Eric Swalwell and the Chinese Honey Pot Trap

[Gondwanaland]

Trump caused the investigation to drag on, and all the indictments and convictions made it news.

That's quite a different situation than Swalwell.

False.

[Stoic]

Nor has anyone here that I've seen.......... Looks to me like the focus is on the spy herself and the Democrats she was gaining access too.....

Republicans want Swalwell kicked off the Intelligence Committee. Which is not what you do to someone who hasn't done anything wrong.

[Stoic]

False.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Gondwanaland]

Republicans want Swalwell kicked off the Intelligence Committee. Which is not what you do to someone who hasn't done anything wrong.

It's what you do to someone who has been compromised (whether of his own wrongdoing or someone else's) by foreign spies........

[Stoic]

It's what you do to someone who has been compromised (whether of his own wrongdoing or someone else's) by foreign spies........

If there was reason to believe he's been compromised.

[seanD]

If there was reason to believe he's been compromised.

Best case scenario, he's just not that bright and/or his compulsion to sexual desire makes him a unwitting dupe to this type of thing. Worst case, he was long enough in politics that he became corrupt like most of them do, and perhaps she was about to introduce him to some affluent Chinese investors.

[Stoic]

Best case scenario, he's just not that bright and/or his compulsion to sexual desire makes him a unwitting dupe to this type of thing. Worst case, he was long enough in politics that he became corrupt like most of them do, and perhaps she was about to introduce him to some affluent Chinese investors.

Best case (and most likely) scenario, there was no reason for him to suspect that she was a spy until he received the defensive briefing,

Worst case is a lot worse than that, but there is no evidence for it.

[Gondwanaland]

If there was reason to believe he's been compromised.

She literally placed at least one intern directly into his office (and we have no idea if they're still working for him or not because he's refusing to say anything other than whinge that this is only coming out because he investigated Trump), etc..

[Stoic]

She literally placed at least one intern directly into his office (and we have no idea if they're still working for him or not because he's refusing to say anything other than whinge that this is only coming out because he investigated Trump), etc..

You don't think the intern would have been investigated, given that there was a recommendation by an alleged Chinese spy?

And if the investigation cleared the intern, do you think it would be fair for them to release the intern's identity?

[rogue06]

You don't think the intern would have been investigated, given that there was a recommendation by an alleged Chinese spy?

And if the investigation cleared the intern, do you think it would be fair for them to release the intern's identity?

I seriously doubt that she, as a Chinese spy, selected that particular person because they would do a good job for Swalwell. More than likely she had some sort of leverage on him/her that she could not bring to bear before being discovered and forced to flee. And that does not mean the intern had some dark secret either. The Chinese are well known for doing exactly what the Nazis did during WWII with German-Americans, threatening the lives and well-being of family members still living in the "homeland" if they didn't cooperate. But it is ridiculous to think that a spy went out of her way to get someone placed as an intern in Swalwell's office because they were the best pick and would be a big asset to him. That would not be their motive. A spy would do so because they would be a potential asset to them.

[Juvenal]

Sorry it isn't your NYT. Oh wait, like ABC, CBS and NBC, they're spiking the story.

We've been through this before, but if you want to go there, hey sure.

It's not my NY Times, a fact highlighted in flames so harsh Bill had to step in last time, but you can't learn a lesson. You toss that lie out again and again like a dog recycling vomit until a responsible owner cleans it up. It's not my NY Times, you lying liar, and I don't diss other papers because they're not the NY Times. I'm not putting up with you repeating that lie yet again. Not just because it's a lie you've already been busted on, though that's plenty enough reason all by itself. But more pointedly, because it's part of a continuing effort to justify the use of objectively inaccurate sources, which can only serve to demean the conversation on the board.

In this case, it's an Axios story. They did a year's worth of legwork putting it together. That's your source. Give the credit where credit is due.

I should note that the reason that I picked that particular source was that the others I came across typically only dealt with one aspect of the story that I wanted to touch on while this one brought up several of them (but not all).

This is the source you chose.

OPINION
EDITORIAL
Eric Swalwell, a Chinese ‘honeytrap’ and FBI double standards
By Post Editorial Board
December 9, 2020 | 7:21pm | Updated

This isn't a news report; it's not a story. It's not even opinion from a named columnist. This is the official editorial position of the NY Post, a tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, recently slagged by its own reporters for undue editorial influence on its news operations.
.

Indeed, reporter Bruce Golding wrote most of the first several stories and refused to put his name on them, according to one source. Golding did not respond to a request for comment. The New York Times first reported Golding’s reluctance on Sunday evening. Golding is a fixture at the paper, sources told Intelligencer, a master of the “rewrite” who can synthesize disparate reporters’ notes into splashy front-page stories written in the tabloid’s distinctive style. His involvement in the Hunter Biden story is not surprising, but his lack of a byline or reporting credit is highly unusual, according to current and former Post journalists. The Hunter Biden stories are credited to deputy politics editor Emma-Jo Morris and reporter Gabrielle Fonrouge.

You picked that source for the prurience and lack of editorial standards. And because adherence to the facts doesn't matter to you, because truth itself doesn't matter to you.

