Stories about
Eric Swalwell


Eric Michael Swalwell Jr. /ˈswɔːlˌwɛl/ (born November 16, 1980) is an American politician from California, who serves as the U.S. Representative from California's 15th congressional district. He is a member of the Democratic Party. His district covers most of eastern Alameda County and part of western Contra Costa County, including San Ramon, Castro Valley, Hayward, Pleasanton, Livermore, Fremont, Sunol, Union City, and his hometown of Dublin. He was elected in November 2012, defeating incumbent Pete Stark, a fellow Democrat almost a half-century Swalwell's senior, who had held the office since 1973. Swalwell took office on January 3, 2013.

MarkPantano.com

Published  2 days ago

In an election cycle in which it appears that nearly every Democrat with a pulse, (sorry Ruth Bader Ginsburg – seriously though, where is she?) is running for President, one of the dumbest members of the U.S. Congress is close to announcing his candidacy.

Eric Swalwell, a man who routinely demonstrates his stupidity on cable news, is going to New Hampshire to attend a political event frequented by presidential candidates.

From the Washington Examiner:

Rep. Eric Swalwell is heading to New Hampshire in February for an event seen as a key stop for presidential candidates.

The California Democrat will be the featured speaker at the Feb. 25 “Politics and Eggs” breakfast hosted by the New England Council and the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College.

Swalwell, a familiar face on cable news and a House Intelligence Committee member looking into Russian interference in the 2016 race, has not yet announced whether he’s running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. In the last year, he has made numerous visits to Iowa, the first state to hold its caucus, and New Hampshire, the first state to hold primaries.

The 38-year-old told CNN on Wednesday he was getting close to making a decision on 2020.

Washington Examiner

Published  3 days ago

The entry of Sen. Bernie Sanders and 11 other White House challengers has not changed the gambling odds on the expectation that President Trump will win re-election.

Medium

Published  3 days ago

Both CNN and the Washington Post are reporting that Robert Mueller’s investigation into a possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign…

Conservative News Today

Published  4 days ago

Sen. Cory Booker’s declaration that he was withholding judgement on the alleged attack on actor Jussie Smollett would be commendable if he hadn’t already called it out as “an attempted modern-day lynching.” The Democratic presidential candidate told reporters Sunday that he was now waiting until the facts came in on the alleged hate crime against the “Empire” […]

The Gateway Pundit

Published  6 days ago

Posting on his popular Facebook page, Stone Cold Truth, longtime Trump advisor and NYT bestselling author Roger Stone has promised to call lead Russian Collusion Delusion proponent Adam Schiff to the stand in his upcoming trial.

Stone has railed against members of Congress for using their congressional immunity to leak and lie in relation to the Mueller probe or parallel Senate and House investigations. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and fellow California Dem Rep. Eric Swalwell have been two of the biggest leakers and liars on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. They have both used their positions repeatedly to snipe at Stone with unfounded statements or leaked out-of-context half-truths to mainstream media reporters in an effort to turn the American public against Mr. Stone and President Donald Trump.

Schiff was recently exposed for having a secret meeting with Fusion GPS Founder Glenn Simpson, who authored the now debunked “dossier” on Trump, which reads more like Resistance fan fiction than a serious investigative report with actual evidence.

Getting people like Adam Schiff, and hopefully others like Eric Swalwell on the stand would require them to be truthful about their targeted misinformation campaign against the President of the United States and high-profile allies who helped him defeat their handpicked puppet Hillary Clinton.

While they are able to hide behind congressional immunity to grandstand on cable news and in committee hearings, there will be no room for such games in an actual court of law. If you want to see hypocrites and Russia hoaxers like Schiff held accountable for their crimes against American democracy, donate to Roger Stone’s legal defense fund and lets place them under oath!

LifeNews.com

Published  1 week ago

Voters should not expect any political moderates on abortion among the prominent 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

Not only do contenders such as Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have 100-percent pro-abortion voting records, they also sponsored a radical pro-abortion bill that would have legalized abortions for basically any reason up to birth.

The Free Beacon reports the bill is radically out of touch with voters, and it failed to pass in 2017; but that did not stop prominent Democrats from supporting it.

The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” was introduced in Congress in 2017, with dozens of Democrat sponsors, including likely presidential candidates Harris, Warren, Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Kristen Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders.

Nicknamed the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act” by pro-life groups, the bill would have invalidated nearly all state and federal abortion regulations, including waiting periods, informed consent requirements, bans on late-term abortions and sex-selection abortions and more.

Polls indicate that legislation like the bill, which was similar to New York’s radical new pro-abortion law, is strongly opposed by voters. A new Susan B. Anthony List poll found that 77 percent of likely voters support legislation to protect infants born alive after botched abortions. It also found that 62 percent oppose bills to expand late-term abortions. Polls by Gallup and Marist have found similar results.

Here’s more from the report:

The bill—first introduced in the Senate in 2017—was cosponsored by Democrats like Kamala Harris (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), and independent Bernie Sanders (Vt.). Likewise, the House version was backed by Democratic representatives Eric Swalwell (Calif.), Seth Moulton (Mass.), Tim Ryan (Ohio), and former congressman Beto O’Rourke (Texas).

None of those individuals, who are now either running for president or weighing a run, responded to questions from the Washington Free Beacon concerning their support for the legislation in light of the new polling numbers from SBA List.

While polls consistently show that a majority of Democrats support abortion restrictions, Democrat political leaders do not.

In the past few years, they have voted against bills to protect infants born alive after botched abortions, to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood and to prohibit late-term abortions on pain-capable unborn babies. Right now, pro-abortion Democrats are blocking bills in the U.S. House and Senate to protect newborns from infanticide. The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act requires that babies born alive after failed abortions receive the same basic medical treatment as any other baby born at that gestational age.

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates do not represent voters, but they do support the Democratic Party platform, which calls for legalized abortion without restriction and taxpayer-funded elective abortions, and the abortion industry, which donates millions of dollars to Democratic candidates.

USA TODAY

Published  1 week ago

As the special counsel probe grinds toward its conclusion, there are growing signs that Mueller will never say anything about his own investigation.

MintPress News

Published  1 week ago

Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has been the subject of bipartisan bullying since she explicitly called out the number one Israeli lobby group, AIPAC.

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 week ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is no one’s puppet. He made this absolutely clear during a House Judiciary Committee when pressed by Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell.

Swalwell, a potential 2020 presidential candidate, questioned Whitaker on the Mueller investigation and whether he would relay a message to President Trump.

According to the Washington Examiner, the Democrat asked Whitaker if he thought Mueller was conflicted, or whether he was running an honest investigation.

Whitaker said he thought Mueller was truthful and not conflicted.

Swalwell then asked Whitaker if he would echo the following line to Trump: “Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted.”

“Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker responded. “I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel.”

Whitaker then gestured to the House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold “Jerry” Nadler who said Swalwell was out of time.

Swalwell retorted that Whitaker did not answer the question and that he still wanted to hear his answer.

Whitaker said he had thought he did answer the question and had nothing further to say.

Check it out:

Here’s more on Whitaker from the Washington Examiner:

Whitaker took over as acting attorney general in November after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced from the position. He previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff.

Since taking over the Justice Department in an acting capacity, Whitaker has come under scrutiny for his past comments about Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

His criticisms of the Russia probe led to calls for him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. However, the Justice Department said in December Whitaker would not step aside.

The House Judiciary Committee Hearing included a number of testy exchanges between Whitaker and Democrat lawmakers. The exchanges were called a “pony show” by Republican Congressman Doug Collins.

Check them out:

Western Free Press

Published  1 week ago

The Benghazi scandal is back in the headlines. This time, some unlikely players were added to the fray. One of the players, Nancy Pelosi, was added to the scandal due to a hack leak released by Guccifer 2.0.

The hacker or hackers known as Guccifer 2.0 publicly released documents claiming to come from the computer of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). As you may recall, the Original Guccifer, Marcel Lazăr Lehel, is a Romanian hacker responsible for high-level computer security breaches in the U.S. and Romania. Lehel targeted celebrities, Romanian and U.S. government officials, and other prominent persons. (RELATED: Margaret Hoover Grills Democrat Eric Swalwell Over Russia Obsession)

Lehel was jailed in January 2014 in Romania, then later transferred to the US. Lehal’s arrest was the beginning of his predecessor, Guccifer 2.0. Guccifer 2.0’s identity is still unidentified.

Guccifer 2.0, who allegedly breached the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC), released the documents to the WordPress blog used in other public releases. The information includes a cache of documents on congressional races in Florida and Pennsylvania.

According to The Daily Caller, The documents show the Democrat party trying to call the Benghazi scandal “conspiracy theory.”

The Daily Caller wrote:

“The document casts the controversy surrounding Benghazi as “Legitimate outrage over the deaths of American diplomats mixed with partisanship.” The document also admits that then Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice “gave incorrect information on television” in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

The document’s central talking points revolve around ignoring the facts revealed by congressional investigations, and instead on rhetorical flourishes that emphasize patriotism.”

Interestingly, the Democrats were trying to paint the Benghazi incident as a “right-wing conspiracy theory.” This would fit with all the other things that the Democrats do to hide information. By having all the Democrats on the same page, if the Benghazi scandal was ever investigated again, they would all claim the scandal was a “right-wing conspiracy to use against Hillary Clinton and Suzan Rice.” (RELATED: Exclusive: Roger Stone Interview on Legal Battle With Bob Mueller)

In the leaked document, the following information is available.

“This tragedy highlights the challenges our diplomats face when they serve as frontline civilians, representing our nation in harm’s way. Isolating America and sequestering these professionals in fortress embassies is not a solution. We must value and support their important work, as well as protecting their physical security.”

The second section highlights the many attempts at calling for accountability as “pandering to conspiracy theorists.”

“Benghazi is a tragedy, not a scandal. At this point, most public discussion is pandering to conspiracy theorists or harping on the death of an American ambassador to score political points.”

Finally, the third section denigrates the Republican-led Congress for investigating the specific circumstances involving the events of Benghazi.

“These tragic events have been investigated more than the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Reports ordered by a Republican-led Congress have repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories of criminal negligence or cover-ups, and media coverage has exhausted the issue from every angle. Even incoming House Speaker McCarthy admitted the investigations were more about hurting Hillary Clinton than finding truth. We should remember the sacrifice of these Americans, not reduce their names to political talking points.”

This document, if it was truly taken from Nancy Pelosi’s laptop, leaves more room for additional questions about the tragedy. No more information is available. We will inform you as this story develops. (RELATED: Voluminous Amount of Dems Beginning to Support Border Wall)

American Greatness

Published  1 week ago

The Indecent Inquisitors

02/09 2:56 pm

Post by @theamgreatness.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

On Friday, America was treated to a preview of things to come when House Democrats turned a hearing with acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker into a grotesque spectacle of the sort of nasty politics and

SARAH PALIN

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is no one’s puppet. He made this absolutely clear during a House Judiciary Committee when pressed by Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell.

Swalwell, a potential 2020 presidential candidate, questioned Whitaker on the Mueller investigation and whether he would relay a message to President Trump.

According to the Washington Examiner, the Democrat asked Whitaker if he thought Mueller was conflicted, or whether he was running an honest investigation.

Whitaker said he thought Mueller was truthful and not conflicted.

Swalwell then asked Whitaker if he would echo the following line to Trump: “Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted.”

“Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker responded. “I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel.”

Whitaker then gestured to the House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold “Jerry” Nadler who said Swalwell was out of time.

Swalwell retorted that Whitaker did not answer the question and that he still wanted to hear his answer.

Whitaker said he had thought he did answer the question and had nothing further to say.

Check it out:

Here’s more on Whitaker from the Washington Examiner:

Whitaker took over as acting attorney general in November after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced from the position. He previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff.

Since taking over the Justice Department in an acting capacity, Whitaker has come under scrutiny for his past comments about Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

His criticisms of the Russia probe led to calls for him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. However, the Justice Department said in December Whitaker would not step aside.

