Alan Zweibel

No, it's not the same thing lefties weredoing against. Did the by the administration revoke secret service protection against political opponents? Did it punish lawyers who gave counsel to political opponents? Did it fire career attorneys or FBI agents who worked on investigations that targeted Democrats?

Given that the only "fact" that was checkable is clearly false, makes his claim only more ludicrous.

The significance of personal meaning...I think you should be writing sentimental greeting cards for Hallmark instead of posting such tripe here. And you still have no explanation of why you linked to that article in Japan Today.

Why does he cite an anecdote from someone he allegedly knows? It has zero evidentiary value. And even if true, so what? It's just about one person's experience.

More significantly, he claimed that Comey's allies were abandoning him, when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Just another unhinged rant from SunnyinBangrak.

Their fantasizing never ends no matter how often reality torpedoes their reveries. When Justice Dept IG Horowitz released his report about the FBI's conduct and misconduct in the Trump's investigation, he debunked claims that there was a deep state conspiracy in the Justice Dept. against Trump. AG Barr and his special counsel Durham took the unusual step of issuing public statements that were strongly skeptical of Horowitz' conclusions. For the rest of his tenure, Barr closely collaborated with Durham in his investigation. He even went so far as to accompany Durham to Italy as part of the investigation. Durham's investigation lasted for over 3 years. The only people he ended up prosecuting with evidence that he developed on his own were 2 parties he accused of lying to the FBI. In both cases they were acquitted. The only person he managed to convict was a low level line lawyer at the Justice Dept. Durham used evidence developed by by IG Horowitz. The line lawyer pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

What has your headline got to do with the article you linked to? And you claim that the article is "completely bogus" but offer no argument or evidence as to why this is the case. Not only are you running on empty, but your vehicle has gone entirely off-track.

What evidence of criminal conduct would that be?

Classy.

Not that I care about his moustache but he also spoke many times about the allegedly fake Sandy Hook massacre.

Which allies have turned against Comey? In fact, you couldn't be more wrong. Remember how infuriated Democrats were with Comey for his dubious conduct during the 2016 presidential campaign? What's their stance now? As for the rest of your rant, it reads like bad, overwrought fiction.

The issue is why did you even ask that question? Do you think it's rational that the prosecutor might have withheld some evidence?

Please. We've seen this predictions before. You're going to need a judiciary and jury as obsessed with revenge as you and others of your ilk are to enjoy the kind of success you anticipate.

Trump and crew may be a lot angrier, but unless they find themselves some similarly angry and irrational judges and juries, it's dubious that they're going anywhere. Barr and Durham tried their damnedest and came up with nothing. Right wingers predicted the same before and struck out. Looks like more of the same.

Except that he's repeatedly touted by right wingers as a great businessman. And touted by himself, too.

Just like right wingers were predicting the imprisonment of a host of Deep Staters during the first Trump administration. Do you understand how empty such predictions are? Unless you've got a functioning crystal ball.

How does a charge of perjury apply to Schiff?

Appointing yourself the referee and judge is just another irrelevancy. And a very sad one.

You think that what makes an agency secret is that no one knows it exists? So the Gestapo and the GPU were known to exist and therefore they weren't secret police forces?

Claiming something is the truth without establishing its relevance is an irrelevancy.

Another irrelevancy.

Being a law enforcement agent may not be the safest of jobs. But creating a secret police force is a grave threat to civil liberties.

It's possible for something to be a fact and also to be irrelevant.

And we need to keep ICE agents anonymous because...? If police don't need anonymity by masking, who do ICE agents need it?

Another attempt at deflection? Here's what I said with your reply.