|
Post by mizzougrad96 on Jul 12, 2019 14:19:34 GMT
So, Trump gets to appoint his successor? That should be interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 14:21:19 GMT
I'm really interested in digging into this whole story. We know that Acosta let him off easy. We don't know why, right? Acosta argues that it was a pretty standard-issue plea deal, working with the state prosecutors to reach something where Epstein actually spent time in jail.
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Jul 12, 2019 14:24:11 GMT
I'm really interested in digging into this whole story. That's just what an alt-righter would say.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfenstein on Jul 12, 2019 14:26:09 GMT
I'm really interested in digging into this whole story. That's just what an alt-righter would say. What would Alex Jones say?
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Jul 12, 2019 14:29:55 GMT
That's just what an alt-righter would say. What would Alex Jones say? "All things considered I'd rather be in the Reichstag"?
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Jul 12, 2019 14:32:29 GMT
I still stink it’s hysterical that Brown admits she only started looking back into the case when Acosta was nominated for a cabinet position.
In the 10 years prior, no one in the mainstream media wanted to touch this story.
Weird. It’s like they were all afraid of what they might find, until there was a potential Trump angle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 14:34:18 GMT
I still stink it’s hysterical that Brown admits she only started looking back into the case when Acosta was nominated for a cabinet position. In the 10 years prior, no one in the mainstream media wanted to touch this story. Weird. It’s like they were all afraid of what they might find, until there was a potential Trump angle. This is a little silly on your part, and you do it a lot, assuming this premise that a "Trump angle" automatically taints the story. He's the President of the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Da Man on Jul 12, 2019 14:36:32 GMT
I still stink it’s hysterical that Brown admits she only started looking back into the case when Acosta was nominated for a cabinet position. In the 10 years prior, no one in the mainstream media wanted to touch this story. Weird. It’s like they were all afraid of what they might find, until there was a potential Trump angle. This is a little silly on your part, and you do it a lot, assuming this premise that a "Trump angle" automatically taints the story. He's the President of the United States. I think the premise is that there was already a U.S. President involved, but no one wanted to touch it until it was THIS President.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 14:37:29 GMT
This is a little silly on your part, and you do it a lot, assuming this premise that a "Trump angle" automatically taints the story. He's the President of the United States. I think the premise is that there was already a U.S. President involved, but no one wanted to touch it until it was THIS President. Who is currently in office.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Jul 12, 2019 14:37:30 GMT
I still stink it’s hysterical that Brown admits she only started looking back into the case when Acosta was nominated for a cabinet position. In the 10 years prior, no one in the mainstream media wanted to touch this story. Weird. It’s like they were all afraid of what they might find, until there was a potential Trump angle. This is a little silly on your part, and you do it a lot, assuming this premise that a "Trump angle" automatically taints the story. He's the President of the United States. It’s a fine reason. There were other fine reasons to look into this story prior to 2017, but because the alt-right thought there was a Clinton angle, the MSM looked down on the story, like it was some Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Now, of course, the assumption is that Acosta was somehow comprised or covering for someone, which is a conspiracy theory in its own right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 14:37:58 GMT
And, as I ask every time on one of these YF flights of fancy: Do Breitbart and Fox News not employ reporters?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 14:38:45 GMT
This is a little silly on your part, and you do it a lot, assuming this premise that a "Trump angle" automatically taints the story. He's the President of the United States. It’s a fine reason. There were other fine reasons to look into this story prior to 2017, but because the alt-right thought there was a Clinton angle, the MSM looked down on the story, like it was some Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Now, of course, the assumption is that Acosta was somehow comprised or covering for someone, which is a conspiracy theory in its own right. What do you think happened?
|
|
|
Post by JC on Jul 12, 2019 14:58:06 GMT
And, as I ask every time on one of these YF flights of fancy: Do Breitbart and Fox News not employ reporters? And, as usually happens, he will ignore this question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 15:00:35 GMT
And, as I ask every time on one of these YF flights of fancy: Do Breitbart and Fox News not employ reporters? And, as usually happens, he will ignore this question. It's a good question, right? He rages that the media did not pursue this story or that story, as if the right-wing media is somehow precluded from pursuing said stories.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Jul 12, 2019 15:00:56 GMT
And, as I ask every time on one of these YF flights of fancy: Do Breitbart and Fox News not employ reporters? And, as usually happens, he will ignore this question. LOL. Yeah, I’m sure Roger Ailes really wanted to dig into this story. Breitbart? Do they actually have reporters? I think they most report about what they see on Twitter. Now do the NY Times and the Miami Herald.
|
|