The House Judiciary Committee Hearing included a number of testy exchanges between Whitaker and Democrat lawmakers. The exchanges were called a “pony show” by Republican Congressman Doug Collins.

Check them out:

Red Journalists

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker slammed Rep. Eric Swalwell on Friday after the lawmaker asked if he thinks special counsel Robert Mueller is honest.

The lawmaker from California asked Whitaker at a House Judiciary Committee hearing to say, “Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted.”

“Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker fired back. “I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel.”

Earlier during the hearing, Whitaker told Swalwell he believes Mueller to be honest, but the lawmaker continued to push Whitaker to tell Trump he thinks the special counsel is also truthful and not conflicted.

President Trump called Robert Mueller a “conflicted prosecutor gone rogue” in November. Whitaker declined when pressed again on whether he thinks Mueller is honest.

“Congressman, I am not here to be a puppet to repeat terms and words that you say that I should say,” Whitaker said.

Whitaker gets upset with Swalwell's line of question about if he thinks Mueller is honest, says he's "not a puppet to repeat what you're saying" pic.twitter.com/pP1jPcfHpw

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 8, 2019

Matthew Whitaker took over as acting AG in November after Trump fired Jeff Sessions. He previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff.

Since taking over the Justice Department, Whitaker has come under fire for his past comments about Mueller’s investigation.

His criticisms of the Russia probe led to calls for him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. However, the Justice Department said in December Whitaker would not step aside.

What are your thoughts on this? Please share and comment.

The Federalist

Published  2 weeks ago

Democrats are trying to eviscerate the Second Amendment by imposing undue burdens on law-abiding gun owners who just want to protect themselves.

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

It appears that there was plenty of collusion when it comes to allegations of Russian interference, it just doesn’t involve President Donald Trump. In what’s being dismissed as a coincidental crossing of paths, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last July at […]

Washington Examiner

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Friday snapped at Rep. Eric Swalwell after the lawmaker asked if he thinks special counsel Robert Mueller is honest, and refused to answer the question because he's "not a puppet."

Swalwell, D-Calif., asked Whitaker at a House Judiciary Committee hearing to say, “Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted.”

“Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker replied. “I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel.”

The acting attorney general earlier told Swalwell he believes Mueller to be honest, but the California Democrat continued to push Whitaker to tell Trump he thinks the special counsel is also truthful and not conflicted.

[Read more: Sheila Jackson Lee gets in nasty dust-up with Acting AG Whitaker]

The president in November called Mueller a “conflicted prosecutor gone rogue.” Whitaker declined when pressed again on whether he thinks Mueller is honest.

“Congressman, I am not here to be a puppet to repeat terms and words that you say that I should say,” Whitaker said.

Whitaker took over as acting attorney general in November after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced from the position. He previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff.

Since taking over the Justice Department in an acting capacity, Whitaker has come under scrutiny for his past comments about Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

His criticisms of the Russia probe led to calls for him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. However, the Justice Department said in December Whitaker would not step aside.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Glenn Simpson (L), Adam Schiff (R) The new Chairman of the House Intel Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) had an undisclosed meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last July at a security conference in Aspen. In other words, Congressman Adam Schiff was colluding with Russia-dossier-Hillary Clinton-waterboy Glenn Simpson at the height of the Russiagate […]

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

Friday on MSNBC, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker was "disrespectful toward the process," while testifying before | Clips

Sun-Sentinel.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Fred Guttenberg, Andrew Pollack and Manuel Oliver will attend as guests of congressional members, as will Cameron Kasky, a student co-founder of the March for Our Lives movement.

Mediaite

Published  2 weeks ago

It's customary when reporting on a story to report on that actual story. Maddow, though, threw custom to the wind.

Breitbart

Published  3 weeks ago

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is pledging a gun control vote next week by exclaiming that the “right to be safe” trumps the right to bear arms.

He argues that the “right to be safe” supersedes “any other rights” possessed by Americans:

It’s Friday, so call me crazy, but I can’t wait for next week. On Wednesday, our @HouseJudiciary Committee will have the first hearing on gun violence in 8 years. A new Congress is putting your right to be safe over any other rights. #EnoughIsEnough #HR8

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) February 1, 2019

While the right to bear arms is easy to find in the Bill of Rights, as is the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from government intrusion on private property, etc., the “right to be safe” is elusive. In fact, no such right is declared in the Bill of Rights. Rather, Americans keep themselves safe via the exercise of the whole of their rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and of liberty.

Swalwell is setting the stage for a gutting of our Second Amendment rights. He tweeted, “For too long, an NRA-controlled Congress failed to pass common sense gun laws, instead allowing the most dangerous weapons to be in the hands of the most dangerous people. Predictably, thousands have died. & Congress would respond w/ moments of silence & zero moments of action.”

For too long, an NRA-controlled Congress failed to pass common sense gun laws, instead allowing the most dangerous weapons to be in the hands of the most dangerous people. Predictably, thousands have died. & Congress would respond w/ moments of silence & zero moments of action.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) February 1, 2019

He did not mention that nearly every mass shooter of the 21st century acquired his guns by complying with all the left’s gun controls–including background checks–rather than going around them. Nor did he mention that the left’s refusal to remove gun-free zones continues to provide a target-rich environment for crazies, and no amount of gun control will change that.

Stalwell also failed to note that California, at the state level, has every gun control the Democrats are pushing at the federal level, and they continue to have high profile attack after high profile attack. Perhaps this is because gun control does not disarm criminals, but the law-abiding citizen.

On November 16, 2018, Breitbart News reported Rep. Swalwell’s observation that if gun owners defy an “assault weapons” ban “the government has nukes.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

STAR POLITICAL

Published  3 weeks ago

A recent photo from Governor Ralph Northam’s 1984 year book has surfaced showing him dressed in a offensive costume according to his own statements.

According to The NY Times, Virginia’s governor acknowledged on Friday that he was photographed more than 30 years ago in a costume that was “clearly racist and offensive” — admitting that he had dressed either as a member of the Ku Klux Klan or in blackface — but resisted calls for his resignation.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% [OFF] And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

“I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now,” Ralph Northam, the Democratic governor, said in a statement on Friday evening. “This behavior is not in keeping with who I am today and the values I have fought for throughout my career in the military, in medicine, and in public service. But I want to be clear, I understand how this decision shakes Virginians’ faith in that commitment.”

Initially Liberal media organizations and personalities attempted to deflect and make comparisons, but those that did are making quite for fool of themselves right about now.

Following the admission and the news many top level Democrats and organizations have publicly called for Northam’s resignation.

BREAKING: Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) has called on racist Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam to resign

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) February 2, 2019

Senator and 2020 Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris called for Northam’s resignation tweeting, “Leaders are called to a higher standard, and the stain of racism should have no place in the halls of government. The Governor of Virginia should step aside so the public can heal and move forward together.”

Leaders are called to a higher standard, and the stain of racism should have no place in the halls of government. The Governor of Virginia should step aside so the public can heal and move forward together.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) February 2, 2019

BREAKING: Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has called on racist Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam to resign over his KKK, blackface photo

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) February 2, 2019

The President and CEO of the NAACP has also called on Governor Ralph Northam to resign.

“Black face in any manner is always racist and never okay. No matter the party affiliation, we can not stand for such behavior, which is why the @NAACP is calling for the resignation of Virginia Governor @RalphNortham,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson tweeted.

Black face in any manner is always racist and never okay. No matter the party affiliation, we can not stand for such behavior, which is why the @NAACP is calling for the resignation of Virginia Governor @RalphNortham

— Derrick Johnson (@DerrickNAACP) February 2, 2019

“It doesn’t matter if he is a Republican or a Democrat. This behavior was racist and unconscionable. Governor Northam should resign,” Julian Castro, another Democratic 2020 presidential candidate, said.

It doesn’t matter if he is a Republican or a Democrat. This behavior was racist and unconscionable. Governor Northam should resign.

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) February 2, 2019

Daily Intelligencer

Published  3 weeks ago

One of the most intriguing unsolved mysteries of the Russia investigation has been a series of phone calls Donald Trump Jr. made to a blocked phone number while he was setting up a meeting during the campaign with Russian agents who were promising to help his father. Many people, including me, speculated that the call might have been to his father to inform him of the meeting. Yesterday, CNN reported the calls were actually “between Trump Jr. and two of his business associates.”

Trump and his supporters, presented with one of the very few times a suspicious angle in the Russia investigation did not pan out, immediately began gloating:

Just out: The big deal, very mysterious Don jr telephone calls, after the innocent Trump Tower meeting, that the media & Dems said were made to his father (me), were just conclusively found NOT to be made to me. They were made to friends & business associates of Don. Really sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 1, 2019

To be clear, nobody said the phone calls “were made to his father.” They said the calls might have gone to his father. (Democrat Eric Swalwell suggested last year, “That looks like he may very well have been trying to call his father to talk to his father about taking this meeting.”) They didn’t. So, whether or not Trump Jr. did inform his father of the meeting — Steve Bannon speculated he did so in person immediately after — he didn’t do it through those phone calls.

On the other hand, the notion that Donald Jr. was just making an innocent phone call to what some reports have described as a “longtime family friend” elides some distinctly less innocent possibilities opened by this news.

The recipient of one of the phone calls was Howard Lorber who is, yes, a “family friend.” But he is also a longtime point of contact in Trump’s ambitions to build a tower in Moscow, which date back to the 1980s. Lorber accompanied Trump on a 1996 visit to Moscow to explore building there. “Howard has major investments in Russia,” Trump boasted to a Russian politician at the time. As Craig Unger notes, Lorber’s dealings in Russia put him in contact with Russian mobsters.

Trump Jr. was also very active in the family efforts to consummate the Moscow deal. Now, the timing of his call to Lorber may well be a total coincidence. But the more information that emerges about the Moscow tower project, the more central it appears to be to the Trump-Russia relationship. Coincidentally, in an interview yesterday, the New York Times asked Trump about his Moscow building plans. He dismissed the episode as a minor discussion that went nowhere:

I had no money invested. It was a letter of intent, or option. It was a free option. It was a nothing. And I wasn’t doing anything. I don’t consider that even business. And frankly, that wasn’t even on my radar. If you take a look at that, take a look at the deal. There was no money put up. There was no transfer. I don’t think they had a location. I’m not even sure if they had a location. …

I had very little interest in the first place, and again, I viewed it as a free option. It may have been a letter of intent. I don’t know exactly what it was called. But it was unimportant.

There was a letter of intent, which BuzzFeed News obtained. Trump signed it. And there also was a location selected for the project, along with pages and pages of minute details, including a payment agreement that appeared highly lucrative for Trump — a $4 million fee up-front, plus a percentage of all condominium sales, rent, food and beverage fees, and fees for use of the spa and conference facilities.

You can’t read too much into Trump’s misstatements on this issue, because he lies about things all the time. But the relevant background here is not only the lies but also the pattern of Russian foreign influence operations. Russia tends to dangle business deals in front of its prospective foreign political partners. Those deals tend to intermingle organized crime and the state itself, which in Russia, operate in tandem.

Trump spent decades chasing a building deal in Moscow. Russia was dangling that opportunity in front of him throughout the campaign, at a time it was dealing with him secretly, and also promising to help his campaign. Not every suspicious detail in this episode will turn out to indicate guilt, but the prospect that this story ends innocently for Trump is slim, and growing slimmer.

Leave a Comment

WayneDupree.com

Published  3 weeks ago

I am shocked at the names on these tweets asking for Northam to resign

twitchy.com

Published  4 weeks ago

No one has ever accused Eric of being the brightest crayon in the box.

twitchy.com

Published  4 weeks ago

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

The government shutdown continued as questions surrounding President Trump's corruption and the need for impeachment hit a fever pitch.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Democrats who had pushed BuzzFeed's report were silent Friday evening after Mueller's office issued a statement disputing it.

