© Facebook/Twitter/Google/Otago Daily Times/KJNFormer US President Donald Trump and Big Tech
After announcing that he would be the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the various social media companies who banned his accounts following the January 6 Capitol riot, Trump expanded on his role in the suit in an interview with Bill O'Reilly.
"I look forward to it, actually," the former president said, when asked about sitting for a deposition in the suit, which will mean answering direct questions about the day of the Capitol riot and facing the accusation he incited an insurrection - an accusation from Democrats that morphed into an impeachment vote which ultimately failed in the Senate.
Trump confirmed to O'Reilly that he would address the Capitol riot issue head-on and even get into the accusations of "election fraud."
"I love talking about the election fraud," he said.
Both Trump and O'Reilly described the legal battle ahead as a "war."
"Everything's a war," Trump said. "With me, life is a war."
Facebook, Twitter, and Google, the former president added, "may be in the process of destroying our nation."
Trump announced the lawsuit against the Big Tech companies and their CEOs, including Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter's Jack Dorsey, from New Jersey on Wednesday. Funded by the conservative non-profit group America First Policy Institute, the lawsuit seeks an "immediate halt" to social media companies' censoring of users and "blacklisting" them for political purposes, arguing this violates First Amendment rights.
Such companies, Trump argues, have become a "de facto censorship arm" of the government, being used not only to dispense its essential information, but also to decide which political messages were appropriate for users to express.
On the Capitol riot and his alleged role in it, Trump again denied inciting violence and said it would be an "easy" case to make when he is questioned under oath. His social media accounts were suspended following the riots, with the various platforms citing his alleged spread of misinformation and aggressive rhetoric as the reason for his banishment.
"In my opinion, that will be a case that will be easy, and I think we're going to do very, very well. There were a lot of reasons for people to be [at the Capitol and] it was unfairly covered by the press, but the report came out by Congress and it didn't even mention my name, let alone anything else, so we're in very good shape."
Reader Comments
Perhaps the excuse is he didn’t want to die. Well Mr. Smith… that’s the point we’re at. We need leaders who are willing to die to expose that which never sees the light of day. Somebody needs to pull a Piper and blow up the satellite feed. Someone needs to put the muzzle of a Beretta to Don Lemons temple while he’s live on air and make him admit that him and the entire industry he’s a part of is a fraud.
I was also going to add "or WTC1 and WTC2" - but given the double negative should that be "or" or "nor"?
Good point though. He’s certainly well connected enough to have known what was going down that day. Which would explain why he was pretty much all talk and no walk. Who wants to cross people who don’t think twice about killing thousands and disintegrating buildings?
I can do is keep paying attention and keep stocking up.
Evidently, the rioters didn't realize that the Capitol itself is just a Disneyland model where artificial "elected representatives" pretend to govern the country. Attacking it was not only futile, but it serves the propaganda interests of the actual ruling class.
There were no rioters - There was some initial resistance to letting people in but those people who did force entry didn't then go on and riot within the building. Those who followed into the open building clearly did not riot either
All of the "Silicon Valley" tech companies have been an integral part of the military-intelligence complex since they were founded. That includes Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Oracle, 'Intel', etc. The "regulators" are only there to help stifle unwanted competition from anyone not in the CFR/CIA network.
I still get chuckles though for his absolutely over the top statements. I've never believed in undeclared sarcasm online because the voice inflections are not there, etc. which turns into wasted time, and he violates that in every article.
At the same time, he seems to have a better ability to awaken the idiots of this world than I ever could or would ever have the patience for.
I do admire him for having simply been, as far as I'm aware, the person most slammed by this malevolent state scam/denial of reality, and destruction of free speech.
He sometimes covers things like MIC/DARPA/CIA, but I'd guess that he keeps it simple at times for the idiot proles; again, more patience than I have. At least I'm fairly confident that he's not been compromised like
so very very many othersdamn near most everyone, e.g., Greenwald's former place, The Intercept, et al.RC
RC
The joys of deadpan sarcasm is that most rational people will get it whereas the Karens will go off on a hissy fit
One should always retain the right to claim that one was being sarcastic as one never knows what could trigger the next Karen - committing to always pre-stating sarcasm not only ruins it but also takes away any future plausible denial