Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

This article uses mandatory public filings to conclude that MTG bought into TMTG, possibly by accident given the initials, and lost about $38,000 doing so.

According to a periodic transaction report filed by Greene, she bought between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of DWAC stock on Oct. 22, 2021. Congressional stock tracking website CapitolTrades.com reports she bought her shares for $94.20 (which was the stock’s closing price that day), which would imply that Greene owns anywhere from 159.2 shares to 530 shares.

If it’s the latter, based on how low DWAC’s stock was trading on Wednesday afternoon, $50,000 worth of shares Greene bought last year would now be worth as little as $12,000. And if DWAC were to dissolve itself and pay investors just $10 a share, her loss could be as high as $44,700. Even if Greene had purchased the minimum amount possible within the range she reported, her shares today would be worth less than $3,700—a loss of more than $11,000.

[Poopymonster]

This article uses mandatory public filings to conclude that MTG bought into TMTG, possibly by accident given the initials, and lost about $38,000 doing so.

Speaking of Marjorie: The Gauche, are we supposed to stone this good upright Christian woman who is getting a divorce?
I didn't write the book, just asking.

[Shkar]

This article uses mandatory public filings to conclude that MTG bought into TMTG, possibly by accident given the initials, and lost about $38,000 doing so.

Not a big deal, Wizards of the Coast will make that up with a couple dozen of their $999 30th Anniversary packs.

*Notices the thread title*

Oh, nevermind. Sucks to be a believer, I guess?

[Breccia]

Sucks to be a believer, I guess?

Multiple articles I've read have cited multiple members of the rabid fanbase who at least claim they've sunk their life savings into this.

So, yes.

[Ripster42]

This article uses mandatory public filings to conclude that MTG bought into TMTG, possibly by accident given the initials, and lost about $38,000 doing so.

Is she finally getting a salary this year though? I remember last year's salary was devoted entirely to fines.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/EricKleefeld/sta...38761358946305

People on Fox New think the economy is so bad they spend $28 on lunch at Taco Bell.

The internet instantly wonders how on earth this is possible unless you're ordering for like 3 people.

Don't take financial advice from someone who spends $28 on a Taco Bell lunch for one.

[Breccia]

spend $28 on lunch at Taco Bell.

Also known as "a lethal dose"

[Edge-]

Also known as "a lethal dose"

Honestly, I don't understand how $28 in Taco Bell for a single person can be anything but a lethal dose. That much sand consumed in one sitting (yes, I know they took the sand out of their beef) surely has serious health risks.

[Edge-]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/r...after-subpoena

But after another interview, the Post reports, the witness described being directed by Trump to move boxes.

Elsewhere in the story, the Post cites “witness accounts” that point to Trump ordering the boxes to be moved. Video footage obtained by prosecutors purportedly corroborates the testimony about the boxes’ movement.

It’s a potentially significant development in the case, showing that Trump may not only have refused to comply with the subpoena, but moved boxes away from the government’s area of focus.

So if Trump tried to hide the boxes after the NARA requested their records back (they're the NARA's, the federal governments, not Trumps), and after receiving a law subpoena for them which he lied about a second time after lying to the NARA.

That sounds like, I dunno, super duper illegal?

[fwc577]

https://twitter.com/EricKleefeld/sta...38761358946305

People on Fox New think the economy is so bad they spend $28 on lunch at Taco Bell.

The internet instantly wonders how on earth this is possible unless you're ordering for like 3 people.

Don't take financial advice from someone who spends $28 on a Taco Bell lunch for one.

As a regular connoisseur of the bell from the southern border, I will tell you what I would buy if someone handed me $28 and said, spend it all now and give me back change, all food is yours:

2 Grilled Cheese Burrito Box Deluxes

--2x Grilled Cheese Burritos
--2x Chalupa Supreme
--2x Doritos Loco Taco
--2x Nachos w/ Cheese
--2x Baja Blast

2 Cinnamon Twists

12 Pack of Cinnabon Delight Combos

The total for me would be $27.45

If anyone was wondering, that's about 4,500 calories.

[gondrin]

https://twitter.com/EricKleefeld/sta...38761358946305

People on Fox New think the economy is so bad they spend $28 on lunch at Taco Bell.