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

Late Thursday night, BuzzFeed News published a report that, if true, could prove historic: President Trump directed his then- personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about a real-estate deal he was pursuing in Moscow during the 2016 election. Trump immediately denied the story, but for many Democrats, including those who had previously cautioned against impeaching the president before Special Counsel Robert Mueller produces his findings in the Russia investigation, the report was cause to consider proceeding with impeachment before the Russia probe is finished.

“If the BuzzFeed story is true, President Trump must resign or be impeached,” Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, wrote on Twitter. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy weighed in, too. “If Mueller does have multiple sources confirming Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, then we need to know this ASAP,” he wrote. “Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act.” Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley followed up on Friday morning: “If this report of Trump suborning false testimony is confirmed, then Trump committed a felony and must resign or be impeached,” he wrote. “This is obstruction of justice,” Democratic Representative David Cicilline, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, told CNN. “If the facts are true, this is suborning perjury. It's an impeachable offense.” Representative Jamie Raskin, a member of House leadership, told CNN that "this is a completely impeachment offense, if this report is true.” He said Congress would need to hear from “everybody who was involved” in the alleged conspiracy before moving forward with impeachment.

The comments mark a noticeable shift in what had been the standard party line on the possibility of impeachment—that Democrats should wait to act until after Mueller issues his final report. But Attorney General nominee Bill Barr’s refusal to commit to providing Mueller’s findings to Congress and to the public, combined with BuzzFeed’s implication that the president committed a felony while in office, has given Democrats a new sense of urgency—and they won’t necessarily wait to hold Trump accountable, I’m told, if they conclude that he knowingly obstructed justice to hide his involvement in business negotiations with the Kremlin during the election.

“The conduct alleged by Buzzfeed is consistent with other, independent evidence of Donald Trump as candidate instructing others to lie and Donald Trump as President obstructing justice,” Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell, who sits on both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, told me. “Evidence is not a conclusion. It must be tested. We should do all we can in Congress with the subpoena power and oversight responsibility to see if Trump acted this way. I don’t think anyone will be surprised if it’s confirmed.”

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley told Fox News on Friday that the allegation was “ridiculous.” “I’m not going to give any credence or credibility to Michael Cohen,” he said. But Mueller has documentary evidence to support Cohen’s claims, according to BuzzFeed, and its reporting is not the first piece of evidence that Trump has sought to obstruct the federal and congressional Russia investigations. The FBI opened an obstruction inquiry after Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey—who was leading the investigation into his campaign at the time he was ousted—and told the Russians that dismissing Comey took “great pressure” off of him. Trump’s decision to draft a misleading statement on his son’s behalf about a meeting with Russians at the height of the election to obtain dirt on his opponent, Hillary Clinton, has factored in to the obstruction probe, too, according to The New York Times.

But the allegation that Trump asked Cohen to lie to Congress, which would be a federal crime, is “the most serious to date,” said Democratic Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “These allegations may prove unfounded, but, if true, they would constitute both the subornation of perjury as well as obstruction of justice,” Schiff said in a statement. “Our committee is already working to secure additional witness testimony and documents related to the Trump Tower Moscow deal and other investigative matters. As a counterintelligence concern of the greatest magnitude, and given that these alleged efforts were intended to interfere with our investigation, our Committee is determined to get to the bottom of this and follow the evidence wherever it may lead.”

Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee—the panel with the power to begin impeachment proceedings against the president—also promised to “get to the bottom of it.” And even Barr, Trump’s attorney general nominee, who wrote a 19-page memo arguing that Mueller’s obstruction inquiry is “fatally misconceived,” acknowledged in that same memo that obstruction is an impeachable offense. “If a president knowingly or destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity of availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction,” Barr wrote. “Indeed, the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such ‘bad acts’ involving the impairment of evidence.”

The FBI began investigating whether Trump was a Kremlin agent in the chaotic days following Comey’s firing in May 2017, opening a counterintelligence probe into the president to determine whether he was acting in Russia’s interests rather than in America’s, according to The Times. FBI leaders felt that Trump’s attempt to obstruct the Russia investigation—he told NBC’s Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of “this Russia thing”—was itself a serious national-security issue.

But the first in-court evidence that Trump may have been compromised by Russia while Russian President Vladimir Putin was waging a direct attack on the election didn’t come until last November, when Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the timing of his negotiations to build a Trump Tower Moscow—and about how often he discussed the deal with Trump during the campaign. Cohen contacted the Kremlin “asking for assistance in connection with the Moscow Project” in January 2016, and was encouraged by Trump to travel to Moscow to clinch a deal during the election, according to BuzzFeed. He is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 7 before he begins a three-year prison sentence in March.

With Democrats in control of the House, Trump could well be impeached. But removing him from office, which would require an affirmative vote from the Republican-controlled Senate, is another question entirely. A spokesman for Republican Senator Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment on the BuzzFeed report, but indicated that the committee still wants to hear from Cohen on this and other issues. “Mr. Cohen has had, for months now, a request to return to the committee to provide additional closed-door testimony,” the spokesman, Ben Khouri, said. “I will let the House members comment about impeachment or not,” Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Friday. “Our investigation, which is the only remaining bipartisan investigation, is continuing, to try to get all the facts and get them out to the American public.”

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Buzzfeednews.com led with a report on Democrats pledging to investigate its Russia collusion report after it had been debunked by Mueller.

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

Buzzfeed's report claiming Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress has some Democrats claiming it could be impeachable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Raw Story

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said President Donald Trump is not an unwitting Russian agent and instead “knows exactly what he’s doing.”

Swalwell, a former prosecutor, sits on the House Judiciary Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, joined MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews on Tuesday.

“It’s a stunning thing to hear the president of the United States defend himself, saying I’m not an agent of the Russians,” Matthews noted.

“Yeah, and ‘I am not a crook,’ right? We’ve heard that before as well,” Swalwell noted.

“Where I come from, when you act on behalf of the Russians, when you encourage them to hack after it’s revealed they’re hacking, when you take all the meetings they offer, when you meet with their leader in secret and then you take the notes from the one witness who has a record, and act to take away sanctions, pull us out of Syria — you’re working for the Russians,” he explained.

“And I think he knows exactly what he’s doing,” Swalwell added.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Congressional Democrats Are Ditching House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s Ardent Opposition To Any Barrier Or Wall Along The U.s. Border With Mexico, As The Partial Government Shutdown Continues And President Donald Trump Takes His Case Directly To The Border Itself.

““If we have a partial wall, if we have fencing, if we have technology used to keep our border safe, all of that is fine,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), the chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said on CNN.

“Certainly you need barriers and we support barriers,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) added.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) also backed a barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico.

“Some fencing is useful, some barriers are useful,” Merkley said. “There’s a lot of surveillance technology. I’ve been to some cities on the border that have triple fencing and have more personnel and have the technology to see the people moving in the middle of the night.”

Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY)–the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee–said they would support fencing and barriers where necessary along the border.

Senate Minority Whip Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) says he believes there will be a new barrier along the border in the future:

realclearpolitics

Published  1 month ago

The televised presidential address from the Oval Office, a staple of communication between the chief executive and the people in the second half of 20th century, has recently been in desuetude. Former President Barack Obama delivered only three such addresses in his eight years in office. President Donald Trump this week delivered his first one, just days short of completing half his term.

It was a sober address, short but touching some emotive chords, carefully based on facts and proposals -- contrary to the Democrats' meme that it would be based on fears, not facts.

Post-speech fact-checking was particularly farcical. The Washington Post said Trump's claim that ICE officers made "266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records" in two years is accurate but "misleading" because the number includes all crimes. Huh?

Another complaint is that Trump claimed 1 in 3 women in migrant caravans is sexually assaulted. The complainer pointed to a study that says it is 60 to 80 percent of those women. Obviously, nobody knows the actual numbers; a good guess might be "a lot." But it is pretty obvious what's been happening on the southern border.

Attempted border crossings were way down in 2017, presumably for fear of tough Trump enforcement. They rose in 2018, as many Central Americans started arriving with children, hoping to gain entry into the United States by exploiting court-created loopholes in American asylum law. Few had legitimate claims on the political persecution or other traditional grounds for asylum; many complained of high local crime rates, for which, so far as I know, no nation has ever granted asylum.

Now it may be objected that the number of illegal southern border crossings was much higher 15 and 20 years ago. That's why Congress, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, voted in 2006 for more border protection.

And it's possible to argue that in the current hot labor market, illegals have little depressing effect on wages, and that the numbers of violent crimes by illegals, though regrettable, are bearable in a nation of 328 million. Democrats understandably tend to shun these valid but hard-hearted arguments.

Instead they insist vehemently that a wall, which many supported a dozen years ago, will inevitably be ineffective and must be regarded as "immoral."

This first argument flies in the face of evidence. As American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin pointed out in 2017, Israel's wall with the West Bank, Morocco's with Algeria, India's with Bangladesh, Hungary's with Serbia and others have reduced illegal crossings to near zero. This year, Rubin reports that France, Iraq, Lithuania, Estonia and Norway are putting up walls. "[I]t is simply counterfactual to suggest that walls won't work, a willful subordination of facts to the politics of the day," he writes.

And why are walls immoral? Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell recognizes the "but the Berlin Wall was to keep people in" argument but insists a wall to keep people out is "medieval" and "a symbol of 'us and not us.'" Well, yes -- U.S. citizens and not U.S. citizens. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith says Trump's call for the wall is rooted in "xenophobia and racism."

To say that it is impermissible or racist to distinguish between American citizens and others is to make a case for open borders. Even in the days of Ellis Island, health restrictions blocked some would-be immigrants and deterred perhaps millions of others.

Trump made the argument more gracefully, pointing out that wealthy politicians build walls, fences and gates around their property not "because they hate the people on the outside but because they love the people on the inside." A backyard fence is not a prison wall.

In his speech, Trump was careful to stress that he is seeking better technology, more personal humanitarian assistance and asylum law changes, as well as "a physical barrier." He says, "At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall."

In her response, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded, "we need to secure our borders." And Sen. Schumer said, "Democrats and the president both want stronger border security." You might see these words as pointing toward a deal. I don't.

Pelosi and Schumer insisted, without citing evidence, that a wall is "ineffective" and "unnecessary." Their party seems emotionally fixated on blocking a wall and impervious to argument, even as Trump, perhaps surprisingly, made a dignified and factual case that it's needed to "protect our country."

Government shutdowns, formerly headline news, seem less painful these days (three-quarters of government is funded). Looks like a stalemate.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.

Signup to receive email alerts

The Political Insider

Published  1 month ago

As the federal government shutdown continues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are still saying they oppose funding of a border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. But in the wake President Trump visiting the border to make his case, many Democrats are breaking with leadership and now say they support a wall.

On CNN, chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Cheri Bustos (DCCC), said, “If we have a partial wall, if we have fencing, if we have technology used to keep our border safe, all of that is fine.”

U.S. Ben Cardin of Maryland said, “Certainly you need barriers and we support barriers.”

“Some fencing is useful, some barriers are useful,” said Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. “There’s a lot of surveillance technology. I’ve been to some cities on the border that have triple fencing and have more personnel and have the technology to see the people moving in the middle of the night.”

More from The Political Insider

Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell of California and Jerry Nadler of New York said they would support necessary fencing and barriers. Nadler is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois says he thinks there will be a new barrier in the future along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Vice Chair of the Democrat conference, Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, says that new barriers at the border would be beneficial. “You know, I think there are parts of the border that would benefit from repairing fencing and other barricades that already exist there.”

This is all noteworthy because these are prominent Democrats spouting a very different message on the wall than what we have been hearing from Pelosi and Schumer, especially in those leaders rebuttal to President Trump Tuesday night.

Pelosi said Tuesday that the wall would be “expensive and ineffective,” and Schumer said it would be an “ineffective, unnecessary border wall.”

But these Democrats are saying a wall or increased barriers would be effective.

By voting, you agree to receive email communication from The Political Insider. Click HERE for more information.

