Eric Swalwell, a failed former member of the Democrats’ Star Wars bar scene (a/k/a the Democrat presidential primary candidates) made an appearance on Never-Trumper Chris Wallace’s Show “Fox News Sunday,” and virtually every sentence he spoke was a lie. Being a Democrat, lying apparently doesn’t phase him all that much, but I found myself shouting at Sirius radio (I was driving) with each uttered whopper. Let’s dissect what he said.
Chris Wallace introduced Swalwell by saying the Democrats “hope to capitalize on the momentum of last week’s impeachment hearings.” See what I mean about Wallace being a Never-Trumper? Even the Democrat-run media polls are showing DECREASING public support for impeachment across all demographics. To continue, he introduced Swalwell by reminding us that he is a member of both the House Intelligence and House Judiciary Committees, which is too bad, because I had hoped to have listened to the last of his insufferable questioning during Democrats’ impeachment farce in the House Intel Committee hearings.
Wallace: The IG is expected to say when his report is released in a couple of weeks that the original Trump-Russia investigation was legitimate and was not based on political bias.
[Me: Yes, that’s the cabal’s spinning after the first of likely many leaks to the NY Times and CNN a few days ago. No one – not the least of whom is Wallace – can say with certainty that the IG will declare the original investigation to be “legitimate,” particularly if the FISA warrants were made under false pretenses. And “no political bias”? Please. The FISA warrants were obtained at least in part and – to play Wallace’s game – “some sources” say almost EXCLUSIVELY based on the fake Russian dossier, which was, of course, paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.]
Wallace (continuing): …but apparently a low-level FBI lawyer “doctored” some documents, and that there are some new questions about the “Steele dossier.” Isn’t that alarming?
[Me: Man, that’s a really hard-hitting question to put Swalwell on the spot, right? Reminds me of CNN baloney. A REAL journalist might have called it like it was: that FBI lawyer illegally falsified a document to mislead the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to obtain a FISA warrant – a felony! And then reminded the audience that the “Steele dossier” (most likely not written by him anyway) has been totally debunked before asking Swalwell, doesn’t that indicate that the entire counter-intelligence operation against the Trump campaign was based on false premises and falsified FISA warrant applications? But no, we got the usual Wallace softball question to Democrats.]
Swalwell (responding): No.
[Me: See? I told you every sentence was a lie – even this first one-worder. You damn right he (and the rest of the Democrats) are alarmed! That’s the reason he appeared on Wallace’s program – to run damage control operations after a disastrous week of the Democrats’ impeachment star chamber (from the Democrats’ point of view) and also to spin the impending release of the IG report that – whisperers say – containing “highly damaging information.”]
Swalwell (continuing): We have seen all this evidence on the Intelligence Committee, and we had all the reasons in the world to open this investigation, and this report shows that we want FBI agents, if they are told that any campaign is being reached out to by foreign governments or agents of that government, that we want them to investigate this.
[Me: A complete lie since there was ZERO evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign was compromised by, worked with, or “colluded” with the Russians, as detailed ad nauseam in the Mueller report! Which means that the predicate for the counter-intelligence investigation was concocted falsely from the very beginning. And as a member of the Intel Committee, Swalwell damn well knows the truth but continues propagating the lie.]
Swalwell (continuing): But if a lawyer at the FBI “acted improperly,” then that person should be held accountable.
[Me: Nice attempt at prevarication and spinning the viewing audience’s attention away from the really damaging part that the investigation predicate was bogus, and that the IG report is going to lay waste to the Democrat narrative about the investigation being warranted.]
Wallace: What do you think this says about the President’s continuing insistence that this was an attempt to stop him and overthrow his presidency?
[Me: That’s the first half-way decent question he asked.]
Swalwell: It looks like this [report] is going to show otherwise, and it’s just time to move on.
[Me: Weak-ass response, Eric! You know damn well that the President is right, and you had nothing to refute his claim, so you dropped that topic like a hot rock.]
Swalwell (continuing): Let me just address Senator Kennedy’s remarks [Cvrk note: Kennedy appeared right before Swalwell and destroyed the Democrat impeachment narrative and also speculated that both Russia AND Ukraine were meddling in the 2016 election]. Not at all, it was Russia, and as a country, we need to absolutely make sure that we acknowledge it was Russia, condemn Russia for it, and it actually plays into Russia’s hands if they have this equivalence with Ukraine by us saying that we don’t know which one it was.
