Alan Zweibel

Are you trying to be a comedian? Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a person under 18. What would his defense be? In cat years she was 96?

A pilot fired over Kristi Noem’s missing blanket and the constant chaos inside DHS Simmering criticism over the past year for Noem’s policies and publicity moves exploded in Minneapolis, jeopardizing her grip over DHS and putting her standing with Trump on thin ice. Though some in Trump’s inner circle have tried to persuade the president to fire Noem and Lewandowski, according to administration officials, he has so far resisted, saying publicly he has no plans to dismiss her. Lawmakers from both parties have been critical, and Democrats in Congress are demanding changes to the department’s enforcement methods, threatening to withhold DHS funding. Eventually, the president put White House border czar Tom Homan in charge in Minnesota. Homan has long advocated a less conspicuous approach to immigration enforcement, and on Thursday, he said he would be winding down the immigration operation there. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-pilot-fired-over-kristi-noem-s-missing-blanket-and-the-constant-chaos-inside-dhs/ar-AA1WfjbG Currently, her Dept is buying a luxury jet for $70 million. It's claimed that the jet is going to be used for VIPs, and, get this, for "high level deportations."

So you think that the ratio is more significant, or as significant or nearly as significant as the total number of jobs even though the Biden total was 1.5 million and the 180,000 under Trump. What kind of reception do you think such an absurd comparison would draw from the 1,320,000 more people who found work during 2024? And why do you even think that the comparison is significant at all?

Given the quality of the leadership of the immigration crackdown, this outcome is not surprising.

Once again you seem unable to understand that calling it a "hate topic" is alleging a motive. They're topics. Calling them hate topic is making it about me. Calling it an obsession just compounds the illegitimacy. I'm not a subject of any topic posted in aseannow.com. At least not legitimately posted. The rules preclude that. Stick to the subject and stop your speculations and accusations about the character and motives of others in this forum.

What don't you understand about this from my answer to you? "It certainly is possible that they had nothing."

You demonstrated no such thing apart from your predilection to making yourself the referee It certainly is possible that they had nothing. Although not so long ago, that was pretty much universally considered impossible among the maga forces. Remember Epstein's list? Kash Patel called that non-existent article of faith Epstein's black book or something like that. This is the current director of the FB for whom you are apparently unable to offer any defense for his wild accusations.

Actually, to be fair she can speak Slovenian and English. But her claims a significant degree of facility in other languages a other languages are dubious.

You call them "hate topics". Which is of course a deflection. How are my alleged feelings relevant to the the facts? Do facts change because of someone's feelings?It's you bringing the issue of emotion into this, not me. Why not try sticking to the facts and address them? In other words, you've got nothing.

And once again you you make it personal. You've got nothing.

The Bidens administration possibly didn't try for reasons I listed. And once again you declare yourself the victor. So much could be construed from such a declaration repeated three times. Three times! But this is not the appropriate forum for that sort of exercise.

Maybe you should start your own legal journal filled with screeds from the distinguished anonymous members of aseannow.com

You made the broad claim about civil vs criminal. Not me. And you got it wrong. And we also know that there would have to have been proof of a continuing conspiracy to revive the sex abuse charges. That's a very high bar to clear and no indication that there was such a conspiracy. Despite the claims of loons like Kash Patel.

I've given you an answer. As I recall, you first got it wrong in claiming that privacy considerations in a civil matter couldn't apply to a grand jury. Then you got it wrong again by citing Law that didn't apply to the case in question. Do you think getting it wrong only twice doesn't count? That it takes a strikeout to invalidate your comments?

You'll note that Yagoda has no defense for the hiring of Kash Patel, who made all sorts of accusations about the Epstein files. Patel is the kind of loon we want running the FBI?

Once again throwing some irrelevant "s***" and hoping something sticks. And then, once again, declaring yourself the winner. The sadness deepens.

The Martindell Standard has absolutely nothing to do with this case. It's about the right to obtain sealed evidence from a private party. Not about the right of the DOJ to use evidence that it has in its possession.

It's always sad when someone declares themselves to be the winner. As for Melania, back in those days they weren't hunting for every violation. It's the Trump administration that's launched this kind of a witch hunt.

