Fogbow

Flatpoint High wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:26 pm https://www.newsweek.com/trump-demands- ... ng-1635111
claims he's been "exonerated"

Former President Donald Trump on Sunday demanded the Pulitzer Prize committee "immediately rescind" awards granted to staff at The New York Times and The Washington Post in 2018 for their reporting on Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election.

"[The awards were given] based on the false reporting of a non-existent link between the Kremlin and the Trump Campaign. The coverage was no more than a politically motivated farce," Trump said in a two-page letter sent to the interim administrator of the Pulitzer Prize, Bud Kliment.


However, in 2019, special counsel Robert Mueller said that he didn't exonerate Trump—charging the then-president with a crime just was "not an option."

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said at the time, according to the Associated Press.

Lani wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:40 pm

Flatpoint High wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:26 pm https://www.newsweek.com/trump-demands- ... ng-1635111
claims he's been "exonerated"

Paywall

Former President Donald Trump on Sunday demanded the Pulitzer Prize committee "immediately rescind" awards granted to staff at The New York Times and The Washington Post in 2018 for their reporting on Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election.

"[The awards were given] based on the false reporting of a non-existent link between the Kremlin and the Trump Campaign. The coverage was no more than a politically motivated farce," Trump said in a two-page letter sent to the interim administrator of the Pulitzer Prize, Bud Kliment.


However, in 2019, special counsel Robert Mueller said that he didn't exonerate Trump—charging the then-president with a crime just was "not an option."

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said at the time, according to the Associated Press.

non-paywall link: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-d ... 21-10?op=1

neeneko wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:10 am All depends on your objectives.

By demanding an apology from the NYT, he is building on the perception of his followers that the lack of willingness on the part of the NYT to 'admit they were wrong' is further evidence they are irredeemably corrupt and thus should be ignored. Given the paper's long history of exposing embarrassing things, there is utility in simply discrediting them.

Volkonski wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:09 pm https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1445117325548605448?s=19

Former Pres. Trump set to be deposed in lawsuit filed by former 'Apprentice' contestant.

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:23 pm
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.77.0.pdf

The federal government has reiterated its position that government entities cannot
contractually bind themselves to social media companies and has directed government entities to craft TOS agreements with social media companies specific to their needs.

On January 20, 2017, when Plaintiff was sworn in as the Forty-Fifth President of the United
States, he continued using the same Facebook account that he had been using before entering office. (Amended Complaint dated July 27, 2021, Doc. 21 (“A.C.”) ¶¶ 59, 60.) As such, Plaintiff’s Facebook account, like his other social media accounts, became one of the White House’s main vehicles for conducting official business. See Knight First Amdt. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump,
928 F.3d 226, 232 (2d Cir. 2019). For example, Plaintiff repeatedly used his Facebook account(s) to report to the citizens of the United States on virtually every major aspect of Presidential activity.

This included using his account(s) to announce, describe, and defend his policies; to promote his Administration’s legislative agenda; and to make other official presidential statements. (A.C. ¶¶ 60-62.)

In 2017, federal agencies and the federal courts began treating Plaintiff’s statements on social media, which were deemed public forums for interactive discussion about government business, as official statements. The courts view government use of large digital platform.

Plaintiff’s Facebook posts are also official content of the federal government. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Facebook account consists of “official responses” for the purposes of The Presidential Records Act of 1978 and, like Plaintiff’s other social media accounts, has been treated as such and relied upon by politicians and foreign heads of state. (See Biden v. Knight First Amendment Inst., 141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021).) As a result, as the Second Circuit determined with respect to Plaintiff’s Twitter Account, at all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff’s account was not privately owned by Plaintiff or by Twitter, but was subject to “public ownership.” Id. (citing 44 U.S.C. § 2202.) Similar to his Twitter account, Plaintiff had an enormous number of followers on Facebook, approximately 35 million, when he was de-platformed on January 7, 2021.(A.C. ¶ 139)

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was the sitting President of the United States, and used his Facebook account(s) in that capacity as a public forum. Knight First Amdt. Inst. at Columbia Univ., 928 F.3d at 226. Further, Plaintiff could not accept the controlling law, jurisdiction, or venue clauses contained in Facebook’s TOS without input from other agencies, including the National Archives and Records Administration, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. See 44 U.S.C. § 2904, et seq.; 36 C.F.R § 1220, et seq.; see also 31 U.S.C. § 1341; 41 C.F.R. § 1, et seq.

Knight held that President Trump’s social media platforms were government accounts, and that he could not constitutionally limit access to this public forum, “[t]he salient issues in this case arise from the decision of the President to use a relatively new type of social media platform . . . We also conclude that once the President has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive
space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.” Knight, 928 F.3d at 226, 234. Accordingly, Facebook’s argument fails—either it expressly contracted to omit a forum selection clause given the constraints of federal law, which it has to do, but has not shown, or it fails otherwise to show a valid contract with the Plaintiff.

Trump, talked out of announcing a 2024 bid for now, settles on a wink-and-nod unofficial candidacy

As turmoil in Afghanistan reached a crescendo in August, Donald Trump began talking again with advisers about whether he should announce his 2024 campaign for president right away.

They responded by urging patience, according to three people familiar with the discussions, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. An announcement would force a reshuffling of his newly formed fundraising apparatus, advisers argued, and could complicate his ability to appear on broadcast television without triggering equal time rules.

Some of his advisers were concerned that Democrats might use his announcement in their effort to frame the midterm elections around his candidacy, potentially boosting their own turnout and hampering his plans if Republicans fall short next year. Advisers also argued that he could be more effective electing like-minded Republicans next year if he was not an official candidate himself.

“The biggest point we drove home was that he doesn’t want to own the midterms if we don’t win back the House or Senate,” said one person familiar with the conversations.

