Condemnation or Commendation? GOP Moves To Strip Swalwell From Intel Committee But The File Remains Sealed

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy filed a resolution aimed to remove Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The privileged resolution will force a vote (if only to table to resolution) and members will have to go on record on the scandal. Swalwell reportedly had an intimate relationship with a Chinese spy who raised money for him and helped place individuals in his office. However, he has insisted that he did not reveal classified information and that the FBI found no wrongdoing. Two striking narratives will emerge in the vote.  McCarthy insists that the sealed file shows disqualifying conduct while Democrats have portrayed Swalwell in more heroic terms, including one leading Democrat actually saying that Swalwell deserves to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for the affair.  Putting aside the manifest ineligibility of Swalwell on both a technical and credible basis, the immediate question is why the file remains sealed in its entirely since the Chinese and its spy already know what happened.  So does Swalwell. The only people in the dark are most voting members and, of course, the voters themselves.  The closed file raises a difficult question balancing the need for an informed vote for members against the need for privacy for an accused member.

The two-page resolution states that Swalwell “has not denied public reporting that a suspected Chinese intelligence operative helped raise money for Representative Swalwell’s political campaigns” and “other troublesome elements of public reporting.” In response, Swalwell denounced the resolution as pure “McCarthyism” for not mentioning that the FBI found “no wrongdoing.”

It was an ironic moment for Swalwell how has been previously denounced for denying basic due process to others in past investigations and supported the surveillance of the Trump campaign under the Obama Administration.

Yet the most curious element will be that most members and the public will not know what is in this file when the vote occurs. Why? While there may be a legitimate basis for redactions, the basic facts can be disclosed on the involvement of the Chinese agent Fang Fang in raising money or pushing hires or interns in Swalwell’s office. Moreover, the nature of the relationship remains sealed and Swalwell refuses to answer basic questions on that relationship.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and McCarthy have very different takes on what is in the file.  Yet, there is no stated rationale for the total seal on the file. It is hard to understand all of the material being classified since China and its spy are entirely aware of the facts as is Swalwell. If the seal is to protect confidential information on the nature of Swalwell’s relationship, the question is whether such facts should be barred in their entirety when it is not classified.

What is striking is the failure to clearly state the reason for the seal and how members are to vote on the resolution without access to such information. This is not a clear cut issue in my mind. I can see the value of protecting Swalwell from embarrassing details if they are not material any criminal or reckless conduct.  If the allegation is true, Swalwell may be entirely innocent in being seduced by a Chinese agent. They could still reflect poor judgment but there is an argument for sealing personal details of an affair if there was no showing of reckless or criminal conduct. Clearance files often contain highly personal details that are disclosed on an understanding of confidentiality.  The only issue that does not involve the disclosure of classified information is whether Swalwell could have or should have recognized the threat of Fang Fang as a foreign agent.

One possible resolution is to allow the full sealed file to be seen by any voting member or to produce a summary or redacted version. That could include confirmed many of the reported details on this Chinese agent raising money for Swalwell and playing a role in the selection of individuals to work in his office. Those are not classified or confidential matters. Swalwell has refused to confirm such details or the nature of his relationship with the Chinese spy. The first step however is to confirm if the file is being withheld as classified (which is dubious) or because it contained personal and confidential information.

58 thoughts on “Condemnation or Commendation? GOP Moves To Strip Swalwell From Intel Committee But The File Remains Sealed”

  1. Jonathan: Apparently, you have taken the baton from FoxNews, Kevin McCarthy and Republicans in calling for Rep. Eric Swalwell to be removed from the House intel committee. I too would like to see the unredacted FBI report. So far all we have is a lot of unwarranted speculation by you and others. Without any evidence you claim Swalwell “reportedly had an intimate relationship with a Chinese spy [Christine Fang]…”. “Reportedly” = wild speculation. Fang is back in China so we can’t ask her. What we do know, because Swalwell admitted it, is that back in 2015 the FBI alerted Swalwell and Congress about their concerns about Fang. Swalwell immediately cut off all contact with Fang because of her fundraising activities for the Congressman. The FBI didn’t find anything illegal about Fang’s participation in Swalwell’s campaigns. Then-Speaker John Boehner and Congressman Kevin Nunes (who has never passed up an opportunity to attack Democrats) were briefed and “expressed no opposition to his continued service on the committee”. There is no claim Swalwell passed sensitive national intelligence to Fang while she was working on his campaigns. None of this stops you from jumping to the unwarranted conclusion about Swallwell’s: “manifest ineligibility…on both a technical and credible basis, …” What are the “manifest” “technical” and “credible” reasons you claim Swalwell should be removed? You don’t say.

