Company Behind Trump's Truth Social Under Investigation By Federal Prosecutors (independent.co.uk) 170
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Independent: The so-called "blank check" company behind former president Donald Trump's Truth Social platform now appears to be the subject of an investigation by federal prosecutors who are looking into whether the company or its executives violated federal securities laws. Shares of the Special Purpose Acquisition Company, known as Digital World Acquisition Corporation, fell nine percent in early trading on Monday after CEO Patrick Orlando filed a statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to report that the company, which is pursuing a merger with the former president's Trump Media and Technology Group, was issued a subpoena by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York.
Mr Orlando also wrote that each member of DWAC's board of directors has also been issued a subpoena by the same grand jury. The grand jury subpoenas, he said, appear to be "seeking various documents and information" that are substantially similar to subpoenas issued to the company by the SEC earlier this year, as well as documents relating to the company's previous SEC filings, "communications with or about multiple individuals, and information regarding Rocket One Capital," a venture capital and private equity firm. The US securities regulator is probing whether DWAC executives violated laws which ban negotiations between the company and Mr Trump's tech firm before DWAC went public in late 2021. After Mr Trump announced his company's pending deal with DWAC, shares in the public company skyrocketed by over 400 per cent.
A previous filing by Mr Orlando stated that the SEC subpoena sought documents concerning "among other things, Digital World's due diligence regarding TMTG, communications regarding and due diligence of potential targets other than TMTG, relationships between and among Digital World (and/or certain of Digital World's officers and directors) and other entities (including ARC Global Investments II LLC, Digital World's sponsor, and certain advisors, including Digital World's underwriter and financial advisor in its initial public offering)." Additionally, the pending merger is also the subject of an investigation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a commercial entity that acts as a self-regulator for brokerage firms and securities exchange markets.
Mr Orlando also wrote that each member of DWAC's board of directors has also been issued a subpoena by the same grand jury. The grand jury subpoenas, he said, appear to be "seeking various documents and information" that are substantially similar to subpoenas issued to the company by the SEC earlier this year, as well as documents relating to the company's previous SEC filings, "communications with or about multiple individuals, and information regarding Rocket One Capital," a venture capital and private equity firm. The US securities regulator is probing whether DWAC executives violated laws which ban negotiations between the company and Mr Trump's tech firm before DWAC went public in late 2021. After Mr Trump announced his company's pending deal with DWAC, shares in the public company skyrocketed by over 400 per cent.
A previous filing by Mr Orlando stated that the SEC subpoena sought documents concerning "among other things, Digital World's due diligence regarding TMTG, communications regarding and due diligence of potential targets other than TMTG, relationships between and among Digital World (and/or certain of Digital World's officers and directors) and other entities (including ARC Global Investments II LLC, Digital World's sponsor, and certain advisors, including Digital World's underwriter and financial advisor in its initial public offering)." Additionally, the pending merger is also the subject of an investigation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a commercial entity that acts as a self-regulator for brokerage firms and securities exchange markets.
The turtles want credit (Score:3)
It is grift all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well as you repubs take the constitution literally as it's written ...
Exactly. Lean on that "well regulated" part, that they all seem to ignore. Require gun owners to actually bear their arms and carry all their weapons, everywhere, at all times. That should be fun for those guys with 400 guns... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Well as you repubs take the constitution literally as it's written ...
Exactly. Lean on that "well regulated" part, that they all seem to ignore. Require gun owners to actually bear their arms and carry all their weapons, everywhere, at all times. That should be fun for those guys with 400 guns... :-)
Read the entire amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Home invasions are on the rise in my area, and I prefer to protect my family. I have one gun that I keep secure and in good condition.
Re:The turtles want credit (Score:4, Insightful)
Well as you repubs take the constitution literally as it's written ...
Exactly. Lean on that "well regulated" part, that they all seem to ignore. Require gun owners to actually bear their arms and carry all their weapons, everywhere, at all times. That should be fun for those guys with 400 guns... :-)
Read the entire amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Home invasions are on the rise in my area, and I prefer to protect my family. I have one gun that I keep secure and in good condition.
