Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

This story sounds about right.

It's so incredibly on-brand that their immediate reaction is to go to bat for Kanye as some oppressed victim, rather than even bother asking what the tweet that supposedly got him banned even was.

Like, most people having information before forming an opinion. Reactionaries have it easy, none of that "finding things out" stuff that takes time and effort, you've got your response pre-loaded and ready to release at a climax.

[postman1782]

So...the GOP was just calling out people who were banned from Twitter? The guy who incited a violent insurrection, an anti-semite, and Elon Musk?

That's who they're backing? Kind of an odd hill to die on.

They don't like cancel culture when it happens to them, but love it when people call out things and people like Colin Kaepernick, Keurig, Nike, Starbucks, Paypal, and thousands of others.

[Breccia]

Problem is, Kanye is STILL pushing antisemitic bullshit on his Twitter.

I'm not sure that's true.

- - - Updated - - -

Keurig

People buying coffee makers just to smash them might still be the dumbest thing Trump supporters have done that didn't end in a death, divorce, or subpoena.

...which I just now realized sets a very interesting bar.

[postman1782]

I'm not sure that's true.

Yep, those posts I posted, were from the 8th. The tweet that got reported for antisemitism, is gone from his timeline, saying "this tweet violated our terms and conditions". He hasn't posted since the 8th though.

- - - Updated - - -

People buying coffee makers just to smash them might still be the dumbest thing Trump supporters have done that didn't end in a death, divorce, or subpoena.

...which I just now realized sets a very interesting bar.

Its the same thing with buying a record from the Dixie Chicks or NWA back in the day, just to smash them. Or burning the Nikes they owned because Nike gave a deal to Colin Kaepernick. Its just hilarious that all they did was give them money, just to break or burn it.

[Breccia]

Its just hilarious that all they did was give them money, just to break or burn it.

I prefer the other way around, the whole "sending PP money under the name Mike Pence" thing.

On topic: Donald Trump claims Bill Clinton ‘lost’ the nuclear codes in Truth Social post.

I don't feel that requires any further commentary.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of stupid things to tweet:

Trump criticized Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday for supporting funds for GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (Alaska) reelection bid against a fellow Republican rather than directing that money to Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters’s (R) race against a Democrat.

“The Old Broken Crow, Mitchell McConnell, is authorizing $9 Million Dollars to be spent in order to beat a great Republican, Kelly, instead of $9 Million Dollars that could be used for Blake Masters, and other Republicans, that with this money would beat their Democrat opponent,” wrote Trump in a statement, referring to Kelly Tshibaka, who will face off against Murkowski in November.

Did Trump forget he has a recently renamed PAC? "This Republican I like doesn't have money" sounds like exactly the kind of problem a Trump-based PAC could solve in minutes.

Or, he could just be a hypocrite. Neither trait is redeeming.

[Huehuecoyotl]

On topic: Donald Trump claims Bill Clinton ‘lost’ the nuclear codes in Truth Social post.

I don't feel that requires any further commentary.

Remember; everything with these guys is projection. Is Trump telling us there was a point during his presidency where he lost the nuclear codes? Even for a short while?

The fact that feels entirely plausible tells its own story.

[Breccia]

Hmm, haven't checked in on DWAC in a while.

Truth Social SPAC again delays shareholder vote

Ah. Dropped from $17 to $16 on that announcement yesterday.

A former company executive reportedly filed a whistleblower complaint with federal securities regulators in August, and it remains unable to access hundreds of millions of dollars tied to a prospective merger with a blank check acquisition company.

The company doesn't currently generate any revenue, and has said it only has enough cash to last through next spring.

Shareholders of the blank check company, Digital World Acquisition Corp., have been asked to approve a one-year extension to their merger. The original vote already fell short, and DWAC's sponsor continues to beg for votes ahead of a new November 3 deadline.

"Whoa whoa whoa, they're looking at a billion-dollar price tag. How do they not have enough operational cash for a few shareholder votes?"

DWAC is an SPAC, IIRC FWOW, OK? Barring special procedures, every single dollar of original investment must be returned to the investors if the deal falls apart. Two special procedures I've mentioned before include
a) this option which

The Financial Times reported Tuesday that DWAC Chief Executive Patrick Orlando is negotiating with investors who said they would back the company through a private investment in public equity, or PIPE, deal.

