Epstein bar syndrome (you have to be drunk in one to believe what Democrats are saying)

Diogenes said:
The Acosta transcript just DESTROYED the Democrats' Epstein–Trump smear. Ranking Member Garcia and @OversightDems
have spent months pushing a LIE against President Trump.

1/ Acosta NEVER talked to Trump about Epstein.Not in person. Not on the phone. Not over email."He moved in circles that I did not move in." (p. 65)That's straight from his testimony.

G3enKBSWMAAyl8W



2/ Trump's name did not appear in the case. (p. 129): "I have no knowledge of Donald Trump's name appearing in any Epstein document ... (or) being associated with the Epstein investigation in any way." "If there was, it's pretty spectacular it hasn't leaked by now." (p. 130):

G3es0ALW8AAV4gN
G3es0AGWgAAbkC6

3/ Did Trump appoint Acosta because of Epstein? "No".

"Not in the least bit, no." (p. 124).

Did Trump ask Acosta to resign? No."[It] was my choice. It was not suggested by anyone at the White House that I resign." (p. 124).

This entire talking point was fabricated by Democrats.


G3et9fpXEAAvNLg


4/ Why did Acosta resign? "If you become a distraction, then it's not appropriate for you to serve in these jobs. ... I did not want to be a distraction to his administration, and I chose to resign." (p. 125)

The Democrat-dominated media and their Democrat overlords said he was forced out. Another lie.

G3eu3CFWQAAGGK8

​
5/ What about Epstein's sweetheart deal?

"We had an ASSURANCE that he would be in continuous confinement." (p. 44) "And had we known that he was going to get work release, this WOULD NOT have gone forward." (p. 156)

Palm Beach betrayed that deal, and Epstein walked.

G3exlyWXoAAaGk0

G3exlwhWoAAmMyb


6/ According to Acosta, the plea deal was about getting Epstein IN JAIL when a trial risked letting him off completely."

The trial was a crapshoot, and we just wanted the guy to go to jail." (p. 26)

Democrats knew this and lied anyway.


G3ez8CKXUAAOvzq

​


You can find it all here:


oversight.house.gov

Oversight Committee Releases Acosta Transcript - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
oversight.house.gov oversight.house.gov
​
Click to expand...
Acosta sure seems to have no recollection of anything.

But while he has no recollection of Donald Trump's name showing up in any document related to Epstein, we have documents released to the public that show Donald Trump's name showed up in the flight logs and in Epstein's birthday book. That would seem to point to Acosta's lack of recollection being pretty remarkable as to how forgetful he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Diogenes said:
:dunno:



Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

The saying "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" stems from a legal principle known as the presumption of innocence. Its origins can be traced to several historical and legal developments:
  1. Roman Law: The concept has roots in Roman legal traditions, notably expressed in the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof lies with the one who accuses, not the one who denies"). This idea was part of the Roman legal system, emphasizing that the accuser must provide evidence of guilt.
  2. English Common Law: The principle became formalized in English common law, particularly through the writings of jurists like Sir William Blackstone in the 18th century. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) articulated the idea that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
  3. Codification in Legal Systems: The phrase itself gained prominence in the context of modern legal systems, particularly in Anglo-American law. It was explicitly referenced in the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case Coffin v. United States, where the court affirmed that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle, requiring the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  4. Cultural Spread: The saying became a popular shorthand for the presumption of innocence through its use in legal proceedings, media, and public discourse, especially in the United States and other common law jurisdictions. It reflects the idea that an individual is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law through due process.
While the exact phrasing of the saying may vary, its essence is a cornerstone of many modern legal systems, particularly those influenced by English common law, and it is enshrined in documents like the U.S. Constitution (through the Fifth and Sixth Amendments) and international human rights frameworks, such as Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).



So you say.



Yet no charges were filed. Are you going to cry about it?



He's not in jail, is he?
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the part about guilty after having been found guilty.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Acosta sure seems to have no recollection of anything. But while he has no recollection of Donald Trump's name showing up in any document related to Epstein, we have documents released to the public that show Donald Trump's name showed up in the flight logs and in Epstein's birthday book. That would seem to point to Acosta's lack of recollection being pretty remarkable as to how forgetful he is.
Click to expand...


"We" do? If I'm reading the transcript correct, he stated that he didn't recall seeing any such documents during his engagement with DOJ, and had no knowledge of Trump's name appearing in any Epstein document.

By all means, if you have proof that Mr. Acosta perjured himself, you should inform the appropriate authorities.

Why haven't you?
 
Diogenes said:
"We" do? If I'm reading the transcript correct, he stated that he didn't recall seeing any such documents during his engagement with DOJ, and had no knowledge of Trump's name appearing in any Epstein document.

By all means, if you have proof that Mr. Acosta perjured himself, you should inform the appropriate authorities.

Why haven't you?
Click to expand...
Having no recollection is not necessarily perjury. But if you think he is guilty then I guess you don't even believe in what you posted earlier about innocent until proven guilty.
 
Diogenes said:
:dunno:



Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

The saying "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" stems from a legal principle known as the presumption of innocence. Its origins can be traced to several historical and legal developments:
  1. Roman Law: The concept has roots in Roman legal traditions, notably expressed in the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof lies with the one who accuses, not the one who denies"). This idea was part of the Roman legal system, emphasizing that the accuser must provide evidence of guilt.
  2. English Common Law: The principle became formalized in English common law, particularly through the writings of jurists like Sir William Blackstone in the 18th century. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) articulated the idea that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
  3. Codification in Legal Systems: The phrase itself gained prominence in the context of modern legal systems, particularly in Anglo-American law. It was explicitly referenced in the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case Coffin v. United States, where the court affirmed that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle, requiring the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  4. Cultural Spread: The saying became a popular shorthand for the presumption of innocence through its use in legal proceedings, media, and public discourse, especially in the United States and other common law jurisdictions. It reflects the idea that an individual is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law through due process.
While the exact phrasing of the saying may vary, its essence is a cornerstone of many modern legal systems, particularly those influenced by English common law, and it is enshrined in documents like the U.S. Constitution (through the Fifth and Sixth Amendments) and international human rights frameworks, such as Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).



