Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
The Question IRL
Jun 8, 2013

Only two contestants left! Here is Doom's chance for revenge...

V-Men posted:

Is that even a thing a prosecutor would do? I mean, he had to have to get witnesses and evidence in front of a grand jury. And the more time passes between a crime occurring and a witness attempting to remember what happened, the worst quality testimony you get.

The impression i got from it is that there was an allegation of a crime in Bedminster, but not enough physical evidence or enough witness testimony to sustain a prosecution.

Initially? Their may not be enough evidence.

But during a trial, you might get a bunch of co-accused agreeing to giving evidence in exchange for lighter sentences.

Suddenly, you have a bunch of people saying "yeah we took ten boxes of classified documents out of Mar-a-largo and brought it to New Jearsy."

And that's before you get yo any evidence that will be given in court.

It's not unheard of for prosecution to start second prosecutions out of things that happened during the first prosecution.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

The Sotomayor health claims are mostly panic given she had paramedics rush to her house in 2018 and has now started having a medic on her staff when out and about. Fears of an RBG situation repeating, basically.

V-Men posted:

Is that even a thing a prosecutor would do? I mean, he had to have to get witnesses and evidence in front of a grand jury. And the more time passes between a crime occurring and a witness attempting to remember what happened, the worst quality testimony you get.

The impression i got from it is that there was an allegation of a crime in Bedminster, but not enough physical evidence or enough witness testimony to sustain a prosecution.

There's already indications of a grand jury in NJ given they served at least one subpoena there which the Florida grand jury wouldn't have jurisdiction over https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/politics/trump-investigation-bedminster.html

Famously the audio of him showing the document regarding Milley and Iran was recorded there, not at MaL https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/us/politics/trump-documents-tape-audio.html

The timing of the reporting as I remember it heavily implied he started both grand juries at roughly the same time but brought Florida's indictment first and the NJ one may have already made its decision but it's waiting for Florida to finish, regardless of outcome.

Cimber
Feb 3, 2014

Tesseraction posted:


The timing of the reporting as I remember it heavily implied he started both grand juries at roughly the same time but brought Florida's indictment first and the NJ one may have already made its decision but it's waiting for Florida to finish, regardless of outcome.

Is there any reason why he can't bring charges in NJ and then merge the cases up there and remove Canon? Or is it more likely NJ would get moved to FL as thats 'further along'.

Interesting writeup today on Electoral-vote.com about the FL case. Too long to paste here but I'll link it.

https://electoral-vote.com/#item-1

quote:

It has been clear for a while that not only is Cannon slow-walking this case and indulging every delay tactic that Trump's team brings, but she is also deliberately avoiding making any rulings that Smith can appeal. And now it seems that she is setting up a Trump acquittal through the use of erroneous jury instructions. So, at this point, Smith has no choice but to get the Eleventh Circuit involved and at the same time, to try to get her removed from the case. If Smith is forced to take a writ and the Eleventh Circuit accepts it, I don't see how they leave her on the case. And if they act with some alacrity, I wouldn't be surprised if the new judge appointed to the case fast-tracked this thing since there are really no facts in dispute and the law is very clear and not at all complicated. That could add an entirely new dimension to the upcoming election if this case goes to trial, say, this summer and the Jan. 6 criminal trial begins in the Fall.

Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004

коммунизм хранится в яичках

Goatse James Bond posted:

what on earth makes you think Sotomayor is on the brink of death

She's a 70 year old lifelong Type 1 diabetic who's already had at least one publicly known instance of having paramedics called out to treat a low blood sugar emergency despite the best available medical care. She is working a demanding and stressful job. The chances of a major health episode in the next five years are not inconsiderable.

Fork of Unknown Origins
Oct 21, 2005
Gotta Herd On?
There is also a bad senate map this time around, and a GOP senate would absolutely let a SCOTUS seat sit for an entire term (or more) even if Biden is President.

FLIPADELPHIA
Apr 27, 2007

Heavy Shit
Grimey Drawer
Also we live in hell world and if a liberal justice dies it's going to be when we can't replace them.

Fifteen of Many
Feb 23, 2006
I’m almost afraid that even if Sotomayor were to retire Manchin and Sinema would hold hands and block replacing her until the election as one last “we’re so bipartisan” stunt.

Fork of Unknown Origins
Oct 21, 2005
Gotta Herd On?

Fifteen of Many posted:

I’m almost afraid that even if Sotomayor were to retire Manchin and Sinema would hold hands and block replacing her until the election as one last “we’re so bipartisan” stunt.

The retirement would be contingent on a replacement being selected.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Trump subpoena to NBC over Stormy Daniels documentary blocked by judge

quote:

Donald Trump's subpoena to Comcast-owned NBCUniversal for material related to a recent documentary about porn star Stormy Daniels was blocked on Friday by the judge overseeing the former U.S. president's April 15 criminal trial.

Justice Juan Merchan said Trump's claim that Daniels and NBC conspired to release the film close to the trial to damage him was unsupported.
"His subpoena and the demands therein are the very definition of a fishing expedition," the judge wrote in a court order.

Neither Trump's lawyers nor NBCUniversial immediately responded to requests for comment.

Trump is accused of covering up his former lawyer Michael Cohen's $130,000 payment to Daniels for her silence before the 2016 election about a sexual encounter she says she had with Trump in 2006.

The 2024 Republican presidential candidate has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records and denies any such encounter with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

The documentary, "Stormy," was released on NBC's streaming service Peacock on March 18.

Ratoslov
Feb 15, 2012

Now prepare yourselves! You're the guests of honor at the Greatest Kung Fu Cannibal BBQ Ever!

BigBallChunkyTime posted:

"It is unjust for me, an officer if the court, to have to reveal my reasoning"

--this lady

This is the only time in my life that I've ever heard of anything that could get someone with a law degree to not explain their legal reasoning while they still breathe.

dpkg chopra
Jun 9, 2007

Fast Food Fight

Grimey Drawer
Very happy to inform you that $DJT continues to tank despite pretty much the whole market being up.

I believe it still has to drop another 50% before Trump and the other restricted shareholders will actually start to lose money, but it’s a start.

Happy Friday!

Tenkaris
Feb 10, 2006

I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

dpkg chopra posted:

Very happy to inform you that $DJT continues to tank despite pretty much the whole market being up.

I believe it still has to drop another 50% before Trump and the other restricted shareholders will actually start to lose money, but it’s a start.

Happy Friday!

HODL! :chud:

haveblue
Aug 15, 2005



Toilet Rascal
how much does it have to drop before his stake is worth less than his fine

reply quick, I'm almost there

Oil!
Nov 5, 2008

Der's e'rl in dem der hills!


Ham Wrangler

dpkg chopra posted:

Very happy to inform you that $DJT continues to tank despite pretty much the whole market being up.

I believe it still has to drop another 50% before Trump and the other restricted shareholders will actually start to lose money, but it’s a start.

Happy Friday!

I don't think they can lose money, they were given shares for free.

This week a Money Stuff article went into detail on how the stick price can be so high for insanely weird technical stuff.

https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/55467

Oil! fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Apr 5, 2024

Blotto_Otter
Aug 16, 2013


dpkg chopra posted:

Very happy to inform you that $DJT continues to tank despite pretty much the whole market being up.

I believe it still has to drop another 50% before Trump and the other restricted shareholders will actually start to lose money, but it’s a start.

Happy Friday!
technically, it could drop to zero and Trump himself is not actually going to lose any significant amount of money, because he (more or less) never invested much of his own money to begin with. he's just not going to make any money off it it.

We're already past the point where anyone who bought stock post-merger has lost money. If it goes below $10, all of the original DWAC shareholders that bought in years ago will lose money, and at that point Trump will be one of very few people left with any hope of making any money off this stock


haveblue posted:

how much does it have to drop before his stake is worth less than his fine

reply quick, I'm almost there
I don't know what the current tally of judgments plus interest is, but his stake drops below a billion in value somewhere around $12, I think. It fails to cover the original $464m judgment once it slips below $6/share or so. Big question is if we approach those prices while he's still locked up, or if we approach those prices once the lockout ends and he starts dumping stock immediately.

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

He almost certainly sold some of his stake a few days ago during those trades I singled out. The board of directors would have given him permission to do so.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

mdemone posted:

He almost certainly sold some of his stake a few days ago during those trades I singled out. The board of directors would have given him permission to do so.

I'm not certain you can be so certain.

Oil!
Nov 5, 2008

Der's e'rl in dem der hills!