    Yesterday, the House voted (218-200) to dismiss McCarth’s resolution against Swalwell so it is unlikely he will be removed anytime soon. I think McCarthy’s resolution was prompted by a lot of anger among the House Republican caucus over the removal of Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments. Republicans were also upset with Swalwell because he has been a fierce critic of Donald Trump, filed a lawsuit against the former president and served as a House manager in Trump’s second impeachment. That put Swalwell in the cross hairs of Republicans and you. But before you join the Republican payback put on your defense attorney/academic hat and base your arguments on facts–not on, so far, unfounded accusations.

  2. Comrade apparatchik Eric swallowswell…….. By any simple standard this dim bulb should not only be off said committee but should also forfeit his seat in congress. It’s bad enough he was whoring around with a Chinese spy , but he let that spy make decisions for him , and lord knows what else. Compromised is COMPRIMISED. bUT WITH SENILE LORD DARTH BIDEN OF CHYNA at the helm and a leftist race baiter as VP whom also slept her way up the ladder such a dolt ..tool … as swallowswell is an apparatchik they desire to have around for the distraction if nothing else.
    It is quite condescending and spitting in the face kind of hypocrisy how the demorat left views and treats the American public. Sad and twisted times we are forced to live in that a president , his family down to his crackhead pedo son are awash in chicom cash along with his minions like swampy eric the red.

  3. Rep. Maloney (also on the committee): “The fact is, is that [the Russians] were so comfortable using people like Devin Nunes that Andriy Derkach, a known Russian asset, sent information to Devin Nunes at the Intelligence Committee. We literally had the package receipt. … [It was] the same information, presumably, that Ron Johnson trying to spread around using the position in the Senate as the Chairman, at that time, of the Homeland Security Committee. So it’s extraordinary that Russia’s strategy was to spread disinformation using American media organizations like Fox and OAN, but even more alarmingly seen senior members of the Senate and U.S. House, like Ron Johnson and Devin Nunes, in an effort to launder the disinformation in a way that the media might find credible.”

    Should the committee condemn Nunes too?

  4. Anonymous’ thread bombing is very tiresome. Please stop feeding the troll.

  5. Failure to follow common required security measures. or was it like Clinton in refusal to follow required security measures. In any case these princelings of Socioloy are not above everyone else and US Code on that subject does not include intent as an element. It does include repetitive longevity which should have hung both Swallowwallow and Clinton.

  6. OT

    Illegal deportation is no more or less illegal or immoral than illegal importation.

    Illegal emigration is no more or less illegal or immoral than illegal immigration.

    Hyphenated communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) may import numbers of the population having stolen the election.

    Conservatives may export numbers of the population when power is rightfully restored to actual, patriotic, Constitution-supporting Americans.

  7. Comrade Swallwell is a traitor who clearly, deliberately and repeatedly committed treason against the United State of America.

    America and China are in the nascent “diplomatic” phase of military conflict and war.

    China does not support, and fosters the intent to completely abrogate and annihilate, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Communist China is the mortal enemy of America.

    Comrade Swallwell adhered to and gave aid and “comfort” to a Chinese communist spy.

    Comrade Swallwell was clearly and deliberately “…adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

    Article 3, Section 3

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

    1. It would seem the comfort was coming from the other side. Is that still treason?

    2. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of this dipstick being drawn and quartered on Fox News, but if we’re going after every criminal in Congress it’s gonna get into football season. I don’t think we, as a nation, have the stomach for it. Instead, find the two who are NOT criminals, liars, moneygrubbers and sellouts.

  8. I hate to give Democrats ideas, but I’ll bet they can spin the sealed file as a “reverse Carter Page” deal….pretend he was actually working knowingly, on some secret US squirrel’s payroll, to get information from the Chinese…a double agent theory. In either event, he is horribly compromised, and must be removed.

