The Trump Executive Order and the Section 230 Option To “Strongly Regulate” Social Media

President Donald Trump’s executive order on social media is framed around the effort to remove protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. For those of us who teach torts, Section 230 has been a long controversy in its shielding of companies from liability in defamation and other lawsuits. As I write today in my Hill column, Twitter is dangerously wrong in its action against the Trump tweets and Trump is right that this represents a serious attack on free speech. However, I was also critical of the threat to “shut down” or “strongly regulate” media companies. Putting the retaliatory language aside, this is not a change that will likely succeed without congressional action. However, there are some legitimate questions that Congress should consider while, in my view, erring on the side of protecting free speech.

President Trump is directing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose and clarify regulations under Section 230. Specifically, section 230 protects social media platforms from liability over what users post or share. 

Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The statute defines “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3).

This has long been a controversial element under the FCA because it was largely the result of judicial not congressional construction. We discussed this issue in relation to the Sixth Circuit’s arguments in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment. A gossip blog, The Dirty, appealed the decision of U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman that the site is liable of defamatory statements by third parties and cannot claim immunity under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. The site was sued by Sarah Jones, an ex-Bengals cheerleader and a former high school teacher in northern Kentucky, who was libeled on the site by commentators.

The jury hung in the first trial of this case, which necessitated a second trial. The second jury returned a verdict for $38,000.00 compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitive damages.

Bertelsman rejected the argument that it barred recovery in the case. The district court drew a distinction between third party postings or comments that appear without solicitation or encouragement and this type of site that actively seeks such comments. The court noted a number of decisions limiting CDA immunity including a decision by Judge Easterbrook of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who wrote in Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. For Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 2008), that the CDA does not provide “a grant of comprehensive immunity from civil liability for content provided by a third party.” Easterbrook ruled that Craigslist was entitled to protection but noted that “[n]othing in the service craigslist offers induces anyone to post any particular listing or express a preference for discrimination.” Id. at 671-72.

The district court held that

“Although Courts have stated generally that CDA immunity is broad, the weight of the authority teaches that such immunity may be lost. That is, a website owner who intentionally encourages illegal or actionable third-party postings to which he adds his own comments ratifying or adopting the posts becomes a “creator” or “developer” of that content and is not entitled to immunity.”

That analysis may appeal to the Trump Administration. However, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision with instructions to enter judgment for Dirty World. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erroneously applied an “adoption or ratification test” on determining if immunity existed. It instead favored the material contribution test from Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC. Yet, that case contained language that should worry Twitter.

Then Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the en banc court that Roommates.com was not immune under Section 230(c) because the website qualified as an information content provider: “Roommate created the questions and choice of answers, and designed its website registration process around them. Therefore, Roommate is undoubtedly the ‘information content provider’ as to the questions and can claim no immunity for posting them on its website, or for forcing subscribers to answer them as a condition of using its services.” The court found that “Roommate becomes much more than a passive transmitter of information provided by others; it becomes the developer, at least in part, of the information. And section 230 provides immunity only if the interactive computer series does not ‘creat[e] or develop[]’ the information ‘in whole or in part.’”

We have previously discussed the opinion in Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330-31 (4th Cir. 1997) where Chief Judge Wilkinson wrote for the Fourth Circuit:

By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically, § 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role. Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content — are barred.

The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. The imposition of tort liability on service providers for the communications of others represented, for Congress, simply another form of intrusive government regulation of speech. Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum.

* * *

None of this means, of course, that the original culpable party who posts defamatory messages would escape accountability. While Congress acted to keep government regulation of the Internet to a minimum, it also found it to be the policy of the United States “to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.” Id. § 230(b)(5). Congress made a policy choice, however, not to deter harmful online speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties’ potentially injurious messages.

