I'll be damned
 

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:

"Trump's recognition of Gold Star families came almost a year after he became embroiled in a running
argument with the family of Capt. Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq."

Almost a year old, but what the hey!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/politi...-memorial-day/

And, of course, the Washington Post wrote a very nice story, but they also had to throw in some
negativity:

"Trump has been feeling particularly aggrieved in recent weeks by federal and congressional
investigations into contacts between his associates and Russian government officials, including news
reports that Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and top White House adviser, proposed establishing secret
back-channel communications with Russia during the presidential transition."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.31599864a732
or: http://tinyurl.com/y7c5uo2f


Unreal.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/29/17 5:10 PM, Poco Deplorevole 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:

"Trump's recognition of Gold Star families came almost a year after he became embroiled in a running
argument with the family of Capt. Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq."

Almost a year old, but what the hey!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/politi...-memorial-day/

And, of course, the Washington Post wrote a very nice story, but they also had to throw in some
negativity:

"Trump has been feeling particularly aggrieved in recent weeks by federal and congressional
investigations into contacts between his associates and Russian government officials, including news
reports that Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and top White House adviser, proposed establishing secret
back-channel communications with Russia during the presidential transition."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.31599864a732
or: http://tinyurl.com/y7c5uo2f


Unreal.



"The President is merely the most important among a large number of
public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree
which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or
inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the
Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there
should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means
that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to
praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen
is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of
the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any
one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or
unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star May 7, 1918

I'll be damned
 

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?

I'll be damned
 

On 5/29/17 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?


He certainly isn't much on teleprompter reading. :(

I'll be damned
 

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.


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

I'll be damned
 

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.

I'll be damned
 

On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



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



That is not really true. They didn't start trashing him until after
the convention. The media could have sunk his candidacy in the spring
by just ignoring him. Instead they gave him a 100 million dollars
worth of free air time

I'll be damned
 

On 5/29/2017 8:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



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



That is not really true. They didn't start trashing him until after
the convention. The media could have sunk his candidacy in the spring
by just ignoring him. Instead they gave him a 100 million dollars
worth of free air time


That's true too. I guess like Harry, they were rooting for him all the way.



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

I'll be damned
 

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 9:43:46 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/29/2017 8:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



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



That is not really true. They didn't start trashing him until after
the convention. The media could have sunk his candidacy in the spring
by just ignoring him. Instead they gave him a 100 million dollars
worth of free air time


That's true too. I guess like Harry, they were rooting for him all the way.



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

"GO DONALD GO!"

I'll be damned
 

On 5/29/2017 10:46 PM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 9:43:46 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/29/2017 8:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:04:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



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



That is not really true. They didn't start trashing him until after
the convention. The media could have sunk his candidacy in the spring
by just ignoring him. Instead they gave him a 100 million dollars
worth of free air time



That's true too. I guess like Harry, they were rooting for him all the way.




"GO DONALD GO!"


Harry is so easily led. :-)




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

I'll be damned
 

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.

I'll be damned
 

On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:17:16 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 5/29/17 5:10 PM, Poco Deplorevole 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:

"Trump's recognition of Gold Star families came almost a year after he became embroiled in a running
argument with the family of Capt. Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq."

Almost a year old, but what the hey!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/politi...-memorial-day/

And, of course, the Washington Post wrote a very nice story, but they also had to throw in some
negativity:

"Trump has been feeling particularly aggrieved in recent weeks by federal and congressional
investigations into contacts between his associates and Russian government officials, including news
reports that Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and top White House adviser, proposed establishing secret
back-channel communications with Russia during the presidential transition."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.31599864a732
or: http://tinyurl.com/y7c5uo2f


Unreal.



"The President is merely the most important among a large number of
public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree
which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or
inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the
Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there
should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means
that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to
praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen
is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of
the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any
one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or
unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star May 7, 1918

"...blame him when he does wrong..."

OK, but why a year later (in CNN's case) when presenting a totally different news story? Anti-Trump
bias, pure and simple.

What did the Washington Post's comment have to do with his Memorial Day speech? Not a thing.
Anti-Trump bias, pure and simple.

Also, "...it is even more important to tell the truth...". It's for damn sure that isn't the case
with CNN or the Washington Post. Both lie and shade the truth worse than you do.

I'll be damned
 

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.

