Alan Zweibel

Escaped justice? Despite the rantings of you and others, there never was a case. That's why a highly respected professional prosecutor with a Republican background, and appointed by Trump, resigned rather than pursue this case.

Actually it wasn't about an incorrect form as it turns out. Basically, Trump wanted her prosecuted for something that at worst was ambiguous in the mortgage contract.

This is a truly remarkable achievement considering that only the prosecution gets to speak to the grand jury and present evidence. And it only requires a bare majority of jurors to return an indictment. I am eagerly awaiting President Trump's sober and scholarly critique of this second failure.

The grand jury rejected the Department of Justice's attempt to refile the case after a federal judge dismissed an earlier case based on the unlawful appointment of the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Federal prosecutors on Thursday failed to convince a majority of grand jurors to approve charges that James misled a bank to obtain favorable loan terms on a home mortgage, according to sources. The charges were presented to a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia's Alexandria branch after a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, last week rejected the charges. https://abcnews.go.com/US/2nd-time-grand-jury-refuses-indict-new-york/story?id=128279779 Some critic once described Waiting For Godot as a play in which nothing happens. Twice. Now we have a sequel: Waiting For An Indictment. Does the Trump administration plan to top Becket and go for a three peat?

You should thank Bday Prang. He's the one who introduced Norway into the discussion with a massively bizarre comment.

Well, it's a mountain of something.

They should appoint you the fact chequer.

Especially if they start spreading misinformation like the 2020 elections were stolen.

Whatever the truth or falseness of your characterizations, the fact is out of all the defamation suits the filed before his second term he only one won. And that was because the defendant didn't show up in court.

Right. Trump had a pretty much unbroken history of failed defamation lawsuits until he became president of the United States for a second term and then made it clear he would use his powers to damage people and businesses who opposed him. ABC made the correct business decision, giving their exposure to government regulation.

As James Madison, the man behind the first amendment noted, if foreigners owe obedience to the laws of the United States, then they are also entitled to the protections of the Constitution.

Of course they do. Which is why Sadiq Khan is mayor. I may have to rethink the admission standards for my list.

Well, you would have no worries from any list I made. I would allow even the incorrigibly ignorant free passage.

[I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Con- stitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Con- stitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantageP Next class there's going to be a multiple-choice test. And if you don't get a passing grade on this one, I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail you for the semester.

I thought maybe I should take a look at article three of the Constitution and I don't see how it applies.

But what democratic countries go to such orwellian lengths as this proposal would establish? What's more you repeatedly evade the issue of who exactly the government plans to exclude if this proposal is adopted. You claimed it's meant for "disruptive" individuals. Where is your evidence that disruptive individuals are the only target?

I just signed into you a major piece of case law which found against that.

Exactly how is criticizing a proposal in the Federal register, acting like it's in place? Should we wait until it's put into practice before criticizing it? What's your point? Is

Actually something does prohibit them from being deported for their views https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/

What have other countries got to do with this? And your raising the issue of what China would do if they checked your social media is just bizarre. Apparently you believe the standards imposed by that orwellian state, are also justifiable for use by the United States.

Guess what? The first amendment came after article 3 of The Constitution. So it supersede the authority of that article. And the supreme Court has ruled that advocating for unpopular views, even advocating for violent revolution in a general way, is constitutionally protected.

You keep on claiming but this is about keeping disruptive people out of the USA. Where's your evidence that this is who the Trump administration is aiming at? Where is your evidence that they are not aiming at people whose opinions they simply don't approve of?

James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, definitely agreed with me.

For some people, conspiracy theories belong in every thread.

Given that foreign citizens weren't eligible for office what's your point?