    1. He farted on live TV. No one would believe he is smart enough to be an agent, much less a “double” agent. If he’s gonna be kicked off the committee (and he should be), he should be kicked out of congress. I heard Jeffrey Epstein’s cell is available…

  9. And, just think, just a couple days ago i openly speculated on how long it would be before another Swalwell article. Like clock work. Remaining true to form, soon we’ll hear about Loomis, Rubin, Gates…

    But please don’t become just a bitter personality in fighter, JT. I know there has to be something to fill the time and contractual commitments on the blog until a trump indictment — but aim higher, you know?


  10. “The closed file raises a difficult question balancing the need for an informed vote for members against the need for privacy for an accused member.”

    If the name on the file was Eric Trump, not Eric Stalwell, would be sealed and unleaked?

  11. More of Turley’s paid partisan swill. Notice that he has NO facts–just vague allegations: “Swalwell reportedly had an intimate relationship with a Chinese spy who raised money for him and helped place individuals in his office.” “reportedly”…by whom? “intimate relationship”? says who? Since when is raising money for a candidate suspicious? What does “helped place individuals” in an office mean, anyway? Who would have hired them, and is there any evidence that any of these people was a spy or misappropriated confidential or classified information? Turley alludes to a “scandal”–what “scandal”, other than the one Fox and pro-Trump media are trying to create? And, BTW, how many years ago was this?

    Dear Turley: could it be that the file is sealed because there’s no “there” there? Maybe it’s to get as much mileage as possible out of nothing by feeding more slop to the deplorables as some pathetic attempt at set off for all of the true scandals of Trump before the whole thing falls apart. And, since it’s McCarthy who’s doing this, there is automatically no credibility.

    1. Thank you Natacha JT is a phony Hack who cares only about money he is greedy and cheap, and his jealousy And resentment of Eric Is eating him up, yet JT keeps getting fatter!

    2. Damn Natacha, you say the file might be sealed because there is no there there. If there’s nothing to see in the file why would there be an effort to not allow it to be viewed. Why wouldn’t Swalwell then want the file to be opened to prove his innocence? Swalwell has not denied the affair with a Chinese agent. Any convolution of reason must be acceptable in the Natacha bag of tricks.

  12. From an innocent U.S citizen destroyed by America’s so-called national security apparatus. Dig deeper. Was the alleged spy a U.S. citizen? Was she confronted, accused or indicted? Was she even aware of her conviction or related to other suspects? Did a judge or jury convict them? Did the so-called national security pros assume facts or can they prove them? This type of excessive secrecy can lead to Cointelpro style blacklisting tactics. A federal judge should demand Executive Branch officials probe this.

    From Condoleeza Rice’s former photographer in 1999 (pre-White House). If they can destroy me, they can ruin anyone.

    1. add in a $1.2 million dollar home he bought in DC. I assume he also must have a CA residence

  13. And here I thought that the D’s were the party of transparency. Another childhood myth demolished

  14. I do not see that Swallwell has any strong privacy rights in this case. He is a Congressman and there is no threat to him beyond losing a Committee assignment or, almost inconceivably, expulsion.

    If he were actually the subject of a criminal investigation, that might be different, but I don’t hear anyone saying that.

    The Democrats have spent years attacking people through leaks and innuendo, and the Republicans rarely respond. In the end, which side wins a fight like that? It is not a matter of policy, it is that bad, immoral people win and then set the rules for the rest of us.

    Schiff repeatedly came out of closed Intel Committee meetings and lied that he had seen incontrovertible evidence that Trump had colluded with the Russians in 2016. The Committee Republicans didn’t contradict him because the material was secret and couldn’t be divulged.

    What rot!!! The could have simply said, “That is not true,” without divulging the particulars of what WAS presented. That they didn’t do even that is not a sign of moral virtue, but of moral confusion and maybe depravity–tho I think in most cases they wanted to see Trump brought down and were happy that Democrats like Schiff were working to that end because those Republicans couldn’t publicly do it, too.

    1. Agreed. Trump was not a politician, but he was dangerously close to exposing the feed-trough scheme of both parties, so they had to take him out. What he never figured out was that you cannot win a game where your opponents set the rules. He should come back in a game where he sets the rules. I would suggest a weekly TV show called “Hot Seat” and hosted by Trump and Michael Flynn. Using private detectives, each week they spotlight another congressional scumbag who is taking money from PACS and lobbyists and selling out America. You could find enough from both sides of the aisle to alternate between “red” week and “blue week” as to who you choose to expose. It would be fine viewing and maybe even pay-per-view. Episode One: Adam Schiff. Man, I gotta buy a TIVO.

