Alan Zweibel

Maybe in the alternative universe you inhabit. But not true in this one: Drug traffickers profit from end of intelligence cooperation between Colombia and the US Gustavo Petro has suspended the sending of confidential information to the Donald Trump administration, but Washington was already offering little cooperation to Bogotá and other key allies Drug traffickers Colombia and the US rejoice. Colombian President Gustavo Petro ordered Colombian intelligence services to suspend the transfer of information to U.S. agencies on Tuesday night, ending decades of bilateral cooperation through a publication on X. “This measure will remain in effect as long as the missile attacks on boats in the Caribbean continue,” he explained. The news has not yet received a response from President Donald Trump or his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, but the reduction in intelligence cooperation is not unique to Colombia. In recent days, both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which do not have such a tense relationship with the White House but do have territories in the Caribbean, have also limited the intelligence they send to Washington. https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-11-13/drug-traffickers-profit-from-end-of-intelligence-cooperation-between-colombia-and-the-us.html

This won't be the first time that Trump has extended a charitable hand to drug kingpins: Who is Ross Ulbricht, founder of drug marketplace Silk Road, now pardoned by Trump? The creator of a dark web market that sold illegal drugs, stolen passports and hacking equipment using Bitcoin has been pardoned by President Donald Trump. Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole, in 2015 in connection with his ownership and operation of the hidden website. The then-26-year-old was also ordered to forfeit $183.9m (£120.2m). https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-ross-ulbricht-founder-of-drug-marketplace-silk-road-now-pardoned-by-trump-13294204

Another air-headed deflection.

As a prediction about the future how can it be a lie? We've also had right wingers saying definitively and without qualification that the Democrats are going to badly lose at the midterms. Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Would you call that a lie if it turns out that Democrats do well in the midterms? There's a difference between a mistake and a lie. Time will tell if something turns out to be a mistake. But lying goes to intent.

So now we have an idea of who might be behind this self-defeating maneuver of Trump's. So Hernandez championed Próspera. which" is also backed by multiple investors, including Balaji Srinivasan, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen, through the venture capital firm Pronomos Capital.[15] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Próspera Peter Thiel is the guy who Vance used to work for and who sponsored Vance's run for the Senate.

I quote: "Vote in what? Youve just spent a year saying if Trump won there would be no more elections." If you've got some evidence that I made a firm prediction, produce it. I hope you waste your time looking in vain for it.

False. Whenever I said it, I said it was a possibility, not a certainty. I still think it is.

Well, the first 5 letters in forgetting spell forge.

Because Americans who disapprove of Trump are no longer going to have the right to vote?

Fox News now has now reported this story. It's way down on their home page. Below is the text of that part of the article that deals with Hernandez apart from the quotes from Trump. "President Trump announced Friday he intends to issue a "full and complete pardon" to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, while simultaneously reaffirming his support for presidential candidate Nasry "Tito" Asfura just days before Hondurans head to the polls. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said Hernández. who was sentenced in New York last year to 45 years in prison for conspiring with drug traffickers to move over 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S., was "treated very harshly and unfairly. Hernández was convicted in March 2024 on charges of conspiring to import cocaine into the U.S. and two related weapons offenses after a two-week trial, according to The Associated Press https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-plans-full-complete-pardon-former-honduran-president-convicted-drug-trafficking Most of the article deals with the current candidate for President whom Trump supports. Clearly, Fox wants as little to do with this story as it can get away with.

Here's what I wrote: Clearly it was an aside referring to Andrew McCarthy's comment: "The author of this denounced the pardons as instances of corruption. He also said the same about Trump's recent pardons. But nothing can be done about it. He does recommend amending the Constitution to eliminate the power of the pardon. I think he's right. Especially now that the Supreme Court has mostly exempted Presidents from criminal prosecution."

True but irrelevant to the issues here.

As I pointed out, common law is not relevant in this case.

Not according to Trump who claimed that he had verbally authorized declassification of the documents he had with him at the White House (Kash Patel publicly confirmed that when he wasn't under oath. He won't say whether he reconfirmed that when he appeared before a grand jury). No documentation existed.( Later comments by Trump threw cold water on his claims)

First of all, it's a report from the same people who produced that sad and silly report on the Bidens. I used search engines and Chatgpt and Gemini to find out if anyone had testified that they used autopen without Biden's authorization. I think that's authoritative enough. If you've got evidence that someone did, then, given your claim that you read the report, it should be simple enough for you to produce evidence to the contrary.

That's the issue in question.

In other words, no one testifying before the committee said that they used the autopen to sign documents without Joe Biden's permission.

Sure. Show me howthe Federal Courts have jurisdiction over an absolute power granted by the Constitution to the President.

You clearly don't understand the extreme deference that the Supreme Court shows to the Presidency. The House Committe's argument is based on the negative proof fallacy which basically says what's needed is proof that the President actually ordered the pardons. Is there even any testimony from a witness that they used the autosign produre to sign a document? Actually, the onus would be on those who claim that he didn't. Since you've claimed that you've read the report, got an witness testimony to claim that he didn't? Please quote it with a link to the page.

Really? Where in the Constitution is that written? Unlike you, as anyone who knows the history of why the power of the pardon is in the Constititution, would understand that there is no way a court could overturn a pardon.

As for as pardons go, there is no need for a signature. So what's your point? As for the rest, ya think the Supreme Court is going to overturn legislation based on the autopen argument?

You claimed it was irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Not that it would be relevant to whether Trump has the power to nullify Biden's pardons, but where in the report did it claim that pardons were sold? But of course, if you're going to raise that issue, then what about the Binance pardon?

You're only further undermining yourself since you still cannot explain why this comment was irrelevant: "Legal scholars also agreed that there is no constitutional mechanism to overturn pardons once granted." In other words, there is no way that Trump can nullify the pardons granted by Biden. McCarthy isn't God but, unlike you, he is an expert. In fact, unlike you, he understands what is relevant and what is not. And you clearly haven't a clue about the extraordinary deference that the Supreme Court has extended to the Presidency.

You've really got to do a better job of pretending to have serious knowledge of the law if this sentence alone strikes you as being irrelevant "Legal scholars also agreed that there is no constitutional mechanism to overturn pardons once granted."