Nosmo said:

---

Acosta said the defense had already hinted that the case could fall apart as some of the victims had talked about money compensation with Epstein's lawyers.

Regardless of the 53 pages the feds had, it didn't sound like their team was confident they would win. Mueller had 400+ pages of crappola.

It sounded really screwy that the feds deal (victim compensation) only had the weekend to contact the victims, because the negotiation was agreed to like Friday(?), and it would expire Monday (with the plea).

Acosta said this was a complicated situation. He also said that the testimony back then was much more difficult (embarrassing) on victims.

Maybe this "slam dunk" case wasn't as solid as the media is claiming. I've investigated 100's of industrial accidents and equipment failures, and hindsight is rarely the reality of the actual situation at the time of the incident. I used to tell people that you always find something the last place you look, but you may have had to look in 20 places.

I'm just not buying the conspiracy stuff yet. Maybe some mistakes on the part of Florida and fed, that let Epstein's legal team put one over on them. Acosta seemed too open with replies and claimed public records have been available for inspection, yet media don't seem interested.

Don't know what to think about Florida.

---

agsfan said:

---

Willing to bet they're both guilty

---

agsfan said:

---

No she didn't

---

agsfan said:

---

Willing to bet they're both guilty

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

No she didn't

---

Lol, how do you know?

---

biobioprof said:

---

Nosmo said:

---

Acosta said the defense had already hinted that the case could fall apart as some of the victims had talked about money compensation with Epstein's lawyers.

Regardless of the 53 pages the feds had, it didn't sound like their team was confident they would win. Mueller had 400+ pages of crappola.

It sounded really screwy that the feds deal (victim compensation) only had the weekend to contact the victims, because the negotiation was agreed to like Friday(?), and it would expire Monday (with the plea).

Acosta said this was a complicated situation. He also said that the testimony back then was much more difficult (embarrassing) on victims.

Maybe this "slam dunk" case wasn't as solid as the media is claiming. I've investigated 100's of industrial accidents and equipment failures, and hindsight is rarely the reality of the actual situation at the time of the incident. I used to tell people that you always find something the last place you look, but you may have had to look in 20 places.

I'm just not buying the conspiracy stuff yet. Maybe some mistakes on the part of Florida and fed, that let Epstein's legal team put one over on them. Acosta seemed too open with replies and claimed public records have been available for inspection, yet media don't seem interested.

Don't know what to think about Florida.

---

Regarding the Acosta statement on possible weaknesses in the case

---

Quote:

---

I'm confused

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

biobioprof said:

---

Nosmo said:

---

Acosta said the defense had already hinted that the case could fall apart as some of the victims had talked about money compensation with Epstein's lawyers.

Regardless of the 53 pages the feds had, it didn't sound like their team was confident they would win. Mueller had 400+ pages of crappola.

It sounded really screwy that the feds deal (victim compensation) only had the weekend to contact the victims, because the negotiation was agreed to like Friday(?), and it would expire Monday (with the plea).

Acosta said this was a complicated situation. He also said that the testimony back then was much more difficult (embarrassing) on victims.

Maybe this "slam dunk" case wasn't as solid as the media is claiming. I've investigated 100's of industrial accidents and equipment failures, and hindsight is rarely the reality of the actual situation at the time of the incident. I used to tell people that you always find something the last place you look, but you may have had to look in 20 places.

I'm just not buying the conspiracy stuff yet. Maybe some mistakes on the part of Florida and fed, that let Epstein's legal team put one over on them. Acosta seemed too open with replies and claimed public records have been available for inspection, yet media don't seem interested.

Don't know what to think about Florida.

---

Regarding the Acosta statement on possible weaknesses in the casebut

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

Why do you believe it was Acosta's deal? Don't be naive. This went way over his head

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

I think way more people than Clinton were involved. They were protecting lots of powerful people. Clinton was just one.


Also Asha is smoking hot.

---

biobioprof said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

Why do you believe it was Acosta's deal? Don't be naive. This went way over his head

---

Others (e.g. Mukasey) from above may have things to explain, but let me explain it this way:

If some student in my class is caught cheating and someone way above me wants a grade change to make an F* disappear from their transcript, I can do the grade change or tell the people above me to do what they want without my signature. In the former case, I think it would be my grade change. In the latter, not. YMMV.

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

What if the people above you said that the grade change had to do with national security? I bet you change it

---

Sasappis said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

Why do you believe it was Acosta's deal? Don't be naive. This went way over his head

---

Others (e.g. Mukasey) from above may have things to explain, but let me explain it this way:

If some student in my class is caught cheating and someone way above me wants a grade change to make an F* disappear from their transcript, I can do the grade change or tell the people above me to do what they want without my signature. In the former case, I think it would be my grade change. In the latter, not. YMMV.

---

Apples meet oranges. In the subjective world of prosecutorial discretion, trials, evidence, CI relationships, etc., The higher ups tell you he is an informant and we are not going to prosecute him - leave it to Florida. You do what you are told. Deals get made for scumbags all the time in the justice system and it isn't black and white. I'm shocked you are not aware of this

---

Deals don't get made without bringing the local US attorney into the loop. He is not some low level paper pusher. He was a Senate confirmed presidential appointee.

---

Sasappis said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

Why do you believe it was Acosta's deal? Don't be naive. This went way over his head

---

Others (e.g. Mukasey) from above may have things to explain, but let me explain it this way:

If some student in my class is caught cheating and someone way above me wants a grade change to make an F* disappear from their transcript, I can do the grade change or tell the people above me to do what they want without my signature. In the former case, I think it would be my grade change. In the latter, not. YMMV.

---

Apples meet oranges. In the subjective world of prosecutorial discretion, trials, evidence, CI relationships, etc., The higher ups tell you he is an informant and we are not going to prosecute him - leave it to Florida. You do what you are told. Deals get made for scumbags all the time in the justice system and it isn't black and white. I'm shocked you are not aware of this

---

Deals don't get made without bringing the local US attorney into the loop. He is not some low level paper pusher. He was a Senate confirmed presidential appointee.

---

He claimed the deal was cut before he was involved. Did you listen to his press conference?

Was he lying about that?

---

Then the deal was made by his subordinates and he accepted it and approved it.

---

Sasappis said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

Why do you believe it was Acosta's deal? Don't be naive. This went way over his head

---

Others (e.g. Mukasey) from above may have things to explain, but let me explain it this way:

If some student in my class is caught cheating and someone way above me wants a grade change to make an F* disappear from their transcript, I can do the grade change or tell the people above me to do what they want without my signature. In the former case, I think it would be my grade change. In the latter, not. YMMV.

---

Apples meet oranges. In the subjective world of prosecutorial discretion, trials, evidence, CI relationships, etc., The higher ups tell you he is an informant and we are not going to prosecute him - leave it to Florida. You do what you are told. Deals get made for scumbags all the time in the justice system and it isn't black and white. I'm shocked you are not aware of this

---

Deals don't get made without bringing the local US attorney into the loop. He is not some low level paper pusher. He was a Senate confirmed presidential appointee.

He may have cut a deal at someone's behest but to act like he is not complicit and liable for the deal shows a disconnect from reality.

---

Stlkofta said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

Why do you believe it was Acosta's deal? Don't be naive. This went way over his head

---

Others (e.g. Mukasey) from above may have things to explain, but let me explain it this way:

If some student in my class is caught cheating and someone way above me wants a grade change to make an F* disappear from their transcript, I can do the grade change or tell the people above me to do what they want without my signature. In the former case, I think it would be my grade change. In the latter, not. YMMV.

---

Apples meet oranges. In the subjective world of prosecutorial discretion, trials, evidence, CI relationships, etc., The higher ups tell you he is an informant and we are not going to prosecute him - leave it to Florida. You do what you are told. Deals get made for scumbags all the time in the justice system and it isn't black and white. I'm shocked you are not aware of this

---

Deals don't get made without bringing the local US attorney into the loop. He is not some low level paper pusher. He was a Senate confirmed presidential appointee.

He may have cut a deal at someone's behest but to act like he is not complicit and liable for the deal shows a disconnect from reality.

---

Considering the potential involvement of Messrs. Mueller and Comey in this matter, an assumption that bureaucratic norms were avoided when it came to Epstein is entirely plausible.

---

captkirk said:

---

Stlkofta said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

Why do you believe it was Acosta's deal? Don't be naive. This went way over his head

---

Others (e.g. Mukasey) from above may have things to explain, but let me explain it this way:

If some student in my class is caught cheating and someone way above me wants a grade change to make an F* disappear from their transcript, I can do the grade change or tell the people above me to do what they want without my signature. In the former case, I think it would be my grade change. In the latter, not. YMMV.

---

Apples meet oranges. In the subjective world of prosecutorial discretion, trials, evidence, CI relationships, etc., The higher ups tell you he is an informant and we are not going to prosecute him - leave it to Florida. You do what you are told. Deals get made for scumbags all the time in the justice system and it isn't black and white. I'm shocked you are not aware of this

---

Deals don't get made without bringing the local US attorney into the loop. He is not some low level paper pusher. He was a Senate confirmed presidential appointee.

He may have cut a deal at someone's behest but to act like he is not complicit and liable for the deal shows a disconnect from reality.

---

Considering the potential involvement of Messrs. Mueller and Comey in this matter, an assumption that bureaucratic norms were avoided when it came to Epstein is entirely plausible.

---

Damn near documented by the fact the FBI declared him an informant

---

captkirk said:

---

Stlkofta said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

captkirk said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Trump does no wrong, my bad.
He's always truthful and straightforward about his sexual escapades.
That is why I 100% believe him when he says he didn't rape a 13 year old at an Epstein party.

---

This isn't about Trump!! As much as you liberals want to make this about Trump or Acosta. This is about a sick pervert and also about Bill Clinton and his 26 trips in the Lolita express to certain islands.

But yeah, keep pushing the Trump BS

---

So, if Clinton was one of the unindicted coconspirators, and Acosta's deal covered him ... is it OK to talk about Acosta's role in that?

Something I hadn't thought about before, but around this time weren't Bill C and HW already BFFs over their relief work?

---

Why do you believe it was Acosta's deal? Don't be naive. This went way over his head

---

Others (e.g. Mukasey) from above may have things to explain, but let me explain it this way:

If some student in my class is caught cheating and someone way above me wants a grade change to make an F* disappear from their transcript, I can do the grade change or tell the people above me to do what they want without my signature. In the former case, I think it would be my grade change. In the latter, not. YMMV.

---

Apples meet oranges. In the subjective world of prosecutorial discretion, trials, evidence, CI relationships, etc., The higher ups tell you he is an informant and we are not going to prosecute him - leave it to Florida. You do what you are told. Deals get made for scumbags all the time in the justice system and it isn't black and white. I'm shocked you are not aware of this

---

Deals don't get made without bringing the local US attorney into the loop. He is not some low level paper pusher. He was a Senate confirmed presidential appointee.

He may have cut a deal at someone's behest but to act like he is not complicit and liable for the deal shows a disconnect from reality.

---

Considering the potential involvement of Messrs. Mueller and Comey in this matter, an assumption that bureaucratic norms were avoided when it came to Epstein is entirely plausible.

---

Damn near documented by the fact the FBI declared him an informant

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Willing to bet they're both guilty

---

Yes I am. $500 to ASPCA. You bet they are both guilty. If they are both guilty I will pay $500 to ASPCA if neither guilty you pay. aginllakeway will tell you I pay my bets.

---

agsfan said:

---

Willing to bet they're both guilty

---