[Me: Some major whoppers to unpack here. First, Swalwell was sitting in the hearings last week when ranking minority member Devin Nunes dropped that huge hardcopy of the 2018 Republican majority report about Russian meddling in the 2016 election on the table in front of Shifty Schiff. So he KNOWS that Republicans have already reported out on Russian meddling. Yet, he cannot acknowledge the fact that there was MUCH Ukrainian meddling in support of Hillary Clinton, including DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa’s dirt-digging in Ukraine and the former Ukrainian ambassador’s direct meddling by writing an op-ed in the Washington Post in October 2016 support Hillary! And that’s just for starters. Swalwell is flat-out lying when he says that there wasn’t any Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.]
Wallace: [With never any pushback or follow-up questions to any Democrat when they make false statements, he moves on.] You’re also a member of the House Judiciary Committee; what happens next? When will the Intel Committee issue its report, when will the Judiciary Committee starts its hearings, and do you expect the Judiciary Committee to hold open hearings and hear from fact witnesses, or just talk to constitutional scholars on what impeachment should be?
Swalwell: Thursday was the last publicly-scheduled hearing. We’ll be reviewing the evidence to determine what if anything “should be done to the President” for this misconduct. It would go to Judiciary if we decided that there needed to be a remedy. The President as we voted on would have rights to be part of that process in Judiciary.
[Me: Outrageous! First of all, he gives away his animus against the President by implying something will be “done to him.” Second, what evidence? I, like many Americans, watched the whole crap-show and only saw partisan Deep Staters provide hearsay and personal opinions and, when confronted, deny that they had witnessed any crimes, let alone “misconduct,” as Swalwell imputes to the President without factual basis. And all witnesses agreed that the President was lawfully executing his foreign policy prerogatives despite their apparently hurt feelings that their consultation and advice was rejected. And, Eric, the only “remedy” we need to see is for the seditious coup conspirators – including those who perpetrated both the Russian hoax and this Ukrainian farce on the American people – to be indicted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.]
Wallace: Let’s talk about his rights in the Judiciary Committee because under the House resolution that was passed authorizing this inquiry, the President does get to have a lawyer present during the Judiciary Committee hearings, and it even talks about him being able to cross-examine and call witnesses. But, there’s an interesting article in that resolution that says if the White House continues to block witnesses from testifying, then the Chairman is well within his rights to shut down the White House lawyer. Even in the Clinton impeachment hearing, President Clinton’s lawyer got to question Ken Starr. Are you really saying that you may shut down the White House lawyer?
Swalwell: The amount of obstruction here is unprecedented.
[Me: Here is where I started yelling at my Sirius radio. The President already went down the road of full disclosure in good faith with the Democrats and the Mueller lynch mob by giving them millions of documents, emails, and other communications plus thousands of hours of testimony. And to claim that this flimsiest of unsubstantiated allegations in the Ukraine hoax warrant the President simply rolling over so that the Democrats can spend weeks and months sifting through every possible tidbit is absurd. Swalwell is making this claim solely to help justify one of the articles of impeachment that they’ve doubtless already drafted – obstruction of justice – since they’ve got no other crimes to cite.]
Swalwell: It was frustrating over the last two weeks of testimony to hear the President and his defenders say that Democrats don’t have direct evidence, or all you hear from the witnesses is hearsay evidence, and you need to hear from XYZ person when the President is telling Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Secretary Pompeo, and Secretary Perry not to come in, I think that discloses his “consciousness of guilt,” but I also don’t think he should be rewarded in playing such a large part in the Judiciary Committee proceedings if they’re not going to give us any of the documents, but that’s Chairman Nadler’s call.
[Me: And the lies just kept rolling off his tongue! The Democrats “star witnesses” produced no direct evidence, and the President isn’t going to let Democrats criminalize simple differences in foreign policy and allow them to go on a fishing expedition to find process crimes of some kind for the Democrats’ crass political impeachment purposes. Furthermore, the President cut the legs out from under the Democrats’ entire Ukraine narrative by producing the transcripts of BOTH telephone calls with President Zelensky. Their whole line of attack leveraging the fake whistleblower-leaker disintegrated when those transcripts were released.]
Wallace: You just heard Senator Kennedy (R-LA) and the Republicans this past week saying this is unfair that you haven’t allowed Republicans to call their own witnesses, and now that it’s a chance for the President’s lawyer to finally participate, you’re saying that may not happen either. [Me: a weak follow-up, but better than nothing.]
Swalwell: What’s really unfair is to keep witnesses who are key witnesses from coming forward – that is monumentally unfair.
Wallace: But wouldn’t it be worse to shut down the President’s lawyer?
Swalwell: I don’t know if that decision has been made yet. We see for this process to be “productive for the American people,” we need to have all of the documents. If the President is going to say that, “I’m not going to give you any of the documents, I’m not going to give you any of the relevant witnesses come in, however, I want to throw potshots from the gallery and try to fog up this investigation,” I don’t know if that’s “productive” either.