Ham Wrangler
There would be a document sent to the SEC saying the restrictions were lifted and then a follow up document about the shares being sold by a large stakeholder.

Blotto_Otter
Aug 16, 2013


mdemone posted:

He almost certainly sold some of his stake a few days ago during those trades I singled out. The board of directors would have given him permission to do so.
either an extremely high-profile company with wall-to-wall press coverage had a secret board meeting where they secretly voted against the interest of every shareholder other than Donald Trump, and then Donald Trump sold a bunch of shares in secret without cratering the stock price and then blew off the legal requirement to submit a Form 4 to the SEC by today,

or no, he didn't

Edward Mass
Sep 14, 2011

𝅘𝅥𝅮 I wanna go home with the armadillo
Good country music from Amarillo and Abilene
Friendliest people and the prettiest women you've ever seen
𝅘𝅥𝅮
I'm still relieved that the meme stock traders on Reddit saw $DJT and knew it was a scam.

Fart Amplifier
Apr 12, 2003

Blotto_Otter posted:

either an extremely high-profile company with wall-to-wall press coverage had a secret board meeting where they secretly voted against the interest of every shareholder other than Donald Trump, and then Donald Trump sold a bunch of shares in secret without cratering the stock price and then blew off the legal requirement to submit a Form 4 to the SEC by today,

or no, he didn't

Trump essentially owns the board and constantly commits crimes. It's very possible he did this.

Fork of Unknown Origins
Oct 21, 2005
Gotta Herd On?

Fart Amplifier posted:

Trump essentially owns the board and constantly commits crimes. It's very possible he did this.

The board voting to let him would be insane but not shock me, but I don’t think he could physically sell the shares secretly.

Xiahou Dun
Jul 16, 2009

We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.



Fart Amplifier posted:

Trump essentially owns the board and constantly commits crimes. It's very possible he did this.

In secret?

Randalor
Sep 4, 2011



Wasn't he suing the other board members? I'm guessing they told him no when he tried to dump ASAP.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

Trump essentially owns the board and constantly commits crimes. It's very possible he did this.

It's not. Like, it just straight up is not possible that he secretly sold the shares.

Oil!
Nov 5, 2008

Der's e'rl in dem der hills!


Ham Wrangler

Randalor posted:

Wasn't he suing the other board members? I'm guessing they told him no when he tried to dump ASAP.

He is suing a couple guys that helped set up the company and are due shares. It's all in the did they/didn't they do their jobs enough to deserve them. I assume they did and if the price reflected reality, there would be no suit because it wouldn't be worth it to litigate.

Also there is no way Trump is selling without also posting that he is doing it for all of us to get in on the opportunity to buy a certified Trump share.

dpkg chopra
Jun 9, 2007

Fast Food Fight

Grimey Drawer

Blotto_Otter posted:

technically, it could drop to zero and Trump himself is not actually going to lose any significant amount of money, because he (more or less) never invested much of his own money to begin with. he's just not going to make any money off it it.

We're already past the point where anyone who bought stock post-merger has lost money. If it goes below $10, all of the original DWAC shareholders that bought in years ago will lose money, and at that point Trump will be one of very few people left with any hope of making any money off this stock

I don't know what the current tally of judgments plus interest is, but his stake drops below a billion in value somewhere around $12, I think. It fails to cover the original $464m judgment once it slips below $6/share or so. Big question is if we approach those prices while he's still locked up, or if we approach those prices once the lockout ends and he starts dumping stock immediately.

Yeah I realized after posting that I was mistaken and had meant to say just the DWAC investors would lose money (I also thought that the merger price was $20), sorry about that.

Rust Martialis
May 8, 2007

by Fluffdaddy

(and can't post for 3 days!)

Fart Amplifier posted:

Trump essentially owns the board and constantly commits crimes. It's very possible he did this.

Trump: crimes, crimes-

$DJT board: crimes, CRIMES

SEC (banging gavel): CRIMES, CRIMES, CRIMES!

StumblyWumbly
Sep 12, 2007

Batmanticore!

Liquid Communism posted:

She's a 70 year old lifelong Type 1 diabetic who's already had at least one publicly known instance of having paramedics called out to treat a low blood sugar emergency despite the best available medical care. She is working a demanding and stressful job. The chances of a major health episode in the next five years are not inconsiderable.

