Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

he said vs. he said

Acosta's account of the Epstein deal is 180 degrees opposite that of the state prosecutor.

A reasonable default position is that any time there's any question about the truthfulness of a member of the Trump Administration you assume they're lying, and there's some circumstantial evidence and other testimony to suggest that.

At the moment this isn't primarily about Trump, it is about finding out what happened.

But if Trump stonewalls- and sticks with Acosta then suspicions will begin to mount that there's something there to hide.

Acosta being in the cabinet doesn't preclude prosecution but it likely creates a lot more caution. Might even mount another ridiculous "executive privilege" defense?

Probably don't want him in a little room with prosecutors talking about a plea deal.

2 Replies
Senior Contributor

Re: he said vs. he said

Acosta said there was less scrutiny of those sort of things back then.

I was a middle aged adult in 2007 and that is a blatant lie.

But it was a clever attempt to create some wiggle room for the RW propaganda industry and stuff such as folks here quickly doing the two step from Blasey Ford and MeToo to international child sex trafficking.

Senior Contributor

Re: he said vs. he said

I expect this is what you are referring to. And yes your dear leader and his cronies do not have a good track record for telling the truth. They seem to gradually get around to something close to the truth after much muddying of the water and having the facts thrust in their faces.

Even Canadian news has the facts published.


But Barry Krischer, who was in office at the time, says Acosta’s recollection “is completely wrong.”

Krischer, a Democrat, said that the U.S. attorney’s office’s always had the ability to file its own federal charges and that a lengthy indictment was prepared but “abandoned after secret negotiations between Mr. Epstein’s lawyers and Mr. Acosta.”