Thursday, August 20, 2026

FBI evidently confronted Eric "Boom Boom" Swalwell over the weekend and hoo boy


It has been a rough stretch for former Rep. Eric "Boom Boom" Swalwell. You know, the guy who's known for the fart heard round the world.

First, the sexual misconduct claims torpedoed his time in Congress and his dreams of running California.

Then came word that he allegedly scooped up illegal donations from a suspected Chinese spy. Now the FBI has decided to stop by for a chat. 

Sources report that federal agents met Swalwell at San Francisco Airport on Saturday armed with search warrants. They confiscated his electronics, including his cell phone, as part of an ongoing federal criminal probe into the sexual misconduct allegations. Agents later used additional warrants to search his Washington residence on Sunday and carted off more potential evidence.

Swalwell began Saturday in Washington, where he still keeps a home with his wife and three kids. He flew west to California later that day, only to find the feds waiting when he got off the plane. According to sources, he played nice and cooperated.

Authorities have not said exactly what they grabbed from the D.C. house, per news outlet The Daily Mail

But on the not so bright side, at least four women have accused Swalwell of sexual misconduct, including a former staffer. One woman claimed he drugged and raped her in 2018. Two others said he sent them unsolicited pictures of his private parts. Incredibly, his wife stands with him for some inexplicable reason.

Swalwell has stayed mostly out of sight since quitting the California governor's race and resigning from Congress. He continues to deny any wrongdoing tied to the sexual assault and misconduct claims.

In related news, the same guy who once lectured the nation about democracy and foreign influence is now watching agents dig through his devices over claims that range from creepy texts to far more serious allegations. The Chinese spy donation story just adds a nice layer of extra flavor to an already eventful week.
 
I wonder what Fang Fang thinks.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.


Baby Gabriel’s “Parents” Blast Ken Paxton for Saving Him From Abortion



DALLAS, TX: In a stunning development that proves the phrase “pro-life” can apparently be controversial even after the baby is born, the California couple who wanted Baby Gabriel aborted before birth are now furious with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for making sure the child receives lifesaving medical care. 

These so called parents are nothing more than ghouls.

Gabriel was born August 12 in Dallas with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious but treatable condition requiring a series of surgeries beginning in the first weeks of life.

Surrogate mother McKenna West, an Alaska nurse and single mother of two, refused the biological parents’ request to abort the child after a prenatal diagnosis revealed the heart defect. The surrogacy contract reportedly contained a clause allowing the baby to be killed if an “anomaly” was discovered.

West instead traveled to Texas before giving birth, where she would be recognized as the birth mother under Texas law, and named the boy Gabriel.

Naturally, this did not go over well with the people who had apparently commissioned a baby but wanted a return policy if the baby came with a defective heart.

Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of Los Angeles, Gabriel’s biological parents, obtained a temporary court order granting them decision-making authority and took physical custody of the infant less than 24 hours after his birth.

The couple has now taken issue with Paxton’s office for intervening to ensure Gabriel receives medical treatment, arguing that the state lacks standing and that only the Department of Children and Family Services can intervene.

They contend that the state’s actions would deprive them of their “fundamental constitutional interest in the care, custody, control and medical decision-making for their child without constitutionally adequate notice, process, and opportunity to be heard … in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Because apparently the most pressing constitutional crisis in Texas right now is whether the government has given adequate process before insisting that a newborn with a serious heart condition be allowed to live.

The parents also denied any intention to withhold medical care, saying they have “consistently sought the opportunity to consult” with doctors and make informed medical decisions for the child as his “parents.”

Their attorney said they “had frequently sought involvement in the medical process and had made the decision, which they felt was best for the baby.”

Yes, that decision was the one where the baby doesn't get to participate in the decision because he would have to survive long enough to have an opinion.

Attorney Lee Budner added that the couple is “continuing to place their baby’s health and well-being first, following the advice of the baby’s medical team, as they always have and just as any loving parent would.”

The couple is also “devastated to see their family tragedy transformed into political theater by the Texas Attorney General’s office and McKenna West.”

Nothing says “political theater” quite like an attorney general going to court to make sure a newborn receives lifesaving surgery.