      1. Trump has chickened out at attacking his powerful enemies openly. I know, he knows, and we all know, that he was hated by the billionaire class, not only for his obnoxiousness, but more importantly, for his policies. They are globalists and they oppose populism in any form, whether it is coming from Trump or any of America’s supposed adversaries from Venezuela to Syria to Iran or the DPRK which all depend on sovereignty for their continued existence. Billionaires don’t like borders, they impede the flow of labor, capital, and information, and they wnat to get rid of borders everywhere.

        So, they clipped his wings. They smeared him, they silenced him, they hired their champion, such as he is, and in the big showdown, they got it done, by hook or by crook. where is he now?
        Playing golf, enjoying his retirement.

        If he really wanted to remain relevant, he would have done what would have won him the election in the first place. Openly attacked the billionaire tyrants as a group and called for a broad array of legal attacks on their financial and social power. He would have made his AG attack Silicon Valley with antitrust and break them up instead of just “studying the topic.:” Just for starters. We could think of a lot more things he could have done along these lines.

        Am I suggesting he could have outflanked Democrats on the left, on domestic economic matters that matter to regular Americans? Yes, he could have done that. He could have dragged the Republicans along with him. he had the support of the Republican voters who hate the silk-stocking elites anyhow.

        Trump’s only hope to remain relevant now, not to take pot shots at his enemies’ hired hands, it is to openly name the top and attack them as such., on behalf of the people. Much as I liked Trump for how onery and obnoxious he was, much as I approved of certain policies, it’s clear that he stopped far short of where he could have gone and where he fully well knew he could go.

        This is unfortunate and it’s time to move on and not waste any energy at all apologizing for him. Right now, the billionaires have “credit care Joe” in office, with SiliconValley’s darling Kamala waiting in the wings, and they will do little or nothing to advance the interests of the American workers as a whole. In fact before you konw it we may have anothe war there in Syria. Joe launched one attack and he’s recently calling Putin a “soulless killer” which is a preposterous insult of a fearsome adversary who should be approached seriously and with diplomacy. And one who has troops in…. Syria. Trust me, the billionaires want that war! Hillary and CIA Brennan were working very hard to topple Syria under Obama, they had success in getting rid of Qadaffi, and syria was marked for next. Well, after a 4 year hiatus on that, game on!

        Sal Sar

        PS I’ll give you another way he could have adopted a “left wing” policy that would have jammed up his critics. He could have lead a revision of the bankruptcy code in 2 big ways: to allow the cram down of underwater mortgages (a warren idea) which would have poked the irresponsible banks in the eye on behalf of the people. Secondly he could have advocated for a cram down of student loans in bankruptcy, which would have poked universities in the eye. Yes, doing that would have undermined the student loan system and had the net effect of sending less directionless kids into liberal arts colleges– WHICH WOULD BE A VERY GOOD THING! And guess what., Some people were feeding him this ideas, and they would have worked politically and for the benefit of the people. BUT he fired them. He replaced them with establishment Republican types who lead Donald in exactly the wrong election and he was lead by the nose as if he were naïve.

          1. That’s true. So what? FDR was from the top tier too. Do you think he served the people? I do. Trump started off at it and dropped the ball. But it could have been done. Anyhow the problem is not any one of them, the problem is the group, and what they generally share as their pet policies. Sal

          2. Trump could have been has been called by certain communist regimes, the very type of a “patriotic capitalist.” That was his destiny. Right now, it seems he has failed it.

            Perhaps you have never heard this term before. See, a lot of socalled left wing thinking in America, is warmed over anarchism or at best Trotskyism. It is theoretical, it has no experience in actually running a country. “The Revolution betrayed” was a book by Trotsky denouncing Stalin. Well, without Stalin, they would have lost WW2 and been wiped out altogether. Liekwise since the end of the Cultural Revolution, there has been a pretense on the left that the CCP is wholly corrupt as well. Both of those viewpoints are naive. But fashionable at universities and such. Accordingly, the American “Left” is now focused on trivialities that do not affect most people like all this sex related stuff. Practical matters like the economic well being of the whole of society have been neglected. The “Left” is called “communist” by conservatives but it is really not very much that at all. If it were, then it might have some real experience in government instead of just endless protests. Presently, it is bereft of the practical experience of actual communist regimes that have had the responsibility of leading society.

