Connect with us

Nation

Facebook removed interview with fmr. Pres. Trump

Published

on

donald trump

Lara Trump, former President Donald Trump‘s daughter-in-law, has claimed that Facebook removed her interview with him, with an email from the social media site saying any content “in the voice of Donald Trump” would be wiped from its platform.

Lara Trump, a recently hired Fox News contributor, on Tuesday published links to the 18-minute video of her talking with the former president in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida on several social media sites, such as Twitter and Instagram.

MORE ON LARA TRUMP: Multiple outlets: Lara Trump, Mark Meadows eyeing NC Senate seat in 2022

Early on Wednesday, Lara Trump posted to Instagram and Facebook a screenshot of an email warning that any content posted to both platforms “in the voice of President Trump is not currently allowed on our platforms (including new posts with President Trump speaking)” and said that it “will be removed if posted, resulting in additional limitations on accounts that posted it.”

“This guidance applies to all campaign accounts and Pages, including Team Trump, other campaign messaging vehicles on our platforms, and former surrogates,” the email stated. It also mentioned that “we removed content from Lara Trump’s Facebook Page that featured President Trump speaking,” saying that it was “in line with the block” on his Facebook and Instagram accounts.

Facebook, which owns Instagram, permanently banned then-President Trump from its platform in January shortly following the deadly Capitol riot.

RELATED: Bernie Sanders not ‘comfortable’ with social media banning Trump

Alongside the screenshot, Lara Trump wrote in a caption: “Just like that, we are one step closer to Orwell’s 1984. Wow.”

The email was also sent to other Trump officials, such as son Eric Trump, who posted screenshots to Instagram too.

A source from Facebook confirmed to this reporter that the email is either “real or similar.”

RELATED: Trump to return to social media on ‘his own platform’ in 2-3 months

After the January 6 riot in the U.S. Capitol, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg decided to block then-President Trump “indefinitely,” saying that the commander-in-chief had used the platform to “incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government”.

Leading up to and following the November presidential election, Trump used his social media to promote allegations of widespread election fraud.

Along with Facebook and Instagram, Trump was also permanently banned from Twitter, Snapchat, and YouTube after the riot.

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @DouglasPBraff.

Continue Reading

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending