On 5/30/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/30/17 6:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 6:28 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:57:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 5/29/17 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/29/2017 5:25 PM, Tim wrote:

Had to look hard to find an unfavorable comment about Trump's
Memorial
Day speech today.

But CNN came through in a pinch. Even with a decent headline and
story, they had to get in a
negative line when they could:
.....

That's understandable. They've had a vendetta since he called them
"fake news" so they scrape what they can hoping to churn up
something.

Want a champagne popsicle?



Like the headline of an article appearing yesterday in the NYTimes:

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The headline suggests that Trump has already been found guilty of
something and now we are on to the Constitutional debate of his
indictment.

Trump has *not* been found guilty of anything. In fact, nobody has
released any evidence that he has done anything even remotely illegal.

I agree with you Tim. The liberal press has had a vendetta against
Trump ever since he announced his candidacy.



"Indicted" does not mean found guilty or guilty.

'Provided' does not mean 'performed'.

As Luddite said, the headline suggests guilt, your comment
notwithstanding.



It's the dishonest attempt to create a mindset in people, a form of
brainwashing. The NYT's and WashPost have been doing this since Trump
won the election. Disgusting and immoral.


It's intellectually dishonest to comment on a news story you have not
read, and it is obvious you have not read the news story in question.

BTW, isn't it great that Trump has done something in five months that
the Russians have been trying to do since 1945? He's busted our
relationship with Germany.

Congratulations, Donald. Asshole.



Indeed I read the article associated with the NYTimes headline. I
realize it was basically a discussion on the legality of inditing a
sitting POTUS based on criminal charges and it seems the consensus of
legal scholars indicates that the POTUS is likely immune during his time
in office.

My point was the headline. That's what grabs many people's attention
because not all go on to read the article. I stand by my comment that
the NYT's and WashPost have been doing this sort of thing since the
election and before.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com