[Me: By this time, I was screaming at the radio. Did you catch his phrase “productive for the American people”? What that really meant was “productive for partisan Democrats” who would rather waste time building a false impeachment narrative than doing the people’s business – like simply passing the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) – which will boost American GDP by a full percent!]
Wallace: Democrats say that you have enough evidence to proceed – and arguably write articles of impeachment. [Me: they’re already written, Chris!] But you haven’t heard from a number of top witnesses including former National Security Adviser John Bolton who is asking a court to determine if he should testify. The NY Times had an editorial over the weekend that said this: “No matter is more urgent – but it should not be rushed – for the protection of the nation’s security, and for the integrity of the presidency, and for the future of the Republic.” So why not slow down. Why not wait for the judge to decide whether Bolton should testify on 10 Dec? Why are you in such a rush when you’re going to be missing some of the most important evidence you could conceivably get?
Swalwell: Most importantly, the President invoked an upcoming election, and voters in just a few months are going to be voting in upcoming caucuses, and so there’s an urgency to make sure of integrity at the ballot box, and so if he’s asking a foreign government to interfere in an election, then we are “on the clock” to make sure that that election is protected.
[Me: OMG! What spinning nonsense, lies, and misdirection! The reason they’re rushing ahead is because they are racing to get the impeachment vote BEFORE the IG report is released in order to soften the blow. I wish Wallace would have followed up by asking him about voter ID laws since Swalwell claimed he and Democrats are so worried about “integrity at the ballot box,” too!]
Wallace: The presidential election isn’t until next November. The Democrats are running against each other… [implying how does what the President is doing by looking into Ukrainian corruption warrant rushing ahead with impeachment now].
Swalwell: One of the candidates is who the President has asked the foreign government to “create misinformation on.” So we have to “protect the integrity of those elections.” But your question is a fair one. What we have seen with the President is, every time we ask for documents or witnesses, he blocks those documents and witnesses, and this court process is a 9-12 month process, so we lose everything that we value in our democracy waiting on the courts when we already have powerful first-hand accounts from the witnesses who have come forward. Chris, as a former prosecutor, what I think is most remarkable here is that I don’t think in modern history that I’ve seen a bigger investigation that relies entirely on first-hand accounts. Most prosecutors to prove their cases, they put emails, text messages, financial documents….
[Me: the SOB has gone off the deep end with his lies at this juncture! According to Swalwell, the President is asking Ukraine to “create misinformation on Joe Biden.” Uhh, Eric, President Zelensky offered to look into HUNTER Biden who is not running for any political office. Are investigating his actions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to be considered “misinformation”? That’s laughable, and you know it. And then he sheds crocodile tears because the President is using the court system to deprive the Democrats of their false impeachment narrative. Talk about gall, after two years of the Democrats using leftwing federal judges to stymy lawful acts and policies of the Trump Administration! Too bad that these court decisions won’t be decided until AFTER the 2020 elections! How do you like it when lawfare is used against you for a change, Eric? And then he proceeds to babble about all the first-hand evidence that Democrats have. B.S.! Everything from the witnesses was hearsay and second- or third-hand! Remember: just because Democrats repeatedly say things in public and during TV interviews doesn’t make them true. Certainly not in this case!]
Wallace: Wait a minute. You talk about Watergate. You had John Dean, you had first-hand witnesses in the Oval Office: John Dean, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, John Mitchell. You don’t have any of that.
Swalwell: We don’t have any courageous men like that in the White House right now, but we do have a lot of the President’s appointees who have come forward. People like Fiona Hill, people like Ambassador Sondland, Mr. Holmes, Maria Yovanovitch….
[Me: Please! Talk about a gratuitous remark! You mean you couldn’t find any snitches who bought into your attempt to impeach a duly elected president because of differences of opinion in foreign policy (dirty little secret: in order to keep the corruption gravy train going in Ukraine). Your lefty Antifa friends put max pressure on Sondland by protesting his businesses, Fiona Hill previously worked for George Soros and the leftwing Brookings Institutions. Yeah, they’re “nonpartisan.”]
Wallace: Here’s the argument. You guys say that the President used his office for his political benefit in what he was asking President Zelensky to do. Aren’t you in the same sense doing the same thing – using impeachment for your political benefit, which is, “we really can’t wait, we have to get this done before Iowa.”
[Me: this is the first real question that Wallace asked – and his premise is absolutely correct, as this impeachment farce is an ENTIRELY partisan Democrat act.]
Swalwell: We have powerful evidence already. If the President thought these witnesses could clear him, he would allow them to come in. I think that what’s more important than how long we should wait in the courts is that the President won’t let them come in. Innocent people would say, go cooperate with Congress; I did nothing wrong. Only a guilty person would block people like John Bolton from coming to Congress.
