According to a report by Raw Story on Thursday, January 11, 2024, former President Donald Trump faced instant ridicule after making a historically illiterate claim outside his civil fraud trial.
Trump blamed New York Attorney General Letitia James for Exxon’s decision to move its headquarters from New York to Texas, a move that occurred in 1989.
During his Thursday morning monologue, Trump asserted, “She should be criminally liable for this, she did this to Exxon.
And they drove Exxon out of New York…They’re now living in Texas.”
While James did sue ExxonMobil in 2019 for alleged fraud against lenders, a case she lost, Trump’s theory was promptly debunked by viewers.
Exxon had left New York in 1989, the same year James began practicing law.
Social media users were quick to point out the historical inaccuracy in Trump’s claim.
One user on Twitter humorously remarked, “Trump blaming AG James for Exxon’s ’89 move is like me blaming my diet for the fall of Rome.
History’s not his strong suit, or maybe he’s just ahead of his time!”
The video, shared by MeidasTouch.com’s senior digital editor, gained traction rapidly, accumulating over 260,000 views within 30 minutes of being uploaded.
Trump’s peculiar claim drew various theories from viewers.
Some suggested he might be referring to a local gas station, while others humorously speculated about confusion between former NY AG Robert Adams and Letitia James due to age.
Critics took the opportunity to mock Trump’s tendency to prioritize narrative over facts.
Some drew parallels with hypothetical scenarios, such as blaming Biden for historical events or attributing Tish James to the relocation of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1957, a year before James was born.
As Trump continues to face legal challenges, his statements outside the courtroom have not escaped scrutiny.
The incident highlights the intersection of legal proceedings and public commentary, emphasizing the need for accuracy, especially in matters of historical significance.
Trump’s gaffe adds to a pattern of historical inaccuracies and misstatements that characterized his presidency.
Critics argue that such incidents reflect a lack of attention to detail and a penchant for constructing narratives based on personal beliefs rather than verified facts.
The ridicule stemming from this particular claim underscores the importance of accurate information, even in non-legal settings.
As Trump navigates legal challenges, the public response to his statements continues to shape the perception of his post-presidential activities, providing both supporters and critics with ample material for commentary and analysis.
