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

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   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?  

Ha ha "here"? There? Somewhere?  All I see are undemonstrated claims about unclarity and more condescending (and likely thread closing) personal attack. From the guy who hates condescension and adopts the royal "we" when he feels it.  Can you specify the tactic and example, and stop the vague gesturing? No? too much work?  We should rely on your impressions?

Looking for the proof of your impression that Dino's argument is based on "blinkered ignorance."  Wait, here it is.

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I simply know how these kind of things work. 

LOL And for people "inane" enough to miss all that "logic," there is so much more to support it.

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

So no way, and I mean NO WAY, that Acosta could have engineered (lol "forumlated") Epstein's deal himself and presented for "approval" to those upstairs, persuaded those who resist to accept, etc.  That CANNOT have happened.
Silly rabbit Dino would think you had to be in the room to know that for certain, given your preference for evidence over speculation. LOL when has he worked on a HIGH PROFILE CASE though, eh? One that got NATIONAL ATTENTION.

And that's why you

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: . . . 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.

But Epstein can't be a pawn either. Somehow.  Wait, what was Dino "so bemoaning" again? A deal that cut slack for a child trafficker or something?

Where are we now that it has been proved beyond a doubt (for those with "intelligence") and without having been in the room, that Epstein "wasn't even remotely the sole arbiter"?