Having EMTs over due to low blood sugar is not an indication you'll die in the next 5 years, and this kind of thinking is what leads to people not being overly cautious because they think the public will jump to the worst conclusion even without evidence.

If she otherwise has good control she can live a long time. It's tough to get numbers on how long because diabetes care is continually improving significantly, and generally depends on personal control anyway.

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

Kchama posted:

It's not. Like, it just straight up is not possible that he secretly sold the shares.

He has done many things once thought impossible. I don't think you can be so certain either.

haveblue
Aug 15, 2005



Toilet Rascal
Selling shares is not something that happens in a smoke-filled back room any more, you have to involve several other organizations that are heavily regulated and not interested in crimes

Like, right now he doesn’t actually possess the shares, they are in custody of the company that implements the stock market and executes transfers

You should be more worried about a billionaire writing him a check, because a) that is significantly easier and more likely and b) that may actually be in the process of happening

Oil!
Nov 5, 2008

Der's e'rl in dem der hills!


Ham Wrangler
Stick shares aren't really held by people anymore. It's all done by brokerages and clearing houses adjusting spreadsheets. The clearinghouse would look at the transaction and say "can you legally sell these shares" and the brokerage would go "lol, nope" and that would end it. Trump may be mostly untouchable, but the 2-3 companies that have all the power of share transactions have trillions of dollars of shares and will do anything to prevent from losing that control.

Also something like 95% of the available shares are being loaned for shorts at a 500% interest rate.

Oil! fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Apr 5, 2024

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

Edward Mass posted:

I'm still relieved that the meme stock traders on Reddit saw $DJT and knew it was a scam.

It's extremely funny that the community of people who financially self-immolate at the first chance possible took a look at $DJT and said "wow, what loving idiot would touch that? get a grip fellas" and ignored the IPO.

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

It wasn't an IPO.

Guest2553
Aug 3, 2012


Oil! posted:

Also something like 95% of the available shares are being loaned for shorts at a 500% interest rate.

98% according to today's money stuff, and at a 550% rate. God bless Matt Levine.

Blotto_Otter
Aug 16, 2013


mdemone posted:

He has done many things once thought impossible. I don't think you can be so certain either.
ok, here's the thing i'm struggling with. believing that donald john trump pulled this off requires us to believe that donald john trump is simultaneously:

a) a criminal mastermind the caliber of Professor Moriarty, capable of pulling off a massive conspiracy based on a truly remarkable amount of people keeping a secret, when most of those people are either 1) idiot MAGA true believers who are absolutely terrible at keeping secrets OR 2) people who would lose money and/or face serious civil and criminal liability for going along with it

AND

b) a complete loving moron who engineers a historic conspiracy all for the purpose of selling just a slice of his shares in a way that will be easily detected within days or weeks by the federal government, which is currently controlled by his political rivals during an election year, and easily prosecuted both as a civil action by the SEC and a criminal action by the DOJ

mdemone posted:

It wasn't an IPO.
:jerkbag:
no, it was a merger with an SPAC that was conditioned on the majority shareholder agreeing to a six-month lockup that is not getting waived in secret and then illegally sold in secret only to get caught by the feds almost immediately after the fact

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

mdemone posted:

He has done many things once thought impossible. I don't think you can be so certain either.

I can be 100% certain. This isn't going into a dark back alley and slipping the shares into someone's pocket and then having billions of dollars put into his pocket. You have to get other companies involved whose automated services that are involved when stocks are sold are not going to just allow him to do a secret manual sell. Because it would get THEM in trouble too. The government will know, and pretty drat quickly. So even if he somehow sold them, it would not just be an anonymous thing.

Craig K
Nov 10, 2016

puck
you can get away with a lot of poo poo, but screwing with the money is how you get nailed to the wall as in the examples of bernie madoff, sam bankman-fried, enron, and theranos

Staluigi
Jun 22, 2021

i think blotto otter is trying to tell us that donald j trump did not pull off what would have to have been the biggest Detective Anime Protagonist infinity-d chess move instantly defeating the SEC while timed surgically to a galactic harmonic planetary alignment that allowed his share dump to be mysteriously unrecognizable to outside monitors, institutional or otherwise

but on the other hand, what if i feel like it's something he did do. we need to be discussing the possibilities here

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Randalor
Sep 4, 2011



Could he use them as the collateral for the bond? I mean that as an honest question.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply