker 3>if you like him. I don't care if you are

0:07:25.000 --> 0:07:31.120
<v Speaker 3>passing judgment because of inappropriate sex or immoral sex. The

0:07:31.280 --> 0:07:33.720
<v Speaker 3>issue that we're talking about here is whether it was

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 3>unconsensual sex, criminal sex, and you know, two adults consenting,

0:07:39.840 --> 0:07:44.160
<v Speaker 3>which is our position, is not against the law. And

0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:46.400
<v Speaker 3>so what I say to jurors, I'm going to tell

0:07:46.400 --> 0:07:48.760
<v Speaker 3>your audience. And this is where she said, regret is

0:07:48.800 --> 0:07:51.760
<v Speaker 3>not rape. So it seems like in that statement alone,

0:07:52.040 --> 0:07:55.520
<v Speaker 3>there is an absolute acknowledgment that he had sex. And

0:07:55.600 --> 0:07:57.560
<v Speaker 3>I just thought it was interesting because she talked about

0:07:57.640 --> 0:08:02.840
<v Speaker 3>inappropriate or immoral maybe out of wedlock. Yeah, that must

0:08:02.840 --> 0:08:04.720
<v Speaker 3>have been what she meant, because I was wondering, even

0:08:04.720 --> 0:08:07.640
<v Speaker 3>with these allegations of choking, if maybe they're going to

0:08:07.680 --> 0:08:11.480
<v Speaker 3>claim that these women liked it rough or were.

0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:13.360
<v Speaker 4>Into that kind of sex.

0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:15.160
<v Speaker 3>That's where I was thinking, is she going to even

0:08:15.200 --> 0:08:18.000
<v Speaker 3>go there or even kind of imply that somehow this

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:21.960
<v Speaker 3>was an agreed upon activity between the two And the

0:08:22.040 --> 0:08:25.320
<v Speaker 3>problem with that is it is a he said, that

0:08:25.560 --> 0:08:28.440
<v Speaker 3>is no proof, Like, how do you know all all

0:08:28.480 --> 0:08:31.280
<v Speaker 3>we can say is We saw that press conference and

0:08:31.480 --> 0:08:32.760
<v Speaker 3>it was pretty damn compelling.

0:08:33.800 --> 0:08:37.040
<v Speaker 2>But a part of that press conference road, we heard

0:08:37.080 --> 0:08:42.040
<v Speaker 2>a lot about receipts. We heard a lot about them

0:08:42.080 --> 0:08:45.959
<v Speaker 2>having documentation, heard a lot about the woman making handwritten

0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:50.240
<v Speaker 2>notes about what she went through the documentation, about the

0:08:50.240 --> 0:08:54.880
<v Speaker 2>woman going to a treatment facility to get help for

0:08:54.960 --> 0:08:56.040
<v Speaker 2>dealing with sexual assault.

0:08:56.040 --> 0:08:56.640
<v Speaker 1>We heard about it.

0:08:56.679 --> 0:09:01.640
<v Speaker 2>So many receipts that they have, well, ording to Swallow's attorney,

0:09:01.920 --> 0:09:13.600
<v Speaker 2>they got receipts to stay here, all right, we continue

0:09:13.679 --> 0:09:17.840
<v Speaker 2>here on Amy and TJ. Eric Swalwell's defense starting to

0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:21.520
<v Speaker 2>take shape. Regret is not rape is the stance his

0:09:21.840 --> 0:09:24.160
<v Speaker 2>attorney is taking ropes. I don't know what she could

0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:26.920
<v Speaker 2>have been suggesting in her interview in what she said.

0:09:27.000 --> 0:09:29.839
<v Speaker 2>I mean, she was pretty defiant. They got receipts. We

0:09:29.920 --> 0:09:32.360
<v Speaker 2>got receipts too, But she didn't elaborate.