Paxton’s office rejected that characterization, issuing the following statement:

“Once the child is born alive in Texas, he will be a complete legal person, and Texas will protect his life without regard to the circumstances of his conception or the terms of any private agreement.”

It is difficult to imagine a more outrageous concept than the radical Texas idea that a baby who has been born is, in fact, a person.

Paxton subsequently secured an emergency court order requiring lifesaving medical care, including intensive treatment and at least one surgery, while also barring the infant from being removed from Texas.

Pro-life advocates have credited Paxton’s intervention with protecting Gabriel after his intended parents had sought to have him aborted because of his heart condition.

West is challenging the parentage orders, with her attorney arguing that Texas law recognizes the woman who gives birth as the mother. A separate order currently prohibits West from having any contact with Gabriel.

Meanwhile, the custody and medical decision-making battle continues as Gabriel receives specialized care at a Texas facility with an excellent track record of treating children with his condition.

For now, Baby Gabriel is doing something that has apparently become politically controversial in certain parts of America: he is fighting to live.

And Ken Paxton is apparently guilty of the shocking offense of helping him do it.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.


El-Sayed’s Mom Clocked Time at a Designated Terror Outfit That Funneled Cash to Osama bin Laden




It turns out the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan is everything we thought he is.

Apparently, the party of pink hair, open borders, endless virtue-signaling, and creative definitions of “moderate” decided it was time to add a little international intrigue to the résumé.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed recently highlighted how his mother “taught me so much about both how to stand with others, and how to stand alone.” Of course, he meant that he doesn't stand for America and is a blatant anti-Zionist [which is the same as being anti-Semitic].

So far, so wholesome if you don't count the America/Israel stuff.

Then the family biography takes a turn that sounds less like a Senate campaign introduction and more like something the FBI might have filed in a folder marked “Please Explain.”

“They ended up getting divorced,” El-Sayed said of his birth parents during a 2017 speech before the Islamic Foundation. Maybe dad refused to be anti American and anti-Zionist; I don't know.

“And my mother, she remarried a gentleman who was working as a translator in the Middle East and moved back to the Middle East.”

But according to reporting by the Midwesterner, El-Sayed’s birth mother, Fatten Fathy Elkomy, worked from 1999 through at least 2004 for the Islamic American Relief Agency, also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency, a jihadi organization that would love to impose sharia across the globe.

The IARA operated more than 40 offices around the world and publicly focused on health care, orphans, and disadvantaged people in conflict zones. The organization no longer exists as it was dissolved after a federal criminal case, and while they claimed to provide aid and assistance to all people without regard to religion or race, that claim doesn't sit well with those who know how Islamic charities tend to work.

So, in October 2004, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated the worldwide network and five senior officials as supporting terrorism. Treasury said the organization had ties to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

According to a 2004 Treasury announcement:
“IARA is identified as a non-governmental organization (NGO) formerly affiliated with Maktab Al-Khidamat (MK), which was co-founded and financed by UBL (Usama Bin Laden or Osama bin Laden) and is the precursor organization of al Qaida”
Now, obviously, none of this means Abdul El-Sayed personally supports terrorism. A person's family history is not automatically their political ideology, but let's not disregard some of the things he has said. 

Here are a few examples: 
He described America's political system as a "disease" and President Trump as its "worst symptom." In his view, the "disease" is a system that allows "corporations and billionaires and special interest groups like AIPAC to buy and sell politicians to rig the system against us."
In 2021, he posted publicly (and later made private) about Trump, comparing his role in the Jan. 6 to Osama bin Laden's role in 9/11, saying Trump "recruited, radicalized and reassured" rioters in a parallel way.
He has called ICE a “rogue agency” that “has nothing to do with immigration” or the southern border, instead “normalizing paramilitary forces,” “weaponizing the idea of immigration against the Constitution,” and that “cannot be reformed” but “has to be abolished.”
Statements critical of Israel:
He has repeatedly accused the Israeli government of genocide in Gaza, apartheid (in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza), and war crimes. He has called Netanyahu a war criminal for conducting a genocide and described Israel as having become a “rogue nation” or “rogue state” due to its government’s choices, saying the U.S. should treat it accordingly under international law (stop selling weapons, end diplomatic cover at the ICC/ICJ/UN).

