President Trump Signs Executive Order – Directing Efforts to Prevent On-Line Censorship – Video and XO

This afternoon President Trump held a press availability in the oval office answering questions from the media as he signed an executive order [Available Here] directing the prevention of on-line censorship in social media platforms.

The president was joined by Attorney General Bill Barr, and both leaders delivered remarks and answered questions from the media. [Video Below, Transcript to Follow]


[Read Executive Order Here] – In the periphery of this executive action there are indications, and a widespread expectation, the DOJ is close to filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google Inc and their affiliated companies. There is a strong possibility the controlling ideology of ‘big tech’ is about to merge with legal action by the DOJ.

The DOJ action has not yet happened, but there are signals it is very close. There have been visible signals, subtle but visible, that the DOJ was/is about to move on a massive (the biggest in history) antitrust lawsuit against Google and all affiliates.

The issue will not necessarily surface as most would think; via a bias based on conservative -vs- leftist ideology in content manipulation; though those underlying aspects are a part of the larger underpinning we will soon see surface.

Antitrust lawsuits, writ large, are based on “prices”, “costs”, and net “financial” distortions caused by corporations not competing based on open commerce. “Antitrust” in it’s structural form is based on costs and the manipulation of prices.  Essentially, controlled commerce.

In the digital sphere the targeted firms have not opened themselves to liability based on ideology; but rather Google, all subsidiaries and alliances, have opened themselves to antitrust violations through the manipulation and control of financial benefit.

Demonitization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws.

This happens because the content being generated on these controlled platforms is being arbitrarily valued by the media company, not the free market. Devaluing certain content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.

Underpinning that revenue control is the ideological nature of the content provider. However, for the purpose of antitrust lawsuits, that motive is irrelevant.

The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.

The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that affords the DOJ the opportunity to step in.  Google (and all subsidiaries) will lose on the substance of their defense because ultimately their business practice has resulted in, and arguably they have engaged in, price fixing.

It will take time, but eventually they will settle; and there will likely be a massive financial settlement in addition to a negotiated Consent Decree. Within the CD terms, we may even see a break-up.

The antitrust action is only tangentially related to the current POTUS confrontation with Twitter and big tech social media based on ideological lines. However, it is easy to see how the two issues will merge.  The monetary distortions are based on ideology.

As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome; and they will respond accordingly.

This is definitely worth watching…

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

259 Responses to President Trump Signs Executive Order – Directing Efforts to Prevent On-Line Censorship – Video and XO

  1. Robert Holmes says:

    What might be interesting is if the News Papers realize that they’ve been destroyed by GOOG, and other big liberal media and take the side of the DOJ and start sprinkling some propoganda in favor of the Bad Orange man. If I owned a small, mid, or large market Print publication I would lean in a bit here.

    The Anti trust cases run a long time. Certainly longer than November. This just might be perfect timing to get the local media to push right. The national media has been totally discredited and I think local media is really only pushing canned bits and some native ads. Local media still has a bit of trust in their markets…

    Local media is in the fight of their life. This might work for them if they can understand a potential ally in the Orange man.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Trump2020 says:

      Are you kidding me? Most local media outlets just regurgitate all the fake news porn that the national media propagates. Have you been awake the last 4 years? It’s all part of the same narrative local or national.

      Liked by 12 people

    • Robert. “Local media still has a bit of trust in their markets…”

      Disagree. My area went hard to PDJT and the same twisted lies about our PRESIDENT play on local Myself and my friends no longer watch at all.

      They are just as wrong about PDJT as they are about the local weather. EVERY SINGLE DAY. Must be good to be wrong in your job everyday, yet keep your job.

      We have called and complained but meh…they don’t care.

      Liked by 14 people

    • Not happening. More than 90% of all media, and that includes most newspapers, is owned by 6 globalist corporations. They are not independent and cannot really go against the interests of the parent company.

      What we really need is to not allow this. Media organizations MUST be independently owned and they must be liable for vicious lies.

      Liked by 14 people

      • MVW says:

        “More than 90% of all media, and that includes most newspapers, is owned by 6 globalist corporations. ”

        This is THE salient point and where our media has been bought by FOREIGN interests. They need to be hit with anti trust action too.

        Reuters and AP are also owned by a Globalist Foreign group. It should be labeled a Foreign agent at a minimum.

        Liked by 9 people

    • Baby Hurley says:

      Great point but it’s probably too late for them to save themselves. I hope they try so can savor the enjoyment of watching them hopelessly plunge into extinction. 😜

      Liked by 1 person

    • Your Tour Guide says:

      I’ve came across one local paper in the last 40 years
      that’s coverage was amazingly neutral . It’s been a long
      time, and that might have changed. The paper’s location?
      Maysville, Kentucky. 40-50 miles down the Ohio River from
      Cincinnati. And guess who’s dad and aunt grew up in the area?
      George Clooney.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jan says:

      Local media is in the fight of their life because they take the national feeds from their leftist parent companies, regurgitate it word-for-word, w/o regard for the truthfulness of what they’re regurgitating.

      We hardly ever watch local news unless we need the weather forecast or local sports. There isn’t much journalism or investigative reporting unless its against Pres. Trump. No longer read or subscribe to local newspapers.

      You all might hate tick-tock Hannity but he is absolutely right about one thing: Journalism is dead. And Paul Ryan & the younger Murdoch brothers are destroying what used to be a more “fair & balanced” network than it is now.

      Ernie Pyle and Edward Murrow are rolling in their graves. They are gods compared to the trailer trash we have calling themselves “journalists.” God, where is the lightning to strike them dead??

      Liked by 1 person

  2. jx says:

    Liked by 12 people

    • Gel Mann says:

      The DOJ action has not yet happened, but there are signals it is very close. There have been visible signals, subtle but visible, that the DOJ was/is about to move on a massive (the biggest in history) antitrust lawsuit against Google and all affiliates.

      Liked by 2 people

    • MelH says:

      Since Trump wrote the EO, Twitter has banned ALL my Tweets , unabashedly censoring, which, by the way, is what WordPress is doing, making it difficult to participate here, and not just for me. New folks will go away because they haven’t yet learned this really is The Last Refuge, worth sticking to ,for life. They will fight to participate, maybe once, but life is too short and difficult these days, and there are MANY more Blogs of interest that do allow instant participation, downstream on the WordPress Reader.


  3. sundance says:

    It’s all there in his words.”deceptive business practices”, not “speech”… BUSINESS.

    Liked by 27 people

    • Patience says:

      Sundance, You mean like:
      Google capturing and storing every single search and email…profiling humans?
      Facebook the harmless friendly (private) & safe place for friends and family to –just keep in touch?

      Social engineering is VERY profitable; in multiple ways.

      Liked by 7 people

  4. Johnny Boost says:

    Take no prisoners

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Cowboy79 says:

    Trump: The Chosen One

    Liked by 12 people

  6. Harvey Lipschitz says:

    Richard Grenell has some time open on his schedule.

    If the President needs an experienced mechanic to overhaul the search Engines, he is not afraid of dirty work.

    Liked by 9 people

  7. TarsTarkas says:

    And an Obama-appointed judge will submit a nationwide injunction on this executive order in 3, 2, 1,

    Liked by 5 people

  8. jmclever says:

    POTUS said we would get tired of winning, but I’m definitely not there yet.

    Liked by 5 people

  9. jmclever says:

    I hope Diamond and Silk and some others sue the panties off of Google/YouTube!!

    Liked by 11 people

    • Your Tour Guide says:

      Alex Jones. And, I don’t care whether you’re yay or
      nay about him. All that counts is the profound over
      reach. They executed him without a trial.

      Same thing with Milo. Hope both of them and Diamond
      and Silk become vastly wealthy.

      Liked by 9 people

      • COliberty says:

        How about all those who have been banned from twit-land join in a class-action lawsuit and take ole’ Jack down a peg or 2..?! Or a few billion bucks!

        Liked by 3 people

        • WSB says:

          Separate suits. Class action means $.99 for the victims, $999,999,999,999.00 for the attorneys.


          • MelH says:

            That is true, about Class Action suits. The ONLY reason those are staged is to stop the company which is targeted from bleeding because a single suit would cost them way more than a Class Action suit. Gates had a class action suit against him. I joined it and had 5 computers, but after several years, got a check for $5.20,. It’s similar with medical malpractice suits……… doctor testifies against another doctor, so the person complaining losses.