0:09:31.960 --> 0:09:35.760
<v Speaker 3>Well and we did hear earlier from at least folks

0:09:35.800 --> 0:09:37.680
<v Speaker 3>who were defending Eric Swalwell.

0:09:37.720 --> 0:09:40.359
<v Speaker 4>In the beginning, just talks about talking about the text.

0:09:40.080 --> 0:09:43.960
<v Speaker 3>Messages after the fact, after the alleged incidents happened, and

0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:46.839
<v Speaker 3>that always usually is something that people try to say,

0:09:47.320 --> 0:09:49.920
<v Speaker 3>is their receipt but actually people will tell you that's

0:09:49.960 --> 0:09:52.360
<v Speaker 3>pretty common from people who have been sexually abused.

0:09:53.080 --> 0:09:56.120
<v Speaker 2>And she does, I mean Sarah the staffer, the former

0:09:56.160 --> 0:09:58.319
<v Speaker 2>staffer that we're talking about, she in fact.

0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:01.440
<v Speaker 1>Did, and they say they have it.

0:10:01.440 --> 0:10:04.880
<v Speaker 2>It's documented that she spoke to friends, spoke to family members,

0:10:04.920 --> 0:10:06.480
<v Speaker 2>the woman in La and keep saying the.

0:10:06.400 --> 0:10:06.840
<v Speaker 1>Woman in La.

0:10:06.920 --> 0:10:09.400
<v Speaker 4>We know her name, Lota dress at.

0:10:09.240 --> 0:10:12.360
<v Speaker 2>DRIs, same thing she said, not just that treatment facility

0:10:12.360 --> 0:10:14.960
<v Speaker 2>in Connecticut. I believe it was Rose, but she has

0:10:15.000 --> 0:10:17.640
<v Speaker 2>as well said she reached out to family members and

0:10:17.679 --> 0:10:21.280
<v Speaker 2>said what had happened to her? So we haven't seen

0:10:21.280 --> 0:10:23.680
<v Speaker 2>that stuff. They're just saying they have this stuff. I

0:10:23.720 --> 0:10:28.520
<v Speaker 2>don't know what Eric Swolwell could could offer to refute that,

0:10:28.600 --> 0:10:30.760
<v Speaker 2>other than what old text messages.

0:10:30.840 --> 0:10:36.640
<v Speaker 3>Well, probably the niceties back and forth, maybe them thanking him. Look,

0:10:36.679 --> 0:10:39.960
<v Speaker 3>Harvey Weinstein tried the same ploy to say, hey, look

0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:42.160
<v Speaker 3>after the fact, after they claim I did all these

0:10:42.240 --> 0:10:46.040
<v Speaker 3>terrible things to them, which I'm saying was consensual. Look

0:10:46.080 --> 0:10:48.880
<v Speaker 3>at all the texts and emails they sent me thanking me,

0:10:49.000 --> 0:10:52.319
<v Speaker 3>inviting me to their wedding. So that has been tried

0:10:52.360 --> 0:10:57.000
<v Speaker 3>and used before, and it hasn't necessarily worked. Into the

0:10:57.040 --> 0:10:59.640
<v Speaker 3>advantage of the person being accused of rich you.

0:10:59.600 --> 0:11:01.920
<v Speaker 2>Know now that you remind me of it. It's almost

0:11:01.920 --> 0:11:04.360
<v Speaker 2>like the first defense. If it's say, look at all

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:06.839
<v Speaker 2>these nice things, who would say that if I had

0:11:06.960 --> 0:11:07.640
<v Speaker 2>abused the.

0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:10.080
<v Speaker 3>Correction, why would they come back? Why would they ask

0:11:10.120 --> 0:11:13.160
<v Speaker 3>me out for a drink? Why would they keep you

0:11:13.360 --> 0:11:15.120
<v Speaker 3>returning to see me and want me to be a

0:11:15.160 --> 0:11:18.360
<v Speaker 3>part of their lives. But again, you have a lot

0:11:18.360 --> 0:11:21.400
<v Speaker 3>of psychologists will testify that this is extremely common. So

0:11:21.480 --> 0:11:23.760
<v Speaker 3>it hasn't worked, at least in the trials that we

0:11:23.800 --> 0:11:26.560
<v Speaker 3>have witnessed that that line of defense doesn't typically work.

