Why don't you explain to us the true meaning?

WSS

Steve takes what isn't even there

Interesting

Its justified because, well he's evil he's Hitler he's a fascist blah blah blah, so he deserves it?

Or is there something more intricate about thinking that people who confess to crimes might have committed them buried under the surface?

WSS

@calfoxwc said:

From the article:

...Incredibly, 14 years after their sentences were vacated based on DNA evidence and the detailed and accurate confession of a serial rapist named Matias Reyes, Mr. Trump has doubled down.

“They admitted they were guilty,” he said in a statement to CNN this month. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous.”

Why the continued belief in the guilt of the Central Park Five, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Race and racism surely play their role. So does the cognitive trap that psychologists call anchoring and what we call first impressions: Mr. Trump quickly jumped to conclusions about their guilt, as did many in New York City.

And, as Mr. Trump pointed out, four of the five teenagers did confess to being at the scene of the rape. But false confessions are surprisingly common in criminal cases. In the hundreds of post-conviction DNA exonerations that the Innocence Project has studied, at least one in four of the wrongly convicted had given a confession.

In the case of the Central Park attack, the confessions were the only real evidence. DNA testing, a nascent technology in 1989, was used to compare a single sample found on the victim with the profiles of not only the Central Park Five, but also of many of the other kids they had been with in the park. There were no matches. The victim, when she awoke from a coma, had no memory of the attack.

That left only the statements from four of the teenagers: Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Korey Wise and Antron McCray. The fifth, Yusef Salaam, might have confessed, but his mother interrupted the interrogation before he signed anything. A detective was nonetheless allowed to testify that Mr. Salaam had admitted to participating, though he’d given no formal statement..."

Just because you and others "think" he was saying they committed

the acts, doesn't mean diddley dung.

@the-cysko-kid said:

Well, since you brought it up...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/19/donald-trump-king-of-trolling-his-critics-should-be-the-internets-choice-for-president/

and Trump was the "internet's" choice. But I feel "they" will quickly get bored again. At this point last year Ed was just jokingly supporting Trump. A lot can change.

@clevfan4life said:

Especially since the guy is the sith lord of libel and slander himself

Really? Show me something.

@gftchris said:

A momentary lapse.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Jesus - you have something negative to say about Donald?! Wow.But yes, you're right.

The trend is, for the Trump haters, to write the dirty story first then shrug their shoulders and say oh well.

If weekly world news runs a story about Obama putting together his own Army of brown shirts that's one thing. If the New York time runs with it and then says oops it's completely different.

WSS

Also, got to love that little gem from the new press sec:

"A reminder of the media danger of tweet first check facts later" - does that apply only to media, or presidents also?