The internet instantly wonders how on earth this is possible unless you're ordering for like 3 people.

Don't take financial advice from someone who spends $28 on a Taco Bell lunch for one.

Ok, he could have gotten a large pizza, drink, a stuffed cheezy bread AND one other side for that price.

[fwc577]

It costs us like $60 for a family of 4. Not an outrageous amount either.

My advice, get the app. Everything is cheaper in the app.

Chalupa is like $4.50 for one or $5 for a box that includes like a burrito, taco, side, and a drink.

The My Cravings Box for example, is $5

And you get to choose:

1 Specialty: Chalupa or Cheesy Gordita Crunch or Crunchwrap Supreme or Black Bean Chalupa Supreme or Black Bean Crunchwrap Supreme

1 Classic: Crunchy Taco or Beefy 5-Layer Burrito or Bean Burrito or Spicy Potato Soft Taco or Nacho Cheese Doritos Locos Taco or Soft Taco

1 Side: Chips and Cheese, Cinnamon Twists, or Fiesta Potatos

1 Drink

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, he could have gotten a large pizza, drink, a stuffed cheezy bread AND one other side for that price.

Oh man, don't get me started on the Dominos.

$28 right now, I would buy:

Medium Handtossed Pepperoni

Garlic Bread Twists

Chocolate Lava Crunch Cakes

Specialty Chicken Sweet BBQ Bacon

2-Liter of Coke

- - - Updated - - -

If I'm being honest though. I think the talks of inflation are overblown.

Yes, I've seen prices go up on many things as far as groceries and staples are concerned. However, I still buy most of my shit on sale and when you buy shit on sale, there hasn't been a whole ton of inflation.

It sucks that like the TV Dinners I like are now 3 / $9 instead of $4 / $10. It sucks that 12-packs of soda went from 4/$12 to 3/$13. But it hasn't totally killed my budgeting. Most likely because I don't eat out for almost like every meal. I know going out to restaurants is getting more pricy but that shit is honestly not THAT different either but when you eat out every single day, it will seem bad.

[Kaleredar]

https://twitter.com/EricKleefeld/sta...38761358946305

People on Fox New think the economy is so bad they spend $28 on lunch at Taco Bell.

The internet instantly wonders how on earth this is possible unless you're ordering for like 3 people.

Don't take financial advice from someone who spends $28 on a Taco Bell lunch for one.

…So their current digs on Biden are that Taco Bell is expensive and making fun of a phone call where he comforted his troubled son.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So Trump's entire plan for Jan 6th was to block the confirmation of Biden using political violence from his followers, then used his own influence to "save" all of the lawmakers who were the target of violence and reinstate himself as president? And it all got ruined because his motorcade refused to take him to the capitol building? Among other things.

Man, reality is always stranger than fiction.

[Breccia]

Trump must testify in the rape/defamation suit.

Completing those depositions -- which already have been delayed for years -- would impose no undue burden on Mr. Trump. The defendant should not be permitted to run the clock out on plaintiff's attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong.

-- the judge

That sounds like, I dunno, super duper illegal?

Pfft. You sound like literally everyone who's commented so far.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti noted in a Twitter thread, during the employee's first interview, he lied to the FBI, denying handling documents. His story changed during the second interview."

"The employee is unlikely to be charged if he continues to cooperate. But his testimony suggests that Trump tried to keep documents from the DOJ, which had already served a grand jury subpoena for the documents *before* the employee was ordered to move them," Mariotti explained. "This testimony, combined with other facts (such as the false certification to the DOJ) suggests an effort to hide the documents from the federal government. This evidence is an aggravating factor that could weigh in favor of charging Trump."

Former federal prosecutor Richard Signorelli agreed.

"This increases the chance of Trump being indicted after the upcoming election unless [AG Merrick] Garland is dead set against it," Signorelli wrote.

Former Pentagon special counsel Ryan Goodman thought it could also influence a future jury.

"Astonishing level of evidence. That would convince jurors," he wrote.

Goodman noted the story said the testimony was corroborated by security footage.

Former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said, "Between this and the testimony of Alex Cannon (to name just two recent developments) Trump's MAL goose is cooked. As I have oft said, the issue is no longer the proof, but DOJ's will."

Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe wrote, "Day by day the evidence that proves Trump personally orchestrated the theft and concealment of top secret documents becomes stronger. Any shadow of a doubt about his guilt is rapidly vanishing."

Trump Threatened to Out Confidential Sources From Russia Investigation

Trump in the final days of his presidency repeatedly threatened to out government sources involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, an anti-Deep State revenge fantasy he still obsesses over to this day, according to two former senior Trump aides and another person familiar with the matter.

One of these sources tells Rolling Stone that in the days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the then-president, sometimes while brandishing pieces of paper, would loudly complain that none of the identifying facts in the highly sensitive Russia documents should be blacked-out. Trump would insist, the source says, that it should “all be out there” so that the American people could see the truth of who “did it” to the president.

Ultimately, top intelligence officials and other Trump lieutenants talked him out of publicizing the sources’ identities before he left the White House, the sources say. Instead, Trump’s team bargained him down to vetting a series of heavily redacted reports that they argued would help safeguard the work and safety of Russia-related informants.

But a third source familiar with the situation says that this obsession with outing the confidential sources is ongoing. The former president, the source says, still sporadically talks about the need to get “the names” out into the public record.

I believe it's not just possible, but likely, that Trump, well-known petty petty person, took documents specifically related to this threat, as we've heard multiple reports that there are known human sources in there.

The number of Republicans who believe Trump’s 'big lie' has fallen since the Jan. 6 hearings

The--

"Is it zero yet?"

Um...no.

"Then it's still too high, and everyone who still believes it is a traitor who can fuck right off."

Speaking of:

Judge sentences entire Texas family for role in Jan. 6 attacks

"Well, I feel better."

Prosecutors asked the judge to sentence parents Dawn and Thomas Munn to one month in prison. A sentence of 21 days in jail was recommended for the couple's three adult children.

In court on Wednesday, Howell stopped short of prison time for the children, according to CBS correspondent Scott MacFarlane.

Kristi Munn received 3 years probation with home detention. Josh Munn and Kayli Munn also received three years probation but avoided home detention.Judge sentences entire Texas family for role in Jan. 6 attacks

"They plead out? Good. So they admit their guilt."

Um...

Before her sentencing, Dawn Munn ranted that she deserved answers about the 2020 election.

"I do not understand why our election is not secure," she told the judge.

"This is not the kind of remorse that indicates some assurance that they're not going to engage [again]," [the judge replied]

- - - Updated - - -

Tied into the ongoing debate about Twitter and free speech --

"Um, it's not a debate. Twitter isn't the government."

See, that's the thing. The emerging alt-right talking point is "companies are as powerful as the government, so it should still apply".

"Wasn't giving companies more money and more power basically a Republican ideal?"

Yes. But they're still bitchy little hypocrites when their own actions turn against them. In this delightfully dense OP ED, the author laments PayPal charging a $2,500 fine for people who spread misinformation. Then goes onto say that, because PayPal is imposing crime-like penalties, they should be treated as the government.

"Um...the PayPal thing was an error. They said so three days ago. What is this author on about?"

Yeah, I guess he couldn't find a better example?

"Doesn't it completely deflate his point if he has no actual examples?"

I did say delightfully dense. But I expect this narrative to continue. YouTube, Twitter, anyone except platforms they own, their blocking of people will be framed as "effectively government actions" despite, you know, them not being a government.

Fortunately, this argument is so dumb even I already have a reply to it: if you want XXX to be treated like the government, you should pay them taxes. Otherwise, they don't work for you. Our government does work for us, that's why we pay them. So unless you're actually paying Twitter's (or whoever's) salary yourself, they're not the government, they're a private body. Just one you disagree with.

And until that day happens, until you start paying taxes to Twitter, TikTok, Reddit or whoever, until you declare them to be a government, that means the real government can't stop them from expressing their point of view. Because you argued that companies are people too for decades, now they're acting like it.

[Edge-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/n...e=articleShare

Days before the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit accusing Donald J. Trump and his company of fraud and seeking to shut down some of their business in the state, Mr. Trump’s lawyers created a new company in Delaware.

The new company’s name had a familiar ring to it: the Trump Organization, the same name as his old company, now threatened by the lawsuit. And on Sept. 21, the day the suit was filed, the new Delaware company filed paperwork in New York, seeking to be recognized there as the Trump Organization II.