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:29.960
<v Speaker 3>And look, we don't know yet what the Los Angeles

0:11:30.000 --> 0:11:31.840
<v Speaker 3>County Sheriff's Department is going to do, what the New

0:11:31.960 --> 0:11:35.120
<v Speaker 3>York the Manhattan District Attorney's office is going to do,

0:11:35.160 --> 0:11:39.000
<v Speaker 3>but we do know that those investigations are ongoing. And

0:11:39.040 --> 0:11:42.560
<v Speaker 3>you see his attorney trying to say, let this all

0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:44.480
<v Speaker 3>play out in the actual course, not the court of

0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:46.160
<v Speaker 3>public opinion. We're not going to win in the court

0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:48.920
<v Speaker 3>of public opinion. And she is right because at this point,

0:11:49.160 --> 0:11:52.880
<v Speaker 3>hearing these women's accounts, hearing especially Lana Drew's, put her

0:11:52.960 --> 0:11:54.920
<v Speaker 3>name and face to it and really go through the

0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:56.640
<v Speaker 3>details of what she says she suffered.

0:11:57.160 --> 0:11:58.320
<v Speaker 4>That is hard to.

0:12:00.080 --> 0:12:03.040
<v Speaker 3>Go up against, certainly when it comes to what people

0:12:03.120 --> 0:12:05.600
<v Speaker 3>and especially women might be thinking when they hear these

0:12:05.640 --> 0:12:09.160
<v Speaker 3>other women so powerfully tell their story.

0:12:09.440 --> 0:12:11.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and to hear it, and it was the most

0:12:11.080 --> 0:12:12.480
<v Speaker 2>difficult part for me to hear. And I bet a

0:12:12.480 --> 0:12:14.560
<v Speaker 2>lot of survivors had a difficult time with it too.

0:12:14.800 --> 0:12:16.400
<v Speaker 2>And I don't know if it should make a difference

0:12:16.440 --> 0:12:18.319
<v Speaker 2>that it was a woman saying it, but Rope, we

0:12:18.400 --> 0:12:24.400
<v Speaker 2>have been hearing a bunch of difficult, awful stories from

0:12:24.480 --> 0:12:27.480
<v Speaker 2>quite frankly credible sounding women.

0:12:29.040 --> 0:12:31.080
<v Speaker 1>And as they give that detail and we talk about

0:12:31.120 --> 0:12:32.080
<v Speaker 1>bravery and coming forward.

0:12:32.120 --> 0:12:36.200
<v Speaker 2>You talk about Lanna Druis out drews out in California

0:12:36.440 --> 0:12:38.280
<v Speaker 2>and all it took, and we watched the pain on

0:12:38.360 --> 0:12:41.960
<v Speaker 2>her face. And now here's another woman out there publicly saying,

0:12:43.480 --> 0:12:46.520
<v Speaker 2>maybe you had a boyfriend, maybe you weren't supposed to

0:12:46.559 --> 0:12:50.320
<v Speaker 2>do this, maybe you felt some shame. Later Ropes, that

0:12:50.520 --> 0:12:56.040
<v Speaker 2>moment is something that women experience and survivors experience when

0:12:56.040 --> 0:12:58.559
<v Speaker 2>they watch TV over the years and they see debates

0:12:58.640 --> 0:13:02.160
<v Speaker 2>online that has to sting and hurt like hell. Robes

0:13:02.200 --> 0:13:05.640
<v Speaker 2>we have seen these incredible stories and to have somebody

0:13:05.640 --> 0:13:09.240
<v Speaker 2>else just come out and say they're explaining your story

0:13:09.240 --> 0:13:13.200
<v Speaker 2>away by simply saying you were dating somebody probably didn't

0:13:13.200 --> 0:13:16.320
<v Speaker 2>want to get caught cheating. Ah, maybe you just felt

0:13:16.320 --> 0:13:21.160
<v Speaker 2>some shame later. And it was so easily dismissive robes

0:13:21.440 --> 0:13:24.319
<v Speaker 2>of some pretty incredible stories.

