• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who got Immunity?

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
26,247
Reaction score
23,920
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In the Acosta/Epstein brouhaha one significant issue has been overlooked: who got Immunity in the original plea deal: who are the anonymous parties who got immunity? It could be the victims who were "accused" of prostitution; or perhaps staff members who engaged in solicitation and cover up activities; or, perhaps... other participants? Personally, I have never seen or participated in any kind of immunity deal that was as broad as this one. To say that it is "unusual" is a vast understatement.

There is a report, however sketchy and as yet nascent, that Trump and Epstein had a "party" that involved just those two men and 28 "girls". That might give someone an incentive to keep records from being exposed. I'll be watching AG Barr's and Trump's behavior as this story unfolds. Acosta is about to hold a press conference....
 
This question remains.
 
In the Acosta/Epstein brouhaha one significant issue has been overlooked: who got Immunity in the original plea deal: who are the anonymous parties who got immunity? It could be the victims who were "accused" of prostitution; or perhaps staff members who engaged in solicitation and cover up activities; or, perhaps... other participants? Personally, I have never seen or participated in any kind of immunity deal that was as broad as this one. To say that it is "unusual" is a vast understatement.

There is a report, however sketchy and as yet nascent, that Trump and Epstein had a "party" that involved just those two men and 28 "girls". That might give someone an incentive to keep records from being exposed. I'll be watching AG Barr's and Trump's behavior as this story unfolds. Acosta is about to hold a press conference....

Let me guess, Trump got immunity. He knows everything and Acosta gave him immunity in return for a position in his cabinet once the Russians got him elected president. Is that about right?
 
Let me guess, Trump got immunity. He knows everything and Acosta gave him immunity in return for a position in his cabinet once the Russians got him elected president. Is that about right?

Nope. I don't have an answer, but I have suspicions because the process is inexplicable. My suspicion is that rich guys were involved and Acosta was overly solicitous of them - maybe in hopes of traveling in their circles? I don't know, but I've seen no explanation of that - at all.
 
In the Acosta/Epstein brouhaha one significant issue has been overlooked: who got Immunity in the original plea deal: who are the anonymous parties who got immunity? It could be the victims who were "accused" of prostitution; or perhaps staff members who engaged in solicitation and cover up activities; or, perhaps... other participants? Personally, I have never seen or participated in any kind of immunity deal that was as broad as this one. To say that it is "unusual" is a vast understatement.

There is a report, however sketchy and as yet nascent, that Trump and Epstein had a "party" that involved just those two men and 28 "girls". That might give someone an incentive to keep records from being exposed. I'll be watching AG Barr's and Trump's behavior as this story unfolds. Acosta is about to hold a press conference....

I read a report that prosecutors "didn't like the victims". And I noted yesterday in the presser that Accosta said that they didn't want the victims to testify because they would have been treated badly "back then" and would have been "victim shamed" by the defence. How can you "victim shame" children who are victims of sex trafficking. These were girls from poor and troubled backgrounds so they were disposable, not just to Epstein, but apparently to Accosta as well, as he was prepared to violate the law and keep the deal secret to protect Epstein from these victims.

Accosta also said that the deal allowed the victims to seek compensation. Accosta seemed to think that this was enough for them, but the underlying implication here is that he thought they could buy their silence, and that their whole goal in going to the police was to get more money out of Epstein. The girls weren't complaining when Epstein was paying them. It was the young girls who had "aged out" and were no longer victims of Epstein and friends, who filed complaints. It' seems to be that Accosta was allowing Epstein to buy their continued silence.
 
Back
Top Bottom