What happens next is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for sure, as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer continue to resist the wall, they’re fellow Democrats are not reading from the same script.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Several congressional Democrats are turning on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and voicing their support for a border wall. As noted by Breitbart, numerous Democrats are publicly voicing their support for President

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Pelosi and Cryin’ Chuck Schumer begged President Trump this week to reopen the government. Trump doesn’t give a damn and wants a wall. Chuck and Nancy are losing. And their wall of insanity is crumbling down. Numerous Democrats now say they want a border barrier. Don’t they know Nancy says it’s immoral? Dem Rep. Cheri […]

The Political Insider

Published  1 month ago

As the federal government shutdown continues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are still saying they oppose funding of a border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. But in the wake President Trump visiting the border to make his case, many Democrats are breaking with leadership and now say they support a wall.

On CNN, chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Cheri Bustos (DCCC), said, “If we have a partial wall, if we have fencing, if we have technology used to keep our border safe, all of that is fine.”

U.S. Ben Cardin of Maryland said, “Certainly you need barriers and we support barriers.”

“Some fencing is useful, some barriers are useful,” said Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. “There’s a lot of surveillance technology. I’ve been to some cities on the border that have triple fencing and have more personnel and have the technology to see the people moving in the middle of the night.”

Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell of California and Jerry Nadler of New York said they would support necessary fencing and barriers. Nadler is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois says he thinks there will be a new barrier in the future along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Vice Chair of the Democrat conference, Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, says that new barriers at the border would be beneficial. “You know, I think there are parts of the border that would benefit from repairing fencing and other barricades that already exist there.”

This is all noteworthy because these are prominent Democrats spouting a very different message on the wall than what we have been hearing from Pelosi and Schumer, especially in those leaders rebuttal to President Trump Tuesday night.

Pelosi said Tuesday that the wall would be “expensive and ineffective,” and Schumer said it would be an “ineffective, unnecessary border wall.”

But these Democrats are saying a wall or increased barriers would be effective.

What happens next is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for sure, as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer continue to resist the wall, they’re fellow Democrats are not reading from the same script.

Pelosi: Tragedies Like the Death of Officer Ronil Singh Are Not a Crisis

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed those who have lost loved ones to illegal immigrants, including…

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Congressional Democrats are ditching House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s ardent opposition to any barrier or wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, as the partial government shutdown continues and President Donald Trump takes his case directly to the border itself.

““If we have a partial wall, if we have fencing, if we have technology used to keep our border safe, all of that is fine,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), the chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said on CNN.

“Certainly you need barriers and we support barriers,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) added.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) also backed a barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico.

“Some fencing is useful, some barriers are useful,” Merkley said. “There’s a lot of surveillance technology. I’ve been to some cities on the border that have triple fencing and have more personnel and have the technology to see the people moving in the middle of the night.”

Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY)–the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee–said they would support fencing and barriers where necessary along the border.

Senate Minority Whip Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) says he believes there will be a new barrier along the border in the future:

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) says Democrats support a barrier including a fence. “Democrats have repeatedly said that we will support border security, we will support all of its elements including fences,” Garamendi said.

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), the Vice Chair of the Democrat conference, says that the border would benefit from additional barriers. “You know, I think there are parts of the border that would benefit from repairing fencing and other barricades that already exist there,” she told MSNBC.

These very prominent congressional Democrats’ message on the effectiveness of a wall or barrier or fence is very different from the coordinated message from Schumer and Pelosi just two nights ago when the two Democrat leaders in Congress said in their response to President Trump’s Oval Office address that the wall would be “ineffective.”

Pelosi called the wall “expensive and ineffective,” something that was an “obsession” of Trump’s–while Schumer bashed Trump’s “ineffective, unnecessary border wall” and said that America does not need a barrier on the border for security. “We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall,” Schumer said in his response to Trump.

It remains to be seen where this fight goes from here, but the fact that many Democrats are messaging in a very different way from Pelosi and Schumer is particularly interesting as the next stages of this battle heat up.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

Of all of the flatulent memes that have been running low on gas since the late 1960s, the most aggravating — against stiff competition — are probably all variations on “Build bridges, not walls.” The bridge I must cross most often in an average year is Westminster Bridge. Since a jihadist plowed a car along the pavements of one side of the Westminster Bridge (killing and wounding dozens of locals and tourists) a couple of years ago, it has been covered in walls. Specifically, it has been covered in metal crash barriers erected to stop replays of that incident. So as I find myself reminded on a weekly basis at least, when it comes to bridges and walls, the world does not have necessarily an either/or choice. Who could have guessed?

Well, a lot of the president’s opponents by the sound of it. There are satisfactory arguments on both sides about the utility of building a wall along the southern border of the U.S. My personal view is that since the president was partly elected on the promise of building this wall, he should probably get a chance to build it and give at least some voters what they asked for.

But it is not the practical but the moral objections to the president’s initiative that are so unutterably tired. For instance, one objection just made by Nancy Pelosi is that building a wall is “an immorality” and “not who we are as a nation.” Walls are also, according to Pelosi, an “old way of thinking.”

In fact, in Europe — among many other places — walls are not an old way of thinking at all. In fact, they are a much newer way of thinking than anything Nancy Pelosi is offering. Since the European migrant crisis was at its height in 2015, countries across central and eastern Europe have begun erecting walls. I have gone to see a number of them, and very smart, modern fence-like things they are, with movement-detectors, drones to fly overhead, and more. When the Hungarian government erected their first wall (having had hundreds of thousands of people pour across their previously un-walled borders in a few months), they received some criticism from their neighbors.

Only weeks later, these critics — including the government of Austria — started to hurriedly build walls of their own. One of my favorite memories of the period is a representative of the Austrian government being asked what made the wall that the Austrians were building so different from the one that they had criticized the Hungarians for building. The answer came after a pause: The Austrian wall was different because it was not a wall but rather “a door with sides.” To the extent that there was any short-term fix to that problem, the swift building of walls was about the best one, and it was provably effective. So while Pelosi’s views have been going stale, walls have gotten a new lease of life.

But other politicians have a similar view to her. Representative Eric Swalwell, for instance, claims that walls themselves — bricks, mortar, the lot — are “medieval.” They are also, he says,“a symbol of ‘us and not us.’ And that is not U.S.”

It is hard to know where to start with guff like this. Clearly all walls are not medieval (see above). But the main problem with Swalwell’s “us and not us” riff is that lots of things are “us and not us.” The fact that Swalwell owns an American passport is a sign of “us and not us.” It allows him to go into a different queue from me and most of the rest of the world when we visit the U.S. Is this not the biggest “us and not us” signal imaginable? One might take it further. How dare Swalwell have the right to live in America and almost all of the rest of the world not? What is this but sheer, bare, shameless, naked “us and not us” behavior? Swalwell should be ashamed of himself and resign his passport immediately because of its “othering” effect on most of the rest of the world.

As I say, there are plenty of decent arguments that could be made against building a wall along the Mexican border. But it is striking that the president’s opponents aren’t focusing on them and instead keep running on memes which ran out of their utility long before walls ran out of theirs.

Photo Essays

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

House Democratic leaders passed over New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive freshman firebrands for membership on the influential Ways and Means Committee on Thursday, despite a campaign by liberal activists.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The Democrats’ blanket opposition to any border “wall” has a number of logical inconsistencies that expose a different kind of agenda.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

The days of the House of Representatives protecting Donald Trump are over, says Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of the powerful House Judiciary Committee.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Monday, Swalwell said that Democrats plan to subpoena Trump’s attorney general Matthew Whitaker to make sure he isn’t rigging or undercutting the Mueller investigation in order to protect the president.

“He cannot hide from our committee as he would have been able to if Democrats had not won Congress,” the Democratic lawmaker said. “We will subpoena him.”

That subpoena will be upheld in courts, and he’s going to have to defend his investigation and whether or not he’s made any promises to President Trump,” Swalwell added.

.@ericswalwell says Trump AG Matthew Whitaker will be forced to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. #ctl #p2 pic.twitter.com/62SuiPPeuH

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) January 8, 2019

Rep. Swalwell said:

He cannot hide from our committee as he would have been able to if Democrats had not won Congress. Presidential immunity is over, Chris. We will subpoena him. That subpoena will be upheld in courts, and he’s going to have to defend his investigation and whether or not he’s made any promises to President Trump. We would rather see that done voluntarily. This is the United States. It shouldn’t be adversarial for the people’s attorney general to come to Congress and tell the American people what his priorities are and whether he can uphold a lawful investigation.

Democrats are ready to take on Trump

The reason Donald Trump chose Matthew Whitaker to be the acting attorney general is that he believed Whitaker would do his bidding. After all, before replacing Jeff Session as the AG, Whitaker had publicly cast doubt over the Mueller investigation.

With Republicans in control of Congress at the time of his appointment, Trump knew they would happily look the other way as he elevated Whitaker to the attorney general post.

But the floor has shifted quickly beneath Trump. His days of using the Department of Justice as his personal puppet are over. Democrats have subpoena power and they aren’t afraid to use it when necessary.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

A growing number of Democrats considering a presidential bid have signaled support for the sweeping "Green New Deal" pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other liberal lawmakers, underscoring how the 2020 field is being pulled further left by the influential progressive wing. 

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

On Monday, President Trump announced that he would be addressing the nation on the humanitarian crisis on our southern border. He tweeted:

I am pleased to inform you that I will Address the Nation on the Humanitarian and National Security crisis on our Southern Border. Tuesday night at 9:00 P.M. Eastern.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2019

This is the right move for the president. He must take the issue directly to Americans, who seem largely bewildered by the rationale for the current government shutdown – in reality, Democrats simply refuse point blank to fund the wall to the tune of $5 billion. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has stated openly that she will not give more than $1 for the wall; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and others have stated that they believe a wall somehow violates American values.

Americans largely blame President Trump for the shutdown, thanks in part to terrible media coverage, and thanks in part to President Trump’s originally nationally televised statements that he would happily “own” the shutdown. In late December, The Economist found that 51 percent of respondents blamed Trump, with 44 percent blaming Congressional Democrats. But within one week, a YouGov/HuffPost poll found the opposite: 51 percent of Americans disapproved of Congressional Democrats’ handling of the shutdown, with 49 percent of Americans disapproving of Trump’s handling. Congressional Republicans, predictably, received a 58 percent disapproval rating. FiveThirtyEight notes that polling related to government shutdowns generally has no lasting effect on presidents or Congress.

That means that the only real question here is general perception on the issue itself: will Americans take away the message that Democrats are open-borders extremists? They certainly should, since Democrats are expressing themselves that way. See, for example, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA):

Yes, that’s what walls do. That’s also what borders do.

Now, Trump should avoid offering Democrats the out of declaring a national emergency and attempting to build the wall with defense funding. Trump stated late last week that he would consider utilizing 10 USC §2808 or 10 USC §284 in order to use the military to build the wall. Both would be a misuse of the law and set a terrible precedent for future Democratic presidents misdirecting defense resources toward infrastructure projects more to their liking without Congressional approval. Trump should continue to hold the line on the wall and make the Democrats defend why they will not spend an amount equal to about 11 hours of government spending on a permanent barrier that will help Border Patrol keep track of those attempting to enter the country illegally. A national address directed toward explaining the border crisis and why a wall would help would go a long way toward forcing Democrats on the defensive – and toward creating political cost for their inaction.

GOP

Published  1 month ago

House Democrats’ choices for committee leadership may be even more questionable than their ethics and politics

Homeland Security

Published  1 month ago

Picking the most obnoxious liberals in a time when liberalism is defined by hypocrisy, pettiness, hatred of middle America, and scolds screaming, “That’s not funny” is like picking the hairiest monkey out of the zoo. With that in mind, here are the 20 most obnoxious liberals of 2018.