Past CDA decision have been sweeping in the extent of the immunity, even from reluctant judges as in Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998). In that case, the Drudge Report was sued by Sidney Blumenthal and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal who are citizens of the District of Columbia and have continuously lived in the District since 1985. Complaint PP 1-2, 12. Sidney Blumenthal worked in the White House as an Assistant to the President of the United States and the defamatory materials was published the day before he began work at the White House on August 11, 1997. The article was entitled “Charge: New White House Recruit Sidney Blumenthal Has Spousal Abuse Past.” It was untrue and, after receiving a letter from their counsel, Drudge retracted the story through a special edition of the Drudge Report on his web site and e-mailed to his subscribers. Drudge also e-mailed the retraction to AOL which posted it on the AOL service. He also later publicly apologized to the Blumenthals. AOL however was protected even though the site actively monitors postings and reserves the right to remove postings. Judge Freidman wrote:

If it were writing on a clean slate, this Court would agree with plaintiffs. AOL has certain editorial rights with respect to the content provided by Drudge and disseminated by AOL, including the right to require changes in content and to remove it; and it has affirmatively promoted Drudge as a new source of unverified instant gossip on AOL. Yet it takes no responsibility for any damage he may cause. AOL is not a passive conduit like the telephone company, a common carrier with no control and therefore no responsibility for what is said over the telephone wires. 11 Because it has the right to exercise editorial control over those with whom it contracts and whose words it disseminates, it would seem only fair to hold AOL to the liability standards applied to a publisher or, at least, like a book store owner or library, to the liability standards applied to a distributor. 12 But Congress has made a different policy choice by providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others. In some sort of tacit quid pro quo arrangement with the service provider community, Congress has conferred immunity from tort liability as an incentive to Internet service providers to self-police the Internet for obscenity and other offensive material, even where the self-policing is unsuccessful or not even attempted.

There are therefore long-standing and legitimate objections to Section 230 where sites like Twitter demand immunity as a passive provider but then assumed an active role in the discussion.  However, the priority should be the protection of the Internet and social media as a forum for free speech. If Twitter could refrain from such interventions, it serves an important function as a platform for free ideas and exchange.  The problem is that Democrats like former Vice President Joe Biden have called for the elimination of Section 230 in its entirety — an extreme action that could fundamentally change public discourse in this country.

That is why my column strongly encourages Twitter to admit its error and return to neutrality. Instead, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey has doubled down on an indefensible and dangerous decision on the Trump tweets. The result could be an assault not just on social media but free speech.

133 thoughts on “The Trump Executive Order and the Section 230 Option To “Strongly Regulate” Social Media”

  1. All immunity hides some form of corruption and none is worse than sovereign immunity. Close behind is immunity for business actors plying their for profit trade. I say let all their deeds be subject to a jury, judge and two good lawyers.

  2. I am old enough to remember when the proposition that Obama was not born in this country was a fringe belief of the extreme right. Then Trump and his twitter and facebook and FoxNews came along, and suddenly it was a mainstream Republican idea. Heck, I would guess many of the commenters on Mr. Turley’s site believe it to this day.

    Now, is the country better off because Trump can make those claims without any evidence whatsoever? Or would, perhaps, a fact check that Trump’s claims were not true have been better.

    Sadly, Trump can only communicate effectively to his flock if there is no serious person fact checking him. Trump has lied more that 18,000 times while in office. There should be a lot more fact checks on his twitter account.

    1. Trump challenged Obama to produce his long form certificate. (Gov. Abercrombie also suggested he do so). This bothers partisan Democrats, who fancy Obama should never be challenged.

      And, of course, once he did, most of the people pushing the thesis, among them Orly Taitz, went home. The notion it was ‘mainstream Republican’ perspective is a lie. Democrats never stop lying.

      1. Here we go again… it wasn’t a long form, it wasn’t an original or copy of original, it was a fraudulent layered digital hoax, which we have no idea if it conformed to any document from the 1950’s data because we never saw that – not even a scan of that, not even a photo, and just a lying democrud tells us they swear even after Ambercrombie dug the archives and could find nothing.,.

        Long form, MY PATOOTIE.

        1. the forensic analysis of the birth certificate produced exposed some serious questions

          that was not one of them. the birth certificates refer to his father’s race as “African.” and the father was African.
          not African American. just African. that is not one of the serious questions.

          also the date of brith is also 1961 not the 50s

          whatever the issues, we are stuck with it as the final word because the Hawaii officials verified it.

          this is a dead issue. Anyways it would not matter, nothing and nobody can undue the history of Obama’ term in office for good or for bad. looking backwards at this is a waste of time and only serves the opposition now.

