The DeVory Darkins Show - Swalwell's Attorney HUMILIATES herself on LIVE TV

Episode Date: April 16, 2026

Swalwell Attorney HUMILIATES herself on LIVE TV. This comes as she fails to defend Swalwell disturbing allegations of rape. Also, Abigail SCAMberger moves to strip gun rights away from Virginians.EPISODE SPONSOR: Go to ⁠http://kalshi.com/devory⁠ and get a $10 credit to trade on any market of your choosing! FOLLOW ME:⁠https://www.x.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://www.rumble.com/c/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://devory.wtf.tv⁠BUY ME A COFFEE:⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/devorydarkins⁠SHOP OUR MERCH STORE:⁠https://store.devorydarkins.com⁠BUSINESS INQUIRIES:⁠[e-mail]⁠

In today's video, Eric Swabell's attorney makes a full of herself in her interview with Chris Cuomo. The governor of Virginia, Abigail Scanberger, is going after your gun rights. And Nick Shirley has triggered California into proposing a law that would ban citizen journalism as we know it. Let's start with what his attorney had to say. Take a listen. How do you deal with the fact that the congressman would have been the first one that say the women should be believed? That is who he is. Remember, he was a prosecutor before he was a congressman, before he, you know, for 20 years was a public servant. That is who he is, and I don't care if you don't like him.

I don't care if you are passing judgment because of inappropriate sex or immoral sex. The issue that we're talking about here is whether it was unconsensual sex that is criminal sex. And, you know, two adults consenting, which is our position, is not against the law. And so what I say to jurors, I'm going to tell your audience, regret. is not rape. So the fact that, you know, a day later, years later or whatnot, you maybe had shame around what you did, or maybe you were in a relationship and shouldn't have done what you did, doesn't make it rape. And I just want to make another point, Chris, and this might be obvious to you, I'm sure it's obvious to you, but to a lot of other people, is that

if it's conspicuous the timing of this, it's because it's just no coincidence that this is now being done as a political hit job on the eve of, you know, a governor run in California where he was leading the race, you know? So I'm a woman, I've been in compromised situations, I represented women, I've represented men in this very context in my career of 20 plus years. So you know exactly where she's going. None of these allegations are actually true. They're all false. None of this is actual rape. A lot of this was consent. The timing is suspect. It's all because they want to prevent him from becoming the next governor of California,

which I really didn't think he had a great chance anyway. I mean, I just never really thought that from day one. And because none of the candidates on the Democrat side are as political, savvy, or stand out like a Gavin Newsom, for an example. None of them have that type of personality. Eric Swalwell is like, you know, a third rate compared to Gavin Newsom. That's just my own personal opinion. Maybe you guys disagree.

Anyways, so that's what his attorney had to say, but what does L.A. County have to say because they've launched their own investigation. Take a listen. From Rising Star to public disgrace. Eric Swalwell resigns from Congress after representing the East Bay for more than a decade, but his problems are only beginning. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department just announced it's investigating an alleged case of sexual assault by Eric Swalwell. This morning, the woman in that case publicly describing how he raped and choked her in 2000. Hours ago, Governor Newsom scheduled a special election for August 18th to represent the 14th district preceded by a June 16th primary. Swalwell officially left Congress, effective 11 a.m. hour time today after announcing just yesterday that he would resign. Swalwell's district covers much of the East Bay, including Castro Valley, Hayward, Fremont, and Livermore. Swalwell was already planning to leave Congress. He was running for governor, not re-election, but dropped out after the first sexual assault allegations, again.

against him or published last Friday. As you guys can see, there will be a special election in the month of August. The district attorney for Los Angeles has confirmed the investigation. So that means he has two pending criminal investigations, one out of Manhattan and one in Los Angeles. And things are probably going to continue to get worse for Eric Swalwell. But as you heard from his attorney, there's nothing really here. It's just a political hit job.

