Donald Trump

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Also shareholders can vote to do away with the six month waiting requirement.

Correct again.

 

[SebastianBlue]

OAN or Faux?

She's proved she'll say whatever is needed for cash.

I meant CNN or CBS.

I am sure OAN has been courting her for some time (but they can’t pay what the legitimate media companies can).

I am not sure Faux will want her given the terms of their Dominion settlement and the danger of further litigation if she starts making more farcical claims as the election approaches.

She was showing more moderated views in her Meet the Press appearance before everything blew up at NBC, but that was likely just the remit for her signing on. Now that she has been cut loose and shames, I have a feeling she may revert out of necessity.

 

[KS55]

I wonder if Joe Scarborough and Mikas joint rant on their programme did it?

Both criticised NBC and said there's no way she's being invited onto their breakfast slot.

Just about every serious news anchor attacked NBC. Not a chance they could resist such force.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Also shareholders can vote to do away with the six month waiting requirement.

Correct again.

It would actually be an authorisation from the board of directors and is an extremely difficult one to pull off given the regulations for post-SPAC merger and would be subject to SEC and legal oversight, which would most assuredly drag it out (if not scuttle it entirely) given those involved and that the board would have to make a strong case such alteration of the provision was to the benefit of the company and shareholders (which, given liquidation of Trump’s position would likely tank the stock price, would be very difficult to support). The board could face hefty fines, barring of business activity (including sitting on other company boards), and potential criminal charges for undertaking such an authorisation.

That said, as we have seen with so many Trump idiot zealots the past few years, there is a small possibility he could get the board of Trump Media Group to fall on his sword. Unlikely, but not impossible.

The more likely scenario is he receives an unsecured loan, which will have a clandestine agreement of repayment via proceeds of share sales later. Which is still illegal, but less obviously corrupt (thus will take longer to scrutinise and prosecute) and much more in keeping with how he has done things up until now.

If anyone is curious, this is the standard lock-up agreement used for SPAC investment in pre-merger.

Loading…

www.sec.gov

This is one of my fields of expertise (20+ years of experience in financial analytics and 10+ in fraud detection and prevention), so I am happy to answer any questions about SPACs, post-merger regulation, or legal peril in this case.

 

[TinFoilHat]

I meant CNN or CBS.

I am sure OAN has been courting her for some time (but they can’t pay what the legitimate media companies can).

I am not sure Faux will want her given the terms of their Dominion settlement and the danger of further litigation if she starts making more farcical claims as the election approaches.

She was showing more moderated views in her Meet the Press appearance before everything blew up at NBC, but that was likely just the remit for her signing on. Now that she has been cut loose and shames, I have a feeling she may revert out of necessity.

I'm just watching Maddow's take down on her.

Wow.

 

[KS55]

I'm just watching Maddow's take down on her.

Wow.

Maddow is cool and expressive. I like her.

 

[SWP's back]

Also shareholders can vote to do away with the six month waiting requirement.

Not quite, no.

 

[KS55]

Not quite, no.

@SebastianBlue adds the detail above @ #5864. He suggests SEC would try to squash it or at least drag it out.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'm just watching Maddow's take down on her.

Wow.

She speaks to the concerns many of us have expressed in here of the parallels between the response to the Beer Hall Putsch and the response to the 6th January Insurrection.

When you don’t unambiguously show that such attempts at the destruction of government will not be tolerated, you only empower and embolden those that tried before (and expand their following).

 

[KS55]

She speaks to the concerns many of us have expressed in here of the parallels between the response to the Beer Hall Putsch and the response to the 6th January Insurrection.

When you don’t unambiguously show that such attempts at the destruction of government will not be tolerated, you only empower and embolden those that tried before (and expand their following).

The whole story of the Jan 6 riot and the subsequent attempts to negate the election or at least deny it show the fragility of democracy. If a sizeable chunk of your population withdraw consent, things get very hairy indeed.