Alan Zweibel

President Donald Trump’s favorability among Hispanic adults has fallen dramatically since his inauguration in January, according to a new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted earlier this month. The October poll, which surveyed 1,289 adults, found that 25 percent of Hispanic adults have a “somewhat” or “very” favorable view of the president, down from 44 percent when the poll was conducted prior to Trump taking office. The percentage of Hispanic adults who now believe the country is going in the wrong direction has ticked up from 63 percent in March to 73 percent in October https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/25/trumps-popularity-hispanic-adults-00622998 They believed it when they were led to think that Trump was only going to go after dangerous criminals. They don't believe it anymore.

They may be Comey's arguments but facts they're based on are incontrovertible. If you think that's not the case, then provide evidence to the contrary. I won't be holding my breath.

Hre's what Robert Kennedy Jr. believes 'Agribusiness giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $US289 million ($396 million) to a former school groundskeeper dying of cancer, with a San Francisco jury saying the company's popular Roundup weed killer contributed to his disease... Mr Johnson's attorneys sought and won $US39 million in compensatory damages and $US250 million of the $US373 million they wanted in punitive damages. "This jury found Monsanto acted with malice and oppression because they knew what they were doing was wrong and doing it with reckless disregard for human life," said Robert F Kennedy Jr, a member of Mr Johnson's legal team." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-11/monsanto-ordered-to-pay-289-million-to-school-groundskeeper/10109352

You are the party who claimed that "his lawyers won't let him." It's clear you don't understand what "won't let him" means.

So, in other words you're conceding that his lawyers can't compell him.

In 2019, McCarthy authored Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency, alleging that the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration colluded to rig the 2016 election against Trump, who endorsed the book in September 2019.[36] McCarthy defended Trump amid calls for his impeachment in 2019 over the Trump–Ukraine scandal wherein Trump sought to intimidate the Ukrainian president into starting an investigation of the allegedly corrupt business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of Trump's political rival, Joe Biden.[37][38] McCarthy expressed a belief that Trump's actions regarding the incident did not reach the level of impeachable conduct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy

Actually, it's with yourself you're done. As in done in.

I point out that you don't even understand the evidence you introduced and consequently you launch into a rant instead of acknowledging your defective understanding And the proof of how empty your comments are is that you conclude with a prediction about your movement's glorious future. Did you just buy yourself a new super duper crystal ball?

More empty assertions and personal comments.

It's clear you didn't even bother to read the article. Subscribe Home News Fortune 500 Tech Finance Leadership Lifestyle Rankings Multimedia Finance·national debt Ray Dalio issues his most dire warning to America yet: The ballooning $37 trillion debt will trigger an ‘economic heart attack’ By Nick Lichtenberg July 24, 2025 at 3:09 PM EDT Ray Dalio Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates Dia Dipasupil—Getty Images Hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio is known for his dire warnings about the economy and the national debt, but he just issued one of his starkest warnings to date, likening the United States’ mounting debt crisis to an impending “economic heart attack” and urging policymakers to revisit the fiscal discipline that characterized the 1990s boom years. Dalio’s alarm, sounded in a series of social media posts and interviews, including with Fortune’s Diane Brady, comes as the national debt nears $37 trillion and the federal deficit continues to swell, fueling bipartisan anxieties about the country’s financial health. Recommended Video A blueprint for recovery Dalio contends that there is still a way out—as long as the country acts with unity and resolve. He points to the ’90s as a model for bipartisan problem-solving, fiscal restraint, and balanced economic growth. “If we change spending and income (tax returns) by 4% while the economy is still good,” he wrote on Twitter, “the interest rate will go down as a result, and we’ll be in a much better situation.” He added that we know this kind of balance can happen because it happened before, from 1991 to 1998, referencing how both spending controls and targeted tax measures restored equilibrium in the 1990s." As usual, you ignore half of the picture.

I guess you have to invoke something personal since you've got nothing relevant to offer.

All I offer is expert opinion based on facts. and given that I have used facts and reason to refuted your claims, your characterization is ridiculous.

More empty predictions. To you the record of their failure means nothing.

Once again, gold was no longer used as a backstop for the worlds' economies started during the Great Depression. Basically what Nixon did was to allow the price of gold to float. All you've got in the way of evidence, if it can be dignified with such a word, is a prediction. And bitcoin was created as a medium of exchange, It has failed miserably in that department.

In other words, you have no facts to offer. Just an irrelevant assertion about my identity.

Not the same at all. Trump massively lied about the facts concerning his collateral.

Hyperinflation is not a reality for economically fully developed nations. And for the largest developing nation, China, deflation is the problem. And, as I've noted, predictions by right wingers about hyperinflation have consistently proven to be false. As in the case of such predictions during the Obama administration.

Right wingers have been predicting hyperiinflation since the world's major economies went off the gold standard. That happened during the Great Depression. Nixon just finished the job.

Democrats have excelled in special elections - what does that mean for the midterms? Out of power since Donald Trump took office and deeply unpopular in opinion polls, Democrats are clinging to a glimmer of hope ahead of the 2026 midterm elections: a string of impressive finishes this year in more than three dozen special elections. In 42 state legislative and U.S. congressional races across 18 states in 2025, Democrats have improved their margins by an average of more than 15% over the gap between Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris in the same districts last year, according to data collected by the political website The Downballot. The Democratic nominee has outdistanced Harris in all but six of those contests, including in deeply conservative areas. https://www.investing.com/news/politics-news/democrats-have-excelled-in-special-elections--what-does-that-mean-for-the-midterms-4278993?utm_source=chatgpt.com And the Republicans are so confident of their popularity that they resort to extreme gerrymandering?

Because Andrew McCarthy, who has a history of being an extreme right wing partisan, is lying? You have any actual facts to offer to counter what is in his article? So far, all you've offered is empty claims.

If you, like numerous prosecutors believe that the case against Letitia James is weak, you ain't seen nothin' yet. This whole affair should be called the Prosecution That Couldn't Shoot Straight. As Andrew McCarthy, a very right wing legal commentator and a former high profile prosecutor for the US government notes, the case against Comey is based on demonstrable lies by the government. The government's case is based on testimony that Comey gave to Senator Ted Cruz. The government claims that Comey lied when he said in reply to a question from Cruz that he didn't authorize Daniel Richman to leak information. The thing is, Cruz never asked Comey about Daniel Richman. He asked about Andrew McCabe. It also claimed Comey lied about questions in relation to the Clinton Foundation. Once again, Comey was never asked by Cruz about the Clinton Foundation. He was asked about the Clinton Administration. It's a pity Peter Sellers isn't alive. He should be cast as Halligan, the prosecutor whose previous legal experience was in the field of insurance. This is the kind of case that should lead to her being disbarred. "Quite apart from the questions of whether Comey’s prosecution is unconstitutionally selective and vindictive, and of Halligan’s statutory qualification to serve as interim U.S. attorney, the indictment wholly fails to state a crime. With the government’s concession that Person 1 is Clinton and Person 2 is Richman, neither of whom makes sense in the designated role given the substance of Cruz’s questions, the indictment should be dismissed because (a) it fails to state a crime and (b) Comey’s testimony was true." https://archive.ph/YUiFa

Judge Nachmanoff has since since referred the appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court. Not because he doesn't have the authority to decide the case but because of a possible conflict of interest.

"His lawyers won't let him" I can't believe you posted something this dumb. What authority do they have to stop him? More of the same nonsense.

About rent: "While the indictment alleges that James made "thousand(s)" from rental income, sources tell ABC News that prosecutors found no record of James collecting rent from her niece beyond $1,350 that James reported on her 2020 tax return, which was said to cover the cost of utilities, according to sources familiar with the investigation." As for your claim that the judge at this level does not have it in power to determine vindictive or selective prosecution. James Comey's lawyers and the Federal District Judge in his case would disagree with you: "Former FBI director James B. Comey asked a federal judge on Monday to dismiss the criminal case against him, calling it a vindictive prosecution and a direct extension of President Donald Trump’s long-running personal animosity. In court filings, Comey’s attorneys — led by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a former U.S. attorney for Chicago — accused the president of personally instigating the case on “facially flawed” charges that Comey lied to Congress. When several career prosecutors refused to proceed, citing insufficient evidence, the attorneys wrote, Trump installed a loyalist as U.S. attorney to ensure that a case would be filed... They asked U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the charges could not be refiled. https://archive.ph/Yrjgf If Comey's lawyers can do this, why couldn't James' lawyers do the same? The Federal District Court judge has full authority to determine whether a prosecution is vindictive. Stop lying. As for your claim that it's a documents case...reversing yourself much? Previously you contended that testimony in this case is dangerous. Now you're claiming that it's irrelevant? Tell that to the prosecutors who determined that James told lawyers and bank officials that she intended to purchase the property for her niece. And then explain how that is compatible with an accusation of fraud. What you clearly don't understand is that to prove fraud, the government has to prove intent.

No, it's nothing at all like Clinton redefining the word "is". Intent has to be shown in a fraud case When it comes to fraud charges, the government must demonstrate that the accused misrepresented or lied with the intention of deceiving someone else. Although the typical fraud case will involve financial or legal harm to the victim, harm is not an element of fraud offenses. For example, attempts and conspiracies to commit fraud are violations of federal law, even if they are not successful. However, one critical aspect the government must prove before prosecuting a fraud case is whether the accused had the necessary criminal intent to meet the required elements of fraud. https://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/understanding-fraud-charges-the-importance-of-intent-and-defense-lawyers/ Not really compatible with someone explicitly claiming to interested parties that they were buying the house for someone else.