I appreciate that.
Actually it doesn't piss me off at all...since it goes to further my point. If the guards had to be in on it...than there would be no reason to remove Epstein from Suicide Watch. They could just do their rounds, check in on him, leave, come back in 15 minutes. "Oh darn, he must have known our schedule and timed his suicide perfectly."So this answer falls squarely in the "going to piss you off" category, just a forewarning. But we don't know that they aren't in on it. So far they aren't cooperating at all.
Again, it's not on me to prove he didn't get the posting because of the Epstein deal. You're the one making the accusation. You have to prove it.Those are literally the antithesis to reasons why Acosta would get that posting. There is nothing you can point to that says Acosta should get this above someone else, other than the Epstein deal. And that's a major one.
It's not a good point because, once again, you have to prove the connection. IF our positions were reversed...I would not be pushing that angle.This is you not trying again. All in good fun though.
Is there another first-year-of-Residency cabinet post that went to a lesser deserving person? I'm looking at the list now - Acosta had no wealth, no power, and no influence. He was the Dean of a fourth-tier law school. He was a nothing burger.
I mean - to me this is a big point. I would like to think that if our debating positions were reversed, you might be saying something similar.
And, again, most of them are weak, have nothing to do with the suicide, and/or can be explained without a conspiracy.But they are there. And they are legion. If there were less than 20 I wouldn't even be in this conversation.
I mean, usually I have to use trhis on Anti-Vaxxers but it seems to apply here as well:
Correlation is not Causation.
Just because you can show two things happened...that isn't the same as proving that one of those things is directly connected to the other.
No, that's not how a deal like that would work. Especially since you keep avoiding the fact that Acosta was a replacement nominee. Like it wasn't even "You'll get a job the next time we win" it would have been "You might get a job if the guy we really want withdraws and all you have to do is completely throw this incredibly major, career-making case."Yeah, pretty much. He was a political operator and knew the score. If that's how it went down, he would understand.
Yeah, he was on a list somewhere...but you still have to prove that the reason he was on that list was because of Epstein.But it was a political deal, which incorporates both "great" and "shitty" - because that's how the cards are dealt. He might not have ever gotten something, but he was obviously on a list somewhere.
It's a more tangible reason than what you have presented.That's your reason? He was friends with someone else who raised money for him?
I mean, can you at least try here? There is NO solid reason, even a remotely casual one, to put Acosta in that role. There were countless state campaign chairman and business associates.