Why Not Ask The Obvious Questions About The Swalwell Case?

There are two obvious questions in the Eric Swalwell case, regarding his sexual compromise by a Chinese spy: Who knew what, and when did they know it?

Notice that I framed the question in the plural.

This afternoon James Freeman in his Best of the Web column at the WSJ claimed to offer us:

The Swalwell Timeline

Did a communist spy know the congressman was about to assume oversight of the CIA?

What good is a timeline if none of the obvious names show up? As far as I can tell from the article, Swalwell--by his own words--was likely to have been contacted by the FBI as early as 2014 or even earlier: 

According to the Axios story, the interactions included the alleged agent known as Fang Fang or Christine Fang placing an intern in Rep. Swalwell’s office and also helping to raise funds for his 2014 re-election campaign. Axios reported that the FBI gave Mr. Swalwell a defensive briefing sometime around 2015 to warn him of the threat.

Since Axios broke the story, one of the few disclosures Mr. Swalwell has been willing to make occurred in an interview with CNN’s Jim Sciutto, when the lawmaker clarified the timeline. Mr. Sciutto asked the Congressman if he had had any concerns about the woman before receiving the defensive briefing from the FBI. Rep. Swalwell responded:

No. Jim, I was shocked when, you know, just over six years ago, I was told about this individual. And then I offered to help, and I did help and I was thanked by the FBI for my help and that person is no longer in the country.

If Mr. Swalwell’s story is accurate, it means he was told sometime in late 2014 or earlier that he had unwittingly been conducting a relationship with a communist spy.

Now, here's the only really solid date we have:

UPDATED: Does Hillary Want In?

That's what Thomas Lifson at AmThinker argues: As Biden falters, Hillary attacks Trump and positions herself to enter presidential race. It seems crazy but, crazy is as crazy does (I think I have that right?). Lifson makes an interesting case and concludes with a strong point:

Hillary is betting that Biden’s scalp will suffice to wrap up the Ukraine narrative, and his withdrawal will open the door for her to enter the race as a “moderate” Democrat who can keep the money spigot from Wall Street and the American oligarchs flowing into Democrat coffers.

As we've remarked before, Wall St. is scared witless of Warren. Once you drive donors away from your party, it's not so easy to get them back. If Warren and the rest of the radical Left became the face of the Dem brand, watch out: Wall Street Democratic donors warn the party: We’ll sit out, or back Trump, if you nominate Elizabeth Warren. As Don Surber also remarks this morning, "The dirty little secret is most billionaires are Democrats."

In a related AmThinker piece, Who is responsible for the impeachment circus? Peter Skurkiss argues that Ryan set the stage for these impeachment follies. It's well worth the read, if you want to see the Deep State at work. You might think this is academic at this point, but Skurkiss concludes:

Ryan may not be through, however. According to Vanity Fair, he will be joining the seven member board of the Fox Corporation. which will be run by Rupert Murdoch's eldest son, Lachlan. In this position, Ryan will have a role in, among other things, overseeing Fox News. ... With his position on the board of Fox Corporation, Ryan will now, to some degree, be one of those puppet masters in shadows. Now that's a sobering thought.

And Lifson adds in an update by quoting Vanity Fair:

Among the powerful voices advising Lachlan [Murdoch] that Fox should decisively break with the president is former House speaker Paul Ryan, who joined the Fox board in March. “Paul is embarrassed about Trump and now he has the power to do something about it,” an executive who’s spoken with Ryan told me. (Ryan did not return a call seeking comment.) But a person more sympathetic to Trump has told Lachlan that Fox should remain loyal to Trump’s supporters, even if the network has to break from the man. “We need to represent our viewers,” the source said. “Fox is about defending our viewers from the people who hate them. That’s where our power comes from. It’s not about Trump.”

UPDATE: Oh No… Is She Running Again? Hillary Clinton Has a Full Slate of Media Appearances Next Week

Speculation is starting to grow that the repeatedly failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may try to run for office once again as she has a full slate of media appearances scheduled next week. 

... 

In the interview with CBS Sunday Morning that is airing this weekend, Clinton said that things happened during 2016 campaign that will not happen again, implying that she may be planning to try again.

Read it all at the link--if you can bear to.

Here's The Difference.

As you'll recall, back when Devin Nunes was still chairman of the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff launched an 8 month ethics inquiry into Nunes because Nunes had met with a source without informing the committee. This arguably slowed down the GOP investigation into the Russia Hoax.

Today we've learned that Schiff met personally with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS in July at a security conference in Aspen, CO. It now seems certain, based on Bruce Ohr's recently leaked testimony, that Simpson lied in his own testimony to the Intel Committee.

Will GOPers play turnabout and demand an ethics inquiry into Schiff?

They may, but here's the difference.

When Nunes was sidelined the Speaker of the House was NeverTrumper Paul Ryan.

Nancy Pelosi, also a NeverTrumper--same party!--is now the Speaker.

See the difference?

Won't happen.

Fake News, Real News, Hot News

On the Fake News front we have some depressing real news--or, as real as polling gets:

John Hinderaker at Powerline, in The Ultimate Fake News, digs down into a poll run by The Economist/YouGov during the first week of November. The poll asked: Did Russia “tamper with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President?” Hinderaker points out what every sentient human person now knows for fact:

There is no evidence–I repeat, none–that Russia “tampered with vote tallies.” To my knowledge, no one has claimed that Russia tampered with vote tallies. I am not aware of any plausible theory on which a foreign power could tamper with vote tallies. To say that Russia tampered with vote tallies is as credible as asserting that the moon is made of green cheese.

Nevertheless.

The poll reveals, paraphrasing Hinderaker's summary, that