I Hearby Forgive Prof. Jonathan Turley For My Having To Toss My Completed “What An Idiot!” Post On Rep. Swalwell…

Village idiot

…because Turley did such a superb job showing how ridiculous Swalwell’s lawsuit is. I couldn’t possibly compete.

I saw the note about Swalwell filing a a 64-page complaint against Donald Trump ( and Donald Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and Rep. Mo Brooks) alleging nine counts in tort ranging from negligent emotional distress (suffered by Swalwell) to negligence, in an “incitement to riot.” That news sparked three thoughts: 1) “What an idiot!” 2) “Who was the hack lawyer who agreed to file such a suit?,” and finally, 3) “This will be a fun post to write!” And it was, except that while I was formatting, editing and arranging tags, commenter Steve Witherspoon dropped me an email that said in part, “Did you read Turley’s blog post about Eric Swalwell posted a couple of hours ago? WOW!!!”

I hadn’t, I did, and “Wow!” indeed. It’s a tour de force.

The take-no-prisoners defenestration of Swalwell is unusually merciless for Turley, who begins,

“French philosopher Voltaire said he had only one prayer in life — “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous” — and that it was uniformly granted by God. The answer to Donald Trump’s prayers may be Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)”

Do read the post. And as you do, remember that the idiot Turley is writing about was hand-picked by Nancy Pelosi to be one of the House Managers in the second Trump impeachment trial. The University of Maryland School of Law must be measuring the heads of its board, administrators, alumni and faculty for paper bags to wear, because that school gave Swalwell a law degree.

18 thoughts on “I Hearby Forgive Prof. Jonathan Turley For My Having To Toss My Completed “What An Idiot!” Post On Rep. Swalwell…

  1. ‘Tis a pity, really, that Swalwell opted for politics instead of broadcast news. His particular combination of good looks, rampant dishonesty and vacuousness would have made him a lead-pipe cinch for a multi-million per year gig as a primetime anchor at CNN or MSNBC.

  2. Right you are. Wow, just wow. This voice of reason in the vituperative wilderness gets regularly roasted by “progressives,” thus demonstrating that there is nothing progressive about them. Let’s look at a leading definition of “progressivism” before it became identified with whatever social change, supported by government, that the more extreme liberals seem to espouse. Here is the definition from what is often called the “progressive era” in US history and politics :
    “progressivism: The political ideology that favors rational governmental action to improve society. It arose in response to industrialism and dominated American politics for the first two decades of the twentieth century.”
    Does anyone really believe that tamping down free speech improves society? Or that suing Donald Trump regarding the “insurrection” (another misused term) does anything to improve society? Or that divisive rhetoric from the halls of government improve society? And on and on. At least no rational person tries to claim that the Trump Administration was “progressive,” while many self-styled progressives are simply and often radically anti-conservative. Anti-conservative is not the same as progressive, folks. Let’s clean up our collective act. We could start by laughing Swalwell out of any credibility he might still have. Swalwell, Falwell…it’s all the same to me. Misguided opposite ends of a spectrum, a sort of bizarre mirror image.

  3. It is a good article. However, this is the opening statement to the first comment on the article:

    “Turley has fully sold whatever soul he had to defend the worst person ever to occupy the people’s White House. His client cannot be “vindicated” for chronically lying every single day of his wrongful occupation of our White House. ”

    Someone sold their soul alright and it isn’t Turley.

    • What an intellectually disconnected statement that is. I hope the writer’s not a law student—but I wouldn’t be surprised he or she was. That’s Trump Derangement in a nutshell.

    • JP,
      There are a hand full of extreme left wing anonymous internet trolls that do nothing but attack Turley and others mostly with lengthy ad hominems and rarely provide any real retort to Turley’s blog content, Natacha is one of those internet trolls.

  4. Rep. Swalwell is the one who casually remarked that the U.S. government has nukes when asked about citizens who would be reluctant to hand in their firearms if a firearms ban somehow made it into law, right?

