Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[diller]

It is not fake, she personally said she signed it under duress. Cohen was involved and might literally testify to that.

Well it's still not her actual name.

[Nastard]

At the time, I think the religious right would have had a problem if Stormy Daniels said, in public, under oath, "Yes Donald Trump paid me for sex" and Trump to let that go uncontested.

I dunno, at the time he was caught on tape saying he sexually assaults women and they seemed to be cool with it. Though now that I type that out I can definitely imagine some religious people thinking there's nothing wrong with forcing yourself on women without consent but would draw the line at prostitution.

[Breccia]

Well it's still not her actual name.

Oh, that was strange, no question. And even if it was, it's not admissible for at least three reasons. But Trump is waving it around and claiming it helps his case because his cultists will believe anything he says...even stuff he's said before and was proven a lie then, too.

[Rasulis]

To no one's surprise DJT stock went down to $32.41.

What is surprising is that the fee for borrowing the stock for shorting has gone down to less than 200% from the high of 700 - 900%. Clear indicator that there are now more stocks to short. Which indicates that institutional investors that bought the stock during IPO have started to unload.

[Edge-]

To no one's surprise DJT stock went down to $32.41.

What is surprising is that the fee for borrowing the stock for shorting has gone down to less than 200% from the high of 700 - 900%. Clear indicator that there are now more stocks to short. Which indicates that institutional investors that bought the stock during IPO have started to unload.

The curve on it looks great. One day of gains and then fairly consistent and quick losses, now below what DWAC was at before the transition (around $49) and the declines don't seem like they'll stop anytime soon. Especially as the next quarterly reports are likely going to be similarly awful for them.

I remain skeptical that Donald's true believers have the same purchasing power and well regarded determination of the /r/wsb crew and their devotion to GME, and that consequently they'll be unable to artificially prop up a memestock with poor (or no) fundamentals for very long.

Does Kramer still host "Daytime Stock Talk with a Bald Toddler on Cocaine"? Because oh boy I'm sure he'll have the most insightful takes on this, punctuated by a bunch of cartoon sound effects he makes by pulling random levers and cranking nobs because this is a television show for serious adults.

[Breccia]

Trump claims his social media company has $200 million in cash and zero debt.

"Is there any public evidence to support either claim?"

Obviously, the safe bet is to assume whatever Trump says while not under oath to be false. However, filings are a different story. Here's a story from Jan 18 2024 about Q3 2023.

The company's cash-on-hand dwindled to just $1.8 million at the end of September, compared to $2.4 million at the end of June, while its total liabilities climbed nearly 72% to $60.5 million.

"What are total liabilities?"

Debt.

"How close is 1.8 million to 200 million?"

Like claiming Trump's tie is as long as an NFL field.

So the last trustworthy evidence we have, you know, the stuff you go to jail for lying about, Trump is either 99% lying or 100% lying.

"Could he have paid off the debt, then put $200 million in the coffers?"

It's physically possible, but no, he did not. Trump did not sell shares of stock, he was prohibted by law, and there is no chance he took those back-to-back court losses and said "you know what I should do, now that i owe the courts $500 million? Take some of my finite money and put it in Truth Social". That did not happen.

"Could someone else have done it?"

It's physically possible, but I don't know why anyone would. Trump is trying to ditch his shares which will tank the value, and the company is objectively worth negative money with or without him. Not even someone stupid enough to sign a contract with Trump -- like the people suing him over Truth Social for retroactively not paying him -- would be stupid enough to take that dumpster fire and throw their money on it.

In order for Trump to be telling the truth, either he would have to do something not just out of character but self-destructive too, or someone else would have to intentionally damage their money for no visible benefit.

Trump is lying.

[Surfd]

Trump claims his social media company has $200 million in cash and zero debt.

---Snip---

Trump is lying.

Shouldn't a major shareholder making bald faced, easily disprovable lies about the value of a company he is directly related to trigger all kinds of possible investigations for attempted market manipulation and possible securities fraud or something along those lines?

Like, how does one get away with making just straight up out right totally bullshit statements like this with apparently absolutely no consequences?

[Breccia]

Shouldn't a major shareholder making bald faced, easily disprovable lies about--

No. It matters when he lies on a contract (fraud) filing (tax evasion) or on the stand. Everything else is fair game.