0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:27.120
<v Speaker 3>And that is why women don't come forward. That is

0:13:27.200 --> 0:13:30.440
<v Speaker 3>why you hear this rallying cry that moment. If women

0:13:30.480 --> 0:13:35.040
<v Speaker 3>say something happened, believe them because that line of argument

0:13:35.120 --> 0:13:38.720
<v Speaker 3>and discrediting victims and going then into their personal lives,

0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:43.640
<v Speaker 3>seeing how they may have acted or dressed or spoke, like,

0:13:43.760 --> 0:13:47.720
<v Speaker 3>everything about their lives and how they conducted themselves suddenly

0:13:47.800 --> 0:13:52.400
<v Speaker 3>is under incredible scrutiny. And that weight of that scrutiny

0:13:52.480 --> 0:13:55.320
<v Speaker 3>sometimes is just too much for victims to bear, and

0:13:55.400 --> 0:13:58.120
<v Speaker 3>a lot of women choose not to come forward. So

0:13:58.280 --> 0:14:00.480
<v Speaker 3>I do think it's pretty remarkable when you have someone

0:14:00.520 --> 0:14:03.120
<v Speaker 3>put their face, put their name, and tell their story

0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:06.280
<v Speaker 3>in front of cameras and do so eloquently.

0:14:06.360 --> 0:14:09.200
<v Speaker 4>I mean, she that is brave. That is not a

0:14:09.240 --> 0:14:10.079
<v Speaker 4>fun position to.

0:14:10.040 --> 0:14:13.959
<v Speaker 3>Be and you are now going to be scrutinized to

0:14:14.000 --> 0:14:16.000
<v Speaker 3>a level you probably can't even imagine, and that is

0:14:16.000 --> 0:14:18.440
<v Speaker 3>why she probably didn't go to police until now. But

0:14:18.480 --> 0:14:22.400
<v Speaker 3>no statute of limitations on her allegations in the state

0:14:22.400 --> 0:14:25.240
<v Speaker 3>of California. And so look at this point now we

0:14:25.320 --> 0:14:28.680
<v Speaker 3>are waiting for the investigative process to go through and

0:14:28.760 --> 0:14:31.320
<v Speaker 3>these receipts that everyone says they have, well, the good

0:14:31.360 --> 0:14:33.760
<v Speaker 3>news is that is in the hands of police and

0:14:34.400 --> 0:14:37.520
<v Speaker 3>the district attorney's offices and each locale. They will make

0:14:37.560 --> 0:14:40.400
<v Speaker 3>the decision whether or not there is enough evidence to

0:14:40.520 --> 0:14:43.720
<v Speaker 3>press charges against Eric Swalwell, but certainly his attorney trying

0:14:43.720 --> 0:14:46.520
<v Speaker 3>to get in front of it and telling a much

0:14:46.640 --> 0:14:49.200
<v Speaker 3>different story than the ones we are hearing from those women.

0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:51.800
<v Speaker 3>We will, of course stay on top of this developing,

0:14:52.000 --> 0:14:54.840
<v Speaker 3>developing story with Eric Swalwell. But as always, thank you

0:14:54.840 --> 0:14:55.800
<v Speaker 3>so much for listening to us.

0:14:55.800 --> 0:14:59.000
<v Speaker 4>Everybody. I'm Ami Robock alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk to

0:14:59.040 --> 0:14:59.320
<v Speaker 4>you soon.

0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:05.200
<v Speaker 1>Ramptation Thetation