          . …. again, arguing about this now is pointless.

          1. You’re squealing the same lies we heard when it was brought up. African is not a race, it’s never been a race, dummy.

            Speak for yourself as far as being stuck with it, because it doesn’t matter one whit.

            TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS AT THE TIME OF BIRTH.

            That’s what we’re stuck with that all you morons completely ignore. I’m not in some partisan BS drama for your side to win some vote, so stick that where your assumed demands are too.

            When you have some anchor baby ruling your progeny you’ll wonder what happened. It will probably never click for you.

          2. ” the forensic analysis of the birth certificate produced exposed some serious questions”

            It wasn’t a birth certificate. You have no idea to this day what that actually means. We don’t need a forensic analyst, a 10 year old can prove it’s a fraud with a home computer a scanner and less than an hour.

            If you aren’t the usual average intellect you can tell it’s a total fraud with 100% certainty just by viewing the opened scan in a few SECONDS.

            If people like you are to take the USA to honesty or victory, forget it !
            you’re so easily fooled and so wishy washy and thus totally CLUELESS.

            Let me repeat it for you. It isn’t speculation, it isn’t a guess, it isn’t a partisan mind, that piece of garbage posted at the WH gov site is 100% a fraud period no doubt about it nothing in Heaven or Hell can change that and the fact you’re not certain tells me one thing. You don’t have a clue.

          3. I’ll tell you another thing, nobody can reproduce a similar scan with a ‘birth cert’ or a cert of live birth, and a scanner. IT CAN NEVER BE DONE.
            I’m not saying identical, I’m just saying similar. I’m not saying analyzed, I’m just saying the image itself !

            I am also certain literally none of you know why. Many years, and you’re all totally stupid. I live on the orb of the monkeys. The level of stupidity is literally unbelievable.
            That’s how clueless the whole stupid cult is on the matter, since it’s way too obviously not just you, at all.

            I hope someone has clue, someone prove me wrong.

    2. Another clueless one. Way to go. You’ve had years to catch up to square one and you still know nothing.
      Two US citizen parents at the time of birth. That means nothing to you. Because you’re clueless. All you goons think African American was an expression in Hawaii in the 1950’s.
      Congratulations. You can’t keep it, just like Benjamin said.

    3. No. You started it.

      Let’s FACT CHECK.

      Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

      Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

      – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

      – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

      – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

      – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

      – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

      – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.

      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

      Book 1, Ch. 19

      § 212. Citizens and natives.

      “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

      “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

      From John Jay

      New York 25 July 1787

      Dear Sir

      I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

      Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

      Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

      which sailed Yesterday.

      Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

      provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

      administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

      of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

      Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

      Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

      I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

      John Jay

      1. Thank you George. One who isn’t completely clueless.
        Really thank you very much.
        Very much.

        It’s a sad thing, though most of the obvious in the Constitution isn’t followed nowadays, but the total and complete ignorance of my fellow citizens babbling about where Obama was born was just about mind exploding.
        Like I said before I watched Scalia out the whole thing and lay out they (the SCOTUS) were “avoiding the issue” (two US citizen parents at the time of birth)…

        So what I predict is as soon as it becomes important again the libs will lie, the repubs will be 99 brain dead and whine we don’t want to hear another Obama birther issue, then soon an anchor baby will become their POTUS as they drool into their sippie cup lids screaming conspiracy theories must not be given the time of day.

  3. “We live in a strange time when the POTUS can falsely accuse someone of murder with impunity {violating Twitter’s term of service}, while at the same time bully a private business into removing content it doesn’t like”. Nick Anderson. political cartoonist that Trump campaign issued a complaint on.

  4. Has anybody noticed that Jonathan Turley May end up liable because of trumps temper tantrum.

    This forum meets the definition of what he says is the controversial statute.

    “ The statute defines “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3).”

    Turley can be sued for the defamatory and misleading content in this very forum. Irony?

  5. Has anybody noticed that if liability protections are removed Jonathan Turley’s own forum can be used to sue him for the types of defamatory and misleading comments it produces. Turley’s comments section meets the definition of content provider.

    “ The statute defines “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3).”

