Hey Josh... a related question - I read that undoing the lock up period for Trump is subject to a vote by the (it's either the board or the shareholders). Seen anything on that? It seems self destructive for a vote that lets that happen, but that would be rational.
So this is not an area of expertise for me but my understanding is that while the board can waive the lockup, their decision is not simply a matter of whether they want to please Trump. They have a fiduciary duty to all the shareholders, who would pretty clearly be harmed by a waiver of the lockup, and they could face shareholder litigation, similar to how Tesla was sued (and lost) over the idea that Elon Musk's comp package was not in shareholders' best interest.
Someone has to be willing to pay the price Trump asks for millions of shares, for the actual value to be anywhere near the wild claims about his net worth. An obviously dubious proposition in the first place, which of course we saw in its plummeting value.
Part of me wants this to happen for the unhinged midnight rant when he gets the margin call. Also as Josh said, he'd have to wait for the lockup period to end.
But yeah, I don't think it applies to $DJT but in general securities can be ATMlike if you pledge them as collateral.
Sounds like Cannon's response to the jury instructions thing was, "hey man, there's no bad ideas in brainstorming" and that she wants to make the jury instructions decision at a later date. Can the prosecution ask that she make a pre-trial decision on the law with respect to the PRA?
A little while back I read a comment with a link that said the defense was able to maximize their chances of getting Cannon by timing certain filings based on the case load of the other three potential judges. I can't find the source cause google sucks so grain of salt disclaimer.
You know, I think Ken is being a little too binary when he theorizes that Cannon's blatant signaling and whatnot points to inexperience and being in over her head rather than bad intentions. Let's be real, Trump has gotten a LOT of fools in his posse over the years - I would even go so far as to say that being willing to go all in for Trump is a sign of mental deficiency.
Therefore, let's not overlook the very likely possibility that Cannon is a shill who is deliberately trying to throw this very important case for Trump AND she is inexperienced and kind of dumb and therefore doing a bad job of it. After all, it's been observed in a lot of places that one of the reasons that Trump was less than successful at dismantling democracy during his first term is that his minions just didn't really know what they were doing and were bad at their job.
I have a goofy question about words. In sports a player might get “benched” for various reasons. But if an appeals court removes a case from a judge, getting “benched” seems like the totally wrong word for it.
But it’s also very rare, and I imagine attorneys would have a very colorful word for when it does happen. Is “debenched” a thing? Unbenched? Or is this more like getting ejected from the game?
With the ongoing threats judges and prosecutors continue to face who draw the ire of Trump and his devotees, does anyone give any credence to the thought that Cannon might be straddling both slow rolling the case to stay in his good graces and being open to being taken off the case through recusal so she can save face and not have to fall out of favor with the Shah of Dumbfuckistan?
Also, it seems a bit strange to me that we give people lighter sentences in these kind of situations when they take responsibility for their actions.
I mean what is it that taking responsibility in this sort of case reveals about the wrongdoer? Either it reveals a willingness to lie when it benefits them (hardly something worthy of sentence reduction) or it suggests that they really were at some level more aware that what they were doing was wrong and harmful, i.e., it suggests they were more on the greedy than deluded end of the spectrum.
Sure, if what he did was beat someone up or break into a store refusing to take responsibility might be troubling because it makes it more likely he'll do it again after getting out. And sure maybe SBF would be inclined to do it again after getting out but for him to do it someone has to give him money despite knowing what he was likely to do with it which doesn't seem like much of a threat to the public.
I dunno, it kinda smacks of a kinda "say my name bitch" element to the justice system which I find unpalatable.
From an admittedly idealistic point of view, if the point of a prison sentence is rehabilitation then it sort of makes sense to give someone a shorter sentence if they are contrite and take responsibility. That said, yeah, I think most Americans are more about straight-up punishment. YMMV.
Depends alot on what you mean by rehabilitation. We put lots of people into prison even knowing that many other people walking around free might behave similarly under that temptation and it seems kinda bizarre to condition release on them becoming particularly resistant to temptation.
Like we tend to think a perfectly acceptable rehabilitation for someone who committed alcohol related crimes is for them to take that medication which makes them sick if they drink. We don't need to know that they wouldn't drink if they went off those meds to view them as rehabilitated. Indeed, it would seem cruel to demand they be able to overcome that temptation to get released if they didn't need to experience it.
