On May 21st, Tucker Carlson gave Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell half an hour of air time so that Swalwell could lay out “evidence” of wrongdoing by Donald Trump.  Swalwell has been alleging wrongdoing for months, and has constantly maintained that evidence exists which justifies the more than year-long Mueller witch hunt.  Suffice to say that Swalwell was unable to put up, so now he ought to shut up.  But, of course, he won’t.  Swalwell suggested that spying on the Trump campaign would be justified, “if a judge signed off on it.”  Swalwell then kept ducking the question of whether there was any judicial authority for the insertion of Justice Department informants into the campaign.  Sadly, Swalwell is a lawyer, so perhaps he could be expected to know that the court isn’t involved in investigative decisions to introduce informants into an investigation.  And, of course, judicial authority or “probable cause,” a term that Swalwell apparently is familiar with, is not the point.  Whether investigators from one party should intrude into the campaign of the candidate of the other party for political purposes is the point.  The Congressman is one of those lawyers who never actually practiced law.  What was Swalwell’s “evidence”?  It was absurd.  In 2014 and 2015, the Russians hacked into the DNC server.  He didn’t explain how he knows this, and since the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate, how could he know?  In 2015, some Russian we never heard of talked to Michael Cohen about building a Trump Tower in Moscow.  Nothing was built.  The June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Jr. and some woman with a Russian name.  Don, Jr. says she promised information on Hillary and instead talked for 5 minutes about Russian adoptions, until they threw her out.  The Russian woman has not contradicted Trump’s account and hasn’t even been interviewed by Mueller.  But, according to Swalwell, they must be lying about the meeting.  How does he know this.  He doesn’t.  Swalwell’s “smoking gun” was just as ludicrous.  At a press conference, when asked about Hillary’s missing 31,000 emails, Trump joked, “Maybe the Russians can find them, and turn them over to the media.  I hope they do.”  Aha!  Aha what?  Aha nothing.  When Tucker reasonably asked why anybody who was secretly dealing with Russia, would request Russian help on television, Swalwell explained that, well, “Trump is just dumb enough to do it” on television.  Then Swalwell offered that, if not a completed crime, “It’s an attempt.”  An attempt to do what?  He didn’t say.  When Tucker inquired why a President in league with the Russians would impose sanctions on and kill hundreds of Russians in Syria, Swalwell claimed that those acts were just a clever ruse by the very dumb Donald Trump.  Then Swalwell played his trump card.  Trump and company are lying about their involvement with Russians, and that, according Swalwell, constitutes “consciousness of guilt.”  You get that?  We accuse Trump without any evidence to back it up, and if he doesn’t confess, but actually asserts his innocence, it’s consciousness of guilt.  Let me teach you some law, Congressman.  Your actions can’t constitute consciousness of guilt if you haven’t committed a crime.  Here’s how it works.  You rob a bank.  A witness identifies you as the robber.  Then, before the trial, you threaten the witness to prevent him from testifying.  That’s consciousness of guilt.  The police are after you after the robbery.  You flee to Bolivia.  That’s consciousness of guilt.  Saying, “I didn’t do it,” is not.  But Swalwell did swerve into the truth without realizing it.  In recent days, we have been treated to numerous examples of people exhibiting consciousness of their guilt.  All of them are former Obama Administration officials.  Devin Nunes and others in Congress have been trying to get the Justice Department to turn over documents concerning the 2016 election investigations for nearly two years.  Congress created the Justice Department, and is responsible for oversight of the Department (somebody better be).  Rod Rosenstein has been fighting the release of the documents tooth and nail.  He begged Paul Ryan to withdraw the demands.  When Congress threatened to subpoena the documents, or even to impeach Rosenstein, he announced that the Justice Department “will not be extorted” by Congress.  What’s Rosenstein hiding?  His guilt and that of many others who illegally infiltrated the Trump campaign, and who have been trying to remove him from office before the truth gets out.  The President lately has ordered Justice to investigate whether the introduction of spies into his campaign was politically motivated.  Real journalists have compiled real evidence of this, including the fact that the British professor who lured three Trump campaign officials was paid $1 million by our government.  The President has been denounced.  By whom?  Well, by the former Obama officials, or should I say co-conspirators, who were complicit in starting the Trump campaign investigation, continuing it, even after Trump was elected, and unmasking the identities of Americans intercepted in the illegal surveillances.  Former CIA Director and former communist John Brennan warned that an investigation of the investigators will destroy our democracy.  Sally Yates called it an assault on the rule of law.  James Clapper was apoplectic.  How dare the President, who is, after all, the chief executive, and who has absolute authority to direct the Justice Department to investigate anything, actually exercise his authority while we’re trying to destroy him.  He’ll do great damage.  Not to the country, or its citizens, who are entitled to know what their government has done, but to the co-conspirators from Justice, the FBI and Barack Obama himself, who had to, at least, be aware of and approve of the intrusions into Trump’s campaign and his presidency, and more likely, ordered the actions.  If the truth comes out, Brennan, Clapper, Yates, Rosenstein, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Barack Obama, and many others are at risk.  Their frenzied attempts to keep the truth from being disclosed demonstrates their consciousness of guilt.  Consider their ridiculous argument.  By keeping the truth about their actions from being released we are protecting democracy.  But if Trump orders all the documents released, and the public learns the truth, that not only will destroy America, but releasing the truth would be obstruction of justice.  Who’s acting guilty here?  I’ll give you a hint.  It’s not Donald Trump.