When asked if the Israeli government is “as evil” as Hamas, he replied: “Yes. Killing tens of thousands of people makes you pretty damn evil… Hamas, evil. Israeli government, evil. You can say both.” He has also called the Israeli government “bloodthirsty” (not limited to Netanyahu; referencing a long-standing “illegal apartheid regime”).

He strongly opposes all U.S. military aid to Israel (offensive and defensive, including systems like Iron Dome—“Weapons are weapons”), arguing it funds genocide/apartheid, annexation efforts (e.g., southern Lebanon), and wars “we don’t need to fight” (including involving Iran). He wants the money used instead for Michigan priorities and has criticized AIPAC heavily as spending tens of millions to influence races for “one more vote” supporting this aid.

On Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state,” he has said he “often struggle[s]” with the question because it requires defining “Jewish state” and whether that is consistent with “liberal values.” He has disputed the idea of an “ethnostate,” noted that no one asks about Palestine’s right to exist (which “doesn’t exist”), and emphasized that Israel “exists” while the key issue is whether it has a right to U.S. tax dollars. He supports equal rights to “peace, dignity, and self-determination” for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis, leaving the ultimate form (one state, two states, or otherwise) to them.

In interviews, he has said he is “haunted” by “nightmares about the children who’ve been orphaned at the hands of the Israeli military” (contrasting with positive “dreams” about Israel attributed to others).
But for a Democratic Party that routinely demands a 47-point background investigation before allowing Republicans to exist within 500 yards of public office, this is certainly an interesting family résumé to explain.

After all, when your party has spent years insisting that everybody's background matters, somebody might eventually notice when the background of your own Senate nominee comes with a footnote from the U.S. Treasury Department.

And that's when the campaign slogan “stand with others, and stand alone” starts sounding like extremely useful advice from the communications department.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.




Democrat Sends ‘Condolences’ To Hasan Piker After Florida Primary Defeat


WASHINGTON, D.C. Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz celebrated defeating Democratic Socialists of America-backed challenger Oliver Larkin by doing something rarely seen in modern Democratic politics: winning an election and then immediately sending his condolences to Hasan Piker.

Moskowitz offered his “condolences” to the far-left, anti-America, anti-Zionist streamer who had enthusiastically backed Moskowitz’s execrable opponent, apparently demonstrating that there are still Democrats who would prefer socialism remain a theoretical concept that works beautifully in countries that somehow still have capitalism to pay for it.

Larkin lost to the more moderate Moskowitz in Florida’s 25th Congressional District, proving that at least some Democratic voters remain reluctant to hand the controls of the American economy to people whose primary qualification is having memorized the word “oppressor.”

The heavily redrawn swing district is expected to be one of roughly two dozen House races that could determine whether Republicans retain their razor-thin majority in the midterm elections.

Naturally, Moskowitz knew exactly whom to thank for his victory.

"My condolences to @hasanthehun," Moskowitz wrote on X with the kind of graduate-level snark normally reserved for academic journals and congressional group chats.

Piker, apparently unable to witness a congressional election without immediately locating Israel somewhere inside it, responded:

"its pretty wild that his first thought was a prominent critic of israel, before even thanking his constituents lmao. really worried about his genocidal emotional support apartheid state."

Piker refused to capitalize Israel, apparently saving his capital letters for more important subjects, such as Islam.

Moskowitz eventually got around to thanking his constituents the following day, along with his wife, children and late father.

"I want to thank the voters of District 25 for continuing to have the faith in me to deliver results for Florida," he wrote. "I want to thank my wife and kids who I have spent a lot of time away from. My dad died of cancer 4 years ago. He would have enjoyed all of this. I miss him. Onward!"

So, to recap: Moskowitz won an election, thanked his voters and family, remembered his deceased father, and then apparently committed the unforgivable political sin of noticing Hasan Piker.

Moskowitz later argued that Democrats should stop treating Piker like the embarrassing relative who arrives at Thanksgiving, insults the host, declares the family business exploitative, and then gets quietly ushered into the garage whenever respectable guests show up.