Once again you're ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of it. I wonder how many gun owners will be as gung ho when you have to put in 2 weeks a year and 1 weekend a month at your local militia (erm... like an army reservist) to keep them? That is pretty much all the time off some Americans get.
Meanwhile, I'm happy living in a society where the people breaking into my home are more afraid of me because they are unarmed. If home invasions are on rise where you live, look at what is causing them because when someone has broken into your home whilst you're asleep or even just watching TV... that gun is already too far away. They have the advantage of surprise and aggression. The average "mah guns to defend mah home" nutter will melt as soon as they run out of pop tarts, let alone getting into a situation where they might actually have to do something a little bit risky.
If home invasions are a real threat to you... maybe you should look at why people are invading homes and do something about the cause rather than trying to whack the symptom with "mah guns" (erm, clue by four, the cause is almost certainly going to be poverty and income inequality).
Re: (Score:3)
The writers made their intentions clear, and they weren't saying everybody needed to be part of a militia. Their point was that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary for having militias. And, they were correct. This isn't even debated among serious people.
Re: (Score:2)
No, their point was that anyone who wanted to join the militia must be allowed to. "Bear arms" at the time was synonymous with the military sense of "serve". It didn't, as some people seem to interpret it today, mean "carry" (as in "you can have arms and take them out of your house").
Re:The turtles want credit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Your assumption that I have pre-conceived notions is unfounded. The claims made in my previous post are actually based on reading a long and detailed analysis of hundreds of contemporary documents [lawnlinguistics.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Once again you're ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of it.
You're ignoring what those words meant at the time. They did not mean "with laws and regulations", that sense hadn't been invented yet. They meant "in proper working order" in the sense of a regulator on an engine — not a rule, but proper working principles of operation. The idea was to avoid the need for a standing militia, explicitly because such was understood to be harmful to the condition of freedom. Nations with a large standing military have a tendency to send them on misadventures for profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why were the words "A well regulated militia" included in the amendment? Just to provide some extra context? How come the rest of the constitution doesn't include any extra context?
Re: (Score:3)
Once again you're ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of it. I wonder how many gun owners will be as gung ho when you have to put in 2 weeks a year and 1 weekend a month at your local militia (erm... like an army reservist) to keep them? That is pretty much all the time off some Americans get.
To expound on drinkypoo's comment on regulated, I would also like to point out this fault in your logic. Militia was all men 16-79, that could be called up. It is more like the draft, which still exists today. If you want to limit the second amendment to just the militia, than I would like to also point out that you missed the whole second part of the sentence. Since the well-regulated militia is being given as A reason for the people's right to keep and bear arms. It isn't a right being given to the m
Re: (Score:2)
So you are planning on infringing on others right to bear arms?
The Supreme court just ruled no right to evict unwanted from your property and no right to have privacy, which includes on your property in a strict reading.
Re: (Score:3)
Better, I think we should take the Second Amendment as it is originally written in its context. You get ONE muzzle loading rifle or pistol. You get to fire said firearm ONLY while on duty and under the supervision of your National Guard as that is the best substitute for militia we have these days. The antecedent clause cannot be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. That's going to exponentially impact 3D printing frequency by conservatives. Are you sure you want that toothpaste out of the tube?>/p?
Re:The turtles want credit (Score:5, Informative)
We saw:
1) Trump claiming fraud even before his opposing candidate was announced. Everyone clearly saw this for what it is. Pure FUD.
2) Dozen of lawsuits filed on hearsay and speculation. Virtually all of them tossed out for being the baseless bullshit they are. But along the way, those suits achieved their real purpose: giving the GOP rank and file reason to go on believing the Big Lie.
3) Numerous members of the Trump inner circle, in and out of the White House, asking for pardons well in advance of the actual election. Those requests became more frequent and frantic after the election as Jan 6th approached. NOTE: they were asking for legal forgiveness for criminal acts while denying they did anything criminal.
