Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage...

[GMDino]

I'm sure most of you aren't surprised and the rest of you don't care.

Epstein was accused of FORCING 50 MINORS to have sex w/ him 3x a day.

Accosta (prosecutor) approved a deal shutting down probe into whether there were OTHER PEOPLE who took part in the crimes.

ACCOSTA IS NOW TRUMP’S Secretary of Labor, providing oversight of human trafficking. https://t.co/v0y3KJRUH9

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) November 28, 2018

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

Quote:How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime


On a muggy October morning in 2007, Miami’s top federal prosecutor, Alexander Acosta, had a breakfast appointment with a former colleague, Washington, D.C., attorney Jay Lefkowitz. 


It was an unusual meeting for the then-38-year-old prosecutor, a rising Republican star who had served in several White House posts before being named U.S. attorney in Miami by President George W. Bush.


Instead of meeting at the prosecutor’s Miami headquarters, the two men — both with professional roots in the prestigious Washington law firm of Kirkland & Ellis — convened at the Marriott in West Palm Beach, about 70 miles away. For Lefkowitz, 44, a U.S. special envoy to North Korea and corporate lawyer, the meeting was critical.


His client, Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein, 54, was accused of assembling a large, cult-like network of underage girls — with the help of young female recruiters — to coerce into having sex acts behind the walls of his opulent waterfront mansion as often as three times a day, the Town of Palm Beach police found.

The eccentric hedge fund manager, whose friends included former President Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew, was also suspected of trafficking minor girls, often from overseas, for sex parties at his other homes in Manhattan, New Mexico and the Caribbean, FBI and court records show.

Interactive: Sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein was surrounded by powerful people. Here’s a sampling
[/url]
Facing a 53-page federal indictment, Epstein could have ended up in federal prison for the rest of his life.


But on the morning of the breakfast meeting, a deal was struck — an extraordinary plea agreement that [url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article214210674.html]would conceal the full extent of Epstein’s crimes and the number of people involved.


Not only would Epstein serve just 13 months in the county jail, but the deal — called a non-prosecution agreement — essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes, according to a Miami Herald examination of thousands of emails, court documents and FBI records.


The pact required Epstein to plead guilty to two prostitution charges in state court. Epstein and four of his accomplices named in the agreement received immunity from all federal criminal charges. But even more unusual, the deal included wording that granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators’’ who were also involved in Epstein’s crimes. These accomplices or participants were not identified in the agreement, leaving it open to interpretation whether it possibly referred to other influential people who were having sex with underage girls at Epstein’s various homes or on his plane.


As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims. 


As a result, the non-prosecution agreement was sealed until after it was approved by the judge, thereby averting any chance that the girls — or anyone else — might show up in court and try to derail it.


This is the story of how Epstein, bolstered by unlimited funds and represented by a powerhouse legal team, was able to manipulate the criminal justice system, and how his accusers, still traumatized by their pasts, believe they were betrayed by the very prosecutors who pledged to protect them.


“I don’t think anyone has been told the truth about what Jeffrey Epstein did,’’ said one of Epstein’s victims, Michelle Licata, now 30. “He ruined my life and a lot of girls’ lives. People need to know what he did and why he wasn’t prosecuted so it never happens again.”


Now President Trump’s secretary of labor, Acosta, 49, oversees a massive federal agency that provides oversight of the country’s labor laws, including human trafficking. He also has been on a list of possible replacements for former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who resigned under pressure earlier this month.


Acosta did not respond to numerous requests for an interview or answer queries through email.

Much more at the link if you have the stomach for that kind of thing.

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 05:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure most of you aren't surprised and the rest of you don't care.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html


Much more at the link if you have the stomach for that kind of thing.

How could a "fixer" like that fit into the Trump administration? 

Wait . . . I am wondering how Tump was defining "best" when he said he knew and could get "the best people" in his administration.  This guy sounds like a pretty sharp lawyer, who knows exactly where corners can skirted, if need be (wink wink).