"Democrats shouldn’t play hide the Piker now," Moskowitz said after his victory, according to Politico Playbook. "For all those people who thought it was a great idea to campaign with him, as Jay-Z once said, ‘Bring ’em out, bring ’em out.’ They shouldn’t be hiding him now."

Piker was not exactly thrilled by the invitation to step into the electoral spotlight.


"I’m genuinely concerned for his mental well-being."

In reality, Piker is not concerned about anyone's mental well-being. He's only concerned with hating on the American people.

"I think he should stop posting on the internet and focus on defeating the Republican in his newly redistricted congressional seat," Piker added.

Apparently, according to Piker, Moskowitz's mental health became endangered somewhere between winning an election and mentioning the guy who campaigned against him.

Moskowitz then called DSA members "anti-American at their core."

This presumably did wonders for the atmosphere at Piker's online headquarters, where the American flag presumably remains classified as hostile propaganda.

Piker has become something of a political flashpoint for Democrats, who are now wrestling with a fascinating strategic dilemma: Should they appeal to ordinary Americans, or should they continue taking electoral advice from a millionaire internet celebrity whose political worldview sometimes sounds like it was assembled from the comment section of a college freshman's TikTok video?

Piker has campaigned with several far-left candidates, including Francesca Hong, who lost her gubernatorial primary in Wisconsin, and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has argued that Democrats should include people like Piker because the streamer reaches a large audience. Democratic strategist James Carville, meanwhile, has expressed considerably less enthusiasm about turning the Democratic Party into a group project with Piker.

This leaves Democrats facing the sort of strategic question that political consultants usually charge six figures to avoid answering: Is Hasan Piker an electoral asset, or is he what happens when a campaign accidentally gives the microphone to the internet?

Commentator Kaivan Shroff noted that Piker probably would have been celebrating loudly had Larkin won.

"One of the asymmetries in Democratic politics right now is that when a DSA candidate wins, it is immediately treated as evidence of some enormous ideological realignment in the party," Shroff said. "When a more moderate Democrat wins, there is usually much less hype and almost no corresponding narrative.

"We saw that with David Crowley beating Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, and now Moskowitz has beaten a DSA-backed challenger in Florida," Shroff continued. "Imagine the coverage if the result had gone the other way, and imagine the victory lap Hasan Piker and the online left would be taking right now.

"I actually think there is value in Moskowitz picking this fight," he added. "Piker backed his opponent and made himself part of the race. By going after him publicly, Moskowitz is forcing people to tell the other side of this story, and, frankly, here we are talking about it because he did."

Indeed, Piker's involvement in Democratic politics has produced an electoral strategy that appears to have been designed by someone who believes America is simultaneously an oppressive empire and the most important audience on Earth.

After El-Sayed won his Michigan primary, Piker rejected calls for the candidate to repair relationships with skeptical Democrats ahead of the general election against Republican Mike Rogers.

"Like everyone being like, Abdul has a f--- ton of work to do mending bridges. Here's the f---ing take nuke for you, OK? You are all unbelievably Islamophobic pieces of s---, OK?" Piker said.

Which is certainly one approach to coalition building.

Nothing says “let's expand the Democratic coalition” quite like immediately informing large portions of the existing coalition that they are human garbage.

And now Piker has another Democratic primary loss to contemplate, along with the horrifying possibility that a Democratic congressman might actually want voters to know who his political allies are.


Moskowitz has apparently decided that if Hasan Piker wants to help Democrats win elections, Democrats should at least have the courtesy to introduce him to the voters.

"Everyone, this is Hasan. He thinks America is terrible, Israel is worse, capitalism is evil, and somehow we're supposed to believe he's helping us win Florida."

The condolences, it seems, were entirely appropriate.

In the strange new world of Democratic politics, apparently the most controversial thing a congressman can do is win an election, thank his constituents, remember his father, and then point out who was rooting for the other guy.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.