The arguments won Trump over, for the time being at least. Instead of a presidential campaign announcement, Trump, 75, has settled on a strategy of winks and nods. As some in his party worry, he is acting like a candidate for public office, and making clear he intends to be one again, without actually declaring so himself.

Disbarment For Couping?
A nonpartisan election integrity group is demanding an investigation into whether John Eastman, the conservative legal scholar who mapped out a potential plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to steal the 2020 election for Trump, engaged in professional misconduct.

* The States United Democracy Center sent a letter to the California bar association on Monday requesting that the state bar examine whether Eastman “violated his ethical obligations as an attorney by filing frivolous claims, making false statements and engaging in deceptive conduct.”
* The letter’s signatories included two former California Supreme Court justices plus an ex-GOP governor and an Obama official.
* “Is it now a disbarrable offense to engage in political speech, First Amendment protected?” Eastman asked in response to the group’s complaint while hinting that he might fire back with a defamation suit.
* The bar complaint comes as other Trumpland lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, face bar investigations for misusing the courts to overturn the election.

LM K wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:43 pm

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:23 pm
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.77.0.pdf

Imo, it's hard to argue that Trump's personal acct magically became a fed gov acct when he became potus. And the he asks for the acct to be reopened as a personal acct.

From the filing:

The federal government has reiterated its position that government entities cannot
contractually bind themselves to social media companies and has directed government entities to craft TOS agreements with social media companies specific to their needs.

IF Trump was a gov entity, he should have negotiated a TOS with social media platforms. He did not.

On January 20, 2017, when Plaintiff was sworn in as the Forty-Fifth President of the United
States, he continued using the same Facebook account that he had been using before entering office. (Amended Complaint dated July 27, 2021, Doc. 21 (“A.C.”) ¶¶ 59, 60.) As such, Plaintiff’s Facebook account, like his other social media accounts, became one of the White House’s main vehicles for conducting official business. See Knight First Amdt. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump,
928 F.3d 226, 232 (2d Cir. 2019). For example, Plaintiff repeatedly used his Facebook account(s) to report to the citizens of the United States on virtually every major aspect of Presidential activity.

This included using his account(s) to announce, describe, and defend his policies; to promote his Administration’s legislative agenda; and to make other official presidential statements. (A.C. ¶¶ 60-62.)

In 2017, federal agencies and the federal courts began treating Plaintiff’s statements on social media, which were deemed public forums for interactive discussion about government business, as official statements. The courts view government use of large digital platform.

Hmmm. I guess the WH should have used their official social media accts instead of Trump's personal acct.

Plaintiff’s Facebook posts are also official content of the federal government. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Facebook account consists of “official responses” for the purposes of The Presidential Records Act of 1978 and, like Plaintiff’s other social media accounts, has been treated as such and relied upon by politicians and foreign heads of state. (See Biden v. Knight First Amendment Inst., 141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021).) As a result, as the Second Circuit determined with respect to Plaintiff’s Twitter Account, at all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff’s account was not privately owned by Plaintiff or by Twitter, but was subject to “public ownership.” Id. (citing 44 U.S.C. § 2202.) Similar to his Twitter account, Plaintiff had an enormous number of followers on Facebook, approximately 35 million, when he was de-platformed on January 7, 2021.(A.C. ¶ 139)

Good thing Trump's social media activity from his presidency is archived! No need to open Trump's social media accts now!

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was the sitting President of the United States, and used his Facebook account(s) in that capacity as a public forum. Knight First Amdt. Inst. at Columbia Univ., 928 F.3d at 226. Further, Plaintiff could not accept the controlling law, jurisdiction, or venue clauses contained in Facebook’s TOS without input from other agencies, including the National Archives and Records Administration, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. See 44 U.S.C. § 2904, et seq.; 36 C.F.R § 1220, et seq.; see also 31 U.S.C. § 1341; 41 C.F.R. § 1, et seq.

Well, I guess Trump should have renegotiated his TOS for the period during which he was a gov entity.

Trump went to court while in office to argue that he can block anyone he wants to from his Twitter acct because it's his personal acct, not an official gov acct.

Now he wants his personal acct to receive recognition as a gov acct because his actions occurred while he was in office.

Does a gov official maintain access to gov accts? No.

Either the accts are personal and he lost access due to his bullshit, or it's an official WH 'public forum". If it's an official WH "public forum", then Trump, as a private citizen has no legal rights to the accts.

Knight held that President Trump’s social media platforms were government accounts, and that he could not constitutionally limit access to this public forum, “[t]he salient issues in this case arise from the decision of the President to use a relatively new type of social media platform . . . We also conclude that once the President has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive
space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.” Knight, 928 F.3d at 226, 234. Accordingly, Facebook’s argument fails—either it expressly contracted to omit a forum selection clause given the constraints of federal law, which it has to do, but has not shown, or it fails otherwise to show a valid contract with the Plaintiff.

I guess social media companies could make Trump's posts from 2016-2021 accessable for viewing, but now that Trump is a private person, they don't have to allow the accts to be in use.

That would give Trump what he claims he wants. But that's not what he wants. He can't open new personal accts under his current ban/s.

Trump wants back on social media because he wants to maybe run for office again. It's hard to campaign without FB, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.

Gregg wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 1:05 pm
If he wins, I'm going to use the same arguments to establish that since I used government bank accounts to purchase things when I was a 1LT in the Army and I also used my personal bank account to buy some things that were the official policy of the Army for me to buy (like uniforms) that this means that I now should have the US Treasury returned to me to use now, even though I am no longer in the Army and no longer need or buy things for the Army with any account, but only because I don't have a Treasury Checking Account.

Amiright?