This Swalwell fellow is the lawmaker who said he wants to confiscate all firearms. So, I knew from that that he is a Stalinists or a Maoist. (I can’t say I know the difference.) He’s a Leftist for sure, and if he gains power, he will likely kill millions.

I think he watches your videos. If I look away I’m hiding something so I must not look away. Someone here said car salesman. And I thought bingo. He like every car salesman I’ve ever dealt with. Slimy Swallwell.

Another good topic presented.

If this was a debate about collusion, then I’m not sure what Carlson didn’t start by presenting a definition of collusion that they could both agree on. The first rule of Socratic debate is that you have to get the opposing party to commit a belief in something concrete…then attack it. The problem was that Tucker allowed himself to attack vacuous commentary. I think he would have been on firmer footing by getting this fellow to confirm a joint belief in the very definition of the illicit conduct they were debating.

So why didn’t he present Wikipedia’s definition which seems as good as any: “Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal–but always secretive–to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.”

Point 1.
Certainly a press conference is not secret. Swalwell’s argument that we may need the advantage of 25 years of hindsight to discover the secret nature of this press conference is about as absurd as it gets.

Point 2.
I suppose Swalwell’s argument would have been (based on definition) that defrauding others of their legal right was Hillary’s (the “others”) “right” to what…become president? Another Absurdity.

Point 3.
How about asking Swalwell what “object” Trump obtained which was forbidden by law? I see no evidence that he had obtained anything forbidden by law. So, he was accused of ostensibly helping the Russians obtain something forbidden by law??? Huh? How could he have possibly had the ability to obtain any of Hilary’s e-mails or work with the Russians illegally to do so? Did he hope the Russians had access to them through counter intelligence (which we try to do just as well as the Russians) and that they would somehow be leaked to the public? First of all, counterintelligence by another country is not subject to our laws. Second, by his press conference remarks, Trump apparently did hope this would happen. But apparently so did millions of other Americans who voted for him. Are all of these Americans guilty of the same collusion? So is Mueller going to investigate all of them for collusion as well? They were all regular citizens at the time, just like Trump.

Point 4.
If the concern is on the leaked e-mails, then why didn’t Tucker focus on the content rather than whether they were classified or not. Hell, the government classifies just about everything these days (by default– which is questionable in and of itself) which makes it a questionable concern to begin with. At any rate, If Hillary had so many skeletons in the closet (Benghazi irresponsibility was enough to scare the shit out of me) via e-mails, then that’s her problem, not Trumps. Personally, I try to live by the rule that if I can’t show what I’ve written (or have done) to my grandmother, then maybe I shouldn’t be writing or doing it.

Cheers!

Rep. Swalwell also has the expression and face of an insurance salesman or car dealer.

Swalwell never searched any region of his brain and rarely blinked. Is he a robot???

How does this guy define the meaning “evidence” ? Does the word evidence mean the same to him as it does to me?
I guess “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

God give me strength. How do these people get elected for public office?

Brilliant analysis. Totally riveting. Thanks! Isn’t this awful, but I had a flash of this guy and Peter Pettigrew from Harry Potter. (I am visual!)

Mandy, you are soo funny and right on the point. Spoken words like trumps invite to those who hacked the doc to release more documents will never be upheld in any court without backing evidence – of which there is none. What a joker this Swalwell (swallow wel dnc crap) lol

He carried on about encouragement to hack a server that has been taken offline as his biggest point. There is no way that the emails come from that server. Trump was asking someone who had already hacked to supply the emails. The fact that someone came up with the missing emails would have proven that Hillary’s server was hacked. He was not asking. for emails from the DNC server.that had been hacked. There was a lot of distortion of the facts.

There is no way that trump could expect anyone to hack Hillary’s server. Bu that time it had been disassembled and the FBI was examing the drives for more emails. There for that is a flat lie without using body language.

Rep. Swallwell has proven himself to be a r-o-y-a-l creep and an excellent example of why lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to run for political office. He, like his cohorts, believes the rest of us are as stupid as their brain-dead minion. Eventually, dishonest folks like this crumble and fall on their face. We await that event.

Funny, I saw this live and was picking up on the same rehearsed talking points. You are right about Tucker. On one hand he produces some of the best and most coherent commentaries around. When he interviews somebody, especially somebody he can’t throw off with reason or sarcasm, though, and somebody who sticks to the script like this rodent or a psychopath like Yvette Felarca, he has trouble winning arguments. This Swalwell is one of the oiler weasels around. His phony earnest voice tone and baby face probably take a lot of people in. Thanks for the video!