Seems like kinda the same issue here. Ok, sure maybe SBF does the same thing if you put him in charge of a company. But we've seperately made sure he won't experience that temptation again.
The idea that we need to protect people from these white collar criminals getting out of prison and starting another buisness just seems bonkers to me. First, we have laws that limit who is allowed to run various sorts of financial institutions and, besides, if you go give someone like SBF your money after he gets out I think it's a bit hard to say you are being defrauded at that point.
I think this is a very legitimate reason that white collar sentences often should be much lighter than other sentences even for a given level of harm. The take them off the street justification no longer makes much sense because their mere conviction for fraud does most of that work. A thief or rapist can break into your house without any participation of a victim but SBF can't start a new buisness without someone giving him money.
Madoff restarted his ponzi after the SEC shut him down in the 90s. His investors were theoretically sophisticated. SBF can rebrand, it's super effective in the post-fact era. He can also reach a lot of people, needing only to find those for whom his conviction isn't a recent memory.
Personally I think the home invader who cons himself into their victim's house is just as bad as the one who breaks in.
Ironically, it seems to me the argument that there is a need to protect sophomore investors from SBF in the future (it would be alot harder for him to get access to consumer money again) would be much stronger if he was contrite and explained how sorry he was and he'd never do it again.
His unwillingness to do that despite facing a substantial penalty for it suggests it's unlikely that he's going to spin any yarn in the future suggesting to investors he's changed unless he actually believes it. In other words, they'd be going in with their eyes open. Might that happen? Sure.
But I guess I don't see that as a con anymore than a ton of perfectly legal but dumb buisness ventures are cons.
That may be true re: deliberately running a con. However, what seems to be true about SBF is that (even if he knew he was violating certain rules) he really didn't believe (and doesn't believe) he was conning anyone.
Sure, it seems plausible he comes back and does something similar again. But there isn't any reason to suspect that he's going to persuade people to invest via delibrate lies rather than telling them exactly what he has maintained the whole time -- yes I violated some of the rules but if I hadn't gotten unlucky investors would have made money.
At that point, I think it's hard to say a sophisticated investor is being conned. Rather, that sounds alot like a sophisticated investor saying, "I know there is a real risk that SBF violates the same kind of laws he did before but I want to bet on that making money".
I'm not clear to me why there is a government interest in preventing sophisticated investors from taking that kind of dumb risk.
Agreed, he didn't appear to be running a scam but he did loan depositors' money to his girlfriend's failing investment firm without their consent. And obscured that fact. And claimed a completely phony level of financial protection. That's considerably different from an honest but risky crypto play.
Considering the scam du jour (pig butchering) relies on phony crypto storefronts, I think it's safe to say that unsophisticated investors might be clientele of an FTX reboot. But even sophisticated investors aren't insulated from fraud. Perhaps this should be like being disbarred or losing a medical license.
Characterizing John Eastman as having provided “intellectual heft” to Trump does grave disservice to both intellectuals and the hefty.
It’s so tiresome to hear the media incorrectly report on Trump’s paper value as if he could withdraw at an ATM.
If you take a very naive view of Truth Social's valuation, he more or less can do this by borrowing against his holdings.
He can't pledge the shares until the lockup period ends -- the ban isn't just on selling them.
Hey Josh... a related question - I read that undoing the lock up period for Trump is subject to a vote by the (it's either the board or the shareholders). Seen anything on that? It seems self destructive for a vote that lets that happen, but that would be rational.
So this is not an area of expertise for me but my understanding is that while the board can waive the lockup, their decision is not simply a matter of whether they want to please Trump. They have a fiduciary duty to all the shareholders, who would pretty clearly be harmed by a waiver of the lockup, and they could face shareholder litigation, similar to how Tesla was sued (and lost) over the idea that Elon Musk's comp package was not in shareholders' best interest.
Thank you. That makes sense and I appreciate you taking a moment to point that out.
Someone has to be willing to pay the price Trump asks for millions of shares, for the actual value to be anywhere near the wild claims about his net worth. An obviously dubious proposition in the first place, which of course we saw in its plummeting value.
key phrase being "very naive." Literally, day 1 $4 billion richer saves Trump!!! 1 week later, $3 billion lost!!! I mean, c'mon.
