4 ms·

"Which seems to me just as likely that someone was paid to say that or that Acosta made it up to cover his butt for being the softest prosecutor ever." Equally

"Which seems to me just as likely that someone was paid to say that or that Acosta made it up to cover his butt for being the softest prosecutor ever." Equally as likely as in 50/50? That's coin flipping at that point - basically the same as saying having no information or opinion - all outcomes are equally the same. There's a lot more information in this case - that Epstein frequented the world's leaders, even had access to American presidents on his private plane without Secret Service, had video recordings of world leaders having sex with underage women, had professional faked passports issued to him with fake identities. When given a chance to deny communications with intelligence, Acosta refused to do so. I think skepticism is required in all things but not believing anything at all is a dangerous anti-pattern.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Equally likely as in, this is such a convenient story for Acosta that we shouldn't believe it without supporting evidence. We don't know why Acosta brought such light charges, and his vague insinuations that some unspecified agency told him not to don't provide any further information on the question.
- didntkillself 6y ago
  For me the reality that Acosta was and is not in a position where he needs to lie or obscure to explain his actions, that nothing he has done as AG is illegal, there are no motions against him, there are better lies he could have told and that the AG (and Secretary of Labor) was not a criminal in this case leads me to believe him as a witness. It's not clear to me what kind of further evidence you think should be necessary beyond witness testimony in this case, or what kind of standard this would apply to justice system in general. It's also difficult because - for instance - paper records such as the AG's inbox are missing. Is there specific evidence you believe is readily available but that hasn't been forthcoming?
grayhatter 6y ago
If my confidence in something is 0.001 something equally as likely is also 0.001. I.e. probably not representative of reality.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Equally likely as in, this is such a convenient story for Acosta that we shouldn't believe it without supporting evidence. We don't know why Acosta brought such light charges, and his vague insinuations that some unspecified agency told him not to don't provide any further information on the question.

didntkillself 6y ago
For me the reality that Acosta was and is not in a position where he needs to lie or obscure to explain his actions, that nothing he has done as AG is illegal, there are no motions against him, there are better lies he could have told and that the AG (and Secretary of Labor) was not a criminal in this case leads me to believe him as a witness. It's not clear to me what kind of further evidence you think should be necessary beyond witness testimony in this case, or what kind of standard this would apply to justice system in general. It's also difficult because - for instance - paper records such as the AG's inbox are missing. Is there specific evidence you believe is readily available but that hasn't been forthcoming?

grayhatter 6y ago

If my confidence in something is 0.001 something equally as likely is also 0.001. I.e. probably not representative of reality.