Wednesday, August 19, 2026

Tyler Robinson was a Stevie Wonder marksman in practice shots, thus bystanders at risk says prosecutors


Fox News correspondent Matt Finn reported on the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson in Provo, Utah, where prosecutors prepared to unleash what they described as overwhelming evidence in the assassination of Charlie Kirk

The evidence reportedly included video testimony from Robinson's former roommate and text message confessions, because apparently this case decided to skip the subtlety phase entirely. 

Retired FBI supervisory agent James Gagliano also weighed in as the Kirk family demanded transparency, with cameras now permitted inside the courtroom. And prosecutors offered another fascinating detail about Robinson's alleged marksmanship. According to Utah prosecutors, Robinson "seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes missed the target completely" while practicing with the suspected murder weapon.Which, prosecutors argued, was rather important when your alleged plan involved climbing onto a rooftop and firing at a man surrounded by thousands of people.

The state attempted to establish that Robinson knowingly created a substantial risk of killing someone other than Kirk when he allegedly fired from a rooftop toward the crowd. Kirk was taking questions from the audience at a small stage in the campus courtyard when he was struck in the neck. 

Robinson's defense previously argued that the fatal shot came from above the crowd and did not travel through it. The defense noted that only one shot was fired, it struck the intended victim, and no bystanders were hit. 

The prosecution's response, essentially, was that "Nobody else got shot" is not exactly the strongest argument when you are allegedly firing a rifle toward thousands of people. 

An image of shooting targets was displayed during the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, who is accused in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, at the Fourth District Courthouse in Provo, Utah, Thursday, July 9, 2026. (AP Photo/Spenser Heaps, Pool)

Prosecutors had to prove an aggravating factor at trial if they wanted to seek capital punishment. They alleged that Robinson's shooting created a great risk of death to someone other than Kirk and that Robinson knew about that danger.

The defense wanted that aggravating factor removed before trial, which would eliminate the possibility of a death sentence if Robinson was convicted. 

The allegations were contained in a reply made public Tuesday in response to an earlier filing by the defense. The filings followed a week-long preliminary hearing in early July designed to determine whether sufficient probable cause existed to send the case to trial.

Judge Tony Graf Jr. said he would issue a final decision on Sept. 1. 

Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, in Orem, Utah. Kirk was speaking at his "American Comeback Tour" when he was shot in the neck and killed. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images)

Prosecutors told Graf that Robinson's case should not only be sent to trial, but that the defense team "violated their ethical duty of candor to the Court" by allegedly ignoring basic case law governing how evidence is evaluated during a preliminary hearing. 

When drawing inferences, prosecutors wrote, the magistrate "must" draw all reasonable ones in the state's favor. In other words, if a man allegedly fired a rifle from a rooftop toward a crowd of thousands, the court was apparently allowed to consider the radical possibility that someone in the crowd might get shot. 
Robinson's cartridge had "Catch" engraved on it. (AP Photo/Spenser Heaps, Pool)

Robinson had not yet entered a plea. 

He was accused of driving from his home in southern Utah to Orem and fatally shooting Kirk during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in September 2025. Prosecutors alleged that he subsequently confessed to several people before surrendering to authorities in his hometown. The case then moved forward with prosecutors arguing that firing at a target from a rooftop into a crowd created, rather inconveniently, the possibility that people other than the target could be killed.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Nancy "Hands-a-Flying" Pelosi kept Swalwell on Intel Committee after FBI warnings


There are bad ideas, there are terrible ideas, and then there is allowing a congressman who admitted having an intimate relationship with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative to remain on the House Intelligence Committee.

Apparently, Washington Democrats were determined to explore that third category.

When allegations involving Rep. Eric Swalwell and Fang Fang, a woman suspected of ties to Chinese intelligence, surfaced in 2020, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the FBI’s findings. We now know the bureau had evidence that Fang may have compromised Swalwell through sex, foreign interns and allegedly illicit campaign donations.

And yet somehow the Democratic leadership concluded that the appropriate response was not, “Perhaps we should move this guy away from the classified information.”

Instead, Swalwell stayed.

Because apparently “House Intelligence Committee” was being interpreted as more of a suggestion than a job description.

The FBI briefings were serious enough to alarm then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who called for Swalwell to be removed from the committee. McCarthy was concerned that a congressman with access to highly sensitive intelligence might not be the ideal person to have around highly sensitive intelligence.

