Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[DarkTZeratul]

The Twitter lack-of-deal continues to make headlines, but it seems Twitter is better prepared than I expected.

In that filing, Twitter says they tried multiple times to meet with Musk and explain their methodology of the bot research they did do and did turn over, Musk just waved it off and then said they hadn't turned it over. Which they did. That's in the filing, too.

We probably should make a new thread for this. Fascinating as it is to watch things crash and burn for Musk, it seems wholly unrelated to Trump.

[Edge-]

We probably should make a new thread for this. Fascinating as it is to watch things crash and burn for Musk, it seems wholly unrelated to Trump.

It is related to Trump given Musk's commitment to unbanning Trump if/when the deal went through.

And the current TMZ-esque drama going on between the two.

[Breccia]

We probably should make a new thread for this.

Disagree.

1) Musk said he'd let Trump back on Twitter. Musk made this topic Trump-relavent.

2) Trump has made it about himself for months.

There are no two rich narcissists better poised for a public feud than former President Donald Trump and Tesla billionaire Elon Musk, who have been trading barbs following reports that Musk wants to back out of his purchase agreement with Twitter.

The latest blow came on Tuesday, when Trump jabbed at Musk’s “driverless cars that crash” and “rocketships to nowhere” in recounting how Musk came to the White House to ask for help with subsidies for his business ventures. “I could have said, ‘drop to your knees and beg,’ and he would have done it…,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

But according to multiple sources who spoke to Trump about Musk earlier this year, the catty feud has been gurgling beneath the surface since at least April, when the twice-impeached former president could occasionally be heard privately mocking Musk — including for being “sloppy” and on drugs. (Trump seemed to be referring to a viral 2018 clip of Musk appearing to smoke pot on Joe Rogan’s show.)

Then in mid-May, Trump posted a statement to his Truth Social account, blaring: “There is no way Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter at such a ridiculous price, especially since realizing it is a company largely based on BOTS of Spam Accounts. Fake anyone?”

Trump's Own Campaign Manager Blamed Him for Jan 6. Death, New Texts Show
Relations between the Trump and Musk fiefdoms deteriorated further after the former president first caught wind last month that Musk had said that he was “leaning” towards backing Ron DeSantis — whom Trump views as his top rival for control of the GOP’s future, and whom he semi-regularly ridicules as a boring and ungrateful snake — for president in 2024. According to one source who talked to Trump about this weeks ago, the former president simply said Musk “didn’t know what he was talking about.”

Another source who spoke to Trump about Musk’s pseudo-endorsement of the Florida governor recalled Trump saying of the pro-DeSantis Musk: “What an idiot!”

Trump unleashed on Musk during a rally in Anchorage, Alaska, on Saturday night, a day after it was reported that Musk wants to back out of his deal to acquire Twitter. Trump called Musk a “bullshit artist” for saying that his vote for Mayra Flores in a South Texas special congressional election last month marked the first time he voted for a Republican.

“Elon, Elon, is not going to buy Twitter,” Trump said on Saturday. “He’s got himself a mess. He said the other day, ‘Oh, I’ve never voted for a Republican.’ I said, ‘I didn’t know that. He told me he voted for me.’”

Musk then responded to Breitbart’s tweet of Trump’s statement by saying that he doesn’t “hate the man,” but that “it’s time for Trump to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset,” and asking democrats to “call off the attack.”

Musk wants this to be about Trump, and Trump wants this to be about Trump.

It belongs in the Shitshow. Sorry. I don't make the rules.

[DarkTZeratul]

It belongs in the Shitshow. Sorry. I don't make the rules.

Agree to disagree, then, I guess. I don't make the rules either.

Looking at Twitter's filing, though... Holy shit, how on Earth did Musk's lawyers let him sign this kind of insane agreement? Apparently he told Twitter he intended to buy them, under threat of "reconsider[ing] [his] position as a shareholder," Twitter recognized that while they had a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders, they were also fully aware of how unreliable Elon Musk is. So they intentionally crafted a ridiculously one-sided deal in their favor and filled it with clauses specifically to make it very difficult for Musk to get out of it. This included explicitly waiving Musk's right to pre-signing due diligence. And he still signed it.

One person commented that this legal brief appears to be written in a way designed to provoke him into publicly whining even further about it, providing still more fodder for Twitter's case. One of my favorite bits is this one:

[Edge-]

Holy shit, how on Earth did Musk's lawyers let him sign this kind of insane agreement?

