Report: Chinese spy got so close to democrat Eric Swalwell that ‘alarmed’ FBI had to intervene


WASHINGTON, D.C.- Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has come under fire recently for his affiliation with a Chinese spy. 

Allegedly, the Chinese spy was operating in the Bay Area from roughly 2011 to 2015, and became close with aspiring politicians who were not yet in the spot light, including Swalwell. The alleged spy, Christine Fang, reportedly became so close with Rep. Swalwell that the FBI had to intervene and provide him with a defensive briefing.

Axios reported that Fang:

“targeted up-and-coming local politicians in the Bay Area and across the country who had the potential to make it big on the national stage”

She was able to accomplish this by:

“campaign fundraising, extensive networking, personal charisma, and romantic or sexual relationships,”

It is not believed that any classified information was given to or obtained by Fang, however, there were some very high ranking political players involved that were privy to sensitive information. 

Fang reportedly did not gather any classified material while working as a spy, but rather gathered private information on each of the government officials, which is very common practice for foreign intelligence agencies. 

Fang’s ties to Swalwell began when he was a councilmember for Dublin City, California, which is part of China’s long-term strategy of getting in with people before they make it big on the national stage. Fang met Swalwell through a Chinese student organization and by 2014 had quickly “developed close ties to Swalwell’s office” and was a “bundler” for him — meaning that she helped him bring in big donors, according to the Dailywire.

Axios reported:

“Amid a widening counterintelligence probe, federal investigators became so alarmed by Fang’s behavior and activities that around 2015 they alerted Swalwell to their concerns — giving him what is known as a defensive briefing,” 

The report went on to say:

“Swalwell immediately cut off all ties to Fang, according to a current U.S. intelligence official, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.”

From the report, it appears as though Fang, who was put under FBI surveillance, only targeted Democrat politicians, as no Republicans were mentioned.

In an unexpected twist, Fang left the U.S. and headed back to China in mid-2015, while under FBI investigation. Officials reported that her Chinese handlers called off her spying and brought her back to China.

The scandal deepens, as Axios then reported that through FBI surveillance, there are records indicating that Fang had romantic or sexual relationships with at least two Midwestern mayors.



Swalwell’s office said in a statement to Axios:

“Rep. Swalwell, long ago, provided information about this person — whom he met more than eight years ago, and whom he hasn’t seen in nearly six years — to the FBI. To protect information that might be classified, he will not participate in your story.”

In order to maintain her cover, the report states that:

“Fang’s friends and acquaintances said she was in her late 20s or early 30s when she was based in the U.S. and was enrolled as a student at a Bay Area university.”

Of course, top political figures were not going to miss an opportunity to weigh in on Axios’ report.

On Monday, December 7th, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, who wrote on Twitter:

“@ericswalwell is a total hypocrite and should resign in disgrace.”


Political operative Arthur Schwartz also took to Twitter to note the potential national security issues raised, saying:

“This story makes it clear that the Chinese spy, who was also a fundraiser for @RepSwalwell , had ‘sexual relationships’ with elected officials. Swalwell, who is married and therefore a blackmail risk, must answer whether he was one of the officials that slept with the Chinese spy.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Congressman who suggested using nuclear weapons against gun owners plans on going after ‘long guns’ if Biden gets elected

October 10, 2020

WASHINGTON, DC – He claims his comments were made sarcastically.  But two years ago, a Congressman suggested using nuclear weapons against gun owners who refused to give up “banned” firearms.

Now the California Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell had an opinion piece of his published on October 5th in which he promises to review a former failed bill to criminalize long guns. 

It would seem as if he believes current Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden will win as well as a lot of other democrats to gain control of congress.

Swalwell had introduced his bill, Freedom from Assault Weapons Act, in May of 2019.  The plan, oversimplified, would require lawful owners of long guns to sell them to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Agency within two years of the bill being signed into law.  Anyone who fails to do so after the two year mark, according to Swalwell:

“Owners would have two years in which to sell their weapons in the buyback program; after that, the possession, sale and transfer of these banned assault weapons would become illegal and subject to criminal prosecution.  The bill contains exceptions for law enforcement, and allows citizens to possess these weapons at hunting/shooting clubs.”