But none of that is relevant to my objections to stealing credit from those who've earned it. What matters is that the real reporting, such as it is, isn't being credited, and more, isn't being repeated accurately. The story is a retrospective of actions ending five years ago with a Chinese agent abruptly leaving the country after she was burned by the FBI, severing the ties she'd spent the previous four years building. It's interesting as an historical incident providing insight into the methods and motivations of the Chinese, and actions which are likely continuing, elsewhere, to this day.

To all appearances, this was a ham-fisted effort. While Fang is reported to have been handled from China, keeping strings hidden, her repeated visits to a suspected agent of MSS in the San Francisco consulate, along with her extensive travels across the US — showing up in DC one day, and in the back seat of a midwestern Mayor's car the next — rather than restricting her activities to the Bay Area, was bound to raise flags, eventually, with predictable results.
.

What happened next: Senior U.S. intelligence officials provided multiple defensive briefings around 2015 to warn targeted local and national politicians about Fang's connections to Chinese intelligence and potential Chinese assets in their offices, one of these officials said.

• U.S. intelligence officials also provided multiple briefings to White House officials and members of Congress on the case, a current senior official said.

Elsewhere, it's being reported that includes House leadership from both the majority and minority parties, making spurious the claims these are new revelations, other than for the general public. But it's little more than a garnish for anyone following developments inside China itself, and especially in its geographically largest and increasingly less autonomous territory up against the 'stans, a snapshot of government control being piloted for export to developing client states across southwest Asia, much of Africa, and closer to home.

We need a sustained and detailed focus on China if we don't want to see that happen here.

[rogue06]

Trump caused the investigation to drag on, and all the indictments and convictions made it news.

That's quite a different situation than Swalwell.

Trump allowed the investigators complete an unfettered access to both anyone they wanted to interview^[1] and put a complete stop on the usual procedure of destroying documents deemed unnecessary in case they might contain something that investigators wanted to see. In the end he provided them access to everything without hiding behind "Executive Privilege." It continued on because

1) it was needed as an issue in the 2018 election. Nearly all observers agree that lingering questions surrounding the Collusion Delusion were a key factor in Democrat gains that year.

b. even though they knew early on there was no there there, that the whole thing was a big nothing burger, Mueller and his crew hoped that if they kept on digging that they might turn up something, anything, to justify the investigation.





1. the one exception was Trump himself. They knew that they would set up a perjury trap to try to ensnare him just like they did with some of his staff. And it wasn't like special prosecutors don't engage in this sort of behavior. Aside from looking at examples that were taking place around him.

For instance, Patrick Fitzgerald, in spite of knowing full well that there was no White House "leak" that outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative ended up being reduced to trying to set up perjury traps for those who broke no laws in order to salvage his reputation. That's what he did to Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald set up a perjury trap for him because he needed a scalp to salvage his reputation. Investor's Business Daily nailed it when they wrote "From top to bottom, this has been one of the most disgraceful abuses of prosecutorial power in this country's history... The Plame case proves [Fitzgerald] can bend the truth with the proficiency of the slickest of pols."

[rogue06]

I seriously doubt that Chinese spies are only targeting Democrats. If we're only hearing about Democrats, it's probably because Republicans are the ones leaking the story.

That is what Swalwell claims in hope of getting the spotlight off of him. The problem is that Axios' Jonathan Swan, called his unsupported allegation "completely absurd" and "risible." Swan elaborated that not only was the timeline all wrong but that

"Anyone who has any passing understanding of how Trump World works, do we really think that they put out some opposition research and then patiently wait[ed] a year -- beyond an election --- for the very well-respected China correspondent to report it out in a nuanced fashion?"

[rogue06]

We've been through this before, but if you want to go there, hey sure.

It's not my NY Times, a fact highlighted in flames so harsh Bill had to step in last time, but you can't learn a lesson. You toss that lie out again and again like a dog recycling vomit until a responsible owner cleans it up. It's not my NY Times, you lying liar, and I don't diss other papers because they're not the NY Times. I'm not putting up with you repeating that lie yet again. Not just because it's a lie you've already been busted on, though that's plenty enough reason all by itself. But more pointedly, because it's part of a continuing effort to justify the use of objectively inaccurate sources, which can only serve to demean the conversation on the board.

Bill only stepped in because he had grown weary of you trying to tell us how to run the site, especially your continuous calling for resignations from staff. Not for any other reason. Anything else you want to lie about?

[oxmixmudd]

It's what you do to someone who has been compromised (whether of his own wrongdoing or someone else's) by foreign spies........

Depends on if he had been up front in keeping those responsible for his clearance up to date wrt his foreign contacts. One must report all foreign relations if one has a clearance, as well as intimate relationships. The wife may not know, but your security guys better know is how it goes. If they were up to date and aware of his interactions with her (which would explain why they went to him once they discovered what she was rather than confronting him over not informing them) and he cut all ties, then it would be reasonable for them not to oust him or take his clearance. What is a danger are secret relationships, relationships that offer an adversary leverage (e.g.blackmail), or relationships that do not end once a risk has been discovered.