The PIPE investors are hoping to bring down the minimum conversion price for their preferred stock from $10 to as low as $2, the FT reported, citing a person involved in the talks. That would boost their potential profit on the deal, even in the worst case scenario, as it would give the investors more shares and dilute other shareholders’ stakes – including Trump’s.

b) and special votes to pump in special money to pay operational expenses

So the idea seems to be, DWAC announces their opening investment, people give them money, that money goes into a trust, and they are given founder shares for their money. Once the stock hits the NYSE it's basically out of DWAC's hands, but they still have that trust money in case the deal falls through, so they can buy the stocks back. Honestly I'm not sure all the details. But as

Trump-linked SPAC changes address to UPS store as investments pulled

As of Friday, DWAC had lost $138.5 million of its $1 billion in private financing.

shows, investors are not locked in. But the $1 billion buyout is still in the contract. Investors leaving doesn't change that. And new investors are not likely to arrive, either. CyberTrump 2077 said they'd have 50+ million users by 2024. I don't know how many they have, someone should call Elon Musk who could yell "bots, I'm suing, bots!" at the camera, but we do know Trump himself has about 4 million followers, after a surge of new users after Mar-a-Lago had its illegal contents seized. Trump had 86 million followers on Twitter, and he's claiming his Chinese Twitter knockoff would be at least half that. He's lying, or he's stupid.

If DWAC cannot stay above water, they will have to dissolve.

Also a little while ago, I wondered why Trump wasn't pushing his own brand to get the investors to a meeting and to vote "yes". That still has not happened. The Elon Musk deal is showing signs of life, which isn't helping.

And let's not forget the SEC investigation. The Miami Herald sure hasn't.

William Wilkerson, a senior vice president of operations at Sarasota-based Trump Media, filed a whistleblower complaint in August with the SEC, alleging securities violations involving the Trump Media and Digital World merger.

His attorneys said Wilkerson, who may be entitled to an award through his complaint, is cooperating with federal authorities in their investigation of the merger. Wilkerson is an eyewitness who has turned over internal business documents to SEC enforcement officials, federal prosecutors and FBI investigators. He has been part of the team that founded and built Trump Media, so as an insider he can chronicle the events under scrutiny.

Wilkerson, who has also had an up-close view of the launching of the social media platform as an alternative to Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, told the Herald that he believes Truth Social’s future is shaky. He argues the site has quickly become more about promoting Trump than giving voice to a range of conservatives and others, and that the operation is struggling with issues that go beyond regulatory questions about the financial structure that created it.

Wilkerson said that if shareholders don’t approve the merger extension on Monday, the Trump Media marriage to Digital World would probably be called off and investors’ funds would be liquidated and returned to them.

“One way or another, this company is going to go bankrupt,” Wilkerson, 38, told the Herald. “I don’t think the company is going to be approved by the SEC.”

Ah, yes, bankrupt. That's be the Trumpiest way ever for this to end. If DWAC spends some of that trust-fund cash to stay alive -- possibly because they keep pushing their votes down and down the line -- and can't get it back (because, for example, the stock price sucks) -- then, yes, they will have to admit to a very public court that investing in Trump was a bad idea and they can't afford to repay their investors who also believed in Trump.

Hey remember when

I don’t need financing, I’m really rich!

That was September 4. I have not found since any articles about Trump adding money to the account himself. Considering a billion dollars of money is on the line, you'd think it was a smart idea to, say, add the $138.5 million back. Maybe he can't, that could be an SEC issue, but I'm pretty sure he hasn't.

From the public headlines, if the upcoming Dec 8 deadline comes and no new extension is voted for, I'm fairly sure DWAC won't go bankrupt, but CyberTrump 2077 will immediately fold. Initial investors will basically have their money returned after not earning anything for a year, and there are worse problems. Anyone who bought stock after the initial investment, when the price jumped to $100+ and then sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo(deep breath)oooooooooooowly dropped to the current price of $16, and who don't sell their stock first, will get $10 for it and lose 30% to 90% of their money. And the people holding out for paychecks from Trump will almost assuredly en masse form a class-action lawsuit.

65% of shares need to vote "yes", so being absent doesn't help. Multiple votes have already failed purely due to low attendance.

