11-29-2018, 07:17 PM
(11-29-2018, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.
LOL And for people "inane" enough to miss all that "logic," there is so much more to support it.
You already got one thread locked, it seems you're intent on doing the same here.
Quote: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.
I do enjoy how professional expertise is respected on here based solely on if you agree with the poster's political opinions. I have a large amount of experience dealing with the courts, investigations and prosecuting attorneys. I've also worked for the government for 18 years. I also have experience dealing with high profile cases, admittedly not as high profile as this. I have a fair degree of expertise in this area. It is very notable that you have done nothing to refute my assertions, only attempt to belittle and ridicule them.
Is it possible? Sure, it's also possible to flip a coin and have it come up heads 300 times in a row. it sure as hell isn't probable though.
Quote:And that's why you
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?
A pawn implies powerlessness. The man was not powerless, but nor was he in a position to make such a significant decision. Do you consider the commander of an infantry division the pawn of the army commander? Is the army commander a pawn of the army group commander? Are any of them the pawn of the CnC?
Quote: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"?
Hey, if you want to believe that Acosta was the sole arbiter of this deal then feel free to do so. As I've said in other threads, I've long since given up trying to make you and your buddies understand simple logic. We've both presented our arguments. Well, I have at least. The others viewing this thread have an ample amount of information with which to make up their own minds.
