45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)

[Mortarboard]

Amd note, no rogue juror has saved him yet, and there's another 80-odd indictments to go....

And if he's to avoid criminal conviction he needs rogue jurors in at least 4 trials, and across all counts in those 4 trials.

M.

[Prolex-UK]

Byker28i said:

cgt2 said:

dobbo_ said:

The "he's getting away with it" narrative is flawed, terribly so. He's lost multiple times, he can't hide forever from those rulings

This is a long read but it's a nonpartisan analysis of his upcoming criminal trial. You can of course not read it and dismiss it and continue to state that he's getting away with it.

https://www.justsecurity.org/93916/guide-manhattan...

Do you really think anyone here is going to make the effort to read that?????

I am currently. It's actually really good - nice find

I read it all as well.

Very interesting

[dukeboy749r]

Unreal said:

You are incorrect in your first statement. The money can be accessed immediately with board approval. Who do you think controls the board?

What will happen to the share price is speculation.

Losses aren't unusual. Take a look at how long it took Amazon and Facebook to become profitable.

Trump is sitting on a potential goldmine .

I read that as Trump is sitting on a landmine - and thought, 'Yep, that would work'.

[Whoozit]

Unreal said:

Whoozit said:

Countdown said:

In terms of bankruptcy - his stake in TS is apparently worth $$$billions.

- He is contractually prohibited from accessing it for six months, nor can it be used to raise money. Although I speculate if there is wiggle room to allow it to be used to pay fines. Depends on the exact detailed wording which isn't publicly available.

- It is one of the more shorted stocks currently, reportedly 10% of the free float is borrowed for shorting. Shorting is a bet it'll go down. The reason the short amount isn't even higher, is that a lot of the shares are locked up.

- In the nine months of 2023, the last reporting period, the business lost $49m on revenue (not profit - revenue) of $3.3m

- If he tries to sell more than a tiny fraction, the normal rules of supply and demand mean the share price will tank

- SPACs and recently de-SPACced companies don't have a normal, long term institutional shareholder base.

- The risk factors in the S-4 are grimly amusing, the only time I've professionally seen ones as extreme were in relation to Russian equity offerings.

You are incorrect in your first statement. The money can be accessed immediately with board approval. Who do you think controls the board?

What will happen to the share price is speculation.

Losses aren't unusual. Take a look at how long it took Amazon and Facebook to become profitable.

Trump is sitting on a potential goldmine .

Since you asked...

Getting the board to change the contract isn't straightforward. This is now a public company, that change would have to be disclosed to the public ahead of time, and minority holders are more than happy to sue for securities fraud especially since the SEC imposed new rules effective a few months ago, that de-SPAC disclosures are judged to the same standard as an IPO (there was a loophole before). The SEC is very quick to move on matters of securities fraud. And the Board is personally at risk of being sued for not carrying out their duties, tying up the company in knots.

Betting on share price movements is the very definition of speculation however 30 years experience in the primary equity markets might give me an insight on normal market movements around sales of shares. Maybe. This is a slightly special case.

Amazon was worth .. *checks* $438m at IPO, and that was on the back of very rapidly increasing revenue and lower losses than DJT.

[captain_cynic]

Whoozit said:

Since you asked...

Getting the board to change the contract isn't straightforward. This is now a public company, that change would have to be disclosed to the public ahead of time, and minority holders are more than happy to sue for securities fraud especially since the SEC imposed new rules effective a few months ago, that de-SPAC disclosures are judged to the same standard as an IPO (there was a loophole before). The SEC is very quick to move on matters of securities fraud. And the Board is personally at risk of being sued for not carrying out their duties, tying up the company in knots.

Betting on share price movements is the very definition of speculation however 30 years experience in the primary equity markets might give me an insight on normal market movements around sales of shares. Maybe. This is a slightly special case.

Amazon was worth .. *checks* $438m at IPO, and that was on the back of very rapidly increasing revenue and lower losses than DJT.

This.

Amazon had a plan for profitability. They went into debt to fuel rapid expansion not to keep the lights on

Trump has no plans for profitability, he never has hence he's several bankruptcies under his belt.

[CraigyMc]

dukeboy749r said:

Unreal said:

You are incorrect in your first statement. The money can be accessed immediately with board approval. Who do you think controls the board?

What will happen to the share price is speculation.

Losses aren't unusual. Take a look at how long it took Amazon and Facebook to become profitable.

Trump is sitting on a potential goldmine .

I read that as Trump is sitting on a landmine - and thought, 'Yep, that would work'.

actual lol.

reminded me of

[Unreal]

Whoozit said:

Unreal said:

Whoozit said:

Countdown said:

In terms of bankruptcy - his stake in TS is apparently worth $$$billions.

- He is contractually prohibited from accessing it for six months, nor can it be used to raise money. Although I speculate if there is wiggle room to allow it to be used to pay fines. Depends on the exact detailed wording which isn't publicly available.

- It is one of the more shorted stocks currently, reportedly 10% of the free float is borrowed for shorting. Shorting is a bet it'll go down. The reason the short amount isn't even higher, is that a lot of the shares are locked up.

- In the nine months of 2023, the last reporting period, the business lost $49m on revenue (not profit - revenue) of $3.3m

- If he tries to sell more than a tiny fraction, the normal rules of supply and demand mean the share price will tank

- SPACs and recently de-SPACced companies don't have a normal, long term institutional shareholder base.

- The risk factors in the S-4 are grimly amusing, the only time I've professionally seen ones as extreme were in relation to Russian equity offerings.

You are incorrect in your first statement. The money can be accessed immediately with board approval. Who do you think controls the board?

What will happen to the share price is speculation.

Losses aren't unusual. Take a look at how long it took Amazon and Facebook to become profitable.

Trump is sitting on a potential goldmine .

Since you asked...

Getting the board to change the contract isn't straightforward. This is now a public company, that change would have to be disclosed to the public ahead of time, and minority holders are more than happy to sue for securities fraud especially since the SEC imposed new rules effective a few months ago, that de-SPAC disclosures are judged to the same standard as an IPO (there was a loophole before). The SEC is very quick to move on matters of securities fraud. And the Board is personally at risk of being sued for not carrying out their duties, tying up the company in knots.

Betting on share price movements is the very definition of speculation however 30 years experience in the primary equity markets might give me an insight on normal market movements around sales of shares. Maybe. This is a slightly special case.

Amazon was worth .. *checks* $438m at IPO, and that was on the back of very rapidly increasing revenue and lower losses than DJT.

It may not be straightforward but it is possible. Agreed?

Experience is great but it's still speculation so we will have to see what happens to the share price in the light of the various permutations.

I'm sure you recognise the wider point that earlier losses do not prevent a company from becoming highly profitable later. I didn't mention worth. We could go back to 2013:

https://www.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-20-years-bus...

But that's just one example. There's no point in making a list because you know my point is valid.

I know that everyone in this thread wants Trump's venture to fail but that sentiment won't affect what happens. Something else you'll know from your experience.

[Crook]

Prolex-UK said:

Byker28i said:

cgt2 said:

dobbo_ said:

The "he's getting away with it" narrative is flawed, terribly so. He's lost multiple times, he can't hide forever from those rulings

This is a long read but it's a nonpartisan analysis of his upcoming criminal trial. You can of course not read it and dismiss it and continue to state that he's getting away with it.

https://www.justsecurity.org/93916/guide-manhattan...

Do you really think anyone here is going to make the effort to read that?????

I am currently. It's actually really good - nice find

I read it all as well.

Very interesting

Could someone correct me if I’m mistaken please but having read that, that crimes were committed is apparently provable because of the records but the intent and ultimately Trump’s culpability for the Campaign violation all rests on being able to prove he had intent which is over and above that he instructed the payment/s which is going to be evidenced by Cohen’s statement and the “Catch and Kill” history and recordings.

The actual falsification of records etc. rests on Cohen’s statement and possible other testimony that Trump would have known what was going on?

As the article states, stopping bad press is not illegal but the payment method and intent are.

Whilst I can see the seriousness of the trial isn’t it all hinging on being able to prove intent and instruction beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Whoozit]

Unreal said:

It may not be straightforward but it is possible. Agreed?

Only in a way that destroys the value which the attempt is trying to extract. So, yes in theory but little point. I did note above if there is some way for him to use the shares to satisfy the fine, that's a workaround.

Unreal said:

I'm sure you recognise the wider point that earlier losses do not prevent a company from becoming highly profitable later. I didn't mention worth. We could go back to 2013:

https://www.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-20-years-bus...

But that's just one example. There's no point in making a list because you know my point is valid.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, I don't accept it as valid in the specific context we are discussing, of the DJT stock. For a company to increase in value *in the public markets*, at some point it has to have a grown up plan to achieve profitability. Otherwise the big money, institutional investors, won't have a reason to hold their nose and buy it. The lack of such a plan for DJT the company, is why the risk factors in the S-4 are being more than usually apocalyptic.

