RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
What a joke. This story doesn't even pretend to be unbiased.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/w...56b425379a7890&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Last I checked one has to be convicted before they are guilty. Also I could be wrong but didn't this paper defend tooth and nail a certain President accused of wrongdoing on the grounds he had never been convicted?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/w...56b425379a7890&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Last I checked one has to be convicted before they are guilty. Also I could be wrong but didn't this paper defend tooth and nail a certain President accused of wrongdoing on the grounds he had never been convicted?