Now, where else have we heard that type of language? Oh, yeah, that's right. President Trump had to say those same words when Mrs. Carroll, who never met the man, went after him for rape. And the jury, according to the actual indictment and conviction documentation in the end, or excuse me, the verdict documentation, they marked that he did not actually rape Ms. Carroll. But don't stop AOC because that's exactly what she continues to spew to her audience in the middle of this entire Eric Swalwell bombshell. Take a listen. But there really are consequences. when the President of the United States has been found convicted in court a felony

34 times, has been found liable. A judge said that he has in fact raped a woman. And by all these circumstances, the President of the United States is a rapist. the president of the United States is implicated in the Epstein files he is convicted in court on 34 counts of fraud felony fraud and I'm sorry it has trickled down a trickle down effect all right so I don't know where AOC was going with that particular video it almost sounded like she was trying to blame the president for what Eric Swalwell has been up to regarding his slimy ways. But I'll read it to you here. This is from the actual document of that case between Ms. Carroll and,

you know, Donald Trump at the time. Did Ms. Carroll prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump raped her? And the answer was no. So how could a member of Congress on a video call the president of the United States a rapist and get away with it? I still do not get that in 26. I just don't understand it. But that's the political landscape we live in. And that's why when you hear people bitching, moaning, and complaining about what the president is posting on true social, I'm not trying to hear it. Okay. Now let's go back to Eric Swarwell's attorney as she continues to defend him. Take a list. Did you feel any differently when you watched the accuser come out today and give her name and show her face and tell her account? I didn't. I didn't because I'm very familiar.

with how these cases unfold. And, you know, I think once an investigation is fully completed, I think people can see how this started, and then unfortunately, once it starts, it never ends. And you know that. We've had those conversations about other similar cases on your show. So... Well, I get your point about the Court of Public Opinion.

I mean, certainly as his counsel, it's the right argument to make. But we've got two investigations now, and we'll see, and we'll stay on the story. Yeah, and Chris, just one last point. You know, the only party that has benefited in this scenario, in this trial in the court of public opinion, is the accuser. It's never the accused because the accused, by virtue of the process, cannot make direct statements, cannot present his evidence.

So this is the wrong venue, and I'm just asking your audience and everyone out there who's watching to really reserve your judgment. It doesn't matter what you like, whether you're disgusted, whether you don't like it, whether you think it's immoral. None of that matters. What matters is whether or not this is true. And I'm here to tell you what's not. Well, I could tell you what is true. Tom Steyer is still leading. In fact, his odds have increased from 58% the last time he talked about this to 66% to be the next California governor.

He just announced his radical policies on social media, by the way. And the reason why I'm showing you calci.com is because they're giving out a promo, $10 worth on your first $100 when you decide to bet on the market. This is a prediction market. One would argue it's the most accurate thing on the planet, but it can get things wrong. For an example, it had Eric Swalwell at number one, and then look at it now. All of a sudden, he's off the map.

But again, you can take advantage of Kalshi if you like. Couchy.com 4 slash Devori. Use my promo code, DeVorey, and they give you a free $10 or a $10 credit on your first $100. So this takes us to our next story, Governor of Virginia, Abigail Scamburger, is doubling down on assaulting the Second Amendment as we know it. That's why there was a congressional hearing on Capitol Hill to expose her and what she's after,

which is to remove your ability to own firearms in the state of Virginia. It just doesn't make any sense to me. So why don't I play what her rationale is? You guys could hear for yourself. Here's what she had to say. Governor Abigail Spanberger has less than a week to decide to either sign or veto a series of gun control bills, two of which could outright ban the sale, import, or purchase of any assault weapons. Democrats say these measures could protect lives.