[Me: As I said, repeating lies about Democrats having “powerful evidence already” doesn’t make it true. We watched it for ourselves all last week, Eric; we know you’ve got nothing! You haven’t proved anything, Eric. You can’t flip it on the President that he should be allowing witnesses that would help exonerate him when you haven’t proved your case about anything. If you’re foolish enough to vote articles of impeachment to the Senate, there will be plenty of witnesses who will expose the real truth that you won’t like. And your claim that people who are innocent should simply come forward and testify is laughable! I notice that you didn’t subpoena Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa, and Joe Biden to testify because they are “innocent” and have “nothing to hide”!]
Wallace: While you’ve been holding hearings, public opinion has been actually moving against you. There has been an eight-point swing against removing the President while you’ve been making your best case.
Swalwell (flailing): Well, I saw an ABC News poll last week that said 70 percent of Americans thought that what the President did was wrong….
Wallace: But what they didn’t say was impeach and remove…
Swalwell (stuttering): The majority of people in that poll actually DID favor removing the President, so I’m not focused on the polls, and I know my colleagues aren’t either….
[Me: what a crock of dung! The Democrats live and die by polls! They poll everything, including what words resonate best with Americans when, in this case, they are trying to make the case for impeachment. They switched from “quid pro quo” to “bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice” simply because those terms polled better! And that’s not to mention the fact that these media polls over-sample Democrats in order to INFLUENCE public opinion, not accurately reflect it.] That ABC poll is baloney, not to mention is was taken BEFORE the last week’s hearings.]
Swalwell (continuing): This President leveraged his power to ask a foreign government to help him cheat in an election, and I don’t think we should be looking at polls to decide what we should do. I think most Americans know that is wrong and there have to be consequences [for the President’s actions].
[Me: No, that’s not what he did, Eric, no matter how many times you repeat it. He asked help in unraveling the corruption associated with the PAST election in 2016, which was an entirely lawful act under the US-Ukraine mutual legal assistance treaty signed in 1999. And it’s laughable that you say that we shouldn’t be looking at polls because you know damn well you’d be saying the opposite if the polls showed an increase in the public’s support for impeachment. You are a bad liar.]
Wallace: [played a video clip of Swalwell stating to Chris Matthews on MSNBS that, “This is a crime spree in progress. What we have is a president did with the Ukrainians in his shakedown scheme of asking him to investigate his opponent…”] Congressman, the hardest evidence that you’ve got is that the President conditioned a White House meeting – not military assistance – on investigating the Bidens, but when it comes to holding up military aid, all you’ve got are presumptions. You’ve got nobody with direct evidence who says that’s what happened. Does that rise to the level of what you call a “crime spree,” and more important, does it rise to the level of ousting – removing – a duly-elected president of the United States?
Swalwell: I’m not ultimately going to decide on impeachment yet. We’re still weighing the evidence, but it still is worthy of our time. And actually, there are three different conditions: one to just get the July 25 call, we learned that there was a condition that, to get the call, the investigations had to happen. Ambassador Sondland said that. Then to get the White House meeting, the investigation had to happen. We had direct evidence saying, we talked to the President, we learned circumstantially we can prove that aid was withdrawn after the DoD certified it on May 23rd, the aid was withdrawn for the Ukrainians, and everything we knew about the President related to Ukraine was conditioned. So the July 25 call, White House meeting, so the fact that the aid was withdrawn circumstantially…. And I should say Mick Mulvaney in his press conference …
Wallace (interrupting): I’m not asking you to review the evidence, I’m asking you if it rises to the level….
Swalwell: If it’s proven, and I think we’re getting pretty close to that, I don’t think any president – Republican or Democrat – should leverage his or her office to “cheat our elections.”
[Me: the whoppers continued to the bitter end. Yeah, right, Eric; you haven’t “decided” on impeachment yet. And Sondland said when directly questioned by Republicans that there was no quid pro quo and that the President “didn’t want anything from Zelensky,” yet Swalwell continues to lie and prevaricate. The 25 September meeting was held, the Ukrainians got their aid, and both Presidents have publicly stated that there was not quid pro quo, and President Zelensky himself stated that there was no pressure on him to do anything, and he didn’t announce any investigations before getting the aid.]
Conclusion: The Democrats sent Swalwell out to spin their false narratives in that interview as an act of desperation, as much as anything. EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE uttered by him was a lie, as I dissected above. Even the media polls that are heavily stacked with Democrats are trending badly for Democrats. Watching the Democrats flail in their messaging is VERY interesting as they try to pump up support for impeachment without evidence, and their sphincters will tighten further as we approach the release of the DoJ IG report on FISA abuse.