Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Trump's Remarks Announcing an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship; May 28, 2020
REMARKS
Remarks by President Trump Announcing an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
Issued on: May 28, 2020
Oval Office
3:47 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Were here today to defend free speech from one of the gravest dangers it has faced in American history, frankly. And you know whats going as well as anybody. Its not good.
A small handful of powerful social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States. And we know what they are; we dont have to name them. Were going to give you a complete listing. Were going to give you a signed copy of what Im going to be signing in a couple of minutes, and youll see exactly what were doing.
Theyve had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences. Theres no precedent in American history for so small a number of corporations to control so large a sphere of human interaction. And that includes individual people controlling vast amounts of territory.
And we cant allow that to happen, especially when they go about doing what theyre doing, because theyre doing things incorrectly. They have points of view. And if we go by that, its actually amazing that there was a success in 2016. But we cant let this continue to happen. Its very, very unfair.
And you look at the statistics and you look at what is going on, and I think everybody would very much agree with that, including Democrats, by the way. I saw quite a few Democrats are saying this is about time something is done. So lets see if they keep that decision after they hear that we agree with them.
The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadow, ban are editorial decisions, pure and simple. Theyre editorial decisions. In those moments, Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform, and they become an editor with a viewpoint. And I think we can say that about others also, whether youre looking at Google, whether youre looking at Facebook and perhaps others.
One egregious example is when they try to silence views that they disagree with by selectively applying a fact check a fact check F-A-C-T. Fact check. What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or even promote is nothing more than a political activism group or political activism. And its inappropriate. If you look at whats happened, you look at where theyre going, where theyre coming from, I think you all see it yourselves.
This censorship and bias is a threat to freedom itself. Imagine if your phone company silenced or edited your conversation. Social media companies have vastly more power and more reach than any phone company in the United States. More reach, actually, than your newspapers, by far. More reach than a lot of your traditional forms of communication.
Therefore, today Im signing an executive order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people. Currently, social media giants, like Twitter, receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that theyre a neutral platform which theyre not not an editor with a viewpoint.
My executive order calls for new regulations, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield. Thats a big deal. They have a shield; they can do what they want. They have a shield. Theyre not going to have that shield.
My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This authority resides in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. I think you know it pretty well. Most of you know it very well. I would think you know it quite well, right?
Additionally, Im directing the Attorney General to work cooperatively with the states. Hes going to be working very much and very closely in cooperation with the states to enforce their own laws against such deceptive business practices. The states have brought in powerful authority to regulate in this arena, and theyll be doing it also and we encourage them to do it if they see exactly as weve been seeing.
Its what theyre doing is tantamount to monopoly, you can say. Its tantamount to taking over the airwaves. Cant let it happen. Otherwise, were not going to have a democracy. Were not going to have anything to do with a republic.
Finally, Im directing my administration to develop policies and procedures to ensure taxpayer dollars are not going into any social media company that repress free speech. The government spends billions of dollars on giving them money. Theyre rich enough. So were going to be doing none of it or a very little of it.
As President, Ill not allow the American people to be bullied by these giant corporations. Many people have wanted this to be done by presidents for a long time. And now were doing it. And Im sure theyll be doing a lawsuit, and Im also sure that were going to be going for legislation, in addition to this. And the legislation will start immediately.
And Ill tell you, Ive been called by Democrats that want to do this, and so I think you could possibly have a bipartisan situation. But were fed up with it, and its unfair, and its been very unfair. And well see what happens.
Any questions?
Q Mr. President, given your concern with Twitter, have you given any consideration to deleting your account, to just walking away from this platform youve been so critical of?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, if you werent fake, I would not even think about it. I would do that in a heartbeat.
Q Im real, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: But the news the news is fake. We if you look at what gets printed in newspapers, if only the public could understand where, you know, theyre reading a story and they think its real, and its not real in so many cases. And Im not saying in every case. You have some great journalists. You have some journalists that I have great respect for. But largely, I find, at least in a political sense, there is so much fake news, its disgraceful.