            Liked by 1 person

            • WSB says:

              Yup, Mel. Never fall for class action suits.

              Always try to find a firm who will work with you for paying necessary costs but pro bono until the verdict.


      • jmclever says:

        Honestly I’ve lost track of how many people they have wronged. alex Jones has the wherewithal and the tenacity to hit them where it hurts bigly.


  10. sDee says:

    If anyone with input to the antitrust action is reading here I PLEAD that we NOT OFFER these companies a breakup resolution.

    The only resolution that will truly return this segment of the software industry to free market competition is open standards – true open standards, not the proprietary ones like Google touts.

    1) Carve out open-data standards for user data and sharing APIs based on royalty-free licenses in standards organization like OASIS. Thus is essential to new application development and user ability to move to a new application without being held hostage.

    2) Mandate simple user agreements that allow users to find out who has our data, who is given access, and the market value of our data, along with the options to restrict its use with/without compensation.

    3) Open source the software for the core functions. The best group to define this and manage truly open source licences is Eclipse.

    The above is a MINIMUM. Engage the standards and open source communities – start architecture this NOW! The market will explode with innovation and choice.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. jeans2nd says:

    This sounds like something Pocahontas should be behind. Pocahontas has been yelling to break up Big Tech monopolies for years.
    Doggone, we could even get a few Bernie Bros on-board with this one.
    This could work.
    Time for some outreach.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. John says:

    Standard Oil part deux. Be sure to get some shares.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Richard Whitney says:

    Anti-trust aside, PDJT has the higher ground versus Twitter.
    Social media platforms enjoy legal protection that comes from the days of legacy, message-board days. Operators of the message boards needed to be protected from legal action by someone who didn’t like what someone had posted. The board was considered a transmission medium and not a publisher.
    By editing a message in any way, or deleting messages based on arbitrary criteria, social media outlets become publishers, not essentially utilities.
    Imagine if your cell phone provider interfered with calls to people or organizations that they disagreed with politically. They cannot do that, and that protects them from lawsuits by User B based on the fact that some User A called User B and called them nasty names.

    Liked by 8 people

    • GB Bari says:

      It is somewhat like the big wood-framed cork public bulletin board that people used to use extensively before the internet. You could find public bulletin boards in grocery stores, convenience stores, the local library and other locations in many towns.

      Citizens and merchants could pin business cards, advertisements, for sale notices, apartment for rent notices, babysitting services, lawn care, computer repair, etc etc.
      Some folks would post a personal opinion notice on a local issue that might also be a point of differing opinions in the local newspapers.

      But what if the store owner (where the bulletin board was located) started removing ads or notices because he/she didn’t like the people who had posted them, or didn’t agree with their politics? What if a business owner came to the store and pulled off of the board all business ads or business cards of his competitors? And what if that store owner was buddies with the store owner where the bulletin board was mounted and allowed that to happen?

      These things actually happened with bulletin boards in some areas years ago and people who tampered with the boards and removed content got in legal trouble because of their shenanigans.

      Now it’s the same shenanigans only far worse in magnitude and impact since everything is digital.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Your Tour Guide says:

        GB Bari:

        Same type of things happened in the days of newsprint.
        College campuses would have students who would steal papers
        that had “unapproved’ opinions from the sales box.

        One of the behind the scenes power brokers ( local to Atlanta,
        specific to my county) actually had his name appear in a news
        story. Said individual, and others like him kept their power by
        NEVER being mentioned. Or photographed. Remarked about the
        article to a friend. He went searching for it at public libraries, and,
        finally gave up. The offending pages had been removed in 8 different
        county libraries, and three libraries in close in locations at an adjacent

        Liked by 1 person

    • mike says:

      I’m astonished that they have gotten away with that trojan as long as they have.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Suzy Jules says:

    The Feds can seize domains if terrorist, drug, “election interference”. PDJT should seize and shut them down and break them up to smaller platforms or they can be publishers. Time for George the dragon slayer, just kill them.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Suzy Jules says:

    The Feds can seize domains if terrorist, drug, “election interference”. PDJT should seize and shut them down and break them up to smaller platforms or they can be publishers. Time for George the dragon slayer, just kill them.