You assume Galaxy Brain Elon listened to them.

His lawyers are probably too focused on hardcore litigation to actually provide other legal advice.

So they intentionally crafted a ridiculously one-sided deal in their favor and filled it with clauses specifically to make it very difficult for Musk to get out of it. This included explicitly waiving Musk's right to pre-signing due diligence. And he still signed it.

Yes, because he never expected them to actually do it and force the sale if he pulled out. Because this was, at the end of the day, just him trolling the FEC with the $54.20 per-share offer.

[Breccia]

Holy shit, how on Earth did Musk's lawyers let him sign this kind of insane agreement?

That's the issue we'll see decided in a few months. Devil's advocate more literally than usual, but if I had to guess, Musk wrote in what he thought was an ironclad escape clause. Most people, if asked out of nowhere what % of Twitter accounts/posts were bots, probably would have guessed higher than 5%. Musk could have been counting on Twitter being unwilling to reveal the info, and therefore, get him a way out. In his mind, once he "proved Twitter was lying" the contract was broken, and the massive number of clauses that held him in place were suddenly all immaterial.

He was wrong, as we're seeing now. Or at least wrong enough to end up in court.

So why let him sign that? Well, for one, there could be some "nobody tells Musk what to do" but I don't think he's that stupid to hire lawyers and ignore them. It could have been that the walk away penalty was "only" one billion, and Musk was convinced he could fuck with Twitter's stock price, lowering their value by more than the $1 billion he lost, and still buy it later at a lower, insulting offer. I'm not sure that works very well either, considering Twitter could just say "no, you ruined your credibility, fuck off troll". And of course, there's the possibility that...okay I swear I had a third one a minute ago.

But even those feel clumsy to me. So I'm with you, I have only wild guesses what Musk and his lawyers were thinking. Based on the articles I've read, he's damaged his reputation (you said he was unreliable before, think about after), in all likelihood he'll lose in court, and now Trump is waging war on him. Of course, Trump is on his social media platform which has maybe seven people on it, so it's not a very effective war.

[Endus]

I love how the "Chuckmate" meme literally embodies the "don't play chess with a pigeon; it'll shit all over the board and think it won because it can't understand the rules" meme.

Where Chuck's the pigeon, if that's not clear.

Which I have to state outright, apparently, for chucklefuck morons like Musk who don't understand this shit.

You could've at least had Chuck Norris pulling off a successful Fool's Mate, but no. Just express that you don't know chess and can't get that you're the joke, here.

[Edge-]

Holy shit, Chuck Norris memes are still relevant?



I thought that shit largely died out a decade ago before he went full Christian nationalist.

[DarkTZeratul]

if I had to guess, Musk wrote in what he thought was an ironclad escape clause. Most people, if asked out of nowhere what % of Twitter accounts/posts were bots, probably would have guessed higher than 5%. Musk could have been counting on Twitter being unwilling to reveal the info, and therefore, get him a way out. In his mind, once he "proved Twitter was lying" the contract was broken, and the massive number of clauses that held him in place were suddenly all immaterial.

Per Twitter's filing, Elon Musk waived all due diligence in the purchase agreement. It stated that there was no express or implied guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of the provided information, that the merger was being performed based solely on independent reviews that had already been conducted, and that Twitter's ONLY obligation thereafter was to keep Elon Musk up to date about the status of their efforts to move the process along. Twitter even gave him enormous amounts of data that they were under no obligation to provide, which he failed to read and then straight-up lied about having not received. And they have the receipts.

I don't think he's that stupid to hire lawyers and ignore them.

I wouldn't be so sure. Per Twitter's filing, when Elon Musk tweeted out that the deal was on hold, he did it entirely on his own initiative without even alerting Twitter. Basically everything Musk did since signing this deal is something any credible lawyer would have strenuously told him not to do.

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...7344d371e3f1e4

The former elections manager for a Colorado clerk indicted on charges of tampering with voting equipment has been arrested on allegations that she was part of the scheme, an official said Wednesday.

Sandra Brown, who worked for Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, turned herself in Monday in response to a warrant issued for her arrest on suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and attempting to influence a public servant, said Lt. Henry Stoffel of the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office. The arrest was first reported by The Daily Sentinel newspaper.

