We all recall Bill Clinton’s infamous declaration that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” One of his supporters, disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.), now has his own “that person” moment. FBI material released this week shows that Swalwell admitted to what he refused to admit publicly: he did have sex with “that person.” Moreover, the material confirms that he not only enabled Fang Fang, an alleged Chinese spy, in pushing foreign interns for his office but may have received illegal foreign contributions. What is most striking about this report is that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on this information and still refused to remove Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee. After the scandal broke, Swalwell was repeatedly asked about his association. Still, he dismissed suggestions that he had a sexual relationship with an accused Chinese spy, a major allegation for a member with access to some of the most sensitive intelligence shared with Congress.
Swalwell declared:
“What it appears though that this person — as the story reports — was unsuccessful in whatever they were trying to do. But if intelligence officials are trying to weaponize someone’s cooperation, they are essentially seeking to do what this person was not able to do, which is to try and discredit someone.”
It turns out that Swalwell admitted to the FBI that the relationship was sexual in nature. The FBI also raised the possibility that Fang Fang was not only trying to get Swalwell to come to China, but that Swalwell may have received unlawful foreign donations.
We know now that the FBI believed Fang Fang may have been working with Chinese intelligence and in fact succeeded in establishing a sexual relationship with the rising politician.
When the scandal broke, some of us expressed astonishment at Pelosi’s decision to brush off calls for his removal from the House Intelligence Committee. She said she had been fully briefed on the FBI’s findings.
So Pelosi was presumably aware that Swalwell had slept with an alleged spy and possibly received unlawful foreign contributions. The report suggests an effort to groom and advance a young politician. If so, the Chinese must have been astonished when he was put on the Intelligence Committee with access to highly sensitive secrets. Pelosi not only refused to remove Swalwell from the Committee but appointed him as an impeachment manager.
At the time, Pelosi dismissed the allegations and attacked those like Kevin McCarthy who called for his removal: “I don’t have any concern about Mr. Swalwell…I do think that it is unfortunate that Mr. McCarthy is trying to make an issue of this.”
At the time, I said that Pelosi’s actions were reckless and put politics before national security. Swalwell was Pelosi’s man on the Committee. The question is whether the Chinese thought that he could also be their man on the Committee.
Pelosi continued to run interference for Swalwell despite allegations (starting before his entrance into Congress) of abusive treatment of women. The media also ignored these rumors and did not aggressively pursue his alleged affair with Fang Fang.
After Swalwell’s implosion, Pelosi immediately feigned a total lack of knowledge—and, more importantly, responsibility—for his record. The fact is that Swalwell was the creation of Pelosi, her attack dog who was always straining at the leash to attack her enemies. He was a made man, sheltered by the political and media establishment in Washington.
What value gets added to the national discourse whenever Trump calls someone a name?
Trumps sexual shenanigans far outweigh any of Swalwells. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in Swallwell’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in Trump’s own eye?
What sexual shenanigans has Trump been involved in as an elected official? Can you name one?
So where was Tossoff’s concern when Obama and Reggie Love were joined at the hip? Not only did he like women like Jennifer Anniston, he liked men too, double the freak.
There is a huge difference…Trump wasn’t on the Intelligence Committee…get some help for your TDS !!
Strip out the name and the party. A member with access to classified intelligence has a relationship with someone assessed as a likely foreign agent, plus open questions about undisclosed foreign money. Leadership is briefed. Leadership keeps them on the committee anyway.
Ask it as a pure process question, no partisan markers: does access to sensitive intelligence get pulled the moment a credible counterintelligence risk shows up, or doesn’t it? If your answer depends on knowing which party the person belongs to, that’s the tell, that’s team sport mentality masquerading as good citizenship.
Rape has been claimed in both Clinton and Swalwell encounters with the law. Let’s see some justice in those offenses, full investigations.
Just an observation, notice how as more and more evidence of wrong doing by Democrats, the deep state in favor of Democrats, wrong doing by the Biden admin comes out, the more the annonys attempt to deflect to . . . nothing.
How marvelous!
Keep you eye on the ball, ignore the distractions and deflections. Note the wrong doing, the corruption, keep it in the spotlight. Keep pointing it out.
“I care about liberal values being replaced by illiberal ones.”
— Bill Maher
Upstate: you have no clue as to what “evidence” is–if you think Turley’s piece constitutes “evidence”. If anything, i’s “evidence” of how scared MAGA and Republicans are of losing in the midterms and the lengths to which they will go to have their purchased pundits try to divert attention away from real “evidence” of Trump’s unfitness to be President and Republicans’ failure to rein him in.
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Hopefully, there is a Claus von Stauffenberg out there willing to do what needs to be done.
Wow! Turley is really digging deep here to divert attention away from the Trump-Natalie Harp scandal–it’s a trifecta–going after Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Eric Swalwell in a post lacking anything resembling proof. What is this blockbuster story? A report from “the FBI”–that agency has literally no credibility since heavy-drinking Kashyap Patel took over.
What are the alleged “facts”? Swalwell supposedly:
-“enabled”- (what does that mean?)
-“an ALLEGED Chinese spy”
-“in pushing foreign interns in his office” (“pushing” them to do–what?)
-he “MAY HAVE received foreign contributions” We KNOW Trump is “receiving foreign contributions”–a Qatari luxury flying palace, and purchase by foreign governments of his worthless crypto. Contributions of how much–where are the financial records, and what was purchased?
What do those words say? Literally nothing. Typical MAGA innuendo–red meat for the disciples.
However, since Swalwell is no longer a member of Congress, Turley goes after Nancy Pelosi for not removing Swalwell from a committee assignment “based on this information”.–WHAT “information”? I don’t see anywhere in Turley’s post any actual facts to support the title of today’s piece–that Swalwell allegedly admitted to a sexual affair–what is the “source” of this information? The Trump FBI:
“We know now that the FBI believed Fang Fang may have been working with Chinese intelligence and in fact succeeded in establishing a sexual relationship with the rising politician.”
“the FBI BELIEVED Fang Fang MAY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH CHINESE INTELLIGENCE”–
Typical MAGA language–“WE KNOW”–WE don’t know anything–and MAGA does not represent most of us. And Turley has used just enough weasel wording for plausible deniability for making a baseless accusat io.
How do we know it wasn’t intentional? All traitors will have a story about how they’re not a traitor and his is “didn’t know” and that’s fine?
I’m betting his recent ‘democrat dirty tricks take-down’ had something to do with these new revelations not his caveman side.
The fact that we didn’t know the whole story about Swalwell tells me the deep state is still active.