... he was going to lie, obfuscate, and bluff his way out of answering.
He told reporters why he agreed to the 'deal'. He thought it was the best he could do, he would have preferred a longer sentence, but didn't think he could get a guilty verdict at trial - and the classic it was everybody else's fault, not his.
His 'version of events' has been knocked down by others directly involved, and his 'legal arguments' have been debunked by legal experts and experienced prosecutors
Now, do you really think that had you been there to ask your questions, Acosta would have acted any differently than he did? Do you think he would have been cornered into blurting out the truth?
When you're dealing with a man who has every reason to lie, has no fear of doing so because he's got a "pResident" and powerful politicos who have his back, and is protecting influential, well-connected men who have everything to lose if exposed, there is no "magic question" that is going to break him - or even cause him to bat an eye.
So before you get your knickers in a twist about the "worthless press", you might want to consider that it wasn't the questions that were the problem, but the lying scumbag who was answering them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