Peters and her chief deputy, Belinda Knisley, are being prosecuted for allegedly allowing a copy of a hard drive to be made during an update of election equipment in May 2021. State election officials first became aware of a security breach last summer when a photo and video of confidential voting system passwords were posted on social media and a conservative website.

Man, what's with all these Republicans and getting arrested for voter fraud, or crimes related to voting? I'm beginning to think the GOP has a point in pearl clutching about voter fraud, but it's not the point they think it is, it's that they're the actual threat to secure elections

[Breccia]

straight-up lied about having not received. And they have the receipts.

This is what really needs to come back and bite him. Again, that stupid theory is that Musk broke the contract so that he could get "free discovery" and force Twitter to hand over documents he claims they had about too many bots.

First of all, I still think that's now how it works in general.

Second of all, even if it was, I'm even more sure that's not how it works in a Delaware civil court.

Third of all, even if it was, as you pointed out Musk said on the contract he signed he didn't care, so it extra more sure shouldn't work this time in particular.

And I will continue to defend that Musk can't break the contract, then demand Twitter hand over "free discovery" to show him a reason to break the contract which he didn't have when he broke the contract.

"Police, that man is a drug dealer!"
"What's your proof?"
"Uh..." *BLAM* "Okay he's dead, now let me search his house to find the drugs, proving it was okay for me to shoot him."

I will give Musk some credit, he did an excellent job tanking Twitter's stock price, then breaking the deal when it was half what he offered. (Checks stock price) Well, that aged poorly. If Musk was in a position to re-negotiate, that would have been an effective move.

But I can't find a hole in your logic, not that I'm looking hard. It sure sounds like his excuse, "Twitter didn't tell me about the bots", just doesn't seem legally relavent. We'll find out in court, but barring a loophole, I don't see how this won't directly cost Musk at least the billion dollars in the contract's escape clause.

- - - Updated - - -

I love this headline.

Tears, Screaming and Insults: Inside an ‘Unhinged’ Meeting to Keep Trump in Power

Okay, I already posted a wall of NYText so I'll tone this one down.

“It got to the point where the screaming was completely, completely out there,” Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer, told the committee in videotaped testimony. “I mean, you got people walking in — it was late at night, it had been a long day. And what they were proposing, I thought was nuts.”

Mr. Lyons and Mr. Herschmann joined the group. “It was not a casual meeting,” Mr. Lyons told the committee in videotaped testimony. “At times, there were people shouting at each other, hurling insults at each other. It wasn’t just sort of people sitting around on a couch like chitchatting.”

Mr. Herschmann said he was flabbergasted by what he was hearing.

“And I was asking, like, are you claiming the Democrats were working with Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans and whomever else? And at one point, General Flynn took out a diagram that supposedly showed IP addresses all over the world and who was communicating with whom via the machines. And some comment about, like, Nest thermostats being hooked up to the internet.”

When the White House officials pointed out to Ms. Powell that she had lost dozens of lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 election, she replied, “Well, the judges are corrupt.”

These are people Trump hired. Oh, wait, there's one more line.

“I’m like, everyone?” Mr. Herschmann testified. “Every single case that you’ve done in the country that you guys lost? Every one of them is corrupt? Even the ones we appointed?”

Yeah. Truly Trump is a very stable genius who hires only the best people.

[DarkTZeratul]

I don't see how this won't directly cost Musk at least the billion dollars in the contract's escape clause.

Potentially a whole lot more, because Twitter is suing to force him to go through with the sale at the agreed-upon price. And the contract he signed would seem to require him to do so.

[Edge-]

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...-climate-posi/

Republicans, who actually hate capitalism, apparently want to prevent Wall Street investment firms from choosing how they invest their and their clients money. They seemingly want to force them to maintain investments in areas like coal mines and coal power plants, despite the financial risks that come with continuing to back fossil fuels and the public demand to continue transitioning away.

Just a reminder: Republicans are inherently authoritarian and do not actually support capitalism. They never have.

[Breccia]

The Jan 6th panel has been looking into the Alternative Electors, also known as "traitors", and have been talking to the DOJ about them too.

As I said on a related topic earlier, this is where Team Trump should be praying there's nothing leading back from the fake electors to them. Even deleted texts are showing up.

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ender-1382976/

Republican congressional candidate Carl Paladino has hired a convicted sex offender as the new “assistant treasurer” of his campaign, the New York Post reported on Wednesday.