4) Trump and a handful of elected officials using ever increasingly violent rhetoric about how they are at war, that the nation is being stolen. That if the people didn't fight "they won't have a country any more". Again, I remind you, this was on LIVE TV.
5) Elected and appointed officials and political candidates using phrases right out of Mein Kampf. Loads of Nazi symbolism. Fuck, we've seen speakers doing the Nazi salute. (and don't try the lame excuse that it was the Bellamy Salute that was purposely dropped by you Yanks because of it's similarity to the Nazi salute)
6) Actual, black clad and brown shirt clad nazis and white supremacists being welcomed with open arms into GOP and other conservative rallies. Trump himself referring to them as "very fine people" and saying "we love you".
7) Trump promised to pay the legal fees of any of his low level people who got caught doing anything. He clearly expected them to be committing crimes on his behalf. And was using an empty promise of legal support to help convince them it would be safe to do so.
8) Some of the seditious chuckle fucks had T-shirts made. Much was made about this being the GOPs "1776" moment. That is a clear reference to the War of Independence which was politically a war of rebellion and revolution.
9) Trump at the Jan 6 rally, specifically saying that the audience needed to fight now to "take back" their country. He even suggested he'd walk up to the capital with them.
10) After the Jan 6th insurrection, many participants were bragging on conservative forums about their actions. They all saw it as brave acts of revolution. Many speculated this would be the spark that got the rest of the nation on their side. THEY knew they were trying to over throw the government. They didn't express remorse, didn't feel that they just got carried away in the heat of the moment. They saw Jan 6th as just the first battle in an inevitable war, one that many feel they are ordained to win.
Let me put this as bluntly as possible: Trump and his inner circle attempted a coup and failed. Any elected or appointed official who participates in a coup attempt is guilty of treason, plain and simple. Any citizen who plots to use criminal acts or violence to influence politics commits sedition. Any person who uses acts of violence to influence the political outcome is a terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. They attempted a coup but forgot to bring guns.
false [buzzfeednews.com]
Big oopsie right there.
Your birth? Don't worry, the Republicans have ensured there will be more like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Direct quote from the article you posted: "no one is charged so far with having a gun inside the building"
Re: (Score:2)
Direct quote from the article you posted: "no one is charged so far with having a gun inside the building"
We know there was at least one gun brought into the building by one of the insurrectionists for absolute certain, so the fact that no one has yet been charged for the same is a red herring.
Re: (Score:2)
Direct quote from the article you posted: "no one is charged so far with having a gun inside the building"
We know there was at least one gun brought into the building by one of the insurrectionists for absolute certain, so the fact that no one has yet been charged for the same is a red herring.
The fact that you said ONE gun, and you hang your bullshit on it, makes it clear to everyone else you are a bad actor or a retard.
The fact that you are moving the goalposts, which is a logical fallacy, makes it clear to everyone who has two neurons to rub together that you are arguing in bad faith, and have no logically valid argument. Unfortunately, that means no cuckservatives can comprehend it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is timely.
"Trump was upset that the metal detectors were influencing his crowd size so he demanded they take âoethe fâ(TM)ing magsâ and that he didnâ(TM)t care if they had weapons and they could march to the Capitol from there"
https://twitter.com/Acyn/statu... [twitter.com]
(with video citation linked — there's no text citation yet as the hearing is happening right now)
And here are some other relevant links:
Secret Service were warned of security risk to Pence day before Capitol attack [theguardian.com]
M [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The turtles want credit (Score:5, Insightful)
The impeachments didn't throw him out because the spineless Republicans didn't want to cross him, had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. The Russia Investigation had plenty of evidence but none of an actual crime committed by him. He's spent years deflecting culpability for his behavior. He instigated an assault on the Capitol. The only reason he hasn't been indicted yet what because when he told the crowd he'd lead them there, he weenied out like he always does figuring he'd let others takes the fall if it blew up.
Re: The turtles want credit (Score:4, Insightful)
The impeachments didn't throw him out because the spineless Republicans didn't want to cross him, had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.