I would do that in a heartbeat if I had fair if we had a fair press in this country, I would do that in a heartbeat. Theres nothing Id rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account. But Im able to get to, I guess, 186 million people, when you add up all the different accounts and add Facebook and Instagram. Thats a lot of people. And thats more than the media companies have, frankly, by a lot. And so, if I get a story thats wrong, I can put a social media I dont usually use the word Twitter; I use I say social media.
But I put something out, and the next day or the next hour or the next minute, everybody is reading about it. So Im able to refute fake news, and thats very important.
Id like to ask the Attorney General, please, to say a couple of words. And hes very strongly behind it, backing it very powerfully. And again, were going to be doing this, but were also going through Congress.
Please.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, as youve mentioned, Mr. President, one of the things that I found has the broadest bipartisan support these days is the feeling that this provision, Section 230, has been stretched way beyond its original intention. And people feel that on both sides of the aisle.
This was adopted 25 years ago to protect a fledgling industry, and its purpose was to allow websites that were serving as, essentially, bulletin boards for diverse third-party content coming on, to say that youre not responsible for the content of that third-party information. And it also tried to encourage these companies to take down things like child pornography or human trafficking advertising and things by saying, if you act to remove this kind of objectionable material, you wont be liable for taking it down.
Now its been completely stretched to allow what have become really behemoths who control a lot of the flow of information in our society to engage in censorship of that information and to act as editors and publishers of the material.
So when they put on their own content like fact check content onto other peoples content, and when they curate their collection, and when they start censoring particular content including, in many cases, at the direction of foreign governments like Communist China, they become publishers and they shouldnt be entitled to the same kind of shield that was set up earlier.
Now, this executive order is a very strong step toward addressing this problem. It sets up a rulemaking procedure that will eventually be under the FCC to try to get back to the original interpretation and understanding of Section 230. It also empowers the Attorney General to work with state attorneys general to come up with model legislation that addresses this at the state level. And were preparing federal legislation, which we will be sending over shortly for review at the Office of Management and Budget.
So this is an important step to get back to the original understanding.
You know, theres a bit of a bait-and-switch thats occurred in our society. These companies grew because they held themselves out as public forums, as free public forums where a variety of voices and diverse voices could come on and be heard. Thats how they grew. Thats how they attracted the eyeballs. Thats why people joined them.
But now that they have become these very powerful networks of eyeballs, now that theyve grown by holding themselves out as free public forums, theyve now switched. And they are using that market power to force particular viewpoints, and thats wrong. And it has to be addressed not only through this executive order, but I think litigation going forward and by further action on Capitol Hill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Q Mr. President, not only
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any questions for the Attorney General?
Q Yes, actually, I do. Mr. Attorney General, not only have you been against Section 230, and the President has been against Section 230, the Vice President has said hes against Section 230. Do you believe that the executive order that the President is about to sign in any way repeals or amends Section 230?
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, it doesnt repeal Section 230. And Im not against Section 230 if it was properly interpreted and properly applied. But its been stretched, and I dont know of anyone on Capitol Hill who doesnt agree that its been stretched beyond its original intention.
I think this will help it get back to the right balance.
Q Mr. Attorney General, can you give us more details on the legislation both you and the President referred to? What do you want to do in that legislation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, were still reviewing a number of possibilities. And itd be premature for me to discuss the specifics.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, one of the things we may do, Bill, is just remove or totally change 230. What I think we can say is were going to regulate it. Its a provision, and were going to regulate it.
You take a look at this as an example; this was just out: Twitter Moments on the Mueller witch hunt. So, we won. We were in the right. You see whats happened. Its a total fraud. It was a total fraud. Seventy-six to one, okay? Seventy-six to one. You look at it. You think thats fair? Twitter classifies the term illegal alien as hate speech. Illegal alien. And viciously.
You look at what China I mean, just article after article. Heres one. This is our this is the arbiter. This guy is the arbiter of whats supposed to go on Twitter. Hes the one. He thought that he thought and he used CNN as a guide CNN, which is fake news. He uses CNN as a guide. His name is Yoel Roth. And hes the one that said that mail-in balloting you look, mail-in no fraud. No fraud. Really? Why didnt you take a look all over the country? Theres cases all over the country.