  16. litlbit2 says:

    It would seem to me this could not have come at a better time. Thinking with the Wuhanvirus Pandemic, quarantine, massive loss of revenue and it continuing a spell for States, Cities and municipalities why not go after “deceptive business practices”? Many homeowners, building owners etc will also require time to rebuild back to previous levels as additional taxes just may make it easier for some to through in the tile. Losses all around.


  17. Suzy Jules says:

    Time to seize domains, they are terrorists undermining the election. Get the sword dragonslayer and just kill them and cut them into tiny pieces.


  18. regitiger says:

    this action has far reaching effects.

    it opens up the door to inspecting polls too…and long overdue…one way to manufacture consent and influence narratives is to cherry the data and provide “number arguments” to spread misinformation about issues and candidates.

    also it opens up the door to inspect “news” orgs. for example, the EU law states and enforces that a website present a prompt to the user/viewer about it’s eula..most click past this annoyance, but the law behind it and the protects are sound. super cookies are a means to collect user browsing history…(it’s also a fabulous way for criminals to determine what kind of vulnerabilities exist in your browser…take heed!) the point here, is that media should have a prompt before each show that includes how information is collected about viewers (yes, this is done all the time as they have established contracts with third parties to sell this big data to just about anything they want…remember when you subscribe to a service provider, cable, internet, etc…your information is anchored to your account..that account is anchored to your cable box, router, etc….selling viewing data means these “news” orgs are BOTH publishers AND private market ‘Utilities”….

    same thing with “smart devices”, including new modern cars…bank cards…merchant POS networks…

    lots of door that this kind of effort leads to that might help steer the corporate raiders into a more confined space where they it becomes unlawful to collect and store and sell so much personal identifyable information…

    I just want to buy an extension cord. I am not okay with trading virtually everything you can take from that transaction and selling it to the highest bidder…china or otherwise….

    it’s gotten ridiculous.

    sir, can I have your telephone number at the register…uhh…why? are you asking me on a date?

    my favorite come back.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. patti says:

    Liked by 2 people

  20. regitiger says:

    the answer to the free speech debate


    more free speech..

    Liked by 4 people

    • The Devilbat says:

      Twitter, Facebook and YouTube should abide by what Voltaire said:

      “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”

      The problem is that they are all commie scumbags who vehemently detest the idea of free speech and who are perfectly aligned with the idea of total control of the people.

      Liked by 4 people

      • mike says:

        They are actively interfering with our right to say/see critical information.

        Liked by 2 people

      • regitiger says:

        yes they want you to have free speech..

        as long as you are using the right speech

        yes they want you to have free speech

        as long as you are okay with them regularly breaking the rules on free speech

        yes, they want you to have free speech

        as long as you don’t speak about religion and your faith

        yes, they want you to have free speech

        as long as that speech damages their political and business competitors

        yes, they want you to have free speech

        as long as you are down for having ALL OF YOUR FREE SPEECH COLLECTED AND EXAMINED.


  21. Martin says:

    If I’m not mistaken, the Communications Decency Act (Clinton) Section 230 was addressed in the recent US Mexico Canada trade agreement.

    PDJT laying groundwork far in advance?


  22. patti says:

    I remember how sick I felt the first time I saw this…

    Liked by 6 people

    • Todd says:

      Big Tech is a small group of stupid fools with Big influence. Revenge of the Nerds comes to mind, classic movie…

      After being given so much in life, the seek to destroy the capitalist system that made them. They may be smart when it comes to computers, but they have no common sense, no street smarts, throw history to the wind, and continue on their downward spiral.

      Facepuke is not cool, and Twatter is a sewer. I find them both to be repulsive and would rather have a real conversation with strangers at a local pub or at the OTB.

      I love the 1st Amendment because it gives stupid fools the ability to show themselves for who they really are. From a business perspective, President Trump is actually trying to help the Big Tech Dorks. He knows they will fail if they continue down their self destructive path.

      The Truth sells. Censorship does not sell, and the local newspaper sales show it.