No. The impeachments didn't throw him out because the Republicans were getting exactly what they wanted out of Trump. He revitalized their party, which was dying. He got them metric fuckloads of court appointments, not only critical supreme court seats but also literally hundreds of appointments to lower courts that will aid them in locking in their gerrymandering, and also help them steal the next presidential election because their people are now in charge of securing portions of it.
When you imagine that the Republicans were spineless, your imagination is running off without you. They wanted everything Trump did.
Re: (Score:2)
https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com]
https://www.justsecurity.org/6... [justsecurity.org]
Read and learn if you don't want to be a liar.
But I know you do. It's the only way you can support your bad rented ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
...but but but her emails!
The SEC needs to investigate trades (Score:2)
The stock has plummeted since Jun 10 . Were insiders selling?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The stock has plummeted since Jun 10 . Were insiders selling?
I had submitted a similar story [slashdot.org] which had more information, and specifically what you are asking about:
Regulators also requested information about unusual trading activity in securities of Digital World before the merger announcement. There was a big surge in trading of Digital World warrants — a security that gives the holder the right to buy shares at later date and at a specified price — before the merger announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Although related, your comment appears to be about events that happened several months ago and about buying, while my question is about events since Jun 10 of this year and about selling.
Re: (Score:3)
They are related because most likely people were exercising their warrants to buy stock at a set price, then, when the stock went , they sold, thus driving down the price. When investigations were announced, that only served to drive the stock down further.
If you look at a six-month chart of DWAC [marketwatch.com], you can clearly see the stock was trading around $50/share when it first traded. It then went as high as $100/share in March before embarking on its plunge. Most likely that is around the time people exercised t
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are ignoring the dramatic plunge on June 10 to June 14, which was a steeper drop than the one in March and the timing doesn't fit your 6 month timeline from IPO to the time the warrants can be exercised.
Boggles the mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would anyone want to go into business with Trump. Forget about the four years he was POTUS (if only it were that easy) the man has a pretty shitty record as a businessman. Almost every business he's been involved with has tanked. He somehow managed to bankrupt a casino FFS. He has a reputation for stiffing people, being litigious AF, and has the attention span of a goldfish. None of these things should scream, "I want to go into business with that guy!"
Re: (Score:2)
Trump himself has proven you don't need to be smart to have money.
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump himself has proven you don't need to be smart to have money.
He is smart, smart at grifting the stupid. Probably because he relates.
As an analogy, Kirk made a better Captain than Spock because Kirk understood how to deal with illogical aliens, Spock didn't.
By the way, "Truth Social" was neither.
Re:Boggles the mind (Score:5, Informative)
He somehow managed to bankrupt a casino FFS.
Three casinos [nytimes.com]. He bankrupted three casinos while raking in money for himself.
None of these things should scream, "I want to go into business with that guy!"
Digital World Acquistion has this to say in its S-4 filing [sec.gov] about risks associated with this purchase:
Entities associated with President Trump have filed for bankruptcy protection. The Trump Taj Mahal, which was built and owned by President Trump, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1991. The Trump Plaza, the Trump Castle, and the Plaza Hotel, all owned by President Trump at the time, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1992. THCR, which was founded by President Trump in 1995, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2004. Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., the new name given to Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts after its 2004 bankruptcy, declared bankruptcy in 2009. While all of the foregoing were in different businesses than TMTG, there can be no guarantee that TMTG’s performance will exceed the performance of those entities.
And yet, Digital World Acquistion went ahead with the purchase. Makes one wonder, no?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like "There's a sucker born every minute." Some gambler will come along and decide to take a pull on the "Let's do Business with Trump!" slots. "Everyone can't lose, right?!!"
The sucker is everyone involved except those who broker the deal. The people at the very top of the pyramid enrich themselves in these schemes. They pay themselves well, issue themselves stock, etc etc and cash out while they are riding high on the buzz associated with economic activity. By the time the company goes into bankruptcy, they've already looted the coffers and run away with "their" share of the money. From their point of view it's pure benefit. It's nothing to them that people lose jobs and homes
Re:Boggles the mind (Score:5, Interesting)
For the acquired firm the benefits are tons of cash, in this case a billion going into Trump and Nunes pockets. Also the acquired firm is a listed company with none of the due diligence.