Honorable Mentions: Antifa, Joy Behar, John Brennan, Chris Cuomo, Lena Dunham, Whoopi Goldberg, Kathy Griffin, Chelsea Handler, Kamala Harris, LeBron James, Jimmy Kimmel, Shaun King, Ezra Klein, Sally Kohn, Sheila Jackson Lee, Rachel Maddow, Alyssa Milano, Michael Moore, Tariq Nasheed, Rosie O’Donnell, Nancy Pelosi, Kirsten Powers, Jorge Ramos, Chuck Schumer, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Eric Swalwell, George Takei, Shannon Watts, Juan Williams, Montel Williams, Vox

20. Elizabeth Warren

The squaw from Massachusetts who is most famous for pretending to be an Indian to advance her career created heap big trouble for herself by publicly releasing a laughable DNA test that MAYBE showed she had an Indian ancestor of indeterminate origins six to ten generations ago. Congrats on potentially being 1/1,024th Native American, Lizzie!

Defining quote: “Now that her claims of being of Indian heritage have turned out to be a scam and a lie, Elizabeth Warren should apologize for perpetrating this fraud against the American Public. Harvard called her ‘a person of color’ (amazing con), and would not have taken her otherwise! ....Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!” – Donald Trump

19. Jim Carrey

Remember when Jim Carrey used to be a goofy, likable, funny guy? Now he’s a bitter, deeply unfunny lunatic who pumps out crummy political-themed paintings on a regular basis. Just to give you an idea of how lame Carrey has become, I’m not even going to bother to dig for his defining tweet. Here’s the last one he did for 2018, which seems typical for him these days.

Defining tweet:

One last tweet about this Stinker for 2018. Remember — no matter what #PresidentNeverWas says in the New Year...

THIS IS NOT A PIE.

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) January 1, 2019

18. Marc Lamont Hill

Hill is another one of these boring “It rained today and I blame white people for that” pundits that the liberals love so much these days, but even CNN couldn’t stomach his rampant anti-Semitism and canned him after a grotesque speech to the United Nations.

Defining quote: “How can you romanticize nonviolence when you have a state that is at all moments waging war against you, against your bodies, poisoning your water, limiting your access to water, locking up your children, killing them?" – Marc Lamont Hill condoning violence against Israel and pushing the conspiracy theory that Israel is poisoning Palestinian water

The Political Insider

Published  1 month ago

The Washington Times

Published  1 month ago

Democrats eyeing bids for the White House also are competing to see who is willing to go the highest in raising taxes.

SARAH PALIN

Published  1 month ago

Ronil Singh was an American citizen and a legal immigrant who diligently served his community as a police officer. The day after Christmas, however, Singh’s life was taken by an illegal immigrant.

As Twitchy reports, nearly seven others were arrested for allegedly helping the suspect and illegal immigrant, Gustavo Perez Arriaga.

The death of the 33-year-old Newman Police Department officer rocked the nation, but lawmakers in his own “sanctuary” state were nearly silent about it. Many of the members did, however, tweet about the two children in the country illegally that died while under the custody of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

In a Twitter thread, conservative pundit Cameron Gray claimed as of Saturday only Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy and Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell directly mentioned Singh in a tweet of the 53 California members of Congress. California members include Democrat notables like Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Jackie Speier, Ted Lieu, and others.

“I just looked through the Twitter feeds of all 53 to see if they had tweeted about the murder of Newman, California Corporal Ronil Singh. The results are depressing to say the least…” Gray tweeted in a lengthy thread.

Here’s the evidence:

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.

POLITICO

Published  2 months ago

"We must wait to see the entire picture and then engage the American people about how we go forward," the incoming House speaker told POLITICO.

Washington Press

Published  2 months ago

A GOP leader of the Benghazi witch hunts just went on Fox News to beg House Democrats to spare Trump from his anticipated death by a thousand subpoenas.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) dismissed the incoming House Republican minority leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) pathetic plea to preserve President Trump’s kleptocracy in just seven words.

Thanks bye. We’ll take it from here. https://t.co/RJQevb1rtI

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) December 10, 2018

House Republicans’ desperation is beginning to sink in just a month after the Blue Wave election ended their eight-year run in the majority in emphatic fashion by flipping at least 40 seats, with an election that North Carolina Republicans had to cheat to win, still hanging in the balance.

“We’ve investigated this for a long time…” is an especially ironic statement coming from Kevin McCarthy, whose first run for GOP House leader imploded spectacularly three years ago after some inadvertent revelations about the five House GOP panels that spent four years and millions of dollars finding absolutely nothing about Benghazi.

He quit that race just a couple of weeks after he admitted on Hannity’s propaganda program under softball questioning that the Benghazi hearings were nothing more than a political investigation aimed at hurting Hillary Clinton’s polling numbers, and after he was caught cheating on his wife with a female North Carolina House Republican representative.

One would imagine that any American politician named McCarthy should be especially sensitive to the abuse of Congressional investigatory power due to the 1950s-era witch hunts named McCarthyism, after the misguided Wisconsin Senator who ruthlessly pursued and slurred suspected communists.

Amazingly, Sen. McCarthy’s attorney for those cruel proceedings, Roy Cohn, happens to be Donald Trump’s oldest mentor. Cohn died of AIDs in the mid-1980s after being disbarred and shunned by Trump for coming out of the closet. That didn’t stop President Trump from telling the New York Times this January, that he is desperate for a new Roy Cohn to emerge, but to no avail.

However, President Trump does love Kevin McCarthy for being both his fixer, friend and his “candy man,” after the California Republican told former Speaker Ryan in a tape-recorded meeting that he thought Trump and Putin’s favorite congressman Dana Rohrabacher were funded by Russia, then stuck to the unbelievable cover story that was just “a joke.”

House Minority leader McCarthy is never one to look reality too squarely in the face, though he does occasionally come up with some inadvertently prescient statements like his plaintive moan about lots of other – presumably GOP – lawmakers who would have to resign if campaign finance crimes were an impeachable offense. (see video below)

So far that list would include Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who goes on criminal trial for ten years worth of criminal campaign finance violations – including plane tickets for a bunny rabbit and hotel rooms for his mistress – and will face a federal district judge in September of next year.

Florida man and anti-porn crusader who likes porn on Twitter, Ross Spano, won the election in Florida’s 15th congressional district and hasn’t even been sworn in yet, but just admitted to $180,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

The Republican Party has a tremendous problem with cheating and public corruption, so much so that they’ve elevated a known cheater to the job of House Minority Leader because of his habit of toadying to monsters and covering-up is what their party is all about.

Watch Rep. Kevin McCarthy ominously mention that there could be many other GOP campaign finance criminals who have to leave Congress:

House GOP minority leader Kevin McCarthy states that if campaign finance crimes are a violation then lots of Congressmen (probably in his caucus) will have to go.pic.twitter.com/LQw3G9zM8w

— Grant Stern (@grantstern) December 10, 2018

Add your name to support the effort to prevent Trump from pardoning himself and his corrupt cronies!

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Wednesday won the House Democrat leadership election to be the party’s next nominee for speaker after running unopposed.

Ahead of the vote, Pelosi delivered remarks flanked by allies Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and John Lewis (D-GA), saying, “[It is] so inspiring to hear my colleagues place my name in nomination once again for speaker of the House”:

Nancy Pelosi: "We had a most unifying session just now in the House Democratic caucus … and it was so inspiring to hear my colleagues place my name in nomination once again for speaker of the House" https://t.co/iMUJ5jNVWX pic.twitter.com/HXdWBgh5N2

Asked if she will be able to whip up the votes needed between now and January 3, a confident Pelosi replied, “I think we’re in pretty good shape.”

Pelosi sealed the nomination by a vote of 203-32, with three ballots left blank and one marked absent.

This was not the plan from Pelosi opponents who vowed to usher in a new era for Democrats. But one by one, the powerful California congresswoman picked off the would-be challengers and smoothed the skeptics. In the end, no one was willing, or able, to mount a serious campaign against the 78-year-old.

“You can’t beat someone with no one,” said Rep.-elect Jahana Hayes (D-CT), who explained in a statement that she came to Washington eager to hear from colleagues and “hopeful that many candidates would step up to the plate.”

In fact, the Democrats are poised to return their entire top leadership team, including Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) in the number two spot as majority leader and Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) as the whip. Likewise, the veteran lawmakers are running unopposed.

As Breitbart News’s Matthew Boyle reported, Pelosi quelled opposition from several Democrats who called for new party leadership:

Pelosi crushed an intra-Democrat revolt against her bid to retake the Speaker’s gavel next year led by Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) after a 2015 letter from Fudge backing a disgraced former Cleveland judge who was convicted of brutally beating his wife resurfaced in the wake of the man’s alleged murder of her.

Fudge, who had floated potentially running against Pelosi for Speaker and was pushed by anti-Pelosi rebel Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), had attacked Pelosi as an “elitist” and “very wealthy person” out of touch with ordinary Democrats in the wake of the midterm election where Democrats retook the majority in the House.

Those who attempted to oust Pelosi said they always knew the internal caucus election would fall in the former speaker’s favor. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) downplayed the significance of Wednesday’s caucus vote and said the true fight for House speaker will occur in January. “We’re not going to make a big play of it,” Schrader said. “It’s January 3.”

Nine Democrats of the Problem Solvers Caucus, made up of 49 moderate Democrats and Republicans, announced they would support Pelosi after the nominee agreed to proposed procedural rule changes. “It’s a done deal,” an aide told the Hill.

Ahead of the vote, Pelosi garnered support from senior Democrat Party figures, including former President Barack Obama, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

In an interview with David Axelrod’s The Axe Files podcast, the former president lauded the speaker nominee, saying, “I think Nancy Pelosi, when the history is written, will go down as one of the most effective legislative leaders that this country’s ever seen.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  3 months ago

Andy Cohen, CNN’s replacement for Kathy Griffin on their New Year’s Eve show with Anderson Cooper, proclaimed that he hates white people.

Evidence of the remark and other statements by Cohen are coming under scrutiny as the national rhetoric slides off the rails and the mainstream media — including those at CNN — are pushing divisive rancor. Cohen hosts a late-night talk show on the Bravo cable channel.

The common left-wing tactic in these matters is to claim that the left-winger in question was joking, as Snopes claimed in their ridiculous article excusing Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell’s literal threatening of the American people with our government nuclear arsenal. But words have meaning, as the Left is always so quick to assert when a conservative gets slammed […]

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.

TheHill

Published  3 months ago

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) on Thursday said that House Democrats need House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become Speaker.

Change.org

Published  3 months ago

Sign the Petition

11/18 4:45 pm

Rep Eric Swalwell has just called for the use of Nuclear Weapons on the Citizens of the United States and he must immediately Resign! https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell

Rep Eric Swalwell must immediately Resign

Personal story

I am an American Citizen and I stand with the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence!

ourstand.org

Published  3 months ago

Friday, Nov 16th, 2018, Democrat Congressman Eric Salwell responded to a tweet criticizing his proposed assault rifle confiscation plan with the disgraceful threat of using nuclear weapons against U.S Citizens who disagree with his agenda. Responding

Dan Bongino

Published  3 months ago

Democrat House Darling, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) suggested the government use nuclear weapons against those who did not comply with a hypothetical gun ban.

Swalwell had engaged in a Twitter back-and-forth with former Infowars personality, Joe Biggs, who had commented on a May 2018 USA Today op-ed written by the Congressman titled, Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress.

The op-ed proposes banning “military style semiautomatic assault rifles,” buying them back from owners and then criminally prosecuting those who don’t comply.

Biggs tweeted Swalwell regarding the op-ed, writing “So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your f**king mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.”

To which Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit….”

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

The inflammatory Tweet quickly spread across the social media site, prompting many Second Amendment supporters to reply:

Biggs then responded to the Congressman, asking if the government would “nuke its own country” to take away guns.

Swalwell called Biggs “dramatic” and said that his desire to have a gun to protect himself against the government (which, uh, is pretty much the entire point of the Second Amendment) was “ludicrous”.

The Democrat, who is allegedly mulling a bid for the 2020 presidential race, claimed he was using sarcasm to get his point across.