    • A twitter user responded to Swallwell’s confiscation proposal with:
      “So basically [Swalwell] wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your f–king mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power”

      Swallwell responded with:
      “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

      — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018”

  5. Turley’s conclusion…

    Swalwell’s complaint is timed beautifully to collapse on appeal just before the 2024 election, giving Trump and Republicans the ultimate repudiation of prior Democratic claims. Voltaire also famously said that “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” Luckily for Trump, Swalwell not only already exists, but he may be the very answer to Trump’s political prayers.

    That conclusion makes an up front assumption that Swalwell will win the original suit otherwise it wouldn’t have to go to an appeal to collapse but it also employs another assumption that there’s actually a Judge out there that is so blatantly consumed by Trump derangement that the Judge would rule in favor of Swalwell in the original case.

    This also has the potential to draw out the facts that were found regarding the election irregularities in the four swing states if Swalwell openly makes an accusation in court that Donald Trump lied about the election irregularities.

    I’m not so sure the Democratic Party political leadership will allow this suit to happen, I think they will pressure Swalwell to drop the case otherwise they take the chance of exposing, on record and in a court of law, their false propaganda and lies regarding both the election and the Capitol riot. The Democratic Party political leadership has been promoting and spreading false propaganda and lies and they don’t want any of that in a court record. This could seriously damage the Democratic Party’s political leadership. Putting things on record in a court of law is NOT a 21st century Democratic Party tactic, the Democratic Party political leadership has shown us that it wants to keep all everything out of a court of law and keep it in the court of public opinion where they can openly lie and imply lies with impunity using their propaganda machine and innuendo and they don’t have to prove a damn thing.

    • “That conclusion makes an up front assumption that Swalwell will win the original suit otherwise it wouldn’t have to go to an appeal to collapse”

      I think Turley meant that Swalwell lost initially and he appealed it. As I understand it, the appellate process looks for mistakes in law not fact. Swalwell could get a TDS judge to give him an initial victory and Trump would appeal but no matter who wins initially the appellate process would give Trump the victory either way the initial decision came down. That is how I interpreted Turley.

      • Turley in passing said the case was dead at least on appeal. He seems to admit that at trial court anything could happen.

      • Chris wrote, “I think Turley meant that Swalwell lost initially and he appealed it. As I understand it, the appellate process looks for mistakes in law not fact. Swalwell could get a TDS judge to give him an initial victory and Trump would appeal but no matter who wins initially the appellate process would give Trump the victory either way the initial decision came down. That is how I interpreted Turley.”

        You may be correct.

        I took it as Swalwell winning with some anti-Trump Judge and Trump appealing and then Swalwell’s case would collapse in the appeals court.

        I guess I didn’t even consider that Swalwell could lose and then have the balls to make himself look like a damn fool by taking it to an appeals court after being beat senseless by the Trump defense team. It seemed more likely that if Swalwell lost, it would be done and he wouldn’t peruse it any further. Based on Turley’s slap-down, why would an any appeals court take the case if Swalwell lost, it seemed more likely that if Swalwell won that Trump would go straight to the appeals court and the court would take the case.

        I’m no attorney, just my thoughts.

        • I suppose it is all in how you interpret the statement. Given Swalwell’s history of doubling down even when he is obviously spouting BS I would not put it past him to take his case to the SCOTUS. Swalwell will never admit he is wrong about Trump no matter what the evidence clearly shows.

  6. Here was my comment.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/08/is-eric-swalwell-the-answer-to-trumps-prayers/comment-page-3/#comment-2069321

    This so totally undermines the argument that the riot was imminent.

    One hour is not imminent in any way.

    Of course, if we are to go to emotional distress, how many of those protecting that Courthouse in Portland were distreessed when Speaker Pelosi called them stormtroopers and demanded that the arsonist, riotous mob stop them?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.