The benefit to the initial investor is that the SPAC will tend to buy a firm that looks good on paper, or is high profile, so will tend to inflate the stock, at least temporarily, so the early investors can cash out.
I am unsure of the timeline and regulations related to this scenario. I do know it became clear early on that DWAC was going to acquire TMNTg and it seemed a little strange in the life cycle of a SPAC. I believe some investors did exit when it was known it would be a Trump company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically it's a legal ponzi scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically it's a legal ponzi scheme.
The stock market? Probably...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the same reason the Saudis gave Jared Kirshner $2.4 billion for his "investment fund" even though he has no experience managing that kind of money. They're hoping Trump wins the 2024 election, so they're offering him a thinly veiled bribe. You can say the same thing for anyone who buys one of Trump's failing businesses for far more than it's possibly worth.
Re:Boggles the mind (Score:4)
Increasing U.S. oil production won't do squat.
First, it couldn't increase it enough to affect the world price.
Second, the refineries in the U.S. are build for foreign crude which as the properties they are looking for, American crude does not.
Third, the oil companies have been decreasing refinery capacity in the U.S. and they aren't about to increase seeing as they can tell the world will be going green.
Fourth, the oil market is Global, which means that American producers will sell into that market not the U.S. local market.
Re:Boggles the mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would anyone want to go into business with Trump. Forget about the four years he was POTUS (if only it were that easy) the man has a pretty shitty record as a businessman. Almost every business he's been involved with has tanked. He somehow managed to bankrupt a casino FFS. He has a reputation for stiffing people, being litigious AF, and has the attention span of a goldfish. None of these things should scream, "I want to go into business with that guy!"
Because greed.
People will ignore all kinds of red flags, histories, common sense when they see the dollar signs. Not to mention that Trump is one of them... A "successful" "businessman" who like them inherited a shitload of money and has lost most of it, but it's important that he's one of them.
Also if the last 5 years has taught us anything, is that Trump is a master at bullshitting and avoiding responsibility for it. He lies so hard, so often and so obviously that by the time you've demonstrated one lie, he's spread at least four more. His one true and only real talent is drawing in the gullible to give him money. So the gullible are going to keep giving him money.
Meanwhile in the USSR.. (Score:2)
All power is used to stringently attack all perceived political threats, both imaginary and real.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you blithering about?
So very Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
This should have been simple, he has plenty of money. The site is already built on a developed framework, he's got the money to hire staff, moderators, press, hosting and keep it running for years. Generously this is tens of millions?
Instead we get some weird holding company shenanigans, a board of directors (why, he could just keep this private) no direction on launch (he didn't post anything for months) and it's stocked with unqualified cronies (Devin Nunes is in charge, a guy who even conservatives should view as a bumbling lackey).
The thing is it even is working and would have anyway. It's full of Trump supporters sure but it seems to have a decently active username nonetheless. It'll never be Twitter size by it's nature but it could be king of the second runners.
Instead we get graft and controversy for literally no reason other than incompetent greed. This should be easy for a guy running a real estate empire, it's all so needlessly grifty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This should have been simple, he has plenty of money.
He doesn't. He has plenty of debt, and his name on some properties that are mostly owned by banks. Prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I was speaking more to his supporters about the conflict between what Trump says (I am very wealthy and successful) and what is happening here (I need wild investment strategies to support what is a relatively small project).
The man does have some amount of wealth, I don't think anyone really disputes the fact that he is a "billionaire" but you're right in a way, is this a sign that he has no actual liquid currency to self-fund something to the tune of $50m? A combination of the fact that he has so little r
Re: (Score:2)
The man does have some amount of wealth, I don't think anyone really disputes the fact that he is a "billionaire" but you're right in a way, is this a sign that he has no actual liquid currency to self-fund something to the tune of $50m?