    The comments section of JT’s website is the interactive part. In effect he could be liable for the stuff that is posted here. Interesting.

  6. Jonathan Turley is dead wrong when he states that fact checking the president’s tweets is violating his free speech. Using speech to simply state that the president’s claims are misleading with proof of it is clearly not violating his rights.

    Twitter has every right to just drop trump from the platform just as any other abusive posted would. Alex Jones was banned exactly because he was peddling harmful conspiracy theories. Trumps tweets fall within that same category. Being president at a private company’s platform shouldn’t mean squat. If trump wants to continue spouting his conspiracies he still has his press secretary at his disposal.

    1. Good thing then we can ban 3.5 years of Russia Putin puppet conspiracy theories. You all go in the digital hidden gulag.
      I mean talk about being dumb.
      A conspiracy theory is the entire MSM and entire democrat party for 3.5 years. That’s who should have been banned, not Alex Jones.

      This is why we cannot abide with so many idiots – none should be listened to – including the ADL, the SPLC, and all the other left wing morons doing “fake news checks” already for these grossly twisted public forums.

  7. Turley’s word salad comes to a close with… Twitter should admit it’s error, and return to neutrality. And he left out, apologize to the dear leader and all hail Trump. So accordingly, Twitter should remain neutral when Trump retweeted from a follower that “The only good democrat is a dead democrat”

  8. This is one issue the Democrats would love to have in front of them and I do not believe they would error on the side of free-speech.

  9. “As I write today in my Hill column, Twitter is dangerously wrong in its action against the Trump tweets and Trump is right that this represents a serious attack on free speech. However, I was also critical of the threat to “shut down” or “strongly regulate” media companies.”
    In your heart of hearts Prof T., can you seriously really think that these social media companies are media companies? If so, you too have had way too many sips of the Kool-Aid titled “tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. What’s worse is that you fell for it!

  10. By what logic does a company policing it’s service to remove or correct misinformation a reason to remove their liability protection. That doesn’t compute. Want to spell it out better JT?

  11. Trump probably has people in place to run Twitter with an equal voice for “all” which should scare any weasel, that has an agenda of stiffling free speech.

  12. the answer when both sides are at fault is not to choose one or the other commonly called the lesser of two evils but to examine why you have two false premises and seek a correct premise. As commented two wrongs do not make a right. They just double evil and those who support that road are nothing but supporters of evil.

    Rand put it correctly. When that occurs check your premises one or both will be wrong and then realize there are three choices. The wrong answer, the correct answer and a Compromise which add up to two wrong answers.

    That is the fallacy of bi partisanship. It always gives evil and extra chance .

    Constitutionalism vs Socialism.
    Correct vs choices of wrong.

  13. What you really have here is little Trumpy Bear throwing a hissy fit because the only social media platform he knows how to use without help, where he can rant, rave and lie, attached a caveat to his lie that voting by mail is fraught with fraud. In fact, Twitter didn’t say Trump lied–it just attached a caveat. What about Twitter’s right to freedom of speech? There has never been any proof of fraud when voters cast their ballots by mail, and Trump knows this. He also has been told that when citizens vote by mail, it stops the usual Republican shenanigans deployed to suppress Democratic votes, especially by minorities, such as closing polling places without advance notice, moving polling places to a remote location without public transportation, and lying that the election date was moved.

    Yes, Trumpy Bear will fight for his right to freely and unlimitedly lie his broad ass off without anyone even daring to suggest the truth. Also, he’ll fight for Twitter because, as we all know, he can’t handle news conferences because the press does not kow tow to him, and never will. The orange snowflake will NOT be held to account for his failures, for the deaths he has caused by inaction, by trying to bluff his way out of this crisis, for trying to change the facts about the pandemic getting worse in the US, for recommending unproven and unsafe medications, the list goes on.

    This isn’t about freedom of speech at all, because no one is curtailing Trumpy Bear’s speech– Twitter was just adding an editorial comment about “alternative facts”. The statute cited by Turley applies to freedom from liability for social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook for content posted by third parties. It says nothing about adding a caveat when someone like Trump posts blatant lies.

    1. Natacha – CNN and WaPo are fake news. That same day there were reports of mail-in ballots in garbage cans and hallways in Nevada. Also a postal worker was convicted of changing votes on mail-in ballots.

      Still waiting on your BMI score.

    2. Comrade Collective demonstrates why two or more false premises expose socialism as the wrong choice and the reasoned response is it has nothing to do with our Country and Our Constitutinal Republic.

    3. 1. By the act of “attach[ing] a caveat” Twitter became an active content provider, and waived its liability protection.

      2. Twitter’s free speech is not the underling question–the difference between a neutral conduit and a content generator is

      3. There is, in pint of fact, ample evidence that election officials commit voter fraud. Trump knows this, and so do you

      4. Regarding “shenanigans”–both sides engage in it, and it is despicable when either side does it.

      5. You routinely exercise your “right to freely and unlimitedly lie” your “broad ass off”

      6. Why should the “orange snowflake” be held responsible for the “failures, [and] deaths” directly attributable to mandated nursing home admissions by governors such as Gov. Cuomo?

      7. Please elaborate on the number of prescriptions written or the number of pills handed out by Mr. Trump personally.

      8. Please elaborate on the fact-changing regarding individual states’ recording of COVID-related vs. COVID-caused deaths, and the efforts to disguise–or hide altogether–nursing home deaths by governors such as Gov. Whitmer

      9. At long last, a point we agree on: the list does, indeed, go on.

      By stating “Twitter was just adding an editorial comment about “alternative facts”. The statute cited by Turley applies to freedom from liability for social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook for content posted by third parties. It says nothing about adding a caveat when someone like Trump posts blatant lies.” you destroy your own baseless rant.

      “Twitter was adding an editorial comment” plainly explains that Twitter was posting content they themselves created They were not simply allowing a 3rd party to speak: they became the speaker. That clearly puts their action outside of the protections of the statute.

      I will, however, concede that you are an exquisite expert at posting “blatant lies.” A reputation well, and rightly earned. Congratulations! 🙂

      1. Kentucky:

        1. Twitter has always maintained some standards for users, and that was not considered a reason to remove section 230 liability protection. How is correcting misinformation a reason to do that?

        1. BY standards, are you referring to hate speech, pornographic images, and the like or do you mean they routinely editorialize? If the latter, then most surely they are providing content and should rightly not have immunity nor impunity.

    4. they were scolding trump in a way they never dare to scold CCP liars on Twitter, nor PRC officials. and they were busy banning Chinese mainland dissident accounts at the very same time. i have supplied ten times the proof of what they were doing and the key staff engineering it, in the link to the taiwan news article i cited yesterday.

      you people just love to ignore facts that dont suit your pre existing biases. the very thing you accuse others!

      1. Kurtz,. FB removed a Lincoln Project ad because one of the quotes was ruled out of context by Politifact. It was mild stuff to say the least. This is not one way. and if you don’t like it, don’t use it. I don’t.

        1. I dont use FB and I don’t much follow what Zuck does in his playpen one way or another

          i have to use google youtube and twitter, because they are far more integrated into the flow of information on the net, than is FB which is more self contained

  14. Of course Jack Dorsey doubled down. A raging leftist idiot on a power trip filled with lies and venom and has good reason to believe 99% of the public discussion of his further actions will be cheering and non cheers will be banned as fake news or false information or screaming fire in a crowded theater during a rainstorm.

  15. Free speech: Hitler was evil. Mao was a Communist. Doe was a deer. Roe was a phony name. Trump lives in Florida. Biden had sex with a hog. Humans don’t read Twitter. Jack Kennedy porked Marilyn.

    1. Much more vehement expressions of this sort were uttered countless times against that useless prima dona obama. This is a case of a pot’s acolyte calling a kettle black. If it weren’t so tragic it would be laughable.

    2. lol. He’s your President and is on his way to another four years. Get used to it. Trump doesn’t take sht. You throw rocks at him and he responds by throwing boulders back. We love it. Your wish that he just “resign” is a sign of delusional thinking likely coming from a case of TDS.

    3. Rol, until you get your side of the kettle black, how would you know what’s its like to be falsely accused of crimes – even called a terrorist – for 3 years, and found innocent? And it ain’t over yet!
      You must be fluffy in your personality.
      This is not a game.

Leave a Reply