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-28-2018, 05:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure most of you aren't surprised and the rest of you don't care.

Much more at the link if you have the stomach for that kind of thing.

Epstien should be in jail, but he's got to many powerful friends that he can expose. So it's not a surprise.

Acosta was most likely a pawn in this game or at worst an actual participant with Epstien. Some big people/names would've been exposed had it not been kept quiet.

Is that Justice? Nope, but I bet if he was innocent, then he probably received a lot of death threats from the $$$ side to fix this.

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 07:52 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Epstien should be in jail, but he's got to many powerful friends that he can expose. So it's not a surprise.

Acosta was most likely a pawn in this game or at worst an actual participant with Epstien. Some big people/names would've been exposed had it not been kept quiet.

Is that Justice? Nope, but I bet if he was innocent, then he probably received a lot of death threats from the $$$ side to fix this.

But should Acosta be in the position he is in when he couldn't stand up to people with money?

He didn't just go easy...he may it go away.  For everyone involved.

That's scary stuff.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm finding the ignorance in this thread amusing. You think Acosta made this decision all by his lonesome? You think he didn't have superiors who were shoulder deep in his keister during his handling this case? A huge high profile case like this and you think this was Acosta's decision? Laughable.

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm finding the ignorance in this thread amusing.  You think Acosta made this decision all by his lonesome?  You think he didn't have superiors who were shoulder deep in his keister during his handling this case?  A huge high profile case like this and you think this was Acosta's decision?  Laughable.

I think he was part of it.  I know he was the one meeting and emailing the attorneys to set it up.

That you find it laughable because it relates to Trump doesn't surprise me.  

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if you were involved.

Edit: Do you contribute anything to these threads anymore? Or just "slur" (ask your "ilk" says) other posters because you disagree? How about some evidence rather than accusations?

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm finding the ignorance in this thread amusing.  You think Acosta made this decision all by his lonesome?  You think he didn't have superiors who were shoulder deep in his keister during his handling this case?  A huge high profile case like this and you think this was Acosta's decision?  Laughable.

Here is what I find amusing. Post #25 from "Obama's Judges."

(11-27-2018, 12:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:
I really don't like speculation being stated as fact.  ...you have assumptions and inferences only.  Neither should be stated as definitive proof of anything. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-28-2018, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm finding the ignorance in this thread amusing.  You think Acosta made this decision all by his lonesome?  You think he didn't have superiors who were shoulder deep in his keister during his handling this case?  A huge high profile case like this and you think this was Acosta's decision?  Laughable.

It probably wasn't even his Idea to begin with. He was informed how to proceed straight from the top.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-28-2018, 08:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think he was part of it.  I know he was the one meeting and emailing the attorneys to set it up.

Of course he was part of it, he was the head prosecutor.  Your statement adds a fact already agreed upon.  it does nothing to address the point being made.

Quote:That you find it laughable because it relates to Trump doesn't surprise me.  

It has nothing to do with Trump, it has to do with real world experience of how high profile prosecutions work.

Quote:I'm sure you'd feel the same way if you were involved.

I have been involved in high profile cases, which is why the obviousness of my statement eluding you honestly baffles me.

Quote:Edit:  Do you contribute anything to these threads anymore?  Or just "slur" (ask your "ilk" says) other posters because you disagree?  How about some evidence rather than accusations?

My contribution to this thread is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.

(11-28-2018, 09:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Here is what I find amusing. Post #25 from "Obama's Judges."

For someone who clearly belives themselves to be intelligent you make a lot of inane points and miss completely obvious logic.

(11-28-2018, 09:11 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It probably wasn't even his Idea to begin with. He was informed how to proceed straight from the top.

He certainly had input, or he's comfortable being a complete puppet.  You do grasp what the other two seem to be vapidly unaware of, which is that no deal in such a case could ever proceed without approval at the highest level.   As related above, I have been involved in high profile cases.  I have also been involved in cases in which I was ordered to proceed in a way I thought was inappropriate or wrong (not illegal or unethical mind you).  I have, in some of those instances, asked that I be removed from having any association with the decision due to my objections.  The main point, unaddressed by my obviously benighted colleagues above, remains.  This case was not decided on and dealt with solely by Acosta.

Sorry to ruin the thrust of your thread with simple logic GM.

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm finding the ignorance in this thread amusing.  You think Acosta made this decision all by his lonesome?  You think he didn't have superiors who were shoulder deep in his keister during his handling this case?  A huge high profile case like this and you think this was Acosta's decision?  Laughable.

(11-28-2018, 10:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course he was part of it, he was the head prosecutor.  Your statement adds a fact already agreed upon.  it does nothing to address the point being made.



It has nothing to do with Trump, it has to do with real world experience of how high profile prosecutions work.



I have been involved in high profile cases, which is why the obviousness of my statement eluding you honestly baffles me.


My contribution to this thread is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.


For someone who clearly belives themselves to be intelligent you make a lot of inane points and miss completely obvious logic.


He certainly had input, or he's comfortable being a complete puppet.  You do grasp what the other two seem to be vapidly unaware of, which is that no deal in such a case could ever proceed without approval at the highest level.   As related above, I have been involved in high profile cases.  I have also been involved in cases in which I was ordered to proceed in a way I thought was inappropriate or wrong (not illegal or unethical mind you).  I have, in some of those instances, asked that I be removed from having any association with the decision due to my objections.  The main point, unaddressed by my obviously benighted colleagues above, remains.  This case was not decided on and dealt with solely by Acosta.

Sorry to ruin the thrust of your thread with simple logic GM.

(11-28-2018, 05:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why do I imagine a guy holding a perfumed handkerchief to his nose as I read this?  Is the air still breathable up on that high horse?

Whether the "higher ups" approved or not was never the issue. What WAS the issue was that Acosta is now the Sec of Labor (not his former superiors) and as such appears to be the kind of person who will fold and not protect anyone except those with the most money or power.


But I did enjoy your post.


https://youtu.be/8d8h1lbzoHY

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-28-2018, 11:03 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Ooooo, you're going to other threads to find posts.  You've graduated to internetz level 2!

Quote:Whether the "higher ups" approved or not was never the issue.  What WAS the issue was that Acosta is now the Sec of Labor (not his former superiors) and as such appears to be the kind of person who will fold and not protect anyone except those with the most money or power.

Silly rabbit.  Your entire thread premise is based on Acosta giving this guy a sweetheart deal.  I pointed out that any such deal would have been formulated and approved by people much higher in the food chain than Acosta.  You're now trying to salvage a shred of dignity by changing the premise of your thread.  It's ok, I get it.  You realize your error and are trying to appear less foolish.  I'll allow you the attempt.

Quote:But I did enjoy your post.

I am pleased to hear it.  Enlightenment should be a pleasurable experience.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2018, 12:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ooooo, you're going to other threads to find posts.  You've graduated to internetz level 2!





Silly rabbit.  Your entire thread premise is based on Acosta giving this guy a sweetheart deal.  I pointed out that any such deal would have been formulated and approved by people much higher in the food chain than Acosta.  You're now trying to salvage a shred of dignity by changing the premise of your thread.  It's ok, I get it.  You realize your error and are trying to appear less foolish.  I'll allow you the attempt.



I am pleased to hear it.  Enlightenment should be a pleasurable experience.

As your  "buddy" says:  "insults and slurs aside...."

You don't get to say YOU know what my premise was as you, thankfully, are not me (I know you'll agree with me on that.  )

It is about someone who was overrun by people with power and let them do whatever they want at the expense of innocent victims.  Not the kind of person anyone should want working in government.


I'd assume, given your obvious high moral standards for all things legal and criminal, you would have agreed with that too.  That you don't, or that you (wrongly) insist on trying to spin what *I* said to defend Acosta makes me think you have an alternative reason for that other than your superior knowledge of all things law enforcement.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-29-2018, 09:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: As your  "buddy" says:  "insults and slurs aside...."