Unreal said:

I know that everyone in this thread wants Trump's venture to fail but that sentiment won't affect what happens. Something else you'll know from your experience.

Not sure what my professional experience has to do with sentiment on a motoring forum thread 😁 but I hope you'll take in good faith my sharing an informed point of view.

[Unreal]

Whoozit said:

Unreal said:

It may not be straightforward but it is possible. Agreed?

Only in a way that destroys the value which the attempt is trying to extract. So, yes in theory but little point. I did note above if there is some way for him to use the shares to satisfy the fine, that's a workaround.

Unreal said:

I'm sure you recognise the wider point that earlier losses do not prevent a company from becoming highly profitable later. I didn't mention worth. We could go back to 2013:

https://www.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-20-years-bus...

But that's just one example. There's no point in making a list because you know my point is valid.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, I don't accept it as valid in the specific context we are discussing, of the DJT stock. For a company to increase in value *in the public markets*, at some point it has to have a grown up plan to achieve profitability. Otherwise the big money, institutional investors, won't have a reason to hold their nose and buy it. The lack of such a plan for DJT the company, is why the risk factors in the S-4 are being more than usually apocalyptic.

Unreal said:

I know that everyone in this thread wants Trump's venture to fail but that sentiment won't affect what happens. Something else you'll know from your experience.

Not sure what my professional experience has to do with sentiment on a motoring forum thread ?? but I hope you'll take in good faith my sharing an informed point of view.

Good, the fact is it's possible. This is important because this thread has a history of people saying things aren't possible and then we find out that they are.

I see what you're saying in the specific context of DJT. I was not talking in specifics which is why I said I'm sure you recognise the wider point that earlier losses do not prevent a company from becoming highly profitable later. That wider point is indisputable.

The point is that the sentiment expressed in this thread has nothing to do with the future of this company (and Trump). Likewise, sentiment such as liking or disliking someone has little or anything to do with hard nosed business decisions. That's my experience and I was assuming it was matched by yours. We could discuss what a thread about Donald Trump is doing on a motoring forum but I hope you'll take in good faith the points I'm making.

[wong]

What would TS be without Trump? No matter what happens, he's going to be dead in a few years. It's only value is to see what the Loser DJT is whining on about.

[Randy Winkman]

wong said:

What would TS be without Trump? No matter what happens, he's going to be dead in a few years. It's only value is to see what the Loser DJT is whining on about.

That's what I thought - with or without him, how is it a big money maker?

[Byker28i]

Crook said:

Prolex-UK said:

Byker28i said:

cgt2 said:

dobbo_ said:

The "he's getting away with it" narrative is flawed, terribly so. He's lost multiple times, he can't hide forever from those rulings

This is a long read but it's a nonpartisan analysis of his upcoming criminal trial. You can of course not read it and dismiss it and continue to state that he's getting away with it.

https://www.justsecurity.org/93916/guide-manhattan...

Do you really think anyone here is going to make the effort to read that?????

I am currently. It's actually really good - nice find

I read it all as well.

Very interesting

Could someone correct me if I’m mistaken please but having read that, that crimes were committed is apparently provable because of the records but the intent and ultimately Trump’s culpability for the Campaign violation all rests on being able to prove he had intent which is over and above that he instructed the payment/s which is going to be evidenced by Cohen’s statement and the “Catch and Kill” history and recordings.

The actual falsification of records etc. rests on Cohen’s statement and possible other testimony that Trump would have known what was going on?

As the article states, stopping bad press is not illegal but the payment method and intent are.

Whilst I can see the seriousness of the trial isn’t it all hinging on being able to prove intent and instruction beyond a reasonable doubt?

There's 4 charges, 3 of which they have trump bang to rights - business fraud again. The more difficult one is the election interference charge, that trump had intent - which he did, and Cohen will testify to, but they'll attack that testimony. They previously tried to ban it altogether.

[Byker28i]

Clarks doing himself no favour in his attempt to not be debarred.

When Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his deputy, Richard Donoghu made it clear that Clark had no proof of the widespread fraud he was claiming he went behind their backs and went straight to trump

“My first reaction was, and I said it out loud: ‘You violated the White House contacts policy,’” Donoghue testified during Wednesday's hearing. “I was taken aback... I said, ‘Do not violate it again.’”