He also compared those who disagreed with him to characters in a Disney movie:

Breitbart

Published  3 months ago

On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) vowed that Democrats will do everything they can to get Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to recuse himself due to the fact that Whitaker has “pre-judged” Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Swalwell stated that Democrats should “project confidence, tell the American people, you elected us to stop this. We’re going to stop this.”

He continued, “And so, we’re going to protect Bob Mueller. We’re going to make sure that this hired assassin who was brought in to take out the Mueller investigation is not able to do it. And also, we’re going to do all we can to get him to recuse himself. Because he’s pre-judged the investigation, and he has been plotting for months with Donald Trump to do this.”

NBC News

Published  3 months ago

A U.S. congressman is proposing an Australia-style gun buyback program.David Gray / Reuters file

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.

In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

In the past, Democrats and gun safety groups have carefully resisted proposals that could be interpreted as “gun confiscation,” a concept gun rights groups have often invoked as part of a slippery slope argument against more modest proposals like universal background checks.

Swalwell addressed these arguments directly, saying he and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists and should follow the lead of teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting who have been more strident.

“There's something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands,” he wrote. “They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I've been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that 'we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.’”

Instead, he writes, “the right to live is supreme over any other.”

According to Swalwell, his policy is modeled on Australia’s mandatory gun buyback laws, which were instituted under a conservative government after a gunman killed 35 people at a popular tourist site in 1996. Supporters credit the campaign with a broad reduction in gun violence and the country hasn’t suffered a similar mass shooting in the years since.

“Australia got it right,” Swalwell wrote.

While politicians and activists, including President Barack Obama, have cited Australia’s success in curbing gun violence as an inspiration, almost no prominent figures have proposed instituting similar laws up to this point.

Some gun safety groups, such as the Giffords Law Center, have suggested tougher background checks and reporting requirements on existing assault weapons after a new manufacturing ban — but they have not called for owners to sell or destroy them. Many policy experts supportive of stricter gun laws have warned a mass gun confiscation policy would be difficult to enforce given limited federal resources and the widespread popularity of the affected rifles.

"I think it's pretty clear from the program we do support that it's about keeping guns out of dangerous hands and not about confiscating guns," Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign, which advocates against gun violence, told NBC News in March.

Washington Free Beacon

Published  3 months ago

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) suggested the United States government would use nuclear weapons in a theoretical war against gun rights supporters who refuse to give up assault weapons.

The Democratic congressman's comments were prompted by a Twitter user's response to an article about Swalwell's call to force gun owners to relinquish assault weapons. The piece recounts how Swalwell "has proposed outlawing ‘military-style semiautomatic assault weapons' and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution."

Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state.

These people are dangerously obsessed with power. https://t.co/f1AS6Me0ko

— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) November 16, 2018

"So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that's what you would get. You're outta your fucking mind if you think I'll give up my rights and give the [government] all the power," Twitter user Joe Biggs said.

"And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities," Swalwell tweeted in reply.

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

"So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow," Biggs responded.

"Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law," Swalwell tweeted back.

Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

A poll obtained by the Washington Free Beacon found that repealing the Second Amendment is the second most important issue for Democrats in this country, behind only single payer health care. Twenty-four percent of Democrats said it was their most important issue.

Swalwell has been floated as a potential 2020 presidential candidate, and the congressman said earlier this month he is "absolutely" looking into a run.

Daily Wire

Published  3 months ago

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.

Swalwell made the comment in response to a May news article on his radical plan that was widely recirculated on Twitter on Friday in which he called for a $15 billion government program to confiscate millions of guns from Americans.

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power. https://t.co/bK1GVyjFej

— Joe Biggs (@Rambobiggs) November 16, 2018

Swalwell responded to the tweet by writing: "And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."

Swalwell's remark set off a firestorm online:

Swalwell later confirmed in a tweet to the NRA's Dana Loesch that he wants to confiscate all semi-automatic weapons:

Swalwell later argued that if a firearm contains a pistol grip then that somehow magically makes the weapon more powerful:

POLITICUSUSA

Published  3 months ago

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said that House Democrats are going to subpoena Trump’s translator who was in the room when Trump held his private meeting with Putin.

Swalwell said on MSNBC’s The Beat With Ari Melber, “We want to do things that make a difference in our democracy and people’s lives, as it relates to Russia. Certainly, fill in the gaps. Bring in Michael Cohen. Understand the deal he was trying to do with Trump Tower in Moscow. Know whether he told the president trump or not. Finally, understand what don junior told his dad to do this so we protect against future interference by the Russians and know what the president said to Vladimir Putin in that summit when he met one-on-one and only a U.S. interpreter was there and praised him on a world stage and defied the findings of our intelligence officials.”

Rep. Swalwell said that Democrats were elected because of healthcare, so they aren’t going to be only focused on investigations, but he later added, “The days of presidential immunity are over. Looking the other way, giving the president a free pass, not standing up for our democracy is done. The voters voted to put a check on power on these abuses of power. We’re going to do our job there.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said that House Democrats are going to subpoena Trump’s translator who was in the room when Trump held his private meeting with Putin. https://t.co/80hRuD8jRV pic.twitter.com/fwLhimZHsC

— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) November 13, 2018

The American people have traded wishy-washy Paul Ryan in for tough Nancy Pelosi. They have swapped a Republican-run House that looked the other way for a Democratic majority that is willing to negotiate but will hold this president accountable. Trump’s days of acting like a king are history. Democracy and checks and balances are being restored.

A president should not be holding secret meetings behind closed doors with America’s enemies without even staff in the room. In the name of accountability and national security the interpreter must be called to testify, and what that testimony reveals could shake the very foundations of American democracy.

Breitbart

Published  3 months ago

On Friday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Wolf,” Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) stated that Republicans won’t get Democratic votes to fund the government “if they’re not going to be willing to make sure that we protect the Mueller probe.” Swalwell added that protecting the Mueller probe is possible without a fight over the budget.

Swalwell said, “Whitaker was hired to be a hitman to take out the Mueller probe. It’s clear. He fired the guy that recused himself from the probe to put in someone who has already prejudged the investigation. … And so, we have a number of options. One, we’re going to have a funding the government vote coming up here in a couple weeks, and we’re going to insist that we protect the Mueller probe.”

Anchor Wolf Blitzer then asked Swalwell how Democrats will do that.

Swalwell answered, “Well, you know, the Republicans have been unable for the last two years to fund the government with their own votes. They run government, of course. They have the House. They have the Senate. They have the White House. But they can’t sort out themselves, so they’ve had to rely on Democratic votes. They’re not going to get Democratic votes if they’re not going to be willing to make sure that we protect the Mueller probe.”

He later added, “I think the opportunity is for Republicans to step up, finally, to hear what the voters wanted on Tuesday, and to just protect the Mueller probe. There’s bipartisan support in the country to do that. We can do that without having a budget fight.”

(h/t Grabien)

infowars

Published  3 months ago

'Well, Rep. Swalwell just disqualified himself from that POTUS office he wants'

Hill Reporter

Published  4 months ago

As Americans learned last year about the multiple ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, several investigations opened on many fronts. While the most important, and clearly the most non-partisan investigation that is being conducted is by the Special Counsel’s office, both the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees opened investigations of their own into Russian interference during the 2016 elections.

While all three investigations began like any investigation would, ultimately the only probe that seems to matter now is the one being conducted by Robert Mueller. With a GOP-controlled Senate and House, partisanship has hampered both congressional probes, and now it appears that at least one of these probes, at minimum, is a sham and perhaps even considered a crime on the American people.

In a new op-ed published by the Fresno Bee, California Democrat and House Intelligence Committee member, Eric Swalwell, has opened up about the committee chairman, Devin Nunes’ persistent and pernicious obstruction while leading the investigation in the House.

“Just last week, hours before the Republican-led House recessed for six weeks, Nunes broke out his shovel yet again to bury even deeper the evidence of Russian interference, once again demonstrating there’s no distance he won’t go to protect this president,” wrote Swalwell.

Swalwell goes on to list multiple occasions in which Nunes blatantly and callously went out of his way to cover up key pieces of evidence that the House Intelligence Committee could have easily obtained or uncovered. Below you will find just a handful of the actions taken by Nunes and other Republicans on the committee to hide the facts from not only the American people but also Robert Mueller:

Interview Transcripts Never Released to Public Or Robert Mueller as Promised

Months ago, as the House Intelligence committee wrapped up their investigation into Russian election interference, Nunes and fellow Republicans promised that the transcripts from the extensive interviews of key witnesses within the committee would be released to the American public. They were not.

At a hearing last week on releasing the transcripts, Nunes still wouldn’t allow real transparency.

“Committee Democrats asked to immediately send the transcripts to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who hasn’t been allowed to see them under Nunes’ rules. There’s good reason to believe many witnesses committed perjury or offered information relevant to the special counsel’s work. But Nunes opposed it, and it was voted down,” explains Swalwell. “Committee Democrats then moved to have the transcripts released to the public immediately — after a 10-day intelligence community review — to avoid any selective release or other political manipulation. Again, Nunes opposed this,” Swalwell continued.

Worrisome Contacts Between Russia and Trump, his Family and his Businesses Ignored by Committee

Swalwell explained his frustration at the reckless attitude within the committee, saying, “our investigation did reveal worrisome contacts between the Russians and candidate Trump, his family, his businesses, and his campaign. Yet every time we sought to learn more, we were blocked.”

Nunes and Other Republicans on the Committee Refused to Allow the Committee to Subpoena Travel, Cell Phone and Bank Records

Although there were many leads and reasons to believe that key witnesses were lying to the committee, there was no way to examine the truthfulness of witnesses because Nunes refused to use his subpoena power when necessary. One example of this complete refusal to find the facts is described by Swalwell in the passage below:

“To arrange the infamous June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, Donald Trump Jr. called his Russian contact, then called a blocked number, and then called his Russian contact back. We had evidence from other witnesses that Donald Trump used a blocked number. Republicans refused to pursue whether it was the same number.”

Disturbing Dana Rohrabacher Interview and Contacts Ignored

Swalwell explains how he was alarmed by the contacts and the committee interview of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, but once again Nunes sought to bury the facts.

“Reviewing his plans, we saw a glaring omission: the transcript of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s interview. I took part in that lengthy interview and I was disturbed by his contacts with Russia before and during the 2015-16 campaign. So Democrats at our hearing moved to release Rohrabacher’s transcript, plus several others; Nunes killed our effort.”

Swalwell, who has been one of the House Intelligence Committee’s most outspoken members throughout the investigation, has been handcuffed by Nunes and other Republicans on the committee. Now Rep Swalwell is endorsing Nunes’ opponent in the 2018 election, prosecutor Andrew Janz.

Swalwell’s complete op-ed can be read here.

Fox News

Published  5 months ago

As the political fight over the sexual assault allegation made against Brett Kavanaugh intensifies, Democrats are indicating that -- even if confirmed -- they intend to drag the fight over his Supreme Court nomination past November, raising the possibility of an impeachment push.

Democrats have been demanding the vote to confirm Kavanaugh be delayed pending a full FBI investigation into the accusation by Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party in high school in the 1980s. Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied the allegations and has said he is willing to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Republicans on the committee have invited Ford to testify next week, and have said that they will hold a vote to confirm Kavanaugh if she does not. Ford has said she will testify, but only if a list of conditions are met. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has given Ford a Saturday deadline to say whether she will testify.

The midterm elections loom over the debate over the timetable of Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. Should Democrats succeed in delaying the confirmation vote past November and pick up seats in the Senate in the midterms, then they will likely have enough votes to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

However, if Republicans confirm Kavanaugh before November, Democrats have indicated that the fight would not be over are raising the prospect of further investigations and even impeachment.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said that “as soon as Democrats get gavels”, the party will investigate the Kavanaugh allegations even if he is confirmed and sitting on the Supreme Court.

“This is such bad practice that even if they were to ram this guy through, as soon as Democrats get gavels we’re going to want to get to the bottom of this,” he said on CNN.