You don't get to say YOU know what my premise was as you, thankfully, are not me (I know you'll agree with me on that.  )

Well then, why don't you do us all a favor and make your premise clear when you start a thread?  It would help us avoid such unpleasantness.

Quote:It is about someone who was overrun by people with power and let them do whatever they want at the expense of innocent victims.  Not the kind of person anyone should want working in government.

Wait, so the thread is now about Trump and not Acosta?

Quote:I'd assume, given your obvious high moral standards for all things legal and criminal, you would have agreed with that too.  That you don't, or that you (wrongly) insist on trying to spin what *I* said to defend Acosta makes me think you have an alternative reason for that other than your superior knowledge of all things law enforcement.

I simply know how these kind of things work.  As I said, I've worked high profile cases before.  I've worked a case that got national news attention.  I haven't worked on anything nearly as big as a scandal that involves a former POTUS.  In high profile cases you're going to get a lot of interest from higher ups, for obvious reasons.  Hence, I felt compelled to edify those reading your thread, the premise of it being clear or not, as to why Acosta wasn't even remotely the sole arbiter of the deal you so bemoan.  Nor was any deal he struck not approved at the highest levels of the US attorney's office.  I appreciate the opportunity to further clarify why your apparent initial outrage was so misplaced.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well then, why don't you do us all a favor and make your premise clear when you start a thread?  It would help us avoid such unpleasantness.

Or, and this is just spitballing, you could just not assume you are right and attack something that wasn't being talked about. That would help too.

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so the thread is now about Trump and not Acosta?

Where did you ever get that? It's about whether Acosta should work in an administration. Especially in the role he has. Yes, the current Admin is the Trump one, and he has a tendency to big awful people. But that's an aside to Acosta himself.

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I simply know how these kind of things work.  As I said, I've worked high profile cases before.  I've worked a case that got national news attention.  I haven't worked on anything nearly as big as a scandal that involves a former POTUS.  In high profile cases you're going to get a lot of interest from higher ups, for obvious reasons.  Hence, I felt compelled to edify those reading your thread, the premise of it being clear or not, as to why Acosta wasn't even remotely the sole arbiter of the deal you so bemoan.  Nor was any deal he struck not approved at the highest levels of the US attorney's office.  I appreciate the opportunity to further clarify why your apparent initial outrage was so misplaced.

Still defending Acosta. If your premise that he was simply pawn n game of life is true he still shouldn't be in the position he's in.

As I said:

Quote:It is about someone who was overrun by people with power and let them do whatever they want at the expense of innocent victims. Not the kind of person anyone should want working in government.

I can't make it clearer. Perhaps because you think you have to defend Trump you aren't seeing it that way?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-29-2018, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, and this is just spitballing, you could just not assume you are right and attack something that wasn't being talked about.  That would help too.    

Well, seeing as how the person who starts a thread should probably explain what the thread is about I'm going to say the onus is on you in this instance.

Quote:Where did you ever get that?  It's about whether Acosta should work in an administration.  Especially in the role he has.  Yes, the current Admin is the Trump one, and he has a tendency to big awful people.  But that's an aside to Acosta himself.

Ahh, so my assumption was 100% correct then.  Good on me.

Quote:Still defending Acosta.  If your premise that he was simply pawn n game of life is true he still shouldn't be in the position he's in.  

As I said:

Your insistence on ignorance is both astounding and troubling.  Being subject to the orders of your superiors does not make you a pawn.  This is why trying to have a rational discussion with you is maddening.  You willfully misinterpret points made (Fred is beaming with pride I'm sure).  That or you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp them.  I'll try and explain one last time.

Acosta is lead prosecutor on an insanely high profile case.  He cuts a deal with defendant that you lambaste as a sweetheart deal and criticize him for it.  I, rightfully, point out that any deal Acosta made would have to have gotten the green light from the highest levels of the US Attorney's office given the extremely high profile nature of the case.  I also, rightfully, point out that such a deal was not formulated solely by Acosta, as his superiors would be very involved in any such process given the as high as possible profile nature of the case.  Therefore, your issue is not with Acosta, it's with the US Attorney's office and their giving the homeboy hookup to the defendant.  As to whether this case should disqualify Acosta as "a pawn", well that's naive.  Anyone in his position would have been subject to the exact same level of involvement from superiors.  Essentially, what you are saying is that no one who's worked as a prosecutor should every be involved in government.

Quote:I can't make it clearer.  Perhaps because you think you have to defend Trump you aren't seeing it that way?

You said this thread wasn't about Trump, please make up your mind.  I didn't even mention Trump's name until you made your rather unclear point about being overrun with power.  In any event I haven't defended anyone in this thread.  I've merely pointed out that your criticism of Acosta is based on blinkered ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the actual process that would take place when cutting a deal in such a high profile case.  I'm sorry, I can't think of a concrete business parallel to make understanding the concept easier for you.

Oh, Dill, if you're browsing the forum, here's another example of the tactic you stated earlier you've never seen.   Maybe they're hard to see from that ivory tower?  

[GMDino]

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, seeing as how the person who starts a thread should probably explain what the thread is about I'm going to say the onus is on you in this instance.

Can't admit you were wrong.

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, so my assumption was 100% correct then.  Good on me.

Can't admit you were wrong.

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your insistence on ignorance is both astounding and troubling.  Being subject to the orders of your superiors does not make you a pawn.

You yourself said you have asked to be removed from something when you didn't like how it was being handled. If Acosta had shown that kind of internal fortitude and morals this entire conversation would be moot.

 

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is why trying to have a rational discussion with you is maddening.  You willfully misinterpret points made (Fred is beaming with pride I'm sure).  That or you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp them.  I'll try and explain one last time.

Acosta is lead prosecutor on an insanely high profile case.  He cuts a deal with defendant that you lambaste as a sweetheart deal and criticize him for it.  I, rightfully, point out that any deal Acosta made would have to have gotten the green light from the highest levels of the US Attorney's office given the extremely high profile nature of the case.  I also, rightfully, point out that such a deal was not formulated solely by Acosta, as his superiors would be very involved in any such process given the as high as possible profile nature of the case.  Therefore, your issue is not with Acosta, it's with the US Attorney's office and their giving the homeboy hookup to the defendant.  As to whether this case should disqualify Acosta as "a pawn", well that's naive.  Anyone in his position would have been subject to the exact same level of involvement from superiors.  Essentially, what you are saying is that no one who's worked as a prosecutor should every be involved in government.

I believe you are dealing in hyperbole. I hope the guy who hates that reads your post.

All seriousness aside: It wasn't just a "sweetheart deal"...it made the entire thing go away for everyone who even MIGHT have been involved. That Acosta didn't have the dignity or moral fortitude to step away from it speaks volumes.

Your continued defense of him that he was just doing what he was told takes away all personal responsibility.

It doesn't matter if he came up with it or just rubber stamped it. It shows how he will be in his life and every job he has with superiors.

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You said this thread wasn't about Trump, please make up your mind.  I didn't even mention Trump's name until you made your rather unclear point about being overrun with power.  In any event I haven't defended anyone in this thread.  I've merely pointed out that your criticism of Acosta is based on blinkered ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the actual process that would take place when cutting a deal in such a high profile case.  I'm sorry, I can't think of a concrete business parallel to make understanding the concept easier for you.

Oh, Dill, if you're browsing the forum, here's another example of the tactic you stated earlier you've never seen.   Maybe they're hard to see from that ivory tower?  

You have defended him by attacking a position I didn't take or make. (Stunner there.)

Even if you were initially confused I have stated it clearly multiple times in direct response to you and you STILL are arguing the wrong point.

I know that you will never admit you were wrong. That there will be more word salads and "word of the day" filled paragraphs defending yourself....but you are wrong about the initial post and willfully ignorant of all the follow up posts I have made.