[masterhorus8]

No. It matters when he lies on a contract (fraud) filing (tax evasion) or on the stand. Everything else is fair game.

Hasn't Musk got in trouble for shit about Tesla? I could see a similar problem with this as it is Trump explicitly talking about the publicly traded company.

[DarkTZeratul]

Hasn't Musk got in trouble for shit about Tesla? I could see a similar problem with this as it is Trump explicitly talking about the publicly traded company.

Yeah, but he only got in trouble with Tesla's shareholders. And I doubt Truth Social's shareholders are as willing to speak out against Dear Leader.

[Breccia]

I doubt Truth Social's shareholders are as willing to speak out against Dear Leader.

Two of them are suing him right now.

[DarkTZeratul]

Two of them are suing him right now.

...Yeah, okay, fair point there.

Guess that means he IS getting in trouble for making bald faced, easily disprovable lies about the value of a company he is directly related to.

[Breccia]

So, with the trial starting Monday, there should be some wild moves in court today. Based purely on the objective evidence and witness list, Trump is objectively guilty and will be found so by the letter of the law. Trump must know this and should take literally any action to delay or break the trial.

Any predictions?

[Canpinter]

So, with the trial starting Monday, there should be some wild moves in court today. Based purely on the objective evidence and witness list, Trump is objectively guilty and will be found so by the letter of the law. Trump must know this and should take literally any action to delay or break the trial.

Any predictions?

Attempting to fire his lawyers.

[The Stormbringer]

So, with the trial starting Monday, there should be some wild moves in court today. Based purely on the objective evidence and witness list, Trump is objectively guilty and will be found so by the letter of the law. Trump must know this and should take literally any action to delay or break the trial.

Any predictions?

Faking an illness...? Or just trying to not show up, claiming he has other things he needs to be doing. I don't think he's stupid enough to try fleeing the country, but we'll see.

Oh! Starting a mob of his followers to show up at the court to stop the proceedings!

[Benggaul]

Faking an illness...? Or just trying to not show up, claiming he has other things he needs to be doing. I don't think he's stupid enough to try fleeing the country, but we'll see.

Oh! Starting a mob of his followers to show up at the court to stop the proceedings!

He wouldn't fake an illness. He needs his followers to believe he's healthy and strong. Does he have to show up? Unsure, but I think he would even if he didn't have to to push as much bullshit as the judge will allow just like his other court appearances. He won't flee, he thinks he's bulletproof and so far he's been proven right by the fucked up system.

The last is an option, but I could see that happening with or without his help.

[Odinfrost]

Does he have to show up?

From what I've heard, then yes.
So I assume not showing up will be either contempt of court or default surrender, although the former is most likely the case.
I ain't a lawyer, so I know shite

[Breccia]

Does he have to show up?

From what I've heard, then yes.

The articles I've read say the same. It's a criminal trial for a "you go to jail for this" crime (on paper), you're required to be there to help your defense. Unless you're a fat orange fuckwit who gets thrown out of court for misbehavior. No really, that's part of the law.

[Lynarii]

Hasn't Musk got in trouble for shit about Tesla? I could see a similar problem with this as it is Trump explicitly talking about the publicly traded company.

With Musk, and someone correct me if I'm wrong because this is not my area of expertise, I believe that the concern was that he was lying in a deliberate attempt to manipulate stock prices and enrich himself by trading with the benefit of the correct information. And they could point to changes in the stock prices and trades he did to back up the concern.

With Trump, he's lying so constantly and about everything, it's very hard to say that this particular set of lies was done with the intent to manipulate the stocks. Add to that the fact that the stocks are tanking despite what he's saying, and that he isn't (able to) trade the stocks... it is scummy but it would be nearly impossible to pin anything actually illegal on him regarding that unless he says it in a context that he's legally required to be honest in.

[Benggaul]

The articles I've read say the same. It's a criminal trial for a "you go to jail for this" crime (on paper), you're required to be there to help your defense. Unless you're a fat orange fuckwit who gets thrown out of court for misbehavior. No really, that's part of the law.

I know that's the standard, just wasn't sure if it applied to the guy who keeps getting extra special treatment in court.