      Liked by 3 people

    • WSB says:

      Google…owned by a Russian, Indian, Brit and one very leftwing American dupe.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. The Devilbat says:

    Whoever it was that decided to fact check the presidents tweets must be in some very, very, very deep sh!t right now. They finally pushed too far and the spring of justice just rebounded.

    Liked by 7 people

  24. ropala says:

    SEO ramifications for those who advertise their businesses and are on something other than page one or a couple of phone swipes should be interesting in the future.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. patti says:

    Liked by 8 people

  26. Todd says:

    So Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan are all sending out absentee ballots to the public so now what?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. EV22 says:

    Here’s an interesting comment about Yoel Roth, whom President Trump mentioned in his press conference, from someone at Powerline (

    And here’s the direct link to these quotes:

    Twitter’s censor, Yoel Roth:
    “Hi. I’m Yoel. I work at Twitter. I have a PhD in Communication from the University of Pennsylvania, studying privacy and safety on gay social networks. I take a lot of pictures of my corgi.”

    This is how you get a PhD in Communication:

    “The article I’m arguably proudest of from my time in grad school is out in print in Communication, Culture & Critique (paywalled, unfortunately). It’s a look at content management policies on Grindr, Scruff, and Manhunt that traces how programatic attempts to control user-generated content impact the identities that gay men are able to share online.

    The abstract:

    This article examines the policies and practices that manage user-submitted content on 3 gay-targeted social networking services. While managing user-generated content is a common practice across social networking services, the policies implemented on gay-targeted services tend to be distinctively restrictive in scope and highly specific in formulation. This analysis identifies the technical, legal, and social affordances that authorized the creation of these policies. Framing content management policies as derived from the technical rules of platforms such as Apple’s App Store obscures normative judgments about proper self-presentation and community formation. Identifying the normative character of these policies requires an analysis rooted simultaneously in technology studies, media policy, and subcultural identity politics.”

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Alec Rawls says:

    “Underpinning that revenue control is the ideological nature of the content provider. However, for the purpose of antitrust lawsuits, that motive is irrelevant.”

    There is a way that ideological censorship could become the direct target of an anti-trust case instead of just a thing that is ameliorated as a byproduct.

    The fundamental principle of anti-trust law is that monopoly per se (just by the fact of it’s existence) constitutes a conspiracy (a trust). Being a single player with large market power is equivalent to having a bunch of small players collude on price, quantity, quality, or whatever else in order to exercise market power. Monopoly = trust ( = collusion = conspiracy).

    Next bring in civil rights law. Notice that conspiracy to suppress civil rights is both a crime and a tort under the 1964-65 Civil Rights Acts, punishable by 10 years in jail per violation/victim. That would include conspiracy to censor which both blocks free speech rights and suppresses people’s civil rights to coordinate for purposes of effective political participation, and the example of censorship carried out by a monopolist shows very nicely why it is CONSPIRACY to suppress civil rights that is illegal under civil rights law.

    One person censoring you doesn’t block you from all the other means and providers for communicating and coordinating, but when a monopolist does it then the suppression of your civil rights is effective. You ARE suppressed, and with punishments of up to ten years per victim and charge the punishments for this suppression could be serious indeed.

    When Google/facebook/Twitter/Patreon et al. systematically violate the civil rights of the electoral majority of the country that elected Trump they are violating the pollical rights of 60 million people. That is 600 million years in jail for each violator.

    The concept of monopoly as conspiracy would be imported from anti-trust law (where it is the basis of the whole law), but the prosecution would be under the civil rights laws. I presume this is not what DOJ has in mind with its current actions but I have been blabbing for several years that it IS an available avenue for prosecution and civil suit.

    Notice also that (without needing to bring in the monopoly=conspiracy element) the Civil Rights acts also provide an open avenue for prosecuting the coup attempt against President Trump. This coup attempt was a conspiracy to vitiate the voting rights of the electoral majority of the country. That again is 60 million victims and hence up to 600 million years in jail for each perpetrator, and there could probably multiple charges as well.