I get it's personal....you don't like "me". But at least be honest about the thread itself. I have clarified if you were confused. After that it's just you being wrong and not wanting to admit it. Just like bringing in Fred and Dill to take a shot at them is just you wanting a fight rather than talking about the subject. The true subject, not the one you THINK is the subject.

Acosta could have walked away...he didn't. He was the point man between the lawyers and whoever agreed to the deal. I don't see him being any different in this administration. That's not a "Trump take" it's an "Acosta take".

Trump is his boss and the head of the current administration which is why I said that is an aside to the story. Along with his tendency to pick people with baggage and who seem unfit for their jobs. Acost is the thrust of the story and all the side stories you want to get into doesn't change that.

But at least you're not "defending" Acosta.

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 11:03 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Whether the "higher ups" approved or not was never the issue.  What WAS the issue was that Acosta is now the Sec of Labor (not his former superiors) and as such appears to be the kind of person who will fold and not protect anyone except those with the most money or power.

You are being asked to accept claims based primarily upon a claimant's personal authority.

The truth of the claims is held to be "obvious" by the claimant.

So if you challenge the claim by asking for further proof, or even ask for further specification to secure the inference, then it is clear there must be some fault in your understanding.  So your flaws are then part of the discussion. 

"Intelligence" is a subtheme as well. Posters who agree with the claimant have it. Those who question, don't. That is the test, not logically consistent, evidence based argument. Questions and counter-arguments are simply referred to that room over there with "obvious" on the door.

The easy way around this is to accept the claims without challenging them. That is really what you are being asked to do.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2018, 01:44 PM)Dill Wrote: You are being asked to accept claims based primarily upon a claimant's personal authority.

The truth of the claims is held to be "obvious" by the claimant.

So if you challenge the claim by asking for further proof, or even ask for further specification to secure the inference, then it is clear there must be some fault in your understanding.  So your flaws then are now part of the discussion. 

The easy way around this is to accept the claims without challenging them. That is really what you are being asked to do.

I just want to point out that either Acosta was okay with or didn't have the morals to step away from it.

Either way he shouldn't be in charge of anything, let alone the department of labor.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-29-2018, 01:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can't admit you were wrong.





Can't admit you were wrong.

Please explain to me how I was wrong.  I never have a problem admitting I was wrong.

Quote:You yourself said you have asked to be removed from something when you didn't like how it was being handled.  If Acosta had shown that kind of internal fortitude and morals this entire conversation would be moot.

I was, thankfully, in a much easier position to do so than Acosta.  Acosta was in the public eye during this case, his removal, either requested or mandated, would have a significant impact on how the case proceeds.  Fred will tell you, if he chooses to give a straightforward answer, that an attorney does not have the luxury of recusing themselves in the same manner.  
 

Quote:I believe you are dealing in hyperbole.  I hope the guy who hates that reads your post.  

Not at all, as I explained above.  There are always going to be situations in such roles in which you have to hold your nose and move forward.  As you said, I've had the luxury of removing myself from some of those situation.  I have not had this luxury in others.  The real world can be messy and the line between what's right, what's expedient and what's wrong is not always clear.  If your assertion, which is what you've claimed, is that Acosta's handling of such an incident disqualifies him from this position then you have disqualified anyone who has worked in a similar situation.  The vast majority of them won't be so high profile, but we are all ordered to do things we don't agree with.  If they are not unethical or illegal we either do them or quit our job.  Most people aren't independently wealthy and thus need their job.

Quote:All seriousness aside:  It wasn't just a "sweetheart deal"...it made the entire thing go away for everyone who even MIGHT have been involved.  That Acosta didn't have the dignity or moral fortitude to step away from it speaks volumes.

As explained above, as an attorney he does not have this luxury. 

Quote:Your continued defense of him that he was just doing what he was told takes away all personal responsibility.

Pointing out the realities of the situation is not a defense, it's providing context.  This is why you and your buddies consistently accuse anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with you as a "Trump supporter".  You're very black and white and have little to no appreciation of the fact that things are rarely that cut and dry in real life.  You're castigating a man for a decision that was made way above his paygrade.  I'm providing the context of that.  You apparently can't grasp this, hence your accusations.

