Billionaire details Eric Swalwell's final days holed up inside his $26M mansion — and brutal eviction ⁠84%

By Josh Koehn⁠0% Benjamin Brown⁠0%

4/14/2026, 2:22:47 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 54.2% saturation with 277 hits. Analysis detected 1,727 faulty-reasoning hits from 511 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,574 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.70% of the article peer group.

Eric Swalwell’s billionaire benefactor, Stephen Cloobeck, says he cut off the disgraced politician in an explosive last meeting, telling him to get the “f—k out” of his house. 
In a matter of days, the former Democratic front-runner for California governor has had a stunning political collapse — suspending his campaign before announcing his resignation from Congress on Monday amid accusations of sexual assault from four women, including an ex-staffer who claims Swalwell raped her while drunk at an April 2024 charity gala. 
“I am no longer associated with a man that takes advantage of women,” Cloobeck said. 
“I support women’s rights.” 
The Post confirmed Swalwell was holed up in Cloobeck’s $26 million Beverly Hills mansion as the allegations against him came to light, even filming a video furiously denying the rape and sexual assault claims from a room inside the 9,700-square-foot home. 
Swalwell, who married Brittney Watts in 2016 and has three children, was always a “gentleman” when he stayed at the house and would send “pastries and cookies” two days later, according to Cloobeck. 
But the billionaire’s hospitality quickly took a turn as bipartisan pressure ramped up for Swalwell to resign from Congress. 
Cloobeck offered new details into those final moments, telling The Post that Swalwell “apologized” before the billionaire “ripped him a new f—king a—hole.” 
“I was with my counsel and we had a chat with him, I just told him: ‘You busted the trust,’” Cloobeck said. 
“‘I’m shocked, I’m disturbed and get the f—k out of here.’ 
Then I walked away and that was it.” 
Cloobeck also confirmed to The Post that it was his lawyer who initially defended Swalwell on CNN Friday night against the allegations. 
“All he did was help Eric out going on CNN. 
He was advised to go on himself, he didn’t want to do it and I asked my counsel to do it,” Cloobeck said. 
But the goodwill and funding have now dried up, as Cloobeck vowed to provide “zero financial help” moving forward. 
The billionaire also denied he or his business entities ever issued non-disclosure agreements on Swalwell’s behalf — something that his accusers said prevented them from speaking out sooner. 
“There were no NDAs by any of my entities for any of these women,” he said. 
Swalwell, who promised to “fight the serious, false allegation made against me,” also faces a sexual assault investigation from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. 
Here’s the latest on the allegations against Rep. 
Eric Swalwell 
• Eric Swalwell under investigation by Manhattan DA over alleged sex assault of staffer 
• Eric Swalwell cowers in billionaire pal’s $26M mansion — as rape claim sparks career freefall 
• Four women detail horrific sexual assault, misconduct claims against Eric Swalwell — including ex-staffer who alleges he raped her 
• Eric Swalwell paid illegal Brazilian live-in nanny under the table with campaign funds, complaint alleges 
• Influencer’s husband threatens Eric Swalwell after he allegedly bombarded her with nudes and turned up at her house 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.7%Josh Koehn: 3.9%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.1%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.7%Josh Koehn: 5.0%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic21.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 32.1%Josh Koehn: 13.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect32.1%This article: 3.7%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion3.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Josh Koehn: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 54.2%Josh Koehn: 25.9%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias54.2%This article: 9.6%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.5%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.1%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias12.1%This article: 9.6%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 5.6%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.5%Josh Koehn: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.9%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Josh Koehn: 7.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 3.2%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.2%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.2%Josh Koehn: 7.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion27.2%This article: 11.9%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question11.9%This article: 14.3%Josh Koehn: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 16.8%Josh Koehn: 1.6%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof16.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.5%Josh Koehn: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division6.5%This article: 18.4%Josh Koehn: 2.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal18.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.0%Josh Koehn: 1.3%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.5%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading4.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 13.1%Josh Koehn: 1.9%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection13.1%This article: 31.9%Josh Koehn: 15.4%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice31.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 3.3%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

511 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker42%attributed speech296writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 100.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 15 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 23 words • 100.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 22 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 11 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 8 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 22 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 10 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Stephen Cloobeck

86%flagged-word coverage
215 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-55.1 ptsWriter: 55.1%Stephen Cloobeck: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+18.3 ptsWriter: 5.4%Stephen Cloobeck: 23.7%23.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.