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.


Indicted means indicted. Not some random insinuation.

On 5/29/17 11:24 PM, Bill wrote:
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.


Indicted means indicted. Not some random insinuation.


"Indicted" usually means a prosecutor was able to browbeat or bull**** a
grand jury into doing what he or she wants. I was *fortunate* enough to
sit on a grand jury twice while I lived in Virginia in the 1970s, and I
was appalled by how prosecutors attempted (and usually succeeded) in
getting grand juries to indict on the sketchiest of evidence. I ensured
I wouldn't be called again by refusing to "true bill" a whole series of
defendants, thus incurring the wrath of the prosecutor.

On 5/30/17 8:07 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 5/29/17 11:24 PM, Bill wrote:
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.


Indicted means indicted. Not some random insinuation.


"Indicted" usually means a prosecutor was able to browbeat or bull**** a
grand jury into doing what he or she wants. I was *fortunate* enough to
sit on a grand jury twice while I lived in Virginia in the 1970s, and I
was appalled by how prosecutors attempted (and usually succeeded) in
getting grand juries to indict on the sketchiest of evidence. I ensured
I wouldn't be called again by refusing to "true bill" a whole series of
defendants, thus incurring the wrath of the prosecutor.


Perhaps you misspoke.
How exactly did you single handedly " " true bill"
a whole series
of defendants"?


Read up and get back to us. I never said, by the way, that I
"single-handedly" did anything during the grand jury proceedings.