So you say.



Yet no charges were filed. Are you going to cry about it?



He's not in jail, is he?
Click to expand...
Yes but a person who is not stupid, (ie not you) realizes you are speaking to legality only.

If a pedophile abuses kids but is never caught he is still a pedophile who abuses kids.

I know you will defend him and say 'unless he is caught and convicted he is not that' but that is because you are stupid as he either did the crime or he did not and getting caught does not change that.

if Putin orders his secret police to poison someone or throw them off a balcony they did it, and you arguing 'it did not happen if they were never charged by Putin's regular police, is just stupid'. It happened whether they got charged or not.

And a judge rendered clear findings, and we can all read the law. It is against the law to give secret deals to those prosecuted without telling the victims and Acosta broke that law. He does not deny it as it is clear. That he was not charged does not change that. It only means he was not indicted, and does not mean he did not do it.
 
QP! said:
Yes but a person who is not stupid, (ie not you) realizes you are speaking to legality only. If a pedophile abuses kids but is never caught he is still a pedophile who abuses kids. I know you will defend him and say 'unless he is caught and convicted he is not that' but that is because you are stupid as he either did the crime or he did not and getting caught does not change that. if Putin orders his secret police to poison someone or throw them off a balcony they did it, and you arguing 'it did not happen if they were never charged by Putin's regular police, is just stupid'. It happened whether they got charged or not. And a judge rendered clear findings, and we can all read the law. It is against the law to give secret deals to those prosecuted without telling the victims and Acosta broke that law. He does not deny it as it is clear. That he was not charged does not change that. It only means he was not indicted, and does not mean he did not do it.
Click to expand...

No conviction, no crime (in law).
 
Diogenes said:
No conviction, no crime (in law).
Click to expand...
Yes but you are stupid so i understand you will not understand this point.

I am not saying Acosta was convicted. That does not mean he did not do the crime.

We can see a person caught on video doing a minor theft in California and just because they are not arrested and prosecuted because the prosecutor is not charging crimes below a certain dollar value DOES NOT mean they did not do it. It means they were not charged. It means they have no criminal record. But we can see they did it, and they did.

Acosta is not denying he gave Epstein a deal without notifying the victims because it is in the public documents that he did. HE DID THAT.

The law is clear that what he did is illegal for a Prosecutor to do and a Judge reviewed it and said he broke the law. That is clear and not denied as HE DID THAT.

You can say 'he was not prosecuted so there is no conviction' but you cannot say he did not do it, and that it was not illegal to do. You can only say he escaped prosecution.

And if that makes you feel like you are scoring points in the Trump Epstein cover up, good on you. It does not though and if you were smarter you would know that.
 
QP! said:
Yes but you are stupid so i understand you will not understand this point. I am not saying Acosta was convicted. That does not mean he did not do the crime.
We can see a person caught on video doing a minor theft in California and just because they are not arrested and prosecuted because the prosecutor is not charging crimes below a certain dollar value DOES NOT mean they did not do it. It means they were not charged. It means they have no criminal record. But we can see they did it, and they did. Acosta is not denying he gave Epstein a deal without notifying the victims because it is in the public documents that he did. HE DID THAT.
The law is clear that what he did is illegal for a Prosecutor to do and a Judge reviewed it and said he broke the law. That is clear and not denied as HE DID THAT.
You can say 'he was not prosecuted so there is no conviction' but you cannot say he did not do it, and that it was not illegal to do. You can only say he escaped prosecution. And if that makes you feel like you are scoring points in the Trump Epstein cover up, good on you. It does not though and if you were smarter you would know that.
Click to expand...

Are you going to keep whining about Acosta and trying to link POTUS to Epstein all day?
 
Diogenes said:
Are you going to keep whining about Acosta and trying to link POTUS to Epstein all day?
Click to expand...
Holy crap you are stupid. Did you forget you created this thread about Acosta for us to discuss him?

Ask the mod to delete it if you no longer want Acosta discussed.
 
QP! said:
Holy crap you are stupid. Did you forget you created this thread about Acosta for us to discuss him? Ask the mod to delete it if you no longer want Acosta discussed.
Click to expand...


Whining about Acosta's never-charged "crime" and trying (unsuccessfully) to link POTUS to Epstein all day is "discussing"?

Who knew?
 
Diogenes said:
Whining about Acosta's never-charged "crime" and trying (unsuccessfully) to link POTUS to Epstein all day is "discussing"?

Who knew?
Click to expand...
Ya you are hopelessly stupid.

You create a thread about Acosta and trying to use his lack of memory to clear Trump and then push that is wrong to show you that Acosta committed a crime to cover up the Epstein stuff prior which he basically said to congress he had little memory of any of it.

I would ask 'who knew' you were this stupid but i am certain everyone who has read your posts knows that.
 
Diogenes said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1979257170106433738
View: https://x.com/GOPoversight/status/1979257170106433738
Click to expand...
Yes yes exactly that.

I just debunked that claim as garbage so thanks for posting that to support what i said.

No one cares what Acosta says he cannot remember about the Epstein files or why he made the charging decisions he did when it is crystal clear that not only did he break the law in giving Epstein a deal the law did not allow him to do, but he has been covering it up ever since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top