He added:

“The National Rifle Association…wants you to believe the government would go door to door seizing guns or arresting people.  That’s just their usual bull; read the bill.  Possession would become a crime, the same way that drug possession is a crime-if you’re caught with it outside a hunting or shooting club, you go to jail.  No one is going house to house looking for assault weapons.”

Swalwell’s first attempt at passing the bill died in committee reviews.  It would also be likely to die on the vine if the Republicans maintain control Senate or gain more seats.

Swalwell seemingly believes that by banning long guns that will somehow translate into less murders at the hands of criminals with the guns.  What he fails to realize is that criminals do not obey gun laws, and when there was a ban on long guns under former President Bill Clinton, the statistics rose slightly.

John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center noted that semi-automatic rifles were used in a very low percentage of the mass shootings.  Lott spoke about the time period in which there was a ban which was from 1994-2004.  He said:

“The percentage of firearm murders with rifles was 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September of 1994, 4.9% from 1995 to 2004 when the ban was in effect, and just 3.6% after that (3,9% if you look at just the first ten years after then ban ended).”

Regardless of these numbers, Swalwell and many other democratic leaders believe that the American people cannot be trusted with long guns and they need to be taken away.  He said:

“These weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible, as fast as possible.  They belong on battlefields, not in our communities as the murder tools of choice for hateful extremists or untrained law enforcement and military wannabes.

“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 isn’t enough.  This would prohibit manufacture and sales, but would not affect weapons already possessed.  It makes no sense to ban future production yet leave millions of these weapons in our communities; it would take generations before they’d no longer be used to kill innocent Americans.”

Whether or not Swalwell’s bill will ever become law remains to be seen.  However, if it does, it would not seem logical that possessing a federally banned weapon would be treated the same as possessing drugs. 

Depending on the type of drug that is possessed, most people either get a court date or a few days and jail each time they are busted.  Some of the drug offenses are even considered low level misdemeanors which penalty could only be community service.

Now, if the assumption of a weapons possession charge would be treated differently is correct, that means that the mere possession of a long gun would constitute a federal offense.  Federal offenses carry stiffer penalties and fines. 

U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell is the same guy who said the U.S. government would use its nuclear weapons in a hypothetical war against Second Amendment supporters refusing to give up their firearms, reported Fox News.

The California Democrat made the outlandish remark on social media after a gun-rights advocate pointed out that the lawmaker once called for gun owners to surrender their assault weapons.

“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your f****** mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the [government] all the power,” Joe Biggs tweeted at Swalwell.

nuclear weapons
Eric Swalwell proposed using nukes against people standing up for their Second Amendment rights. Joke or not joke, this is threatening ideology. (U.S. Congress)

As a result, this prompted Swalwell to tersely reply. He said it would be a “short war” because “the government has nukes,” thus the implication our government would use its nuclear arsenal against its own citizens.

So the joke is to vaporize citizens claiming Second Amendment rights? Now that is a dangerous proposition and so far out of bounds that a public figure using it in any manner should be delegitimized. It has been said that with all humor there is an undercurrent of reality. Is this Swalwell’s reality?

The comment drew an immediate backlash, with thousands of people criticizing the lawmaker for the ill-thought-out remark.

“Here is an actual member of the U.S. Congress talking about using nuclear weapons against Americans,” David Freddoso wrote.

“Personally, I have a bigger problem with an elected official blithely talking about nuking his fellow Americans than my neighbor owning an AR-15,” Cam Edwards tweeted.

Swalwell—a member of both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee—tried to defuse the situation, saying the need for a firearm to protect against the government is “ludicrous” and suggested that if an assault weapon ban would happen, people would just follow the law.

He later clarified that he was merely being facetious in his suggestion about the use of nuclear weapons. “I sarcastically point[ed] out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century),” he wrote.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Related Posts