Then they pushed Clark on his claiming of Client/Attorney privilege to which Calrk claimed under oath it was "President trump, the head of the executive branch, the sole head, the unitary head of Article Two, the executive branch of the United States government."
at which point his lawyers jumped in and implored him to plead the 5th and stop incriminating himself.

So as a DOJ employee, Clark was trying to claim he was trumps lawyer
https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-clark-doj-elect...

[Byker28i]

Dark Brandon new ad that attacks trump for playing golf and driving golf carts while he has visited 8 swing states in only 18 days.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1773369314852180464

[Unreal]

Randy Winkman said:

wong said:

What would TS be without Trump? No matter what happens, he's going to be dead in a few years. It's only value is to see what the Loser DJT is whining on about.

That's what I thought - with or without him, how is it a big money maker?

Let the Guardian give a view on it?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/27/h...

[minimoog]

Byker28i said:

There's 4 charges, 3 of which they have trump bang to rights - business fraud again. The more difficult one is the election interference charge, that trump had intent - which he did, and Cohen will testify to, but they'll attack that testimony. They previously tried to ban it altogether.

Forgive me displaying my Dunning-Kruger syndrome again, but are you sure about that? I thought there's 4 parts to the crime, the payments, the invoices, the ledger entries, and the intent. The latter being where it'll determine whether the first 3 are illegal or not.

[Whoozit]

Unreal said:

Whoozit said:

Unreal said:

It may not be straightforward but it is possible. Agreed?

Only in a way that destroys the value which the attempt is trying to extract. So, yes in theory but little point. I did note above if there is some way for him to use the shares to satisfy the fine, that's a workaround.

Unreal said:

I'm sure you recognise the wider point that earlier losses do not prevent a company from becoming highly profitable later. I didn't mention worth. We could go back to 2013:

https://www.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-20-years-bus...

But that's just one example. There's no point in making a list because you know my point is valid.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, I don't accept it as valid in the specific context we are discussing, of the DJT stock. For a company to increase in value *in the public markets*, at some point it has to have a grown up plan to achieve profitability. Otherwise the big money, institutional investors, won't have a reason to hold their nose and buy it. The lack of such a plan for DJT the company, is why the risk factors in the S-4 are being more than usually apocalyptic.

Unreal said:

I know that everyone in this thread wants Trump's venture to fail but that sentiment won't affect what happens. Something else you'll know from your experience.

Not sure what my professional experience has to do with sentiment on a motoring forum thread ?? but I hope you'll take in good faith my sharing an informed point of view.

Good, the fact is it's possible. This is important because this thread has a history of people saying things aren't possible and then we find out that they are.

I see what you're saying in the specific context of DJT. I was not talking in specifics which is why I said I'm sure you recognise the wider point that earlier losses do not prevent a company from becoming highly profitable later. That wider point is indisputable.

The point is that the sentiment expressed in this thread has nothing to do with the future of this company (and Trump). Likewise, sentiment such as liking or disliking someone has little or anything to do with hard nosed business decisions. That's my experience and I was assuming it was matched by yours. We could discuss what a thread about Donald Trump is doing on a motoring forum but I hope you'll take in good faith the points I'm making.

Well, if we're talking generalities and wider points - in the long run the universe dies a heat death. Technically true but of little use or relevance today.

I'm sorry that I'm being slow by not getting the core of your points and as this side discussion isn't progressing, I'll move quietly on.

[Crook]

Byker28i said:

There's 4 charges, 3 of which they have trump bang to rights - business fraud again. The more difficult one is the election interference charge, that trump had intent - which he did, and Cohen will testify to, but they'll attack that testimony. They previously tried to ban it altogether.

Thanks for clarifying, I had read it as they needed to prove that Trump had instructed / was aware of the payments to Cohen to be increased and / 12 which was shown as a Weisselberg decision and the books falsified to show it as the invoiced payments to Cohen.

[Mortarboard]

Crook said:

Thanks for clarifying, I had read it as they needed to prove that Trump had instructed / was aware of the payments to Cohen to be increased and / 12 which was shown as a Weisselberg decision and the books falsified to show it as the invoiced payments to Cohen.

Trump has already testified he knew. One of his attempts to dismiss was that it was "a personal matter"

One of the flaws in using a scatter gun, hail Mary, try everything to escape approach is that you just create more and more evidence undermining your own arguments when they raise contradictions.

M.