Correct. That's why he had to go to Russia for banking. When it became public that Trump's fortune was based on defrauding Deutsche Bank into believing that he was in control of the family fortune when he was not, they finally cut ties with him — the whole purpose of continuing to prop him up so that he could look rich was that it made their decisions seem correct. Once that was provably false, they had no reason to continue doing business with him.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you guys will be perpetually middle class.
First I'd have to become middle class.
Re: So very Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when the DOJ publicly arrests Colbert's team for insurrection.
Yes, when will Triumph the insult comic dog be in a government building without permission after securing permission to film in that building? The people want answers! Wait, what?
Re: (Score:3)
This is the same as the Russian collusion bullshit.
Russian collusion [nymag.com]
Next you will say the Mueller report proved no collusion, despite Mueller and his report both explicitly saying they weren't trying to prove "collusion" because they were not asked to do, and Mueller absolutely packing his report with evidence of collusion with Russia [justsecurity.org].
So come on, play the game, if you can.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you know this already but the man thinks so little of his supporters that he has some sort of mental disorder where he just can't stop trying to scam them.
Man was already a billionaire, supporters gave him probably another billion for his campaign and he can't be assed to put up a site to stand for the principles he and his supporters supposedly value so dear? Not unless he can grift a few million off the top of it? Can't even make money just from turning into a success from being an active site, has
Re: (Score:2)
Billionaire? We only have his word for that...snicker.
Re: So very Trump (Score:2)
This isnt an episode of the simpsons asshat anx how are you still allowed to post under 6 or more names fuck you
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the projection here is amazing...
Still harassing the Dear Leader! (Score:4, Funny)
This is extremely SAD! The LEFT LEANING media is UNFAIRLY TARGETING this transaction because they hate the Dear Leader. PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!
So what? (Score:2)
The judicial landscape is now even friendlier to 'just making up some reason to treat certain people better' in the last few months
"No faith in your government" was reserved for the overly cynical, trolls and conspiracy theorists not too long ago. I guess that makes me the first and third - I sure am not enjoying the irony of any of this.
60% chance (Score:2)
60% chance that this is a politically motivated investigation. I also would not be surprised if it was triggered by revelations provided by a politically-motivated "whistle blower."
I wish I did not have to think that, but that's where we are these days.
Furious trading 2 days BEFORE public announcement (Score:2)
According to Yahoo finance (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DWACU/), on Monday October 18th 13 million shares traded and the CPAC price shot from $10 to $108 in one day. So a bunch of unsophisticated traders put in uncapped buy orders which probably caused warrant holders to exerc
Re:And in other news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This is what he's talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Yes, then-VP Biden bragged about withholding aid until they fired a prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, a company that had hired Hunter onto its board. We now have State Department emails showing that they were blindsided by this.
https://thehill.com/opinion/ca... [thehill.com]
Re:And in other news (Score:5, Informative)
Joe Biden goes directly on camera to declare that if Ukraine doesn't stop prosecuting his corrupt son, Hunter, that $1 billion in aide will not be forthcoming from then United States.
I can play the what-a-bout game all fucking day long, let's go /., anytime, anywhere....
No, he didn't. But that's what we've come to expect from fascists. Lies and nothing but lies.
Funny how you didn't mention the $2 billion Kushner received from Saudi Arabia for doing nothing, or the $600 million Ivanka and Jared stole from the U.S. taxpayers.
Always a deflection with fascists. It's like Cucker Carlson talking about "grooming" when he said he has no problem with child marriages [bbc.com].
Re:And in other news (Score:4, Funny)
paragraphs and sentence structure are socialism apparently
Re:And in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I know Wikipedia isn't everyone's trusted source, but there's all the citations there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
> He was removed from office for corruption in March 2016 by a vote in the Ukrainian Parliament, in a move welcomed by the European Union, the United States, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.[2][3]
> He was a controversial appointee due to his perceived role in blocking prosecutions against those accused of shooting demonstrators in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution.[7] As Prosecutor General, he was accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and hindering the fight against corruption in Ukraine.[8]
> The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before[53] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.[54]
I'm not going to say that the EU, IMF and World Bank are default good guys, but they wanted this too - it was not a solitary decision by Biden. The whole this was to stop investigation into "Hunter's corrupt activities" doesn't add up.