Literally everyone who said "this is a dumb idea" are more and more right with every passing day and every lost dollar.

[Shadowferal]

New moves show Merrick Garland's indictment of Trump is 'inevitable': analysis

Atlantic journalist Franklin Foer has been closely observing Attorney General Merrick Garland for months, and he now believes that a criminal indictment of the twice-impeached former president is "inevitable."

"An indictment would be a signal to Trump, as well as to would-be imitators, that no one is above the law," Foer argues. "This is the principle that has animated Garland’s career, which began as the Justice Department was attempting to reassert its independence, and legitimacy, after the ugly meddling of the Nixon years."

Foer then recounts Garland's career at length, and in particular summarizes ample evidence that Garland is, at heart, an institutionalist who would ideally love to avoid indicting Trump and igniting a political firestorm that could lead to a new wave of political violence.

However, he also argues that Trump's behavior has brought out a pugnaciousness in Garland that he had previously not seen.

"When Trump began to assail the search of Mar-a-Lago, Garland asked the court to unseal the inventory of seized documents, essentially calling out the ex-president’s lies," argues Foer. "Rather than passively watching attacks on FBI agents, whom Trump scurrilously accused of planting evidence, Garland passionately backed the bureau. As Trump’s lawyers have tried to use a sympathetic judge to slow down the department’s investigation, Garland’s lawyers have responded with bluntly dismissive briefs, composed without the least hint of deference."

Foer concludes by noting that while Garland will only indict Trump if he believes there is overwhelming evidence against him, he thinks that bar has been met and that the attorney general will act.

"Every time he’s asked about the former president, he responds, 'No one is above the law,'" he writes. "He clearly gets frustrated that his answer fails to satisfy his doubters. I believe that his indictment of Trump will prove that he means it."

-------------

...any day now..

[bladeXcrasher]

Looks like ol' Tulsi is finally completing her character arc as a MAGA girl.

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/11/tul...edium=news_tab

[Breccia]

Looks like ol' Tulsi is finally completing her character arc as a MAGA girl.

"I can't support an elitist cabal of warmongers, so I'm joining the Republicans".

Fucking what?

[The Stormbringer]

...any day now..

I can't help but wonder if he's planning on waiting until the day after the 2022 Elections to avoid any calls of being 'political'. I'm guessing there's also some fears that doing it before the election could incite the Republican voter base to vote en masse in the hope of undoing it (that wouldn't work but it might be something they'd try). It would certainly be a great thing to learn the morning after Voting Day that Trump is being slammed with criminal charges and put under house arrest...

[Shadowferal]

I'm reminded of "Yao the Collector" in MoP;

Yao the Collector yells: Hey... HEY! What are you doing?
You're stealing my inventory, aren't you? Don't make me stand up!
I'll do it, I swear! I'm about to stand up!
Yao the Collector yells: Here I go!

Oh, who am I kidding? You are a wily one, thief.

[bladeXcrasher]

"I can't support an elitist cabal of warmongers, so I'm joining the Republicans".

Fucking what?

Gotta use the republican train of thought, it's not warmongering if you're bombing muslims.

[Xyonai]

Gotta use the republican train of thought, it's not warmongering if you're bombing muslims.

Also I'm sure the 'war mongering' in this case is making sure Ukraine isn't genocided by Russia.

[Draco-Onis]

Also I'm sure the 'war mongering' in this case is making sure Ukraine isn't genocided by Russia.

Even that doesn't really make sense since republicans and democrats (aside from Trump) are lock step when it comes to Ukraine.

[bladeXcrasher]

Even that doesn't really make sense since republicans and democrats (aside from Trump) are lock step when it comes to Ukraine.

She's a fox talking head, I don't know about Hannity, but Tucker isn't lock step when it comes to Ukraine...so the possibility exists

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e_iOSApp_Other

“When I’m secretary of state of Nevada, we are going to fix it, and when my coalition of secretary of state candidates around the country get elected we’re going to fix the whole country, and President Trump is going to be president again in 2024,” he said.

Republicans are just openly talking about their plans to steal an election now.

- - - Updated - - -

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...ndled-records/

Once again, the National Archives is unambiguous -

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) said Tuesday that while records are transported to president’s libraries, any temporary storage has “met strict archival and security standards, and have been managed and staffed exclusively by NARA employees.” It added that any insinuations that records were stored in substandard conditions “are false and misleading.”