            Now let me elaborate on this concept that every class has the potential of helping advance society as a whole. In the PRC, specifically, the very flag suggests a unity among all classes. From Brittannica:

            “In the flag of the People’s Republic of China, first officially hoisted on October 1, 1949, the symbolism of five was reflected in the stars appearing in yellow in the upper hoist canton. The large star was said to stand for the Chinese Communist Party and its leading role in guiding the nation. The smaller stars, one point of each of which aims at the centre of the large star, were associated with the four social classes united in the coalition supporting the party—the proletariat, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and the “patriotic capitalists.” Later, reinterpretations of the party structure led to a revised symbolism: the large star was said to stand for China, the smaller stars for the country’s many national minorities.

            Sal Sar

            1. I know my conservative and Republican friends will think i have fallen off my rocker when i make reference to these communist things in a tone that suggests we could learn something from them. I am sorry if that offends you but I’m going to try and speak across the spectrum to all Americans about their economic interests which we share as a nation as a whole. The PRC and CCP are of course national adversaries, but there are some things which they do well which perhaps should be studied. We especially should study them, because we are headed for a one party state and we better figure out how to live in one and carry on.

              My perspective would be, policies should be considered according to a simple standard: is it good for the nation as a whole? There are always going to be some winners and losers from specific policies, but looking to the national interest as a whole is what a sincere and responsible government does.

              Now right now, America has a daily debate about topics that would make Mao’s Red Guards blush with envy at their radicality. Based on the ‘war on the four olds” and other such insanely iconoclastic nonsense, regular people, responsible public officers, all across society were terrorized for many years. The CCP faded in its influence because its crazed anarchistic radical tail was wagging the dog. It was a horrible tragedy in many ways.

              But the Red Guards eventually were ended, in part by Red Army Generals standing up to Mao, though it is a little more complicated than that, but that was a sine qua non. Eventually, their kangaroo courts, murders, beatings, general cultural destruction, and endless harassment of normal people was ended, and the crazies who remained were locked up and permanently neutralized. Because, it was bad for the nation. Well, it was good for Mao, because he wanted chaos, that divided society and kept people off balance who might depose him. His plan of chaos, division, and ruling amidst the ruin, worked pretty well for him, overall, while it lasted.

              Today our billionaire tyrant class is much like Mao, collectively. They enrich themselves, they lord it over us, they divide and antagonize us one against another with their Red Guards, all serious political questions are reduced to preposterous slogans, the good of society is lost in an endless utopian war on bugaboos, and the net result is, the top is more secure than they were before it got nasty. And the nastier it gets, the more they will like it. They actually do not care if people are hurt, they do not care if the nation suffers, they do not care if the US collapses, even. In fact they may very well want that too, in the end.

              Who will stand up to the insane policies contrived by our billionaire tyrants today? We will see, if any.

              Sal Sar


          most people don’t even know, student debt is generally not dischargeable in BK, with some limited exceptions.

          I don’t hold with Bernie’s oversimplified call to forgive them outright, but they SHOULD BE DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY

          the universities will suffer, because the net effect will be to limit loans for students, but they deserve to suffer, and too much useless propagandizing happens in them anyhow

          see my Republican and conservative friends, it would be wise to consider supposedly “socialist ideas” which occasionally emerge from the likes of Liz Warren or Bernie more closely, because some of those policies are EXACTLY what would stick the finger in the eyeball of all of our shared oppressors! Dont just reject them out of hand because they come from goofy people who seem like they hate your guts. You may be mistaken, appearances can be deceiving!

          Sal Sar

        1. here is a failing of conversation. I point to a class dynamic, i propose unity against our oppressors, I identify specific policies that would be salutary for society, and somebody calls “Drumpf” because I said one or two modestly positive things about him.

          this is obsession. the guy is out of office. forget about him. I am pointing to an opportunity for leadership that he hinted at and did not deliver. I actually criticized him but you whomever you are have five or six word comment that ignores all the content in favor of doubling down on this one BABA YAGA. Look it up! Sal Sar

          1. I usually praise Turley, but I have to say, Turley sometimes adds to this dynamic like this article here about this putz Smallwell. I don’t like him but I don’t think he is significant to discuss him at all. He is just another hired hand. He has not significant policy suggestions of any distinction. He got honey potted by a spy to some degree, true enough, and Democrats defend him, as expected. This is not much of a story. That is a dog bites man story., That is daily traffic and weather stuff. Who cares. This is boring stuff and yet it stirs people up because it’s soap opera stuff. I think it sucks. How about a conversation about some substantive policies or current events of significance? I could think of ten things that Turley might have written an article on in the past week that are more worthy and a better use of his talents than even mentioning Smallwell one time. Sal Sar

          2. No, I call him out because you make excuses for him instead of including him as one of our oppressors.

            I’ll forget about him when he no longer has power in the GOP and is no longer one of the oppressors.

            1. Yeah you basically don’t get anything I said. If you are looking for a conventional point of view on partisan politics then feel free to skip my remarks in the future. It wasnt about the stupid GOP or the stupid Dem party it was about the economic policies that can benefit a nation by limiting the harmful accretion of power by the billionaires as a group

              by ignoring all the policy suggestions, it suggest that you are mired in the muck of personality. this is a perpetual problem in politics, nothing new or special, but in this comments space I keep looking for people who can look past the tree to the forest. the rest is soap opera stuff. if you want soap opera stuff i direct you to “twitter” where you will find an echo chamber of short remarks that will please you


            2. I can see why people like Yanis Varoufakis, or Michael Hudson, or Ellsberg in the clip cited above, will always say “trump is horrible just awful..” and then they go on to identify a policy issue that he highlighted which they are interested in discussing. why the necessary invocations of how awful trump is? because their audience is much populated with people who are fixiated on personality stuff and they need to pass their guard.

              here is an example of this. Yanis explains a centuries long dynamic in capitalism that is very important theme in my view. identifies how the private interests (billionaires) buy the system. and they “eat” democracy.

              in the remarks he says Trump is awful but goes on to mention why many working class people enthusiastically supported him. because he spoke to their economic interests.

              now some people will find that agitating. because in their minds, Drumpf was a magician who bamboozled them with his hairdo and trophy wife. or something, I don’t know. working class people are not allowed to reckon their economic interests perhaps, being as so many of them are rustics who cling to god and guns and such as we heard before.

              anyhow i watched this clip twice before months ago, the remark about working class trump voters is in there somewhere


              fascist, socialist! we hear these epithets all the time tossed about to cancel the opposition. well. i suspect that billionaires fear them both, if they are sincere. they sure don’t fear Democrats or Republicans. Many of the policies that get dismissed as fascist are not all that qualitatively different than those of socialism. I guess the libertarians are right about one thing, there is often a certain overlap! Yet perhaps they are wrong that the overlap is always bad

              One might go back in time and find various policies of both fascist and socialist regimes that provably helped the nation as a whole. bad guy Mussolini squashed the mafia and made the trains run on time. bad guy hitler built the audobahn and got hyperinflation under control. heck did you konw the hitler regime introduced occupational safety rules and made “war on cancer?” turns out hitler the duce and franco were all nonsmokers. let’s look to another baddie. bad guy mao’s “Simplified Chinese” characters helped teach tens of millions of illiterates to read. I could go on. But we wouldn’t have to look farther than FDR, again, to find a president that embarked on a wide variety of programs that were already in motion in socalled fascist and socalled socialist regimes that suddenly were happening similarly in America and benefitting people just the same. I know , I know, heresy!

              in America such notions are void from the start. the offend the iconography.

              if i had a buck for every time I heard somebody denounce a potentially valid political idea as fascist or socialist then I too might be a billionaire. no such luck!

              I tell you what. I will mind my own business tomorrow and you guys can go back to insulting each other and quibbling over mediocrities like Smallwell or hating on the former POTUS, whichever you want to blame for whatever. have fun with it!


  15. When his family came over to America their last name was Smallwell. The guy at Ellis Island told them they would get laughed at, especially in farmland.

  16. Politics at its best. The one question that has not been brought to light on this post is: who sealed the files? Sometimes it is as much who as to why. However, it is funny when the shoe goes on the other foot, who cries foul and who says someone is hiding pertinent information.

Comments are closed.