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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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 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.