Those maneuvers were detailed for the first time in a court filing on Thursday from the attorney general, Letitia James, who raised the prospect that Mr. Trump was seeking an end run around some of her lawsuit’s harshest potential punishments.

But her filing acknowledged that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had explicitly said they had not — and would not — take any steps to avoid the potential consequences of the lawsuit. Mr. Trump’s lawyers, according to the court filing, also offered to provide “assurances and advance notice” to address Ms. James’s concerns.

And because the new company was formed before the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Trump’s lawyers would not have known the specific consequences the attorney general was seeking.

Ms. James, however, remained concerned about the company’s motives and sought intervention from a judge. Her Thursday filing requested an order from the judge that would prohibit the Trump Organization from transferring its assets without court approval.

“Since we filed this sweeping lawsuit last month, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have continued those same fraudulent practices and taken measures to evade responsibility,” Ms. James said in a statement. “Today, we are seeking an immediate stop to these actions because Mr. Trump should not get to play by different rules.”

Alina Habba, a lawyer for the former president and his company, said in a statement that Ms. James’s filing was “simply another stunt.”

“We have repeatedly provided assurance, in writing, that the Trump Organization has no intention of doing anything improper,” she said.

Editors’ Picks

Bob Dylan on the Songs That Captivate and Define Us

The Google Watch Is Here. But You’d Better Love Android.

Can Start-Ups Significantly Lower the Cost of Gene Sequencing?
Ms. Habba also accused Ms. James of using the filing to keep the case before Arthur F. Engoron, the state judge who had overseen disputes between Mr. Trump’s lawyers and Ms. James’s office during her investigation, before the lawsuit was filed. Justice Engoron ordered Mr. Trump to sit for a deposition and at one point held him in contempt of court, fining him $110,000.

After the lawsuit was filed, Ms. Habba requested that the case be overseen by a different judge, a request that is pending. She said Ms. James’s filing on Thursday was, “nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to keep this case with Justice Engoron.”

The former president has denied all wrongdoing and accused Ms. James, a Democrat, of pursuing a partisan witch hunt against him.

In her lawsuit, which accused Mr. Trump of lying to his lenders and insurers by fraudulently overvaluing his assets by billions of dollars, Ms. James asked a judge to impose a variety of punishments that would restrict his ability to do business in New York. She is seeking to bar Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from acquiring commercial real estate there for five years and to prohibit him and three of his adult children from running companies in the state.

While Ms. James stopped short of trying to dissolve the Trump Organization, her lawsuit indicates that she wants to shut down at least a portion of the former president’s New York operations. Her lawsuit asks that a judge cancel the business certificates that allow some of his properties there to function, including his flagship commercial property at 40 Wall Street in Lower Manhattan.

Ms. James is also asking that the Trump Organization be made to forfeit some $250 million that she says it improperly reaped by misleading lenders and insurers about Mr. Trump’s net worth. Her Thursday filing expressed concern that, if the company is able to transfer its assets out of state, it might skirt those payments.

In the filing, Ms. James also asked a judge to immediately install a monitor to oversee the company’s disclosures to lenders and insurers, the issue at the heart of her case.

The lawsuit, citing “substantial, persistent and repeated fraudulent and misleading conduct,” centers on Mr. Trump’s annual financial statements, yearly records that include the Trump Organization’s estimated value of its holdings and debts. The company provided the statements — which wildly inflated the worth of nearly every one of its marquee properties, Ms. James said — to lenders and insurers “to obtain beneficial financial terms,” including lower interest rates and premiums.

In the filing on Thursday, Ms. James asked a judge to prohibit the company from submitting the annual statements without additional disclosures about the methods used to calculate the value of Mr. Trump’s assets. She also asked that a trial date be set in early October 2023.

Ms. James’s lawsuit accused Mr. Trump, three of his children and his company of “staggering fraud” in the valuation of some of his most well-known properties, including Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street in Manhattan and Mar-a-Lago in Florida. When interviewed under oath by her office, Mr. Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right, refusing to answer all substantive questions.