Quote:It doesn't matter if he came up with it or just rubber stamped it.  It shows how he will be in his life and every job he has with superiors.

I'm sure you, being the great moral champion of all that is right and good, would destroy your own career to take a principled stand.  I suppose in your line of work you'll never have the opportunity to demonstrate that. 

Quote:You have defended him by attacking a position I didn't take or make. (Stunner there.)

What position is that?  Based on your own statements my argument appears to be very much on topic.

Quote:Even if you were initially confused I have stated it clearly multiple times in direct response to you and you STILL are arguing the wrong point.

No, I'm just disagreeing with your position.  You think Acosta should be held personally responsible for a decision made way over his pay grade or that it demonstrates he's a puppet for the whims of those above him.  I, having real world experience with this type of situation, understand how limited a person in such a position's options can be.  Again, as an attorney he is even more limited in his decision making.

Quote:I know that you will never admit you were wrong.  That there will be more word salads and "word of the day" filled paragraphs defending yourself....but you are wrong about the initial post and willfully ignorant of all the follow up posts I have made.

Oh my, now you're attacking someone for having a vocabulary.  Please, feel free to explain how I am wrong.  I always address every point you make, simply explain how I am wrong.  If I'm wrong I'll admit it.

Quote:I get it's personal....you don't like "me".  But at least be honest about the thread itself.  I have clarified if you were confused.  After that it's just you being wrong and not wanting to admit it.  Just like bringing in Fred and Dill to take a shot at them is just you wanting a fight rather than talking about the subject.  The true subject, not the one you THINK is the subject.

You are correct, I don't like you.  However, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  I've made cogent, rational and logical points on this topic.  You've claimed I'm wrong.  I'm asking you to explain how I am wrong.

Quote:Acosta could have walked away...he didn't.  He was the point man between the lawyers and whoever agreed to the deal.  I don't see him being any different in this administration.  That's not a "Trump take" it's an "Acosta take".

 
No, he was the lead prosecutor.  He cannot simply clap his hands and walk away like a blackjack dealer.  If you're upset about the plea deal then your issue is with the US Attorney's office, not Acosta.  You're argument has morphed from, "it was his deal" to "he should have walked away then".  The fact that you've changed your tune on why Acosta is unsuitable rather lends credence to my argument being on topic and credible.

Quote:Trump is his boss and the head of the current administration which is why I said that is an aside to the story.  Along with his tendency to pick people with baggage and who seem unfit for their jobs.  Acost is the thrust of the story and all the side stories you want to get into doesn't change that.

Except this isn't "baggage" to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the legal process.  There are plenty of Trump appointees you could make a credible argument against in this regard.  Acosta is not one of them, at least not based on this example.  You want him to be because you've been told by Allysa Milano that he's bad.

Quote:But at least you're not "defending" Acosta.

Context my boy, context.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-29-2018, 01:44 PM)Dill Wrote: You are being asked to accept claims based primarily upon a claimant's personal authority.

The truth of the claims is held to be "obvious" by the claimant.

If the argument is so flimsy, please feel free to attempt to poke holes in it.

Quote:So if you challenge the claim by asking for further proof, or even ask for further specification to secure the inference, then it is clear there must be some fault in your understanding.  So your flaws are then part of the discussion. 

Again, refute the points being made.

Quote:"Intelligence" is a subtheme as well. Posters who agree with the claimant have it. Those who question, don't.  That is the test, not logically consistent, evidence based argument.  Questions and counter-arguments are simply referred to that room over there with "obvious" on the door.

No, plenty of people I disagree with have it.  I frequently disagree with Bell, Bmore, Benton, Zona and many others.  I only seem to have this issue with a very select few. 

Quote:The easy way around this is to accept the claims without challenging them. That is really what you are being asked to do.

Oh hey, btw, the thing you stated you've never seen happen, it happened in this thread.  See, I didn't even have to try.