When pressed as to whether he was saying Democrats would investigate a sitting Supreme Court justice, Whitehouse said he was “confident of that.”

“And I think we’ll also be investigating why the FBI stood down its background investigation when this came up in this particular background,” he said.

PATTI DAVIS, RONALD REAGAN'S DAUGHTER, SAYS SHE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVOR IN OP-ED DEFENDING KAVANAUGH'S ACCUSER

His stance was backed up by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif, who said in an interview with Fox News that there could not only be an investigation, but a push for impeachment.

“If the Republicans rush through a nominee where you have unanswered sexual assault allegations, I can promise you that Democratic senators will be interested in going and looking at those allegations, and if Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath, you could see a judicial impeachment, and that’s not good for anybody, so we should try and avoid that,” he said on “America’s Newsroom.”

Such a move would require a majority in the House of Representatives, something that a number of pollsters are predicting the Democrats will secure in November.

But, in an article for The New York Times titled “The Case for Impeaching Kavanaugh,” Alabama Law School Professor Ronald Krotoszynski Jr. notes that such a move would need a 2/3rd vote in the Senate -- something extremely unlikely unless a number of Republicans joined Democrats.

However, Krotoszynski Jr. argues that Democrats should proceed with an investigation “if the Senate won’t conduct a credible investigation now.”

“The House Democratic leadership should pledge now that if they win a majority, they will conduct an impeachment investigation, to get to the truth. Doing so today would make clear to the Senate Republicans that if they rush to judgment, in the absence of a full and fair investigation, there will still be an investigation,” he said.

However, former communication strategist for Justice Neil Gorsuch Ron Bonjean warned that such a push by Democrats could backfire and rile up the conservative base for the midterms.

I think that would just fire up the conservative base big time and...conservative voters wouldn’t like that and they’d be pretty fired up going into the November elections, that’s for sure,” he said on Fox Business’ “After The Bell.”

“Look, once he’s on the Supreme Court it’s going to be very difficult to get him out of there and there could be another opening on the court sometime in the near future,” he added. “So I think that’s a lot of happy talk and you’d really have to have conclusive evidence in order to get that, plus you’d have to get that through Congress and I just can’t see that happening.”

Diamond & Silk

Published  5 months ago

Turns out Democrats already have their strategy in hand and it pretty much amounts to denying President Donald Trump any more Supreme Court Justices whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed or not. How can that be? And what is that strategy?

Democrats have indicated their strategy if they are able to defeat Kavanaugh or push back the vote on him past the midterms. Sen. Maize Hirono tipped their hand, indicating that they will seek to block Kavanaugh if they can and block any future nominees for the remaining time that Trump is in office if they are in power.

But what happens if Kavanaugh survives all the Democratic dirty tricks and is confirmed?

They have a strategy for that as well. And it’s not pretty.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, they are going to try to investigate and take him out anyway, if they get power back.

From Politico:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that “as soon as Democrats get gavels,” the party will vet the FBI’s handling of Ford’s claim against the Supreme Court nominee — even if Kavanaugh is already seated on the high court by that time. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, also said in an interview that the party could probe Kavanaugh’s denials of the allegations against him.

“If they ramrod this nomination through, and we win the majority, we can still investigate this on the House side, and certainly the question as to whether a Supreme Court justice committed perjury is something you could look at,” Swalwell said in an interview. “Hopefully it doesn’t come to that; hopefully they do this right.”

“Because,” he added, “it’s going to get investigated either way and it would be better not to have to investigate a sitting judge.”

Check how Whitehouse is spinning this, that Republicans are somehow ‘ignoring’ Christine Ford’s claims.

“You can’t ignore a crime victim’s claim that something happened, refuse to investigate, throw her up into the stand without the least bit of support for her, without the least bit of effort to corroborate what she says and then walk away from that,” Whitehouse told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Democrats in both the House and the Senate had this information since July, as did the Washington Post. They didn’t tell anyone about it till the eve of the vote. And Feinstein still wouldn’t turn over the original unredacted letter from Ford, so there is no actual complaint from her on the record, they have no formal statement from her.

Then when the GOP said we’d love to hear from her, they completely flipped and said there has to be an FBI investigation first, despite knowing it’s the Senate’s responsibility to determine credibility, not the FBI, and that it isn’t within the purview of the FBI to investigate the claim.

If this craziness isn’t a motivation to get out and vote for Republicans, not sure what would be. They cannot be allowed to get back power.

The people voted specifically for Trump to be the one making SCOTUS nominees, and just like with the election, they refuse to accept it.

Fox News

Published  5 months ago

Christine Ford, the California professor accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that she “would be prepared to testify next week -- apparently dropping her bid for the FBI to first launch a new inquiry.

dailycaller

Published  5 months ago

“Boo hoo hoo.”

That was Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell’s reaction to Republican Maine Sen. Susan Collins saying she had received threats meant to influence her vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“My office has received some pretty ugly voicemails, threats, terrible things said to my staff,” Collins said in an interview with Maine radio station WVOM.

“Boo hoo hoo. You’re a senator who police will protect,” Swalwell wrote in a tweet early Thursday morning. (RELATED: GOP Baseball Shooter Was ‘Fueled By Rage Against Republican Legislators)

“A sexual assault victim can’t sleep in her home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She’s on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing.”

Boo hoo hoo. You’re a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim can’t sleep in her home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She’s on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing. https://t.co/bnhtkM9HGy

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) September 20, 2018

Swalwell was reacting to an article in The Hill, which did not note that Collins said the woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, should receive protection for her and her family.

“I think we need to provide her with any protection that she may ask for, for herself and for her family,” Collins said.

Swalwell’s dismissal of the threats against Collins came just 11 days after Swalwell’s Republican challenger, Rudy Peters, narrowly escaped a stabbing attempt.

Peters’s accused attacker, Farzad Fazeli, reportedly made disparaging remarks against the Republican Party before the alleged attack.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who narrowly survived a politically motivated mass assassination attempt in June 2017, warned in an interview earlier in September that “some on the left” are “inciting” violence against Republicans.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  5 months ago

Back in April 2017 far left Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) dared President Trump to declassify the Obama DOJ surveillance documents.

On Monday President Trump went scorched earth and ordered the DOJ to publicly release all text messages WITHOUT REDACTION relating to the Russia investigation from James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

But now suddenly Democrats are suddenly upset with the transparency.

Eric Swalwell called President Trump’s move “absolutely lawless.”

Lawless. He is absolutely lawless. @realDonaldTrump is the subject of an investigation. Using his power to selectively release classified information is an abuse of power. His days of unchecked abuse are numbered. Tick tock. We will just mark this as another exhibit. https://t.co/9qbxhiRY5B

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) September 17, 2018

dailycaller

Published  5 months ago

California man Farzad Fazeli was arrested Tuesday for allegedly trying to stab a congressional candidate at a fair on Sunday, police said.

Local media identified the candidate as Republican Rudy Peters, who is challenging Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell in November.

Peters survived serious injury thanks to a malfunctioning switchblade, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office said Tuesday. The attempted stabbing was preceded by Fazeli making “disparaging remarks” about the Republican Party, according to the sheriff’s office. (RELATED: Scalise Warns ‘Some On The Left’ Are ‘Inciting’ Violence)

Fazeli “approached the victim in an aggressive manner and made disparaging remarks about his political party and elected officials,” Alameda County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement, citing witness statements. (RELATED: ‘Abolish ICE’ Vandals Throw Brick Through GOP Office, Leave Behind Graffiti Message)

“During the incident, Fazeli is suspected to have pulled out a switchblade knife and attempted to stab the victim. The knife malfunctioned and the victim became involved in a physical struggle with Fazeli.”

“I’m glad to hear Mr. Peters is okay,” Swalwell wrote on Twitter Tuesday afternoon. “But it’s NEVER okay to use violence to settle political disagreements (or any disagreement).”

Sunday’s alleged attempted stabbing came three days after a GOP office in Wyoming was set on fire, just two days after opening. Police said they believe the fire was set intentionally.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

CBS Philly

Published  5 months ago

The Alameda County Sheriff's Department confirmed Tuesday that a suspect attempted to stab Republican congressional candidate Randy Peters with a switchblade over the weekend at the Castro Valley Fall Festival.

SFGate

Published  5 months ago

A Castro Valley man has been arrested after officials said he attemped to stab congressional candidate Rudy Peters at the Castro Valley Fall Festival on Sunday. Farzad Fazeli, 35, was booked into Santa Rita Jail on suspicion of felony assault, criminal threats, brandishing a weapon and possession of a switchblade knife. Alameda County Sheriff's officials were called to the scene at about 3:45 p.m. on a report of a possible knife attack. Witnesses told authorities that Fazeli approached Peters in an "aggressive manner" and insulted Peters' political party and some elected officials, a sheriff spokesman said. Authorities said Fazeli then brandished a switchblade knife and attempted to stab Peters, but the knife malfunctioned.

SFChronicle.com

Published  5 months ago

A Castro Valley man has been arrested after officials said he attemped to stab congressional candidate Rudy Peters at the Castro Valley Fall Festival on Sunday. Farzad Fazeli, 35, was booked into Santa Rita Jail on suspicion of felony assault, criminal threats, brandishing a weapon and possession of a switchblade knife. Alameda County Sheriff’s officials were called to the scene at about 3:45 p.m. on a report of a possible knife attack. Witnesses told authorities that Fazeli approached Peters in an “aggressive manner” and insulted Peters’ political party and some elected officials, a sheriff spokesman said. Authorities said Fazeli then brandished a switchblade knife and attempted to stab Peters, but the knife malfunctioned.

Zero Hedge

Published  5 months ago

Episodes of threats and violence perpetuated by angry leftists furious about President Trump's agenda and policies, are becoming increasingly common in the US, particularly after a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter nearly killed majority whip Steve Scalise after opening fire on a practice session for the Congressional baseball game.

Another incident unfolded on Tuesday in northern California, where a 35-year-old man was arrested for whipping out a switchblade and attempting to stab Republican Congressional candidate Rudy Peters while the candidate was working a booth at the Castro Valley Fall Festival.

The man, who was later identified as Farzad Vincent Fazeli, was arrested and charged with one felony count of making criminal threats and a misdemeanor count of exhibiting a deadly weapon. According to media reports, Fazeli approached Peters unprovoked and started shouting "fuck Trump" and other "disparaging profanities" about the Republican Party. Fazeli then allegedly pulled out a switchblade and tried to stab Peters, but was foiled when the blade malfunctioned.

The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office issued a statement about the incident (read it below):

Fazeli "approached the victim in an aggressive manner and made disparaging remarks about his political party and elected officials," Alameda County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement.

"During the incident, Fazeli is suspected to have pulled out a switchblade knife and attempted to stab the victim. The knife malfunctioned and the victim became involved in a physical struggle with Fazeli."

County police responded to the incident at around 3:45 pm local time after somebody called in about a disturbance near Peters' booth.

Peters said he has never before been concerned about his safety prior to the attempted stabbing. "People are just polarized right now, and this country’s divided and it’s just a mess. It shouldn’t be that way," Peters said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

"It’s a shame," he said. "People are just polarized right now, and this country’s divided and it’s just a mess. It shouldn’t be that way."

"All of a sudden we hear someone screaming, "F— Trump, f— Trump!" Peters recalled. He said the man raised his middle finger and was “standing right in front of the booth."

Peters had been sitting with Joseph Grcar, a Republican state Assembly candidate, when Fazeli approached. Peters said he and Grcar were both "kind of shocked" by the attack, but that the man seemed like he was walking off. "The next thing you know," Peters said, "he stops and turns around and says, 'I’ll show you,' and runs at the booth."

Per the San Francisco Chronicle, Fazeli grabbed a coffee cup from a nearby table and threw it at him, prompting Peters to come around the table and "grab him". An altercation ensued, where Peters said he threw Fazeli to the ground before the suspect hopped back up, reached into his pocket and grabbed the switchblade.