I guess AI has nothing, too Gemini saidThe intersection of a civil trial and a criminal grand jury investigation creates a complex legal landscape, particularly when sensitive evidence like allegations of sexual abuse is involved. In the United States, the general rule is that grand juries have exceptionally broad subpoena powers, but there are specific legal grounds and procedural hurdles that can be used to challenge the transfer of evidence from a civil case to a criminal one. 1. Protective Orders in Civil DiscoveryIn civil cases involving sensitive topics like sexual abuse, courts often issue Protective Orders (under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). These orders restrict the use of discovery materials (depositions, documents) to the civil case only. The Conflict: If a prosecutor issues a grand jury subpoena for this "protected" evidence, a legal battle ensues. The Balancing Test: Most federal circuits use a "balancing test" to decide if the subpoena overrides the protective order. The court weighs the grand jury's need for the information against the civil parties' reliance on the protective order to maintain privacy. The "Per Se" Rule: Some jurisdictions (like the Second Circuit) have historically leaned toward a rule where the grand jury subpoena almost always "trumps" a civil protective order unless there are "extraordinary circumstances." Here's Chatgpt 2) When Evidence Can Be Restricted from Prosecutors✅ A) Protective Orders in Civil DiscoveryCivil courts often issue protective orders to limit dissemination of sensitive materials (especially in sexual abuse cases). These can: Restrict who can see the evidence Prohibit sharing with third parties Require court permission before sharing with law enforcement BUT: Many protective orders explicitly allow disclosure to law enforcement, or courts will modify them upon request.

In other words you have nothing better to offer than your previous deflection in mercifully truncated format.

Well, for one reason, the Statute of Limitations. The Biden Administration would have had to prove a continuing conspiracy to overcome that obstacle. Also, there was a civil lawsuit pending and the Biden Administration would have had a high bar to overcome because many of the people named in the lawsuit were also named in the files. So to protect the victims they couldn't proactively release the files. And now why don't you answer me this? In this video from the Daily Caller, why did Trump name Kash Patel, the guy who said this,to be the head of the FBI? The good stuff starts at 1:11

Sure looks like it: North Minneapolis ICE shooting: DOJ dismisses charges against Venezuelan men In a motion filed in U.S. District Court of Minnesota on Feb. 11, the Department of Justice has since asked that the charges be dropped, citing that "newly discovered evidence in this matter is materially inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint affidavit." The motion filed in U.S. District Court of Minnesota seeks to dismiss with prejudice charges filed against Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celi following an altercation with federal immigration enforcement officials on Jan. 14... The motion essentially asks the court to drop charges against the two involved, and they cannot be charged for the same crimes again. https://www.fox9.com/news/north-minneapolis-ice-shooting-doj-dismisses-charges-venezuelan-men-feb-12-2026

You're right. Obama inherited from George W. Bush the worst financial crisis facing the world since the Great Depression. Obviously the 2 situations aren't comparable. Also, the employment rate is still lower than it was at the start of Trump's 2nd term: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate

Last year, Chinese exports of electric vehicles hit a record $70 billion, and China’s carmakers saw sales in more than 150 countries and territories. And in the first half of 2025, Chinese exports of solar cells jumped sharply, even as exports of finished panels stagnated because of oversupply. “We’re shifting away from an oil-powered world to a much less expensive solar-powered world,” Bradsher said. “And every other country is buying more and more of their electricity in effect from China, because China has a near-monopoly on solar panels. And that’s all that anybody wants to buy now in much of the developing world, because it’s a cheaper way to get your electricity than anything else.” https://archive.ph/qMCHO And the Trump administration is helping them along in so many ways. Like subsidizing coal even though it's more expense and extremely polluting. And cutting back on scientific research even as China continues to expand its research.

For six months, dozens of judges appointed by Donald Trump have rebuffed — and sometimes pointedly rebuked — his administration’s effort to lock up thousands of immigrants under a novel reinterpretation of decades-old deportation laws. This mass detention strategy, implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has met an overwhelming rejection by federal judges appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan. A POLITICO review finds that 373 have rejected the administration’s effort to require detention — without the possibility of bond — for anyone who crossed illegally into the United States, even if they’ve lived in the country for decades without incident. That contrasts with just 28 judges who have sided with the administration’s view. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/12/donald-trump-judges-mandatory-detention-rulings-00778256