Swalwell Claims Trump Interference as Old FBI Case Resurfaces

Date:

 California Rep. Eric Swalwell is accusing Donald Trump of attempting to interfere in the state’s governor’s race after reports surfaced that federal investigators may release documents tied to a years-old case involving the congressman.

    The allegations come after The Washington Post reported that FBI Director Kash Patel has instructed agents to prepare files from a decade-old investigation for possible public release. The case examined Swalwell’s past interactions with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative.

    According to the report, the documents are being reviewed and redacted by agents in the bureau’s San Francisco office — a move that former officials say is highly unusual, particularly since the investigation never resulted in criminal charges.

    The inquiry focused on Swalwell’s contact with Christine Fang, also known as Fang Fang, who was involved in fundraising efforts tied to his early congressional campaigns. After being briefed by intelligence officials in 2015 about concerns regarding her connections, Swalwell cut off all contact. He has never been accused of wrongdoing.

    In a statement released Saturday, Swalwell dismissed the renewed attention to the case, calling it politically motivated.

    “This is about targeting political opponents,” he said, adding that the timing of the reported document release raises serious concerns as California’s gubernatorial race begins to take shape.

    Swalwell, who launched his campaign for governor in November, argued that the effort is designed to weaken his candidacy as he gains traction in the race.

    He also suggested that the move reflects a broader strategy by the administration to influence elections beyond Washington, saying the goal is to shape leadership in key states.

    The FBI has not publicly commented on the report.

    Supporters of Swalwell quickly echoed his concerns. Adam Schiff, who has endorsed him in the governor’s race, criticized what he described as a misuse of federal agencies, writing that such actions could undermine public trust.

    Schiff, who previously served alongside Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee, said the situation reflects a pattern of political retaliation. Both lawmakers played prominent roles in investigations and impeachment proceedings during Trump’s presidency.

    Other Democrats voiced similar concerns. Jimmy Gomez called the move a waste of resources, pointing out that the case had already been reviewed and closed without findings of misconduct.

    “Revisiting this now raises serious questions,” Gomez said, arguing the timing appears tied to the upcoming election.

    Meanwhile, Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said any effort to revive the case for political purposes could cross legal and ethical lines, including potential violations of federal rules governing political activity.

    The original investigation dates back to the early 2010s. According to reporting from the Associated Press, Fang became involved with Swalwell’s campaign during his first run for Congress in 2012 and later participated in fundraising efforts. She also helped place an intern in his office.

    Federal authorities alerted Swalwell in 2015 about their concerns regarding Fang, prompting him to sever ties. Years later, in 2023, the House Ethics Committee concluded a review of the matter without finding evidence of wrongdoing.

    In its closing letter, the committee noted the broader risks posed by foreign influence but did not accuse Swalwell of misconduct.

    As the governor’s race continues to develop, the controversy is likely to remain a flashpoint — blending national politics with California’s high-stakes election season.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe to The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

Popular

More like this
Related

Can you trust that post about Tom Steyer? How paid influencers are flooding into the governor’s race

In summary Billionaire Tom Steyer is paying influencers to boost...

Moving to California with a gun? You might have to take a four-hour course

A person wearing ear protection and tinted safety glasses aims a handgun at an outdoor shooting range while another person stands closely behind, appearing to offer instruction. Bags and equipment rest on a wooden bench beside them, with hillside terrain blurred in the background.

In summary

Want to buy a gun in California? Lawmakers may have you set aside four hours — and bring ammo for the range

Californians would have to take a four-hour course with live-fire training to buy a gun if a bill advancing through the Legislature gets signed into law.

Senate Bill 948, by Berkeley Democratic Sen. Jesse Arreguín, also would require gun owners moving to California to obtain a firearm safety certificate and register their firearms within 180 days of their arrival. Beginning in 2028, obtaining that certificate would require completing the training.

It’s the latest effort by California Democrats to add more restrictions on firearm ownership in a state that already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. However, it’s hardly certain the bill will become law. A similar measure died in the Legislature last year.

This year’s proposal advanced from the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday on a party-line vote with Republicans opposed. Committee members offered no comment on the measure and did not take any public testimony, which is typical for that committee.

But in March, when an earlier version of the bill would have required eight hours of training, Arreguín told the Senate Public Safety Committee the proposed training requirements would reduce gun violence and prevent accidental shootings.

“Firearm safety is essential in preventing firearm-related incidents, especially those involving children,” he said. “By strengthening training requirements and closing gaps in current law, SB 948 will ensure responsible gun ownership to keep Californians and communities safe.”

Rebecca Marcus, a lobbyist for the Brady Campaign, told the committee there were more than 69,000 shootings resulting in death or requiring urgent medical care in California from 2016 to 2021. Around one in three of those shootings were accidental, she said. Many involved children.

Gun rights advocates said the bill would be challenged in court if it becomes law. 

Adam Wilson of Gun Owners of California called the proposed requirements “an insurmountable barrier to exercising a constitutional right.”

Clay Kimberling, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said that’s especially true for the estimated 115,000 gun owners who move to California each year.

“Whether they move into the state on a new job, a new military assignment, or family obligations such as helping a sick or elderly family member, lawful firearm owners would now have to search out an instructor, pay for the class … and take eight hours out of their day … for simply wanting to continue to practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a new state,” Kimberling said.

That original version of the bill also would have required new California arrivals to register firearms and take the course within 60 days. 

Will the bill make it to Newsom?

Under current law, Californians are required to pass a written test and pay $25 to obtain a five-year firearm safety certificate to purchase a gun, but no formal training course is required.

Licensed hunters are required to take a mandatory hunting-safety course and aren’t required to get a certificate when buying rifles or shotguns. Also exempt are those who’ve obtained a concealed weapons permit, which is issued after 16 hours of mandatory training that includes live-fire at a gun range.

Those exemptions would still apply.

For everyone else, the proposed four hours of training would include coursework on state and federal gun laws, secure firearm storage, safe handling, the dangers of guns, use-of-force laws, how to sell firearms legally and conflict resolution. The live-fire portion of the course would need to last at least an hour.

Second Amendment groups say paying a Department of Justice-certified firearms instructor would add at least $400 to the cost of buying a firearm. Applicants also would have to pay for ammunition, gun rentals and range fees. Fees and firearms taxes already can add more than $100 to the cost of a firearm in California. 

The training requirements would take effect July 1, 2028.

Until then, beginning on Jan. 1, gun owners moving to the state would be required to pass the current written test and register their firearms with the Department of Justice within 180 days.

Violating the proposed law would be a misdemeanor.

The bill now moves to the full Senate. It will then have to advance through the Assembly by this summer if Gov. Gavin Newsom is to sign it. He hasn’t taken a position on the legislation.

Last year, a bill with eight-hour training requirements died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

$6 gas intensifies clash between climate and cost of living

For many Californians, unseasonal winds and grass fires in...

‘OnlyFans’ comment about high schoolers in Speedos ignites controversy

An Inland Empire high school water polo player’s mother...