Joel Sartori, a former controller of Paladino’s development firm, was convicted on charges related to possessing and promoting child pornography in 2017, and sentenced to 10 years probation. Paladino has kept Sartori on his payroll as assistant controller for Ellicott Development. “Joel has been with me for ages,” Paladino told the Post, ”He served his punishment for what he did. He’s a wonderful employee.”

Paladino, who is running for New York’s 23rd Congressional District and is backed by House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) was caught last year praising Adolf Hitler during a radio appearance.

Man, Republicans sure do love themselves some Hitler and some pedophiles!

[Breccia]

Sen. Graham officially files motion to block Georgia subpoena on the grounds that he doesn't want to.

Well, he said

Senator Graham’s contact with Georgia officials referenced in the Certificate falls within the ‘legislative sphere’ because it was to gather information relevant to his oversight responsibilities as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and given his obligations under the Electoral Count Act of 1887

"If that's true, why is he refusing to testify? That defense sounds like the reason he made those contacts. It doesn't sound like a reason why he wouldn't testify at all. Why wouldn't he just say the contact was nice and legal, right there on the stand? Also, does the ECA of 1887 prevent people from testifying?"

Yeah, that doesn't seem like a reason to not testify to me. Graham is claiming what he did was legal, but also, refusing to say what he did. Which is pretty stupid considering the Georgia officials recorded everything.

I can't think of a valid reason why Graham's duties as a Senator would prevent him from testifying on the actions he took. There is no "legislative privilege" that would apply here...or exist at all. The most likely explanation is, he knows what he did was wrong, he knows he'll be asked about it, and he doesn't want to be caught between admitting a crime (or at least scandal) or taking the Fifth and throwing Team Trump to the wolves.

I think he talked to Georgia on Trump's behalf. And I will continue to say so, until he takes the stand and says otherwise.

[Kaleredar]

Sen. Graham officially files motion to block Georgia subpoena on the grounds that he doesn't want to.

Well, he said



"If that's true, why is he refusing to testify? That defense sounds like the reason he made those contacts. It doesn't sound like a reason why he wouldn't testify at all. Why wouldn't he just say the contact was nice and legal, right there on the stand? Also, does the ECA of 1887 prevent people from testifying?"

Yeah, that doesn't seem like a reason to not testify to me. Graham is claiming what he did was legal, but also, refusing to say what he did. Which is pretty stupid considering the Georgia officials recorded everything.

I can't think of a valid reason why Graham's duties as a Senator would prevent him from testifying on the actions he took. There is no "legislative privilege" that would apply here...or exist at all. The most likely explanation is, he knows what he did was wrong, he knows he'll be asked about it, and he doesn't want to be caught between admitting a crime (or at least scandal) or taking the Fifth and throwing Team Trump to the wolves.

I think he talked to Georgia on Trump's behalf. And I will continue to say so, until he takes the stand and says otherwise.

Once again, the "throw shit at the wall to avoid having what they say go on record to attempt to stall this out until the committee is dissolved" strategy.

[Breccia]

Once again, the "throw shit at the wall to avoid having what they say go on record to attempt to stall this out until the committee is dissolved" strategy.

I mean, this is the Georgia case. Rules might not be the same.

EDIT: Also, Graham is (in theory) not the primary target here. The case will go on, whether he consents or not. Stalling is going to be a questionable tactic this time.

[Kaleredar]

I mean, this is the Georgia case. Rules might not be the same.

EDIT: Also, Graham is (in theory) not the primary target here. The case will go on, whether he consents or not. Stalling is going to be a questionable tactic this time.

Err, right. I read that a bit fast.

But I think it's a similar tactic, though the end-game effectiveness of stalling out is... well, far less likely to yield results.

Basically, they're trying to forestall their judgement as long as possible. Though there is the offhand chance that they think these shenanigans of theirs will actually work and the judge will dismiss their case; their legal acumen and an adequate appraisal of what they can get away with are seriously lacking.

[Ripster42]

I can't think of a valid reason why Graham's duties as a Senator would prevent him from testifying on the actions he took. There is no "legislative privilege" that would apply here...or exist at all.

Speech and debate clause is the "legislative privilege" he's referencing. Thing that actually exists. I don't see how it applies here, but with this SCOTUS, who knows.