"He’s screaming, 'I’m gonna kill you, motherf—er!'" Peters said. "He had the knife, but the blade wouldn’t shoot out."

Fazeli then threatened to use his pink switchblade to stab Peters, but he "could not open it."

Peters then grabbed a sign from a nearby booth and used it as a shield, but fortunately someone stepped in and urged the attacker to calm down. Peters reported the incident, and Fazeli was soon detained.

Peters is running against Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell in California's fifteenth Congressional district. Given the miraculous factors that prevented this close call from becoming an unmitigated tragedy, one can't help but wonder how many more acts of extreme violence will be directed at Republicans between now and Nov. 6, and if any of them will result in tragic outcomes.

Mediaite

Published  5 months ago

Over the weekend a man, ranting about President Donald Trump and Republicans at Castro Valley Fall Festival in Alameda County, California, pulled out a switchblade and tried to stab Republican congressional candidate Rudy Peters, who is running against Rep. Eric Swalwell. CBS affiliate KPIX in San Francisco reports that no one was injured, although there was a physical altercation between the suspect, Farzad Fazeli, and the candidate.

Rep. Swalwell tweeted about the incident on Tuesday.

On Sunday, my opponent @PetersCongress was attacked at his campaign booth in Castro Valley. I’m glad to hear Mr. Peters is okay. But it’s NEVER okay to use violence to settle political disagreements (or any disagreement). Fortunately, @ACSOSheriffs arrested the suspect.

— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) September 11, 2018

The Castro Valley News posted first about the incident on Facebook.

Republican Rudy Peters running for Congress was attacked by a man passing by his booth at the Fall Festival.

According to the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 35-year old Castro Valley resident Farzad Fazeli walked past Peters info booth making disparaging and profanity laden political remarks about Donald Trump. Fazeli then became aggressive and reached for a concealed switchblade to stab Peters while making threats.

A struggle ensued with Peters grabbing an election sign for protection. During the altercation, the switchblade malfunctioned and the blade did not extend.

Fazeli has been arrested.

The GOP candidate, Peters, is a supporter of President Trump, and his campaign is emphasizes that support.

[Featured image via Alameda County Sheriff’s Office]

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Grrr Graphics

Published  7 months ago

Eric Swalwell, the gun-grabbing Democrat congressman from California’s 15th District and spewer of leftist sound bites, continues to ride the coattails of Schumer, Pelosi and Maxine Waters. He’s even giving Adam Schiff some competition for Chief Jackass of his party.

Looking at his site, we immediately see him drumming up fear of Russia while loudly repeating the Russia/Trump election collusion, which has been soundly disproven. Mueller has come up with nothing to prove Trump colluded with Putin. NOTHING! But facts don’t matter to Swalwell. When faced with a proven lie, he doubles down and tells the lie louder, and louder still. He’s even introduced a bill that makes it a LAW to report Russian collusion in our elections. He uses statism in the hopes it will help make a lie seem like the truth! He repeats the tiresome and erroneous line, ‘our democracy’ is in peril. No Eric, we are not a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC, if we can keep congressmen such as you from destroying it.

Contrast Swalwell’s palaver with what Rudy Peters, his Republican opponent in the upcoming election, has to say. Here’s a sample from his website:

The Second Amendment—Balancing Rights with Safety

The oath of office for a member of the U.S. Congress begins with the following statement:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

Please note that THIS INCLUDES THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

As written.

Contrast that with what’s on Swalwell’s site. While he claims to support our Second Amendment, he’s also supporting a plethora of bills that will make gun ownership more difficult through means of red tape and confiscation.

Peters is a seasoned, sensible man who made his success in the real world whereas the young Swalwell has been a career politician from the start.

Swalwell is part of the problem in America, not part of the solution. He’s another obnoxious cog in the Democrat’s Trump-hating machine. Walk away!

Californians need to reject the callow statism of Swalwell and instead elect a responsible man who will protect our Constitution. That man is Rudy Peters.

—Ben Garrison

Every time a donation is received, A cartoon gets it’s wings…

I Love My Freedom

Published  7 months ago

Something may seriously be wrong with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

During a news conference on Tuesday with Democrats from the House Intelligence Committee, Pelosi suffered from a face spasm when trying to say “intelligence,” and called one of her colleagues by the wrong name.

While introducing her colleagues on the stage, Pelosi said, “I’m very honored to stand, uh, before members of the House Intelligence Committee,” suffering a face spasm.

She then proceeded to repeat herself while reading from note cards.

“We also want to protect, we also want to protect the Muell— the integrity of the Mueller investigation,” Pelosi said.

When she tried to commend one of her Democratic colleagues, she called him by the wrong name.

“Early on, the leadership of Congressman Early— uh, Eric Swalwell,” she said, correcting herself.

Moments later, she could hardly complete a sentence without numerous stutters.

“So I knew the challenge that members face there,” she said. “That’s why I had the pa— uh, privilege, uh…” Pelosi rambled.

A few minutes later, she struggled when attempting to use a statement from DNI Chief Dan Coates — a President Donald Trump appointee — to attack the president, flubbing the statement.

“As Demo … Director of National Intelligence,” she muttered.

Watch below:

This isn’t the first time in recent months where Pelosi has had an embarrassing gaffe in public.

Earlier this week, the California Democrat said questioning her leadership is sexist, and lashed out at her own colleagues who have said she should not be the Speaker if Democrats retake the House in November. She also struggled to remember Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s name, forcing an aide to finish her sentence and help her with his name.

Pelosi has stuttered several times in recent interviews, where she was unable to cite simple Bible verses, got busted for lying about the economy under Trump, and defended MS-13 gang members after the president called them “animals.”

While many conservatives are thrilled that this bizarrely behaving woman continues to be the face of the Democratic Party, Pelosi continues to make the perfect case for why we need congressional term limits.

**Follow Martin on Facebook

The Federalist

Published  7 months ago

The inspector general’s direct answer whether Comey lied was curious, in that his conclusion conflicts with facts and testimony detailed in his own report.

The Atlantic

Published  9 months ago

A far-right conspiracy theorist who landed in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s crosshairs over his friendship with longtime Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone now says Mueller has offered him a plea deal on one count of perjury related to his conversations with Stone in 2016—but he is not going to take the deal, he told me in an interview on Monday. “I will not sign a statement that says I willfully and knowingly lied, because I did not,” Jerome Corsi said.

Mueller has been interviewing Stone’s associates and senior Trump campaign officials in recent months—including Corsi, campaign CEO Steve Bannon and the former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort—to determine whether Stone knew in advance of their release that WikiLeaks had obtained hacked emails from a senior Clinton-campaign official, John Podesta, and coordinated the release to distract from the damaging Access Hollywood tape that showed Trump making vulgar comments about women. (The emails were dumped on October 7, 2016, just minutes after the tape was released by The Washington Post.)

Corsi was subpoenaed by Mueller’s team in September and has been predicting since last month that he might be indicted for lying. He has said that he told Stone in August 2016 that Podesta would be WikiLeaks’ next victim, but insists it was just a theory that he developed while traveling in Italy with his wife in the summer of 2016—a trip that Mueller has been very interested in, Corsi said. “They wanted me to connect Roger Stone with Assange,” Corsi told me, referring to the WikiLeaks founder who released the hacked Podesta emails in October. “They couldn’t believe how I knew in August that Assange had Podesta's emails.”

Corsi, who was working on opposition research with Stone throughout 2016, said he shared his “hunch” with Stone at the time, but has denied having any inside information from Assange. Instead, he says, he figured that Podesta “had to be next” if he was left out of the July 22, 2016 email dump of Democratic National Committee emails. “I had sources who had shown me how Democratic Party had put their systems together, and gave me thousands of pages of information over the summer on how the DNC’s computers worked. So when Assange on July 22 dropped the Democratic National Committee emails which included messages from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I did a forensic analysis and determined that there were no Podesta emails in there,” Corsi said. It isn’t clear who Corsi’s “sources” were, or why he considered Podesta, who had no role at the DNC, to be conspicuously missing from a DNC email release. But Corsi claims that he simply “connected the dots and figured Podesta must be next. Mueller doesn’t want to believe that.”

Stone, for his part, denies having had any such conversations about Podesta with Corsi. But he famously predicted in a tweet months before the election, around the time that he was “conducting research” with Corsi, that damaging information would soon emerge about Podesta. “It will soon [be] Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary,” he wrote on August 21, 2016. Corsi told me that he emailed Stone in 2016 (he didn’t specify what month) telling him to “go see Assange”—an email that prosecutors showed him during an interview earlier this year that Corsi apparently had not voluntarily produced. “I couldn’t remember any of my 2016 emails,” Corsi said. “I hadn’t looked at them. So they let me amend my testimony, but now they want to charge me for the initial day [of my interview with prosecutors] when I said I didn’t remember that email. I won’t plead guilty to it.”

Dan Goldman, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, found it hard to believe that any prosecutor would charge Corsi with knowingly making a false statement after allowing him to amend his testimony. “I would be shocked if there weren't more evidence of his lying if he is ultimately charged with making false statements to federal officials,” Goldman told me.

Corsi has also added a new twist to the saga, claiming that he plans to file a complaint with Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker over Mueller’s team’s alleged recommendation that he keep his plea deal a secret from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

“FINRA requires by law that I immediately report anything that might affect my ability to hold securities licenses,” Corsi explained. “So I asked the special counsel’s team how they expected me to fulfill my legal obligation to FINRA if they want me to keep the plea deal a secret. And they said, ‘you don’t have to tell FINRA because this will all be under seal.’ So I told them I was going to file criminal charges against them with Whitaker, because they just advised me to commit a crime.” The special counsel’s office declined to comment.

Mueller has not gone easy on witnesses who appear to have lied to federal agents—Corsi is the fourth witness caught up in the probe who could soon be facing charges for lying to investigators. Unlike former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, or lawyer Alex van der Zwaan, however, all of whom pleaded guilty and struck a deal with Mueller’s team, Corsi is apparently resisting any kind of cooperation. “They can put me in prison for the rest of my life, but I’m not going to lie” to FINRA, Corsi said.

Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, told me in an email that Corsi’s pledge not to cooperate means either that he knows Mueller is bluffing and doesn't have enough evidence to charge him, which is “unlikely,” or that Corsi now finds himself “on the wrong end of an indictment.” If Corsi had decided to cooperate, Honig explained, “it would have been Mueller announcing Corsi's cooperation along with the indictment of Stone (and perhaps others). Now, it'll be Mueller announcing an indictment of Stone and Corsi (and perhaps others) all together.”

Roger Stone, meanwhile, should be taking note of Corsi’s ordeal, former federal prosecutors told me. Any inconsistencies between Stone’s testimony and what Mueller has learned could hypothetically lead to federal charges. While Stone has long denied that he discussed WikiLeaks’s plans with Bannon or any other campaign official in 2016, for example, emails from Stone made public last month belie that claim. On October 4, 2016, three days before the Podesta emails were published, Stone emailed Bannon predicting “a load” of new WikiLeaks disclosures “every week going forward.” (Stone told the Post that he “was unaware of this email exchange until it was leaked,” adding that “we had not turned it up in our search.”)

Stone has also had to amend his House Intelligence Committee testimony three times since last November, as new reports have emerged about his contacts with Russian nationals, the extent of his interactions with WikiLeaks (he exchanged private Twitter messages with WikiLeaks in mid-October 2016) and his conversations with Trump-campaign officials. Despite those changes, the question of whether he perjured himself before the committee still stands—and is reportedly being examined by Mueller.

“Roger Stone had a chance, under oath, to tell the House Intel Committee about his contacts with Russians and WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign,” Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell of California, who sits on the panel, told me last month. “He misled us and has repeatedly—three times now—amended his testimony to fit new press reporting.” Swalwell noted that the committee’s Democrats voted to send transcripts related to its Russia investigation to Mueller, but Republicans resisted. That’s likely to change when Democrats regain control over the panel in January. “The special counsel should see Stone’s transcripts and the accounts of all witnesses,” Swalwell said.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

->