07-09-2019, 03:53 PM
(07-09-2019, 12:49 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I may be missing something here. Are we full circle back to Clinton again?
Not even a little. merely stating the undisputed fact that Clinton became attached to this case, however peripherally. That being a fact the idea that higher ups had a major role in this decision seems far more likely. Dead certain IMO. As I've stated, it wouldn't shock me at all to learn that the AG at the time personally signed off on this decision.
Quote:Sure. There were almost certainly other hands in the cookie jar on this one. But bottom line, Acosta is top of the play bill. I know that I personally wouldn't sign my name to that document. But I also wouldn't appoint someone who did to my cabinet either.
I think we'd all like to think we'd have the moral fiber to potentially ruin our professional lives by opposing a decision we thought unethical or shady. Problem is, when you're immersed in such a scenario it's rarely that simple. This is compounded by the fact that far more powerful people are the ones actually making the decision. As you say, Acosta is just the face of this deal, I don't think the lion's share of blame for it should fall on him.
Quote:Far better comparisons exist.
As I explained above I completely disagree. Please feel free to explain otherwise though.