If we went to mail-in balloting, our election all over the world would look as a total joke. It would be a total joke. Theres such fraud and abuse. And you know about harvesting, where they harvest the ballots, and they go and grab them, and they go to peoples houses, and then they say, sign here. No. Doesnt work.
Now, an absentee ballot you cant be there or youre sick, and you go and you register and you do all sorts of things to get that ballot, and theres good security measures. But when they send out like in California millions and millions of ballots to anybody thats breathing anybody in California thats breathing, gets a ballot.
Q But, Mr. President, thats not true. California
THE PRESIDENT: So here here excuse me. Wait a minute. Im not finished. So heres your heres your man, and thats on Twitter.
And the amazing thing is hes wrong. And even no no matter who it is, they will admit that hes wrong, because theres tremendous controversy on mail-in voting.
And I can say this: The Republican Party cannot let that let it happen.
Go ahead.
Q But you know Gavin Newsom Governor Newsom has
THE PRESIDENT: I do. I do.
Q has not sent ballots out to everybody in California. Theyre only going to registered voters.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, really? How many are there?
Q So so
THE PRESIDENT: How many are there?
Q So what your tweet
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
Q said was was not wrong
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, so
Q or was not correct. It was wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Oh, really? So when he sends out 28 million ballots and theyre in all the mailboxes, and kids go and they raid the mailboxes, and they hand them to people that are signing the ballots down the end of the street, which is happening they grab the ballots you dont think that happens? Theres ballot harvesting where all of us you know, we had seven elections for Congress, and they were, like, tied. And they lost every one of them because they came and they dropped the whole pile of ballots on the table.
But you dont think they they rip them out of mailboxes? Its all the time you read about it. You could read about it. Take a look.
Q I mean, there are
THE PRESIDENT: They do worse than that. In some cases, they wont sell [sic] them, like to a Republican community a conservative community. They dont happen to send the ballots to those communities. And theres no way of checking.
No, you have to go and you have to vote. Voting is a great thing. Voting we would be the laughingstock of the world. And if you just use common sense, you know thats going to happen.
But they raid the mailboxes. They can even print ballots. They get the same paper, the same machine nothing special they get the same paper, the same machine. They print ballots.
And Bill would have to do a great job to catch them doing it, or you state authorities would have to.
But you have tremendous potential and you have tremendous fraud and abuse, but you have tremendous potential for fraud and abuse.
Go ahead.
Q Mr. President, you had said in one of your Twitter in one of your tweets that you would consider shutting down Twitter and social media companies. Did you actually mean you would want to shut down an American company?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think its going to be you know, Ill tell you what: I have so much, it seems, influence over Twitter in the sense of people wanting to see go Twitter because of what I have. I have a vast number of we have a number of platforms, as you know. We have millions and millions of people.
I think this: If Twitter were not honorable if youre going to have a guy like this be your judge and jury, I think just shut it down, as far as Im concerned, but Id have to go through a legal process to do that.
Q But how would you shut down an American company?
THE PRESIDENT: I dont know. Id have to ask the lawyers. Id have to go through a legal process. If it were legal, if it were able to be legally shut down, I would do it. I think Id be hurting it very badly if we didnt use it anymore. I mean, we have other sites we could use, I guess, or wed have to develop other sites.
But and Im not just talking about Twitter. Look at Facebook. Look at the tribunal they set up on Facebook. This woman, who you remember testifying recently in Congress, her hatred was so incredible toward the Republican Party and me that there is no way you can get a fair trial.
So this is not like its supposed to be. This is not like its supposed to be. So were going to see what happens. And you know what? I guess its going to be challenged in court. What isnt? But I think well do very well.
Yeah. Go ahead.
Q Mr. President
Q Mr. President
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Go ahead.
Q as to potential litigation, can you discuss the timing of that? And what is the remedy that youre going to be seeking?
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, what I was referring to, there is litigation going on all the time on Section 230 and its scope. So we would look for appropriate vehicles to weigh in and file statement of interest.
Q So you wouldnt be filing an individual
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Not necessarily.
Q Okay. Thank you.
Q Mr. President
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. Please.
Q Are you worried about the situation on the border between India and China?