    Barr is playing small ball, saying that if he finds actionable crimes like lying to the FISA court, spying without required predication, failing to dot “i”s and cross “t”s, then he will bring charges. But to get to the gravity of what actually happened it is necessary to look at the criminality of the purpose of the conspiracy, which was to overthrow our system of democratic government, first by trying to rig an election, then by trying to overturn an election and block the peaceful transfer of power from one elected administration to the next (all in various degrees successful: the Mueller investigation did flip the mid-terms after all).

    The essence of these crime is violation of the civil rights of the electoral majority of the republic. I would dearly like to see this avenue of prosecution opened up, both against the censorship and propaganda-control efforts of our tech monopolists, and against the Obama-Biden-Clinton coup attempters.

    Liked by 5 people

  29. InAz says:

    Now if only someone had the backbone to go after Soros also

    Liked by 5 people

  30. DeWalt says:

    This is where the DOJ butts heads withe CIA. Google is the CIA’s playground.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. Todd says:

    Still ongoing is Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania for reportedly having more than 800,000 inactive voters on its voter rolls.

    Liked by 4 people

  32. sysconfig says:

    Unbelievable Twitters Jack who constantly recommends his favorite unheard of books to read took the bread crumbs like a pigeon that Trump put out.. Trumps point is well established fact.

    President Trump is raising a completely legitimate concern that an unprecedented expansion in the use of mail-in ballots in the 2020 election could lead to voter fraud. But that has not stopped his critics from declaring his statements to be false.

    Really? In 2012, before mail-in voting became a partisan political litmus test, the New York Times published an article titled “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.” The piece noted that “there is a bipartisan consensus that voting by mail … is more easily abused than other forms,” and that “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth.” A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform,

    Liked by 1 person

  33. noswamp says:

    About time he signed an EO. This has gone on way too long.


  34. Anon says:

    A better strategy for these Progressive CEOs would be to BUY ELECTRIC UTILITY COMPANIES. Then if you visit a website like The Conservative Tree House your SMART-METER would just cut your power off.


  35. David says:

    He has 80 Million followers on social media.
    Trump could easily open his own Social media platform and most 80 millions will be happy to “relocate”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • regitiger says:

      well yes, he could..sure.

      but how much fun would that really be…after all, the interlands were created to demonstrate….and demonstrate us americans certainly have..and continue to…

      we are a fascinating people…we love to argue..about everything…up one side and down the other.

      you know what I really appreciate…getting into a solid debate…I mean it’s good to be wrong…learn something…and it’s also good to be right..learn something.

      doing the kumbaya…no thanks…I’ll set that aside until I am doomed to the old folks home.

      until then, lets have us a good solid debate..

      Liked by 1 person

  36. billsv says:

    under one of the privacy laws declare personal data belongs to the person. Declare it cannot be given through terms of service or shrink wrap software. Declare it can only be used with the individual agreement with the individual with compensation. Until then all personal information must be purged from all servers anywhere and f any personal information is retained anywhere there will be a huge fine per incident.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Troublemaker10 says:

    Will Chamberlain goes through Trump’s EO step by step here and gives analysis of each section. I found it interesting. He says Trump’s EO is about as aggressive as it can be and still stay within the law.


  39. henry says:

    It should be as financially punitive as a HIPAA fine. $100k for each offense by a fact checker and $100k for each retweet by an MSM that doesn’t bother to check the initial tweet.

    Ok, since it’s the President and it’s war – $10m for each.


  40. The American Patriot says:


    Twitter gave Trump the middle finger by going after his latest tweet.

    They are about to pay for it BIGLY!

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Pegon Zellschmidt says:

    It will take time, but eventually they will settle; …………….
    As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome.

    I don’t understand how both statements can support the other. Perhaps, “It will take time, but eventually they will settle,” if Trump wins in November.


  42. Pretending to be a neutral bulletin board when you are really Jack Dorsey’s Letters to the Editor-section is Fraud.
    Enticing new users to join without telling them you plan to censor and shadowban them is Fraud.
    Selling advertising by the eyeball without telling advertisers you are banning some eyeballs is Fraud.


  43. Broc says:

    At long last the elitists. Stratosphereans living in San Francisco and Seattle. The right arm of globalism.


  44. Raised on Reagan says:

    The President should write an EO to develop and insert a code to ban Twitter from ALL government owned computers and cell phones.
    I believe he has the Constitutional authority to do this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s