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

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 07:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You already got one thread locked, it seems you're intent on doing the same here. 

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.

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?

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.

Mods won't lock a thread down because people are disagreeing. It's the totally unnecessary personal comments about posters "intelligence" that rile them.  As it should everyone.

Lot's of people have "professional expertise" in the forum. They demonstrate it though, rather than simply claiming/begging it.  That's where the respect comes.

And regarding your "assertions"; a statement like "I have 18 years experience working in government" or "I just know how it works" cannot simply premise the conclusion that "Acosta could not have engineered a deal for Epstein." Neither INDUCTION nor DEDUCTION is apparent between those two statements.  Same if you substitute "HIGH PROFILE CASE" or "higher ups had to sign off" for "18 years." They are still just juxtaposed claims--not connected by "simple logic." I don't think it would be difficult to find someone with 19 years of experience working in government who has worked on a higher profile case than you who agrees that even if a certain assent from higher ups is required, Acosta could have played a determining role shaping or creating the deal.  It's not a matter of "what I want to believe" about what actually happened. It is a recognition of what claims the evidence at hand does or does not sanction.

Speaking of "professionals", I know a couple. Sometimes they argue from authority when dealing with laypersons ("I'm the doctor!"), but what happens when they disagree with one another?  Professions are set up so that somewhere, at some point, there are protocols of logic and evidence that decide issues.  E.g., when two biologists disagree over a possible route of E Coli contamination, one can't just say "I'm a biologist and have been for 18 years."  To persuade the other biologists, and perhaps those in control of medical policy, he must make a case, refer to data, or collect and deploy it himself.  And the professionals I know are pretty comfortable with identifying limits to knowledge--as in we can't know what occurred between point A and point B for sure (or in that closed room). We can only make inferences and determine degrees of probability. 

And yes, others do, now, have ample information to make up their own minds.