THE PRESIDENT: Ah, India. He loves India so much. Hes never asked a question other than an India question, and thats okay. I just got back from India, right?
Q I (inaudible) Indian, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I just beat COVID.
Q You are very popular in India.
THE PRESIDENT: I got back I know. And they like me in India. I think they like me in India certainly more than the media likes me in this country.
Q Youre a rock star there because of Ahmedabad and
THE PRESIDENT: And I like Modi. I like your prime minister a lot. Hes a great gentleman. A great gentleman.
Yeah, they have a big conflict going with India and China. Is that what youre talking about? Yeah?
Q Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: They have a big conflict going with India and China. Two countries with 1.4 billion people. Two countries with very powerful militaries. And India is not happy, and probably China is not happy. But I can tell you, I did speak to Prime Minister Modi. Hes not hes not
in a good mood about whats going on with China.
Q Mr. President, have you spoken to
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. Are you finished?
Q No, sir. So, yesterday, you tweeted about do you want to mediate between India and China on this issue.
THE PRESIDENT: I would do that. You know, I would do that. If they if they thought it would help if I were the mediator or the arbiter, I would do that. So, well see.
Go ahead.
Q Have you spoken to the family of George Floyd yet?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I havent. But I feel very, very badly. And its a very shocking sight.
Bill and I were talking about it before. Its one of the reasons Bill is here right now because, as you know, were very much involved. And Ive asked the Attorney General FBI and the Attorney General to take a very strong look and to see what went on, because that was a very a very bad thing that I saw. I saw it last night, and I didnt like it.
Q Do you think those police officers should be prosecuted?
THE PRESIDENT: Im not going to make any comment right now. I can tell you I think what I saw was not good was not good. Very bad.
Q Mr. President
THE PRESIDENT: Anybody else?
Q Mr. President, are you definitively staying in the U.S.-China trade deal?
THE PRESIDENT: Well be announcing what were doing tomorrow with respect to China. And we are not happy with China. We are not happy with whats happened.
All over the world, people are suffering. A hundred and eighty-six countries all over the world theyre suffering. Were not happy.
Okay. Thank you very much, everybody.
END 4:07 P.M. EDT
Remarks by President Trump Announcing an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
Issued on: May 28, 2020
Oval Office
3:47 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Were here today to defend free speech from one of the gravest dangers it has faced in American history, frankly. And you know whats going as well as anybody. Its not good.
A small handful of powerful social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States. And we know what they are; we dont have to name them. Were going to give you a complete listing. Were going to give you a signed copy of what Im going to be signing in a couple of minutes, and youll see exactly what were doing.
Theyve had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences. Theres no precedent in American history for so small a number of corporations to control so large a sphere of human interaction. And that includes individual people controlling vast amounts of territory.
And we cant allow that to happen, especially when they go about doing what theyre doing, because theyre doing things incorrectly. They have points of view. And if we go by that, its actually amazing that there was a success in 2016. But we cant let this continue to happen. Its very, very unfair.
And you look at the statistics and you look at what is going on, and I think everybody would very much agree with that, including Democrats, by the way. I saw quite a few Democrats are saying this is about time something is done. So lets see if they keep that decision after they hear that we agree with them.
The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadow, ban are editorial decisions, pure and simple. Theyre editorial decisions. In those moments, Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform, and they become an editor with a viewpoint. And I think we can say that about others also, whether youre looking at Google, whether youre looking at Facebook and perhaps others.
One egregious example is when they try to silence views that they disagree with by selectively applying a fact check a fact check F-A-C-T. Fact check. What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or even promote is nothing more than a political activism group or political activism. And its inappropriate. If you look at whats happened, you look at where theyre going, where theyre coming from, I think you all see it yourselves.
This censorship and bias is a threat to freedom itself. Imagine if your phone company silenced or edited your conversation. Social media companies have vastly more power and more reach than any phone company in the United States. More reach, actually, than your newspapers, by far. More reach than a lot of your traditional forms of communication.
Therefore, today Im signing an executive order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people. Currently, social media giants, like Twitter, receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that theyre a neutral platform which theyre not not an editor with a viewpoint.
My executive order calls for new regulations, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield. Thats a big deal. They have a shield; they can do what they want. They have a shield. Theyre not going to have that shield.
My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This authority resides in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. I think you know it pretty well. Most of you know it very well. I would think you know it quite well, right?
Additionally, Im directing the Attorney General to work cooperatively with the states. Hes going to be working very much and very closely in cooperation with the states to enforce their own laws against such deceptive business practices. The states have brought in powerful authority to regulate in this arena, and theyll be doing it also and we encourage them to do it if they see exactly as weve been seeing.
Its what theyre doing is tantamount to monopoly, you can say. Its tantamount to taking over the airwaves. Cant let it happen. Otherwise, were not going to have a democracy. Were not going to have anything to do with a republic.
Finally, Im directing my administration to develop policies and procedures to ensure taxpayer dollars are not going into any social media company that repress free speech. The government spends billions of dollars on giving them money. Theyre rich enough. So were going to be doing none of it or a very little of it.
As President, Ill not allow the American people to be bullied by these giant corporations. Many people have wanted this to be done by presidents for a long time. And now were doing it. And Im sure theyll be doing a lawsuit, and Im also sure that were going to be going for legislation, in addition to this. And the legislation will start immediately.
And Ill tell you, Ive been called by Democrats that want to do this, and so I think you could possibly have a bipartisan situation. But were fed up with it, and its unfair, and its been very unfair. And well see what happens.
Any questions?
Q Mr. President, given your concern with Twitter, have you given any consideration to deleting your account, to just walking away from this platform youve been so critical of?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, if you werent fake, I would not even think about it. I would do that in a heartbeat.
Q Im real, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: But the news the news is fake. We if you look at what gets printed in newspapers, if only the public could understand where, you know, theyre reading a story and they think its real, and its not real in so many cases. And Im not saying in every case. You have some great journalists. You have some journalists that I have great respect for. But largely, I find, at least in a political sense, there is so much fake news, its disgraceful.
I would do that in a heartbeat if I had fair if we had a fair press in this country, I would do that in a heartbeat. Theres nothing Id rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account. But Im able to get to, I guess, 186 million people, when you add up all the different accounts and add Facebook and Instagram. Thats a lot of people. And thats more than the media companies have, frankly, by a lot. And so, if I get a story thats wrong, I can put a social media I dont usually use the word Twitter; I use I say social media.
But I put something out, and the next day or the next hour or the next minute, everybody is reading about it. So Im able to refute fake news, and thats very important.
Id like to ask the Attorney General, please, to say a couple of words. And hes very strongly behind it, backing it very powerfully. And again, were going to be doing this, but were also going through Congress.
Please.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, as youve mentioned, Mr. President, one of the things that I found has the broadest bipartisan support these days is the feeling that this provision, Section 230, has been stretched way beyond its original intention. And people feel that on both sides of the aisle.
This was adopted 25 years ago to protect a fledgling industry, and its purpose was to allow websites that were serving as, essentially, bulletin boards for diverse third-party content coming on, to say that youre not responsible for the content of that third-party information. And it also tried to encourage these companies to take down things like child pornography or human trafficking advertising and things by saying, if you act to remove this kind of objectionable material, you wont be liable for taking it down.
Now its been completely stretched to allow what have become really behemoths who control a lot of the flow of information in our society to engage in censorship of that information and to act as editors and publishers of the material.
So when they put on their own content like fact check content onto other peoples content, and when they curate their collection, and when they start censoring particular content including, in many cases, at the direction of foreign governments like Communist China, they become publishers and they shouldnt be entitled to the same kind of shield that was set up earlier.
Now, this executive order is a very strong step toward addressing this problem. It sets up a rulemaking procedure that will eventually be under the FCC to try to get back to the original interpretation and understanding of Section 230. It also empowers the Attorney General to work with state attorneys general to come up with model legislation that addresses this at the state level. And were preparing federal legislation, which we will be sending over shortly for review at the Office of Management and Budget.
So this is an important step to get back to the original understanding.
You know, theres a bit of a bait-and-switch thats occurred in our society. These companies grew because they held themselves out as public forums, as free public forums where a variety of voices and diverse voices could come on and be heard. Thats how they grew. Thats how they attracted the eyeballs. Thats why people joined them.
