Trump has never had the scrutiny of the public stock market. Ever. Until now. Truth Social is an extremely high risk venture — both for him and for anyone crazy enough to invest in it.
Trump will have to make SEC filings for the first time ever. From a guy who is already under investigation for fraud and other misconduct — and had 2 other entities (Trump U, Trump Foundation) prosecuted for fraud.
So the SEC enforcement folks will be watching. Closely.
Trump will also have to deal with Wall Street analysts and commentators nitpicking everything Truth Social does. He’s banking on his own supporters buying the stock, freeing him from what the Street thinks. But they’ll still rip it to shreds if it’s losing money.
Truth Social’s path to real revenue is also very unclear. If they try an ad based model, are there really enough major advertisers who will work with him? He’s toxic to most of corporate America now - they don’t want the drama.
That leaves a subscriber model.
But will Truth Social keep a large base of subscribers if the site goes offline, looks janky, has no legit branded content, etc? Enough to sustain a public company?
Will Trump’s supporters really prop up Truth Social if it loses lots of money?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Update on Matt Gaetz — his buddy Joel Greenberg has had so much dirt that prosecutors have opened up entire new wings of their case. The investigation into financial crimes now includes help from Secret Service agents. There’s something HUGE here.
Did Greenberg have information on Matt Gaetz trying to buy himself a pardon from Donald Trump? Is that why the Secret Service is now involved in the investigation?
Greenberg appears to have given the feds information about crimes totally beyond the scope of the original indictment of Greenberg — so the entire matter has snowballed.
And if they haven’t indicted Gaetz yet, it may be because the new material also implicates Gaetz.
BREAKING - Bennie Thompson, chair of the House Select Committee on January 6, indicates he’s ready to push for enforcement of the committee’s subpoenas — including holding people in contempt of Congress.
There are at least 3 options for enforcement or contempt:
1) sergeant-at-arms of House sends officers to arrest the person
2) refer matter to DOJ, which would send FBI agents arrest the person
3) file action in federal court to get court order, enforceable by US Marshals
Option 1 is considered “inherent contempt” - an inherent power of Congress. But it hasn’t been done since 1935.
Option 2 would mean Biden has to step up and show he means business.
Option 3 is a bad idea in my view, inviting an unwarranted court battle.
UPDATE: 1/ Here is the Memorandum on FBI background checks of nominees from 2010. The FBI has cited this as limiting their ability to vet Kavanaugh. This is not 100% accurate. The Memo is silent on how extensive the vetting should be. The president then may request more.
2/ Here are the other 2 pages of the FBI MOU. These are screenshots I took from the publicly available court filing on PACER.
3/ The FBI cannot really duck behind this Memo. They could have conducted a more comprehensive background check of Kavanaugh without seeking additional approval from the White House, at least pursuant to this Memo.