I'll be damned
 

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.

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

I'll be damned
 

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.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

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

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president is a
crook.

I'll be damned
 

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.

I'll be damned
 

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.

I'll be damned
 

On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:46:18 -0400, "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.

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

Harry Krause and the liberal media have the same mindset. To Harry, that's OK, it's just 'honest,
full disclosure', and perhaps as they both agree Harry can see nothing wrong with the manner in
which the liberal media presents its 'news' - much of which is negative opinion presented as 'news'.

I'll be damned
 

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.

I'll be damned
 

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

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, 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.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

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

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

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

I'll be damned
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, 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.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

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

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

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



The headline was fine. You are looking too hard for reportage rhat supports
your biases.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/2017 9:12 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, 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.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

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

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

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



The headline was fine. You are looking too hard for reportage rhat supports
your biases.



Trust me. Nobody has to look hard at all.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/17 9:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 9:12 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, 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.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

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

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost
everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president
is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

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



The headline was fine. You are looking too hard for reportage rhat
supports
your biases.



Trust me. Nobody has to look hard at all.



Well, I think your "take" on the headline of the article in question is
incorrect. I thought the headline was inquisitive and neutral.

I'll be damned
 

8:35 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Well, I think your "take" on the headline of the article in question is
incorrect. I thought the headline was inquisitive and neutral.
....

Harry, you're probably correct about it, but "John Q. Public" looks at it as being guilty of "something" and it doesn't matter what.

Also it's a question not a headline, which leads to a false pretense of guilt or a wrong doing.

False narrative?

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/17 10:00 AM, Tim wrote:
8:35 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Well, I think your "take" on the headline of the article in question is
incorrect. I thought the headline was inquisitive and neutral.
...

Harry, you're probably correct about it, but "John Q. Public" looks at it as being guilty of "something" and it doesn't matter what.

Also it's a question not a headline, which leads to a false pretense of guilt or a wrong doing.

False narrative?


I question whether "John Q. Public" reads any serious newspapers,
whether the paper or the on-line edition.

My take and the take of my seriously liberal friends is that there is no
evidence generally available -yet- that says that Donald Trump has
committed any serious crimes since the election, although there are
suspicions he has obstructed justice. Can't say the same for some of his
high-level staffers. Trump has said a lot of really stupid things and
has taken some horrific actions, but...these are political decisions,
and not criminal.

I'll be damned
 

"I question whether "John Q. Public" reads any serious newspapers,
whether the paper or the on-line edition. "
.....

You're probably right and the papers know that, so they state the opening header in such a manner to sway a public opinion, which does (in many cases) provides the intended result.

I'll be damned
 

On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:26:25 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
"I question whether "John Q. Public" reads any serious newspapers,
whether the paper or the on-line edition. "
....

You're probably right and the papers know that, so they state the opening header in such a manner to sway a public opinion, which does (in many cases) provides the intended result.


Journalism nowadays has taken on the National Enquirer style of
misleading readers.

That right there is the truth. And, the major media has adopted the grocery line style of headlines.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/2017 9:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/30/17 9:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 9:12 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, 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.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

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

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost
everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president
is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was
the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

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



The headline was fine. You are looking too hard for reportage rhat
supports
your biases.



Trust me. Nobody has to look hard at all.



Well, I think your "take" on the headline of the article in question is
incorrect. I thought the headline was inquisitive and neutral.


I'd agree if it was an article in the Wall Street Journal or if the
NYT's didn't have such a history of biased reporting. They've been on
the hunt since last November. Anything they can toss at the wall is
news fit to print apparently.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/2017 10:10 AM, Tim wrote:
"I question whether "John Q. Public" reads any serious newspapers,
whether the paper or the on-line edition. "
....

You're probably right and the papers know that, so they state the opening header in such a manner to sway a public opinion, which does (in many cases) provides the intended result.


That was exactly my point. The masses don't go far beyond the headlines.

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

I'll be damned
 

9:57 AMMr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
That was exactly my point. The masses don't go far beyond the headlines.
- show quoted text -
....

�

I'll be damned
 

On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:29:21 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.
That seems to be settled law.
Clinton took a plea deal for 2 felonies but was never indicted.
Nixon was never indicted either but he acknowledged the same charges.
as Bill with his resignation.