Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not have to. I never said they were filed. That does not mean that none would have been.
I also can't prove that the local D.A. filed an illegal agreement. I can with Acosta.
I should believe the guy that was willing to do that? Someone almost certainly had to have lied to the judge to get this approved.
I find it amazing the amount of people who feel a need to defend what went on here.
You are the one defending here - the Palm Beach County DA!
This was back in 2008. If he was going to file charges, they would have been filed long before now. Nobody stopped him from filing charges in state court. He pretty clearly decided not to file charges against Epstein. Why was that? Acosta did, and it was not even his normal role to do that. It is at the county level (the state) where these matters are typically handled.
But in this case, no charges by the Palm Beach County DA. None.
As far as Acosta, I am not defending him. His agreement looks weak. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for that, but we should not just take his word for it. Again, there is a DOJ team investigating the handling of all of this.
In any case, they better get it right this second time around. Jeffrey Epstein is literally public enemy #1 in this country right now. If some corrupt prosecutor attempts to give Epstein a pass - a la Jussie Smollett - their is going to be an ear-splitting howl across this country in response.
I do not have to. I never said they were filed. That does not mean that none would have been.
I also can't prove that the local D.A. filed an illegal agreement. I can with Acosta.
I should believe the guy that was willing to do that? Someone almost certainly had to have lied to the judge to get this approved.
I find it amazing the amount of people who feel a need to defend what went on here.
It is astounding.
Quote:
Krischer said in a statement that Alex Acosta is “completely wrong.”
“Mr. Acosta’s should not be allowed to rewrite history,” Krischer said.
Part of his statement red: “If Mr. Acosta was truly concerned with the state’s case and felt he had to rescue the matter, he would have moved forward with the 53-page indictment that his own office drafted. Instead, Mr. Acosta brokered a secret plea deal that resulted in a Non-Prosecution Agreement.”
You are the one defending here - the Palm Beach County DA!
I am saying they are more believable. Are they wrong? Maybe but as I said, why would I believe the word of Acosta? He filed an illegal agreement and then tried to blame the victims.
Quote:
This was back in 2008. If he was going to file charges, they would have been filed long before now. Nobody stopped him from filing charges in state court. He pretty clearly decided not to file charges against Epstein. Why was that? Acosta did, and it was not even his normal role to do that. It is at the county level (the state) where these matters are typically handled.
Will I argue that they still should have filed? Yes I will. What good would it have done? The agreement gave Epstein a virtual free pass.
Should the Florida DA have blown the whistle on the illegal agreement? Absolutely. I hope we find out why they didn't.
Quote:
But in this case, no charges by the Palm Beach County DA. None.
As far as Acosta, I am not defending him. His agreement looks weak. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for that, but we should not just take his word for it. Again, there is a DOJ team investigating the handling of all of this.
In any case, they better get it right this second time around. Jeffrey Epstein is literally public enemy #1 in this country right now. If some corrupt prosecutor attempts to give Epstein a pass - a la Jussie Smollett - their is going to be an ear-splitting howl across this country in response.
The entire country is watching this time. What will make it not happen is if everything becomes extremely partisan. The country sat back and watched the bankers get away with crimes, while I hope it doesn't happen here, it could.
All the people who constantly bring up Clinton & his associations and horndog ways. He hasn't been president for 2 decades & still his behavior triggers people.
So WHY, when people are *so disgusted* and troubled by Clinton's behaviors, would you then elect another guy as bad or worse into office when you already know you can't stand a cheating horndog with ties to unsavory types?
What excuse allows you to handwave away and outright deny all of Trump's dirty dealings, which have been well-documented over the years and known before the election? Your dearest leader went bankrupt more than once, he's cheated many people through various business & foundation ventures, he conned people and had to pay out $25MM+ just before the election from being sued by ex-Trump Univ. students who were bilked thousands each, he's a pathological liar, he's cheated on every wife (3), has children with 3 different women, has been accused by many women of unwanted sexual contact, he paid off at least 1 prostitute & lied about it, and *that's* who people love & adore? WHY?
WHY would you ever think it a good idea to put a corrupt puzzy-grabbing lowlife into office and then use "BUT CLINTON WAS A CHEATER" as your defense? It just makes you a hypocrite & demonstrates you've learned nothing in 20 years.
So don't come and defend your dear 'grab 'em by the puzzy' leader with "but Clinton did..." because that is an invalid argument right out of the gate.
All the people who constantly bring up Clinton & his associations and horndog ways. He hasn't been president for 2 decades & still his behavior triggers people.
It had a negative effect on the country.
Quote:
So WHY, when people are *so disgusted* and troubled by Clinton's behaviors, would you then elect another guy as bad or worse into office when you already know you can't stand a cheating horndog? What excuse allows you to handwave away all of Trump's dirty dealings, which have been well-documented over the years? He went bankrupt more than once, he's cheated many people through various business & foundation ventures, he's a pathological liar, and *that'* who people love & adore? WHY?