The lawsuit coincides with a litany of other legal woes for Mr. Trump, including a number of criminal investigations involving his conduct in the final weeks of his presidency. In August, the F.B.I. searched Mar-a-Lago as part of an investigation into his removal of sensitive material from the White House; federal prosecutors are scrutinizing his efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss; and a Georgia district attorney is investigating his potential interference in the state’s election results.

Mr. Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing, and it is unclear whether any of those inquiries will lead to criminal charges against him.

In Manhattan, the district attorney’s office has been conducting a criminal investigation into some of the same conduct at the center of Ms. James’s lawsuit. Prosecutors had been marching toward an indictment of Mr. Trump early this year, before pulling back.

The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, has said the investigation is continuing.

Huh, so is Trump starting another company that will likely go bankrupt to protect assets from the NY AG lawsuit? Sure could be.

He keeps starting companies and they keep going under. Doesn't seem like a very good businessman.

[Breccia]

Doesn't seem like a very good businessman.

Not even Delaware's shady as fuck corporate laws will help here. Trump starting another P. O. Box company and putting money in it, just like he did in his 2016 campaign by lending millions to himself from a company worth $15,000 might seem like a decent idea in general for a thief like Trump has proven himself to be. But committing fraud to avoid penalties for fraud is a dumb business move, even by Trump standards. And DE and NY are pretty good friends (I-95 between NYC and tax-free shopping does wonders for a relationship). DE owes Trump nothing and, while the letter of the DE laws will probably allow Trump to organize there just like other bastions of morality Twitter and Bill Cosby, they won't sit by while a company in their state commits criminal fraud in another state and do nothing. This is just one example of the states working together.

Simply put, at this point, if Trump tries to pull an Alex Jones then claim he's broke, while public filings prove he's lying, Trump would face criminal charges. NY would be done with his bullshit and just drag him off in handcuffs. Even a shift of the civil case from Trump Org 1 to Trump the fat orange sack of feces "person" would be action that would make this transparent dodge pointless.

[Paranoid Android]

RepKinzinger
on Trump signed order requiring troop withdrawal Afghanistan & Somalia: "Keep in mind the order was for an immediate withdrawal. It would have been catastrophic. And yet President Trump signed the order."

So this seems that Trump wanted to inflict complete chaos in Afghanistan mainly by immediate withdrawal. Now, projecting here, but this would likely have led to more of a disaster than so called Biden's withdrawal. Playing more of political game this shows Trump ordered a withdrawal, not Biden. Semantics and this has been argued but still.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/jan-...g-hearing.html

Jan. 6 Committee planning to subpoena Trump today, or at least hold a vote on it. We'll see what happens. Doesn't seem to be anything super spicey in today's hearing so far otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...t-we-lost/amp/

Former President Trump told his then chief of staff “this is embarrassing,” and “I don’t want people to know that we lost,” after the Supreme Court ruled against him on a key 2020 case about the election, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson told the Jan. 6 panel.

Lol, Trump is a fuckin loser. What a sensitive, delicate snowflake. I thought Republicans hated snowflakes?

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

The Supreme Court handed former President Donald Trump a loss Thursday in his dispute with the Justice Department over documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago residence, rejecting his request that a special master be allowed to review classified papers.

The justices denied Trump’s relatively narrow emergency request in a brief unsigned order. There were no noted dissents.

The decision does not affect the Justice Department’s access to the same documents as part of a criminal investigation. The more than 100 documents marked as classified are just a small portion of the 11,000 records seized by federal agents in August amid concerns that Trump had unlawfully retained official White House records after leaving office.

The high court left in place part of a Sept. 21 decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that barred the special master, federal Judge Raymond Dearie, from reviewing the documents. Trump had not contested the separate part of that ruling allowing the Justice Department to use the documents.

Color me pleasantly surprised!

Is anyone keeping track of Trump's court losses? They have to be in the hundreds by now.

[Paranoid Android]

JUST IN: The Supreme Court DENIES Trump's request to intervene in the dispute over documents with classified markings taken from Mar-a-Lago. The court offers no explanation for its decision (as is common for actions on the shadow docket), and there are no recorded dissents.

So the last, possibly frightening hurdle is over. The chance of Clarence Thomas somehow ruling on 11th Circuit or just SCOTUS as a whole giving Trump some unquestioned Presidential powers. I'm still a cynic but this can now proceed I guess(?).