down the road, but several Republicans promise legal challenges. Emily Harrison explains. Up to 10 gun control bills currently sit on Governor Spanberger's desk, two of which could ban the sale of assault weapons. And Governor Spamberger has repeatedly said she will support any gun control bill that crosses her desk. And what we want to do is continue to promote responsible gun ownership. Virginia delegate Naderius Clark chairs the Public Safety Firearms Committee and says

the differences in the bills are sluously. light. House Bill 217 restricts, quote, assault weapons that have more than 10 rounds in them, whereas Senate Bill 749 sets the limit to 15 rounds and removes pistols from the list of assault weapons. Both have a grandfather clause for people who already own assault weapons. You know, the argument goes left and right, and we understand some people feel like we're going to come and take your guns. We're not. We're not taking anyone guns. Read the bills. There's no gun confiscation. There's no buyback programs. However, not a single Republican voted for either one in both the House or Senate. Former Governor Glenn Yonkin vetoed similar legislation in

2025. See, the problem with their thinking around gun ownership or gun control or gun rights, they have the wrong perception. So they think legislating gun control that applies to law Abiding citizens will prevent mass shootings or gun violence, but where does majority of the gun violence come from? People who have firearms legally or people who have firearms illegally? You have following what I'm saying? At that basic premise right there, what they're proposing just doesn't make any sense. Now, could we improve the overall program of how people buy firearms? For example, if you've been to the looney bin, yeah, you probably should not have the right to buy a firearm. I mean, you probably should not have the right to buy a firearm. you should be banned from doing it for a certain amount of years unless you've been cleared.

That makes sense. So why not spend money and resources trying to develop that system to develop that system instead of going after people who are doing it the right way? And then the whole term about assault weapons, that is a whole other joke, by the way, just so we're understanding. Okay. So here's a part of the congressional hearing that got people's attention. Take a listen. My understanding is that sitting right now in a warehouse in West Virginia, and you describe this, and your testimony is roughly one billion gun owner records, 94% of them that are already in digital format. Now, federal law is supposed to prohibit a national gun registry,

but I'm wondering, what would you call that? We call that a registry. Looks like it to me, too. I mean, let's just walk through this. If a future administration that's hostile to Second Amendment rights in this country were to get its hands on those records, billion gun owners' names, other information contained there, What do you think it might be able to do with them?

Well, that's absolutely the problem, is with any gun ban that's passed, they're able to search the makes and models of those guns, and if they stop paying for the names attached to them, they know exactly who's not in compliance with the law, which, again, is something that already happened in New York City when they registered guns in the 60s, passed a ban in the 90s, and then they did spot checks on people that they believed were not, complying with the law.

Now, let's take that same example that they were just discussing and apply it to something that's happening with the Republican Party right now. The Dignity Act, which in most people's eyes is mass amnesty. But they don't frame it that way yet. What they're doing is just trying to move mass illegal aliens in the direction of mass amnesty. If they don't have to get mass amnesty right now, we just need to move them 50% of the way there. Because the next administration or the next politician or the next politician or the next

Congress can pick it up and take it the other 50%. That's what they're saying with a lot of this legislation coming from the left regarding gun rights. Once they do step one, that sets them up to be able to do step two. And then before you know it, you can't even own a gun. It's really crazy. All right, let's go back to the governor. Here's what she had to say. Extending that time frame out to 10 days where that background check can be processed is extraordinarily important,

particularly when people might have a common name or when they might move frequently. Still, it protects that due process, just extending that time in that circumstance. Another bill that I've supported that I have voted for on the House floor, and that received bipartisan support is a bill that would limit magazine capacity for firearms. Another bill that would raise the age for purchasing rifles, so AR-15s, one can purchase at 18. And handguns, the age is 21. Now, this is a holdover from a law in the 60s that established this 21-year-old purchasing time frame for a handgun.

And at the time, a rifle, according to whether the law was different. Rifle of then is not the A or 15 of today. And so there's been a bipartisan effort to try and raise the age for parity with the handgun. and I voted for that. It's past the House floor, but we weren't able to get it passed. Yeah, and that clip I just showed you was before she got elected. So she had already told everybody what she was going to do. We already know banning the full magazine as far as the capacity.