WHY would you ever think it a good idea to put a corrupt puzzy-grabbing lowlife into office and then use "BUT CLINTON IN 1996" as your defense? It just makes you a hypocrite & demonstrates you've learned nothing in 20 years.
So don't come and defend your dear leader with "but Clinton did..." because that is an invalid argument right from the get-go.
I would also ask about nominating Hillary along this same reasoning.
All the people who constantly bring up Clinton & his associations and horndog ways. He hasn't been president for 2 decades & still his behavior triggers people.
So WHY, when people are *so disgusted* and troubled by Clinton's behaviors, would you then elect another guy as bad or worse into office when you already know you can't stand a cheating horndog? What excuse allows you to handwave away all of Trump's dirty dealings, which have been well-documented over the years? He went bankrupt more than once, he's cheated many people through various business & foundation ventures, he's a pathological liar, and *that'* who people love & adore? WHY?
WHY would you ever think it a good idea to put a corrupt puzzy-grabbing lowlife into office and then use "BUT CLINTON IN 1996" as your defense? It just makes you a hypocrite & demonstrates you've learned nothing in 20 years.
So don't come and defend your dear leader with "but Clinton did..." because that is an invalid argument right from the get-go.
Some people will sell themselves out, just so they can say something about "lib heads exploding", or "owning" the "libs".
Last edited by Old Town FFX; 07-12-2019 at 04:01 PM..
I am saying they are more believable. Are they wrong? Maybe but as I said, why would I believe the word of Acosta? He filed an illegal agreement and then tried to blame the victims.
Will I argue that they still should have filed? Yes I will. What good would it have done? The agreement gave Epstein a virtual free pass.
Should the Florida DA have blown the whistle on the illegal agreement? Absolutely. I hope we find out why they didn't.
The entire country is watching this time. What will make it not happen is if everything becomes extremely partisan. The country sat back and watched the bankers get away with crimes, while I hope it doesn't happen here, it could.
Why do you have to "believe" anyone. This he said, she said crap is notoriously unreliable. Let's just look at the facts and let them speak for themselves.
So, the facts are that the Palm Beach County DA filed no charges against Epstein in this matter, even though it is the jurisdiction of the Country/State to handle criminal matters such as this.
Also, US Attorney Acosta filed charges against Epstein in 2008, even though it was not the normal responsibility of the feds to get involved in this sort of thing.
And what is looking extremely partisan here is the free pass that partisan Democrats and the media are trying to give the Palm Beach County DA, whose responsibility the handling of this case was. Which is of course par for the course.
You are the one defending here - the Palm Beach County DA!
This was back in 2008. If he was going to file charges, they would have been filed long before now. Nobody stopped him from filing charges in state court. He pretty clearly decided not to file charges against Epstein. Why was that? Acosta did, and it was not even his normal role to do that. It is at the county level (the state) where these matters are typically handled.
But in this case, no charges by the Palm Beach County DA. None.
As far as Acosta, I am not defending him. His agreement looks weak. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for that, but we should not just take his word for it. Again, there is a DOJ team investigating the handling of all of this.
In any case, they better get it right this second time around. Jeffrey Epstein is literally public enemy #1 in this country right now. If some corrupt prosecutor attempts to give Epstein a pass - a la Jussie Smollett - their is going to be an ear-splitting howl across this country in response.
The explanation is that the State Attorney deferred to the higher-ranking US Attorney.
All the people who constantly bring up Clinton & his associations and horndog ways. He hasn't been president for 2 decades & still his behavior triggers people.
So WHY, when people are *so disgusted* and troubled by Clinton's behaviors, would you then elect another guy as bad or worse into office when you already know you can't stand a cheating horndog with ties to unsavory types?
What excuse allows you to handwave away and outright deny all of Trump's dirty dealings, which have been well-documented over the years and known before the election? Your dearest leader went bankrupt more than once, he's cheated many people through various business & foundation ventures, he conned people and had to pay out $25MM+ just before the election from being sued by ex-Trump Univ. students who were bilked thousands each, he's a pathological liar, he's cheated on every wife (3), has children with 3 different women, has been accused by many women of unwanted sexual contact, he paid off at least 1 prostitute & lied about it, and *that's* who people love & adore? WHY?
WHY would you ever think it a good idea to put a corrupt puzzy-grabbing lowlife into office and then use "BUT CLINTON WAS A CHEATER" as your defense? It just makes you a hypocrite & demonstrates you've learned nothing in 20 years.
So don't come and defend your dear 'grab 'em by the puzzy' leader with "but Clinton did..." because that is an invalid argument right out of the gate.
You're right, of course, and had his opponent been anyone but Hillary, Trump would never have won.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