But now that they have become these very powerful networks of eyeballs, now that theyve grown by holding themselves out as free public forums, theyve now switched. And they are using that market power to force particular viewpoints, and thats wrong. And it has to be addressed not only through this executive order, but I think litigation going forward and by further action on Capitol Hill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Q Mr. President, not only
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any questions for the Attorney General?
Q Yes, actually, I do. Mr. Attorney General, not only have you been against Section 230, and the President has been against Section 230, the Vice President has said hes against Section 230. Do you believe that the executive order that the President is about to sign in any way repeals or amends Section 230?
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, it doesnt repeal Section 230. And Im not against Section 230 if it was properly interpreted and properly applied. But its been stretched, and I dont know of anyone on Capitol Hill who doesnt agree that its been stretched beyond its original intention.
I think this will help it get back to the right balance.
Q Mr. Attorney General, can you give us more details on the legislation both you and the President referred to? What do you want to do in that legislation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, were still reviewing a number of possibilities. And itd be premature for me to discuss the specifics.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, one of the things we may do, Bill, is just remove or totally change 230. What I think we can say is were going to regulate it. Its a provision, and were going to regulate it.
You take a look at this as an example; this was just out: Twitter Moments on the Mueller witch hunt. So, we won. We were in the right. You see whats happened. Its a total fraud. It was a total fraud. Seventy-six to one, okay? Seventy-six to one. You look at it. You think thats fair? Twitter classifies the term illegal alien as hate speech. Illegal alien. And viciously.
You look at what China I mean, just article after article. Heres one. This is our this is the arbiter. This guy is the arbiter of whats supposed to go on Twitter. Hes the one. He thought that he thought and he used CNN as a guide CNN, which is fake news. He uses CNN as a guide. His name is Yoel Roth. And hes the one that said that mail-in balloting you look, mail-in no fraud. No fraud. Really? Why didnt you take a look all over the country? Theres cases all over the country.
If we went to mail-in balloting, our election all over the world would look as a total joke. It would be a total joke. Theres such fraud and abuse. And you know about harvesting, where they harvest the ballots, and they go and grab them, and they go to peoples houses, and then they say, sign here. No. Doesnt work.
Now, an absentee ballot you cant be there or youre sick, and you go and you register and you do all sorts of things to get that ballot, and theres good security measures. But when they send out like in California millions and millions of ballots to anybody thats breathing anybody in California thats breathing, gets a ballot.
Q But, Mr. President, thats not true. California
THE PRESIDENT: So here here excuse me. Wait a minute. Im not finished. So heres your heres your man, and thats on Twitter.
And the amazing thing is hes wrong. And even no no matter who it is, they will admit that hes wrong, because theres tremendous controversy on mail-in voting.
And I can say this: The Republican Party cannot let that let it happen.
Go ahead.
Q But you know Gavin Newsom Governor Newsom has
THE PRESIDENT: I do. I do.
Q has not sent ballots out to everybody in California. Theyre only going to registered voters.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, really? How many are there?
Q So so
THE PRESIDENT: How many are there?
Q So what your tweet
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
Q said was was not wrong
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, so
Q or was not correct. It was wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Oh, really? So when he sends out 28 million ballots and theyre in all the mailboxes, and kids go and they raid the mailboxes, and they hand them to people that are signing the ballots down the end of the street, which is happening they grab the ballots you dont think that happens? Theres ballot harvesting where all of us you know, we had seven elections for Congress, and they were, like, tied. And they lost every one of them because they came and they dropped the whole pile of ballots on the table.
But you dont think they they rip them out of mailboxes? Its all the time you read about it. You could read about it. Take a look.
Q I mean, there are
THE PRESIDENT: They do worse than that. In some cases, they wont sell [sic] them, like to a Republican community a conservative community. They dont happen to send the ballots to those communities. And theres no way of checking.
No, you have to go and you have to vote. Voting is a great thing. Voting we would be the laughingstock of the world. And if you just use common sense, you know thats going to happen.
But they raid the mailboxes. They can even print ballots. They get the same paper, the same machine nothing special they get the same paper, the same machine. They print ballots.
And Bill would have to do a great job to catch them doing it, or you state authorities would have to.
But you have tremendous potential and you have tremendous fraud and abuse, but you have tremendous potential for fraud and abuse.
Go ahead.
Q Mr. President, you had said in one of your Twitter in one of your tweets that you would consider shutting down Twitter and social media companies. Did you actually mean you would want to shut down an American company?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think its going to be you know, Ill tell you what: I have so much, it seems, influence over Twitter in the sense of people wanting to see go Twitter because of what I have. I have a vast number of we have a number of platforms, as you know. We have millions and millions of people.
I think this: If Twitter were not honorable if youre going to have a guy like this be your judge and jury, I think just shut it down, as far as Im concerned, but Id have to go through a legal process to do that.
Q But how would you shut down an American company?
THE PRESIDENT: I dont know. Id have to ask the lawyers. Id have to go through a legal process. If it were legal, if it were able to be legally shut down, I would do it. I think Id be hurting it very badly if we didnt use it anymore. I mean, we have other sites we could use, I guess, or wed have to develop other sites.
But and Im not just talking about Twitter. Look at Facebook. Look at the tribunal they set up on Facebook. This woman, who you remember testifying recently in Congress, her hatred was so incredible toward the Republican Party and me that there is no way you can get a fair trial.
So this is not like its supposed to be. This is not like its supposed to be. So were going to see what happens. And you know what? I guess its going to be challenged in court. What isnt? But I think well do very well.
Yeah. Go ahead.
Q Mr. President
Q Mr. President
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Go ahead.
Q as to potential litigation, can you discuss the timing of that? And what is the remedy that youre going to be seeking?
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, what I was referring to, there is litigation going on all the time on Section 230 and its scope. So we would look for appropriate vehicles to weigh in and file statement of interest.
Q So you wouldnt be filing an individual
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Not necessarily.
Q Okay. Thank you.
Q Mr. President
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. Please.
Q Are you worried about the situation on the border between India and China?
THE PRESIDENT: Ah, India. He loves India so much. Hes never asked a question other than an India question, and thats okay. I just got back from India, right?
Q I (inaudible) Indian, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I just beat COVID.
Q You are very popular in India.
THE PRESIDENT: I got back I know. And they like me in India. I think they like me in India certainly more than the media likes me in this country.
Q Youre a rock star there because of Ahmedabad and
THE PRESIDENT: And I like Modi. I like your prime minister a lot. Hes a great gentleman. A great gentleman.
Yeah, they have a big conflict going with India and China. Is that what youre talking about? Yeah?
Q Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: They have a big conflict going with India and China. Two countries with 1.4 billion people. Two countries with very powerful militaries. And India is not happy, and probably China is not happy. But I can tell you, I did speak to Prime Minister Modi. Hes not hes not
in a good mood about whats going on with China.
Q Mr. President, have you spoken to
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. Are you finished?
Q No, sir. So, yesterday, you tweeted about do you want to mediate between India and China on this issue.
THE PRESIDENT: I would do that. You know, I would do that. If they if they thought it would help if I were the mediator or the arbiter, I would do that. So, well see.
Go ahead.
Q Have you spoken to the family of George Floyd yet?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I havent. But I feel very, very badly. And its a very shocking sight.
Bill and I were talking about it before. Its one of the reasons Bill is here right now because, as you know, were very much involved. And Ive asked the Attorney General FBI and the Attorney General to take a very strong look and to see what went on, because that was a very a very bad thing that I saw. I saw it last night, and I didnt like it.
Q Do you think those police officers should be prosecuted?
THE PRESIDENT: Im not going to make any comment right now. I can tell you I think what I saw was not good was not good. Very bad.
Q Mr. President
THE PRESIDENT: Anybody else?
Q Mr. President, are you definitively staying in the U.S.-China trade deal?
THE PRESIDENT: Well be announcing what were doing tomorrow with respect to China. And we are not happy with China. We are not happy with whats happened.
All over the world, people are suffering. A hundred and eighty-six countries all over the world theyre suffering. Were not happy.
Okay. Thank you very much, everybody.
END 4:07 P.M. EDT
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 678 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post