Pizza time?

#726
#726
volfanhill said:
Sure if you are uninformed. Or if something new about him came out. Otherwise it’s grandstanding. Your motives are apparent. Hell LG was already spinning his conspiracy theory that clearly this meant Trump influenced Acosta to give Epstein a sweet heart deal to avoid him being revealed as a kiddie didler. And in exchange Acosta was given Labor and you can expect Trump to pardon Epstein in a quid pro quo agreement.
Click to expand...


I never said Trump was involved in the deal Epstein got long ago. I have no basis to think that.

I do, however, wonder based on Trump's behavior generally, and his comments about Epstein particularly, whether Trump at a bare minimum doesn't relate to Epstein's penchant for paying young girls for sex.

We already know for a fact that Trump has done that. The only question is age right now.
 
#727
#727
RockyTop85 said:
If you search Mick’s post history for references to Acosta, his first post about it was 18+ months ago so I think he’s good.
Click to expand...

Seems like solid credentials, as far as I'm concerned. I know the subject was brought up occasionally, usually as a counter jab to the typical Pizzagate faux outrage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#728
#728
lawgator1 said:
I never said Trump was involved in the deal Epstein got long ago. I have no basis to think that.

I do, however, wonder based on Trump's behavior generally, and his comments about Epstein particularly, whether Trump at a bare minimum doesn't relate to Epstein's penchant for paying young girls for sex.

We already know for a fact that Trump has done that. The only question is age right now.
Click to expand...
If I misrepresented your position earlier then I apologize .
 
#729
#729
BowlBrother85 said:
You don't see how the new charges brought against Epstein this week have changed the perception of Epstein's 13 month jail sentence in 2008? Come on, man.
Click to expand...
No because all of what we know now about Acosta we knew then.

If it is indeed demonstrated that he tossed him a sweet deal bc of his wealth or any other shady reason then go after his ass. But once again none of us why the deal he struck was made. It’s entirely plausible, and quite frankly just as plausible, that he thought he had a losing case on his hands and got the best he thought he could get.
 
#730
#730
volfanhill said:
No because all of what we know now about Acosta we knew then.
Click to expand...
If you're not outraged about this you should be. What he did was ruled "unlawful" recently by a federal judge. Why are you trying to downplay this as nothing to be concerned about? Does it not make you question his ethics or lack of? Does it not make you question his character?

Edit: Actually you don't have to be outraged. Concerned might describe most people best.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#731
#731
Mick said:
If you're not outraged about this you should be. What he did was ruled "unlawful" recently by a federal judge. Why are you trying to downplay this as nothing to be concerned about? Does it not make you question his ethics or lack of? Does it not make you question his character?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with him being called out for not telling the victims of the deal in advance and have stated as such. That in no way means his motive were nefarious. They could be. And the Epstein situation is not nothing. All I am saying is a whole bunch of you are outraged at Acosta but have nothing new to be outraged about with regard to the original case. Furthermore you have no clue why he offered the deal he did. You just assume it was shady.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#732
#732
volfanhill said:
If I misrepresented your position earlier then I apologize .
Click to expand...

I asked the rhetorical question if the sequence of events concerning Mar-a-Lago, Epstein and Acosta, and Acosta's ascention to Secretary of Labor were a mere coincidence? You may have inadvertently associated that to LG.
 
#734
#734
volfanhill said:
I have no problem with him being called out for not telling the victims of the deal in advance and have stated as such. That in no way means his motive were nefarious. They could be. And the Epstein situation is not nothing. All I am saying is a whole bunch of you are outraged at Acosta but have nothing new to be outraged about with regard to the original case. Furthermore you have no clue why he offered the deal he did. You just assume it was shady.
Click to expand...

Really? You don't have to be outraged or even concerned (as most people are).
 
#736
#736
Mick said:
Really? You don't have to be outraged or even concerned (as most people are).
Click to expand...
I said I have no problem with people calling him out for it. Hell be pissed about it. But that’s not the primary reason people are calling for his ass. At least not as how I have read things. They are pissed about the deal itself.

Now as far the deal goes, what would you do as a prosecutor, if you knew this guy was child raping scum, but also strongly believed your case was going to get blown out of the water by this particular defendants extremely high priced legal team? Would you go present a loser. Guy walks. Nothing. Or would you negotiate a deal of some sort. Now his lawyers know your case is **** so they are going to resist any deal offered. It’s going to have to be a pretty sweet one to get him to agree. And poof here we are. Hopefully NY has this guy by the sack.
 
Last edited:
#737
#737
Stew Cook said:
I personally thought the whole deal was shady as hell.. still do.. still jadedly outraged..
Click to expand...

It’s a messed up plea bargain. I’ve been a party to several that were messed up in both directions.

Public outrage isn’t often justified, is mostly ignorance of fact and how the system works, in my experience.

My experience has never been with billionaire clients with Clinton’s and Trumps as buddies, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stew Cook
#739
#739
BowlBrother85 said:
Are you going to play "what-about-ism" or will you ever acknowledge that Acosta should have followed the law and informed Epstein's victims that a plea deal had been reached with Epstein's legal defense team before it was entered into and accepted by the judge? They had to see it on the news, instead. That is outrageous.
Click to expand...
Is there an echo in here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321 and BigOrangeD
#740
#740
volfanhill said:
I said I have no problem with people calling him out for it. Hell be pissed about it. But that’s not the primary reason people are calling for his ass. At least not as how I have read things. They are pissed about the deal itself.
Click to expand...
Imagine letting a child sex trafficker off with a slap on the wrist and a decade later that person is arrested for human trafficking and people find out someone stepped in, stopped the federal investigation that could have uncovered a sex trafficking ring and co conspirators and possibly prevented more kids from becoming victims. Not to mention the position he holds now oversees the enforcement of human trafficking laws.

Yes, he should step down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#741
#741
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Have you all ignored where people told him to back off of Epstein? Why are you all still discussing this after golfballs link?
Click to expand...
Which post was that? I have looked back through and don't see it.

I do sound like broken record on here sometimes (like ajvol01 says) because frankly, some of you guys go out of your way to ignore the main point, so it has to be repeated over and over to drive it home.

Let's try ALL CAPS this time and once more, with feeling...

EVEN IF ACOSTA WAS JUST ACTING ON INSTRUCTIONS, THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY ACOSTA (OR SOMEONE) DIDN'T EXPLAIN THE PLEA AGREEMENT TO EPSTEIN'S ALLEGED VICTIMS BEFORE PRESENTING IT TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CASE.
 
#743
#743
BowlBrother85 said:
Which post was that? I have looked back through and don't see it.

I do sound like broken record on here sometimes (like ajvol01 says) because frankly, some of you guys go out of your way to ignore the main point, so it has to be repeated over and over to drive it home.

Let's try ALL CAPS this time and once more, with feeling...

EVEN IF ACOSTA WAS JUST ACTING ON INSTRUCTIONS, THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY ACOSTA (OR SOMEONE) DIDN'T EXPLAIN THE PLEA AGREEMENT TO EPSTEIN'S ALLEGED VICTIMS BEFORE PRESENTING IT TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CASE.
Click to expand...

Or someone is correct, let’s find out who that someone is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#744
#744
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Have you all ignored where people told him to back off of Epstein? Why are you all still discussing this after golfballs link?
Click to expand...

Sure man, it's the same theory being peddled by the fringe right.. that Mueller was using Epstein for blackmail. The only thing official looking I've seen is a supposed document that apparently concedes prosecution duties to Acosta.

But again, I thought according to the Q people's consensus that Mueller was really appointed by Trump, and that they were working together to fight the pedo cabal. Is that not the case any longer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#745
#745
BowlBrother85 said:
Which post was that? I have looked back through and don't see it.

I do sound like broken record on here sometimes (like ajvol01 says) because frankly, some of you guys go out of your way to ignore the main point, so it has to be repeated over and over to drive it home.

Let's try ALL CAPS this time and once more, with feeling...

EVEN IF ACOSTA WAS JUST ACTING ON INSTRUCTIONS, THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY ACOSTA (OR SOMEONE) DIDN'T EXPLAIN THE PLEA AGREEMENT TO EPSTEIN'S ALLEGED VICTIMS BEFORE PRESENTING IT TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CASE.
Click to expand...
That is unacceptable
 
#746
#746
BowlBrother85 said:
Which post was that? I have looked back through and don't see it.

I do sound like broken record on here sometimes (like ajvol01 says) because frankly, some of you guys go out of your way to ignore the main point, so it has to be repeated over and over to drive it home.

Let's try ALL CAPS this time and once more, with feeling...

EVEN IF ACOSTA WAS JUST ACTING ON INSTRUCTIONS, THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY ACOSTA (OR SOMEONE) DIDN'T EXPLAIN THE PLEA AGREEMENT TO EPSTEIN'S ALLEGED VICTIMS BEFORE PRESENTING IT TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CASE.
Click to expand...

Im sorry. Im just not following you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#747
#747
volfanhill said:
If I misrepresented your position earlier then I apologize .
Click to expand...
Stew Cook said:
I asked the rhetorical question if the sequence of events concerning Mar-a-Lago, Epstein and Acosta, and Acosta's ascention to Secretary of Labor were a mere coincidence? You may have inadvertently associated that to LG.
Click to expand...


I think everyone is on the same page here. If anyone knew of this and took no action, that's horrible and criminal. Far, far worse if they participated in any way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#748
#748
BowlBrother85 said:
Which post was that? I have looked back through and don't see it.

I do sound like broken record on here sometimes (like ajvol01 says) because frankly, some of you guys go out of your way to ignore the main point, so it has to be repeated over and over to drive it home.

Let's try ALL CAPS this time and once more, with feeling...

EVEN IF ACOSTA WAS JUST ACTING ON INSTRUCTIONS, THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY ACOSTA (OR SOMEONE) DIDN'T EXPLAIN THE PLEA AGREEMENT TO EPSTEIN'S ALLEGED VICTIMS BEFORE PRESENTING IT TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CASE.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20190709-202249_Chrome.jpg
 
#750
#750
The huge wheels that be put heat on Acosta from that story. We all know who that was. Your rage with Acosta is justified. I figured he would be fired today.

I don't after seeing that. Someone way up in the ranks told him to back off.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top