Trump keeps making shit up and lying about facts.

[Breccia]

Trump keeps making shit up and lying about facts.

They're not especially thrilled about Trump's proven false statements about "everyone does it". Honestly, considering Trump made an objectively false declaration of fact in public, NARA has a decent defamation case. Trump can't object, he does that shit all the time. Also he can't object because he's out of lawyers.

[postman1782]

Gotta use the republican train of thought, it's not warmongering if you're bombing muslims.

Well, she does support that fascist piece of shit Modi, who wants to eradicate Muslims from India.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/...ionalist-modi/

She also supports Trump, Putin, and Bashar Al-Assad. She is the elite cabal of warmongers.

[Breccia]

Trump appeals to the Supreme Court.

"On what grounds?"

That they owe him a favor, apparently.

So, Trump is apparently saying that the "special master" should, in fact, be allowed to review the 100 special documents that the DOJ has said is instrumental to an ongoing national security investigation. Based on other results so far, Trump knows he can't stop the DOJ from reading them, but if they get to the "special master" list, he'll at least know what they are. And then he can start planning his defense for the next trial, in which those documents are used as evidene against him, but not for the fact Trump had them (ship, sailed) but for their contents. So, they're probably communications between him and someone he really doesn't want people to know he talked to -- Putin, the Oath Keepers, or Ginni Thomas, for example.

Naturally, the DOJ have responded with "Trump has no legal standing on anything at all". He doesn't own the WH property he stole, therefore, he cannot be harmed by their return to the government. They're not privileged, either, as they're not lawyer-client and Biden waived the rest, and as everyone here knows (even if one poster won't admit it) Trump couldn't invoke new privilege once he left the WH. Trump said he should have 24/7 access to the records because of the PRA, but the DOJ correctly points out that the PRA only applies to things NARA has, and Trump stole these documents from NARA, therefore, the PRA didn't apply and he shouldn't have had any access to them at all.

And the big one? Trump said the 11th didn't have the authority to make that decision, the DOJ naturally said "um, yes it does, otherwise Cannon's ruling would also be moot and we wouldn't have a special master at all". See, the DOJ opposed the appointment of a "special master", Trump filed motions in court to block that opposition with the 11th, therefore, Trump says the 11th has jurisdiction here, and cannot reasonably now change their mind.

Trump is arguing that holding these 100 documents back is slowing the "special master" down and that there's a ticking clock, the problem is, he's done nothing but stall and delay in every single court motion, so the filing rings hollow.

And pretty much everyone knows it.

Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe, who has argued three-dozen cases before the Supreme Court, was among the legal experts analyzing DOJ's filing.

"The Justice Department’s response opposing the emergency application Trump’s legal team filed in the Supreme Court, with a stopover in Justice Clarence’s chambers, is utterly devastating," Tribe tweeted. "It pulverizes all of Trump’s arguments and leaves none standing."

Attorney Luppe Luppen of the popular @nycsouthpaw account wrote, "with a new filing at SCOTUS, we get to read what the Solicitor General’s office thinks of Judge Cannon’s order appointing a special master to review the Mar-a-Lago search. Not much!"

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin posted a thread, writing, "I've read DOJ's brief opposing Trump's emergency request for relief so you don't have to. DOJ nicely swats away the legal thrust of Trump's argument -- that the appellate court lacked pendent jurisdiction."

Rubin explained, "what interests me is whether DOJ refuted any of Trump's factual allegations with its own narrative. While it could have addressed Trump's insistence that all of the classified docs were sent to Mar-a-Lago *before* his presidency was over, it didn't. And the reason, says DOJ without raising that or any other particular 'fact' Trump offered, is that it doesn't matter. Even a purportedly declassified document can't be his personal property and can't be the subject of any attorney-client privilege. It's still a 'red herring.'"

The DOJ did point out...again...that Trump has had multiple opportunities to say "these are declassified" and has yet to do so. That we knew.

Nevertheless, we'll find out soon enough if SCOTUS decides they want to just throw out both the letter and spirit of the law and rule that "Trump gets whatever he wants because he's Trump". Because there doesn't seem to be any legal reason, at all, to side with Trump on pretty much anything he's asked for. "I just don't want to" is not legal standing, it's admission you have none.