SPIN? It's the facts no spin about it. Trumps insertion into condemnation surrounding the plea deal offered, in the past, to Epstein is irrelevant and only serves to gauge and indicate your own bias or anger regarding Trump. The plea deal, no matter who it was under, was a bad move and the man should have had to serve hard time and received justice but he didn't. Acosta was wrong in what he did and for him to pay for his bad decision, I have no problem with, but Trump was not involved what so ever.
As for Clinton and the relevance of inserting Clinton into the argument or discussion there is relevance as Clinton flew at least 27 times on his good, close, friends Lolita express plain trips and Clinton's presence there and on Epstein's Island is very relevant reasons to assume or question whether Clinton engaged in some the same activities that Epstein did. Until, though, there is evidence that Clinton did participate actively then it's only suspicion and looks bad and Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted or anything else. If proof surfaces though then Clinton, like Epstein should face prosecution and any other person that participated even if it was Trump or anyone else but every one of them deserves the be treated as innocent until proven guilty, even Clinton. HIFLYER2 also deserves to be respected as calling out what you said as being false. Acosta's job today has no bearing on what he did in the past and it's doubtful that the Epstein deal ever came up in his interview for the present Job. You should not have attempted to tie that to Trump and that's all I see HIFLYER2 trying to say to you. He's not attempting to spin it any direction but rather only calling out what's factual.