That already passed. That has gone into effect. So again, the problem here, and I keep repeated myself, is if alcohol, we know, creates more deaths than gun violence. if we know people die more from heart disease than gun violence, how many more regulations do you really think will stop or work, essentially? Right. And I wish the energy they had regarding assault weapons as they put them would be the same energy they would put into the food that is killing us every single day.

Or the fact that we have criminals on the street, okay, or illegal immigration. I just want consistency. Hopefully that makes sense. Because this next update is in regards to California taking the same principle of attacking our rights and going too far. They have proposed a piece of legislation that would ban citizen journalism as we know it all because of Nick Shirley. Take a listen. This is not about protecting people from violence. This is about threatening and intimidating people who are trying to shine a light on bad behavior.

If you have nothing to hide, why fear the transparency? You can threaten people that we're going to find you for taking video of the misdeeds that some of these groups are doing, but it won't pass the First Amendment rights protections that the Supreme Court affords every citizen. So this is totally insane, but not surprising at all. That was a Republican speaking out against what Democrats are trying to do in California because Democrats are so committed to fraud that they want to punish the people who expose the fraud with, something called the Stop Nick Shirley Act, which could become law in California and would threaten independent journalism in the biggest state in the country, all to protect illegal

aliens who are committing fraud, to the point where these journalists could face fines, arrest, even jail time for reporting on and exposing the Democrat fraud that is costing taxpayers billions of dollars there. I mean, let's be honest, guys, that is tyrannical right there, The fact that they're going to prevent you from exercising your First Amendment right when asking questions about fraud, they want to criminalize that behavior is so beyond common sense. It's a violation of the Constitution. I'm confident it would be obviously overturned by the Supreme Court if they even got to pass it. Now, we know Tom Steyer is supposed to be the next guy up who might become the next governor of California. And he's definitely radical as they come because he wants to put ICE in prison.

So, you know, I think this is another troubling sign for the people out there who may be upset at the Republican Party or may be upset at the president. This is what's going to happen if we let Democrats take control. Let's go to Nick Shirley. Here was his reaction. Nick, let's just kind of play out that hypothetical. So whether you were in Minnesota, you also went to California. You would go up to the Quality Learing Center, a clearly fake daycare in Minnesota. There's your shirt.

Yes, always on. And you would attempt to see if there's any children inside, right? And somebody comes out and talk to you. And now that person who's there possibly committing fraud could file a complaint in California that Nick Shirley is harassing me online, right? That's how it would work in effect. And then you would either see a year in jail or a $10,000 fine. Correct.

That's what it sounds like. And it sucks because inside these states like Minnesota and California, they've been proven to let fraud take place inside his infight. communities. You have the Somalians in Minnesota and Armenians in California. And they're trying to protect these people who are committing this fraud that are stealing millions upon millions of dollars. And it just makes you wonder who their donors are. Like who are their donors? Because why would they create this bill to then try and make it harder to expose fraud? Well, we already know the answer to that, of course, because they are the ones getting paid in the end because of fraud.

And they just don't want to do the right thing, whether it's suicidal empathy, fatal empathy, fraud, waste, and abuse, massive corruption, a cabal, you know, NGOs. It's really sickening if the average American truly knew the ends about what's really occurring with their tax dollars, which is why we should continue to speak out, we should continue to support independent journalism, and we should get back to asking questions. I think that's fair, right? Well, that's my opinion on the matter. So why don't you guys give me your thoughts about these updates? So, I mean, what do you think of Swalwell's attorney and what she had to say about his particular case? What do you think of Abigail Scamburger going after gun rights?

And then California, going after citizen journalism. It's crazy. Give me your thoughts, everything you got in the comment section below. All right, let's go to our next video, which was a huge mistake from Zoramandani, because he made us studying a mission about his city-owned grocery store. Not everything will be cheap, just a couple of items. If you guys miss out on that update and more, click on the video because it's coming up right now.