Crazy, right?

Sex, Interns and Campaign Cash

The newly released FBI files provide considerably more detail about the relationship between Swalwell and Fang.

According to the files, Swalwell admitted having sex with Fang, acknowledged that his staff had placed Fang’s interns in congressional offices, and admitted that his campaign finance operation was not sophisticated enough to detect the alleged straw donations she funneled through U.S. citizens.

So, to recap, the FBI was dealing with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative who allegedly cultivated American politicians through networking, campaign donations, internships and romantic relationships.

And one of those politicians was sitting on the House Intelligence Committee.

This sounds less like counterintelligence and more like the plot of a spy movie written by people who thought the protagonist should be named “Congressman Completely Unconcerned.”

The FBI also knew Fang had ties to China’s Ministry of State Security, Beijing’s intelligence service. Investigators identified her parents as MSS agents.

Fang’s activities had previously been reported by Axios, which described her efforts to cultivate politicians in California through fundraising, networking, charm and romantic or sexual relationships.

Swalwell was reportedly one of her most significant targets.

Swalwell has consistently maintained that he did nothing wrong, fully cooperated with the FBI investigation, and stopped communicating with Fang after receiving a defensive briefing about her activities.

Swalwell’s Lawyer Says This Is All Political

After the files were released, Swalwell’s attorney, Sara Azari, argued that there was nothing new to see.

“There is nothing new here. The government’s own memorandum confirms what Congressman Swalwell has said for more than a decade: he did nothing wrong, and there was no basis to charge him with any offense,” said Sara Azari, legal counsel for Swalwell, on Monday after the files were released. “What is new and deeply concerning is the apparent use of federal law enforcement information to punish or embarrass an outspoken critic of the current administration. An investigation that produced no charges and no finding of wrongdoing should not be resurrected years later as a vehicle for political retaliation.”

That is certainly one way to describe the situation.

Another would be: “The FBI investigated a congressman who admitted sleeping with a woman the bureau believed was connected to Chinese intelligence, and now everyone is upset that people are talking about it.”

Both descriptions are technically available.

After the original allegations surfaced, McCarthy said they “disqualified” Swalwell from serving on the Intelligence Committee.

“Swalwell is a national security liability,” the Republican leader said.

McCarthy then requested a full FBI briefing. After receiving it, he became even more convinced Swalwell should be removed.

“One thing I know for sure — I had questions about whether he should. That’s the one question that was answered, he should not be on Intel,” McCarthy told reporters.

That seems fairly definitive.

Pelosi: Nothing to See Here

Pelosi later confirmed that Democratic leadership had first been briefed about Swalwell’s relationship with Fang in the spring of 2015, shortly after Democrats nominated him to the Intelligence Committee.

Pelosi said congressional Democrats cut off communication with Fang once they learned about the situation.

“When that was made known to the members of Congress, it was over. That was the end of any communication with those people,” Pelosi said.

The Speaker also said Republicans had been briefed at the same time.

“We knew when they knew,” explained Pelosi.

And then came the part that has aged particularly well.

Summing up her assessment of Swalwell, Pelosi told reporters that she did not “have any concerns about Mr. Swalwell.”

Naturally.

Nothing inspires confidence in congressional counterintelligence quite like a suspected Chinese spy sleeping with a member of the Intelligence Committee while party leadership says there are “no concerns.”

McCarthy tried to remove Swalwell from the committee in early 2021 after Pelosi reappointed him.

The House voted largely along party lines to reject the measure, with 200 members voting for removal and 218 voting against it.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff also defended Swalwell, calling him a “trusted member of our committee” who had “acted fully in accordance with his responsibilities” after the 2015 briefing.

Apparently those responsibilities included continuing to sit on the committee.

McCarthy: Democrats “Jeopardized” Congress

When Republicans regained control of the House in 2023, McCarthy blocked Swalwell from serving on the Intelligence Committee.

“If you got the briefing I got from the FBI, you wouldn’t have Swalwell on any committee,” McCarthy said.

“One thing I know for sure – I had questions about whether he should. That’s the one question that was answered, he should not be on Intel.”

McCarthy said Democratic leadership had “jeopardized” Congress by allowing Swalwell to remain on a committee handling sensitive intelligence for years.

“The only way that they even knew it came forward is when they went to nominate him to the Intel Committee. And then the FBI came and told the leadership then, he’s got a problem,” McCarthy explained. “And they kept him on. That jeopardized all of us.”

That is the sort of sentence that tends to make people wonder why national security was apparently being handled with the same urgency as deciding where to hold the congressional Christmas party.

Then Came the New Details

The newly released files reveal even more about what the FBI knew.

According to the documents, the FBI initially considered investigating Swalwell for a bribery scheme involving campaign donations and internships. Investigators ultimately narrowed the criminal case to Fang and allegations that she made illegal donations through U.S.-citizen conduits.

Swalwell admitted that he had sex with Fang, that his staff placed her interns in congressional offices, and that his campaign finance system was not strong enough to detect the alleged straw donations.

The Justice Department ultimately declined to prosecute Fang after she fled the country as investigators began interviewing associates and raiding her home.

The FBI had also been trying to recruit Fang as a confidential informant.

Her code name?

Rusty Thumbs.”

Yes, “Rusty Thumbs.”

Apparently the FBI's counterintelligence operation had a naming committee that was having a particularly creative afternoon.

The bureau was considering hiring Fang through a cutout company and was still evaluating her suitability as a confidential human source when investigators discovered her alleged criminal activity.

The FBI also knew early in the recruitment process that Fang had suspected ties to the MSS. One memo identified her parents as “known MSS intelligence officers.”

Agents also suspected Fang herself had ties to Chinese intelligence and knew she was raising money for California Democrats and allegedly willing to use sex to advance her political influence.

The investigation was opened on March 17, 2014, under the remarkably appropriate codename “Freshman Fifteen.”

The probe examined allegations that Swalwell awarded congressional internships in exchange for campaign contributions, with Fang allegedly serving as the facilitator.

According to an FBI summary of Swalwell’s 2015 interview, Swalwell admitted that he had “physical relations with Fang” on multiple occasions.

During another interview in 2016, Swalwell described an incident in which Fang showed up at his home. Swalwell said they “hooked up,” according to the FBI summary.

And all of this was known before Democrats repeatedly decided that Swalwell belonged on the House Intelligence Committee.

At some point, the question stops being whether Eric Swalwell had a questionable relationship with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative.

The more interesting question is why the people who had been briefed about it decided that the appropriate response was to give him access to some of the most sensitive intelligence in the United States government.

Then again, Washington has always had an interesting definition of “intelligence.” Sometimes it apparently means classified information.

Sometimes it means figuring out that the guy sleeping with a suspected Chinese spy probably shouldn't be sitting on the Intelligence Committee.


Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.



Illegal alien stabs mother to death leaves her body in a park



Here we go again. An illegal alien from El Salvador allegedly stabbed a Virginia mother to death and then dumped her body near a jogging trail in Great Falls, Virginia.

Fairfax County PD said Wednesday that Alexis Antonio Cedillos-Campos, 19, was arrested in connection with the murder of Carmen Lizet Puch.

Cedillos-Campos illegally crossed the southern border into El Paso, Texas, in April 2024 and was quickly released into the United States. At that time, he said he wasn't afraid of being returned to El Salvador and he was released into Biden's open borders country.

A jogger discovered Ms. Puch’s corpse just before 7 a.m. on Monday. The body lay near her 2011 Honda Civic, that was parked in the lot at Difficult Run Park along Georgetown Pike near Old Dominion Drive, according to 7News.

“In Great Falls, it’s probably one of the safest places ever in the world,” Clare, who was out hiking with a friend Tuesday, said. “To have something happen like that feels personal, scary.”

Authorities said more details would be provided today, Wednesday, this afternoon.

“There is no immediate indication that this was a random act,” Capt. Jason Chandler said during a news conference on Monday. They evidently knew each other.

Puch was the mother of a young daughter and worked with Cedillos-Campos at Bitez restaurant in Herndon, according to NBC Washington

Cedillos-Campos allegedly stabbed Puch while she was inside her vehicle.