Re:And in other news (Score:4)
That video doesn’t show what you claimed it would show. Also, when we’re talking about potential scandals that have had massive scrutiny and media attention for years and years, if you’re the guy who’s pulling out a months-old video that only has 127 views to make your point, you really should be asking whether you might be the crackpot who’s into conspiracies and alternative facts.
Re: (Score:2)
A) You’ve conflated a demand to fire a corrupt prosecutor with a demand to cease an investigation. The two are not the same. The video does not show what you said it would. Bad people do good things all the time. If the investigation had merit, nothing in what Biden said would have prevented it from continuing.
B) That’s not what a straw man is. A straw man is when I put words in your mouth then knock that fake argument over. What I did was call into question your discernment in selecting sources
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Joe Biden goes directly on camera to declare that if Ukraine doesn't stop prosecuting his corrupt son, Hunter, that $1 billion in aide will not be forthcoming from then United States.
Corruption is the enemy of civilization and democracy. It is a reflection of the mental illness that is rife in society, that only the most pro-social sociopaths and psychopaths are ever admitted into the halls of power, the dominant characteristic of Left and Right politics.
It's a curse we all bare the consequences of.
I think we attack corruption wrong (Score:2)
Rallies and adverts are pricey, but there's no reason why they should work. If we taught people that they were being made into chumps for listening to political advertising and letting fun rallies change their mind on politics we'd go a long way to making the money spent useless. Also, lots of folks don't realize those signs are there to trick you into voting for whoever's
Re: (Score:2)
We're not gonna get money out of politics, they can just argue "free speech!".
I've considered this for some time and one idea that emerged was: what if all politician eligible to run were all given the same amount of money to execute their campaigns?
Re: (Score:2)
instead of trying to get money out of politics we should attack the reasons why money works: Rallies, adverts and name recognition. .
What?
Rallies and adverts are pricey, but there's no reason why they should work.
There's many reasons why they should work, all of them related to the success of propaganda techniques, which are in turn related to various properties of the human mind and our social paradigms.
If we taught people that they were being made into chumps for listening to political advertising and letting fun rallies change their mind on politics we'd go a long way to making the money spent useless.
The Republicans have actively opposed that kind of education. You generally don't get anything like that until college, if then. Lots of people never go to college, and even more never take a class like that even when it is offered.
We're not gonna get money out of politics, they can just argue "free speech!".
It was partially taken out before, it can be done again. And undone, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone give a shit about watching that trial?
But reading an actual bill in congress, looking at actual evidence before you make a decision? These are things I'd recommend. If you blindly listen to the media on the left or the right you are a pawn. When someone tells me a bill says X, 9/10 I read the bill and it says no such thing, it's a talking point to shoot down the other side.
It is fine to not know things. It is fine to say "Wow that sounds terrible, I don't have enough information to act." Ra
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And in other news (Score:4, Informative)
Come on, tell us how you don't understand what actually happened without actually saying you don't understand...
Look beyond Fox News, theres a whole world out there that doesn't contain "alternative facts".
Re: (Score:3)
He knows what actually happened, but lying about it is super easy and wastes everyone's time.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty funny how he got +5 informative for the equivilent of saying "nu uh!", even though the facts of what he is responding to aren't even in dispute and are easily verified.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not true, as many people have already pointed out. This is a long debunked lie. Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? Many people have pointed out that it is in fact a true statement, with links to the backing evidence. The many people claiming that it isn't true have offered no links as of the time I read the thread.
The facts are:
1. Biden did hold up $1billion in money for Ukraine in order to force the firing of the prosecutor.
2. The prosecutor at the time this happened was investigating Burisma.
3. Hunter Biden was employed on the board of Burisma.
What exactly is false about those statements? Provide proof, not
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you basically said the same thing as "Coren22 posted something on Slashdot" and then tried to infer that "Coren22 posts illegal material on the internet!" from that.