Abdul Anwari, the owner of Bitez, said he and his employees were shocked after learning of Puch’s murder. [Who wouldn't be?]

“I don’t know if you can process something like this. It’s not something you expect. It’s not something that anyone would ever want to happen,” Anwari told News4. “But you know, we’re still taking it [a] minute at a time.”

Anwari said a fundraiser has been set up to support Puch’s surviving daughter.

“We have a GoFundMe account set up, but we’re actually doing, we are personally donating to the family as well,” Anwari said. “But anyone in the community that can help, obviously, this is going to go directly to the family, and as far as I’m concerned, it should go to the daughter and make sure that she’s OK.”

Puch’s family members, who live in New Jersey, immediately drove to Virginia after learning of her killing to take care of her daughter, according to NBC Washington.

Joe Biden was not available for comment.


Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.


Hamas refuses peace deal: will not disarm in Gaza


On Sunday in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a 15-point Gaza roadmap backed by President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace. He informed his cabinet that Israeli forces will not withdraw until Hamas is “genuinely disarmed.”

“It needs to be genuine disarmament, not fictitious disarmament,” Netanyahu said, resisting a plan that would tie phased IDF withdrawal to incremental steps toward Hamas demilitarization. 

The decision met with swift criticism from Western media and certain intermediaries linked to the Trump administration. These voices have presented Israel’s insistence on disarmament as the chief barrier to a Gaza ceasefire. Israeli officials reply that the disagreement concerns sequence alone. Withdraw first, they caution, and Hamas retains its arsenal undiminished.

Palestinian polling lends weight to that caution. A PCPSR survey conducted between 22 and 25 October 2025 found that 53 percent of Palestinians believe Hamas was right to launch the 7 October attack. Fully 86 percent deny that Hamas committed atrocities against Israeli civilians, and nearly 70 percent oppose the disarming of Hamas even if it would end the war for good. 

Among Gazans themselves, 55 percent reject disarmament, 68 percent refuse an Arab security force to supervise demilitarization, and two-thirds reject a demilitarized Palestinian state even if it terminated the “occupation.”

Israel has set two conditions for ending the war and withdrawing: the return of every hostage and the verified disarmament of Hamas. The reasoning, as Israeli officials explain it, is elementary. One cannot disarm an organization whose own population declines to surrender its weapons. If Israel leaves before those weapons are eliminated, Hamas emerges from the conflict with its army intact, free to rearm, regroup, and attempt another 7 October. 

Hamas has deliberately embedded its military infrastructure within civilian sites, among them mosques, schools, and hospitals, its command centre operating beneath Gaza’s largest hospital. Disarmament without IDF enforcement simply means those weapons remain concealed.

The next generation of terrorists

In a hypothetical presidential contest, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal would defeat PA President Abbas by 63 percent to 27 percent. In legislative polling, Hamas leads Fatah by 44 percent to 30 percent. The notion that Hamas fails to reflect Palestinian political will is contradicted by the preferences Palestinians themselves express.

The prospect of external rearming only sharpens the urgency of sequence. In August 2026, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian publicly reaffirmed Tehran’s determination to keep Hamas armed, telling the group’s new political leader, “We are with you, and we support you in every action you take.” 

Israel has privately informed the Trump administration that there is “no alternative” to the IDF for enforcing disarmament. Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter has confirmed that there can be no peace in Gaza unless Hamas returns all hostages and disarms.

“The population of the Gaza Strip is supportive of Hamas. They embrace that genocidal ideology,” Pesach Wolicki of Eyes on Israel observed in October 2025.

The genuine obstacle is not Israel’s refusal to append a signature to a document. It is that nearly 70 percent of Palestinians reject the disarmament required for any withdrawal to prove durable, while Iran undertakes to keep Hamas armed and no international force possesses a credible plan to compel compliance. 

Under such conditions, withdrawal before disarmament is not a ceasefire. It is a countdown to the next round.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.


FBI evidently confronted Eric "Boom Boom" Swalwell over the weekend and hoo boy

It has been a rough stretch for former Rep. Eric "Boom Boom" Swalwell . You know, the guy who's known for the fart heard round...