Yes, your statements are correct, but no the inference that you are trying to make is not true - hence why I'm perfectly happy with my response to OYAHHH, at least they outright said their accusation rather than tried to hand wave it from vaguely related statements.
Re: (Score:2)
#2 is provable false. The reality is the exact opposite of what you're claiming.
Shokin, the prosecutor in question here, was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation into Burisma.
You know this, so why do you continue to lie?
Re: (Score:2)
Since it is so provably false, and others have proven it true, yet you still persist in not providing a single bit of backing evidence for your assertion, I have to wonder, why do you persist in this lie, and this "nu uh" behavior with zero evidence?
All I can say to you, is why do you persist in lying?
Re: (Score:2)
, and others have proven it true,
Stop lying. This is a long-debunked lie. Nothing you've posted "proves" this bullshit is true. It is very clearly not true.
You know you're lying. Stop it.
Are you right-wing nut jobs allergic to the truth or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Again, an assertion without proof. You call it a lie, but still refuse to show me the truth, instead you just assert it as if it is obvious. I prefer to believe actual things I can point to a source for, not narcc's assertion that he is the ultimate authority in the truth of things.
Are you right-wing nut jobs allergic to the truth or something?
Who is right wing? I have never registered as a Republican, and vote with my values and beliefs, not based on the letter next to someone's name. When I took a political survey it said I was slightly left, and libertarian. St
Re: (Score:2)
OMFG. STOP LYING!
Your own links do not prove your accusation. The site you linked to (Radio Free Europe) shows the exact opposite of your bullshit lies.
Read it a weep, liar [rferl.org]:
But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.
Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.
Not only are you lying, you've been proven to be a proven liar. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Still with the trollish behavior. I have not lied a single time, however you continued to assert something without any proof. Now you post a single article, which contradicts the one I did, that doesn't make any of it lies, it means that there was new information that I asked you for give times but you refused to provide, instead calling me a liar over and over. Do you enjoy being a troll all the time?
So, the only accusation you have, is that in 15 months he hadn't brought charges?
The Mueller investiga
Re: (Score:2)
You're very obviously lying. [rferl.org]:
But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.
Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.
Because you're also very stupid: Shokin is the prosecutor you claim was "investigating" Bursima.
Your lies have been exposed, you disgusting right-wing trash. No one believes your bullshit. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, so you really are just a troll. Either that or can't read.
I am not right wing
he was the one investigating according to your own article.
Keep the trollin up though, I am sure you will get those mods you so desire.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to read:
Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.
Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.
Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.
Fuck-off, right-wing troll
Re: (Score:2)
Since according to you, he wasn't on the investigation, how was he an obstacle? Was he tying the shoelaces together of the investigators?
If he wasn't the one in charge of the investigation as you claim, how was he able to be an obstacle on it?
Do you not understand the English language, or do you just like repeating things that have zero to do with what you claim is a lie?
Viktor Shokin was in charge of the investigation, that is a fact. He didn't do enough on it, according to you, that does not say he wasn
Re: (Score:2)
In case you missed it, here is the factual backing of the claim:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Your "proof" is a right-wing propaganda outlet repeating a long-debunked lie? Get real.
Shokin, the prosecutor in question here, was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation into Burisma.
You know this, so why do you continue to lie? Who still believes this bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
Right wing? Says who?
https://www.allsides.com/media... [allsides.com]
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [mediabiasfactcheck.com]
Seems they are determined center. Where do you get the idea that The Hill is biased?
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't happen. Stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Can one of you "corrupt Hunter Biden" folks explain to me how a private citizen can be "corrupt"? I associate the word with having a responsibility, either to "the public trust" or to "my private employer's bottom line", and then using that office for personal gain, be it handing out government contracts or funding, or a warehouse guy selling off AT&T inventory for a kickback.
Corruption would have occurred, I agree, if Hunter Biden had prevailed upon his Dad to hand Burisma a US sales contract, or i
Re: (Score:2)
Um, take a look at the first reply to the first post. It isn't Trump supporters making this about Trump, unless you think PopeRatzo up there is somehow a Trump supporter.
Link in case you need it: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]