Part of me wants this to happen for the unhinged midnight rant when he gets the margin call. Also as Josh said, he'd have to wait for the lockup period to end.
But yeah, I don't think it applies to $DJT but in general securities can be ATMlike if you pledge them as collateral.
long, long time ago I played the IPO game; got hammered with AMT after stock tanked during dot com crash. 😂
“My useful life is over.” - Sam Bankman-Fried
Useful life?
The 'pinning the weasel' phase.
I always do enjoy the episode!
This was a particularly good un. All hail Josh/Ken.
For sure.
Sounds like Cannon's response to the jury instructions thing was, "hey man, there's no bad ideas in brainstorming" and that she wants to make the jury instructions decision at a later date. Can the prosecution ask that she make a pre-trial decision on the law with respect to the PRA?
My understanding is that they did.
What a pair to draw to, La Cannon.
My paranoid part really wonders how much of a random draw it was.
A little while back I read a comment with a link that said the defense was able to maximize their chances of getting Cannon by timing certain filings based on the case load of the other three potential judges. I can't find the source cause google sucks so grain of salt disclaimer.
Be comforted, sometimes garbage just happens.
Now that it looks like Eastman is going to be disbarred, will California tackle Orly Taitz, so she can go back to dentistry?
Bob
I think it’s important to recognise the absolute quality of this episode’s title. Top notch work.
You know, I think Ken is being a little too binary when he theorizes that Cannon's blatant signaling and whatnot points to inexperience and being in over her head rather than bad intentions. Let's be real, Trump has gotten a LOT of fools in his posse over the years - I would even go so far as to say that being willing to go all in for Trump is a sign of mental deficiency.
Therefore, let's not overlook the very likely possibility that Cannon is a shill who is deliberately trying to throw this very important case for Trump AND she is inexperienced and kind of dumb and therefore doing a bad job of it. After all, it's been observed in a lot of places that one of the reasons that Trump was less than successful at dismantling democracy during his first term is that his minions just didn't really know what they were doing and were bad at their job.
This podcast’s title could so easily be a The Economist headline
I have a goofy question about words. In sports a player might get “benched” for various reasons. But if an appeals court removes a case from a judge, getting “benched” seems like the totally wrong word for it.
But it’s also very rare, and I imagine attorneys would have a very colorful word for when it does happen. Is “debenched” a thing? Unbenched? Or is this more like getting ejected from the game?
With the ongoing threats judges and prosecutors continue to face who draw the ire of Trump and his devotees, does anyone give any credence to the thought that Cannon might be straddling both slow rolling the case to stay in his good graces and being open to being taken off the case through recusal so she can save face and not have to fall out of favor with the Shah of Dumbfuckistan?
Also, it seems a bit strange to me that we give people lighter sentences in these kind of situations when they take responsibility for their actions.
I mean what is it that taking responsibility in this sort of case reveals about the wrongdoer? Either it reveals a willingness to lie when it benefits them (hardly something worthy of sentence reduction) or it suggests that they really were at some level more aware that what they were doing was wrong and harmful, i.e., it suggests they were more on the greedy than deluded end of the spectrum.
Sure, if what he did was beat someone up or break into a store refusing to take responsibility might be troubling because it makes it more likely he'll do it again after getting out. And sure maybe SBF would be inclined to do it again after getting out but for him to do it someone has to give him money despite knowing what he was likely to do with it which doesn't seem like much of a threat to the public.
I dunno, it kinda smacks of a kinda "say my name bitch" element to the justice system which I find unpalatable.
From an admittedly idealistic point of view, if the point of a prison sentence is rehabilitation then it sort of makes sense to give someone a shorter sentence if they are contrite and take responsibility. That said, yeah, I think most Americans are more about straight-up punishment. YMMV.
Depends alot on what you mean by rehabilitation. We put lots of people into prison even knowing that many other people walking around free might behave similarly under that temptation and it seems kinda bizarre to condition release on them becoming particularly resistant to temptation.
Like we tend to think a perfectly acceptable rehabilitation for someone who committed alcohol related crimes is for them to take that medication which makes them sick if they drink. We don't need to know that they wouldn't drink if they went off those meds to view them as rehabilitated. Indeed, it would seem cruel to demand they be able to overcome that temptation to get released if they didn't need to experience it.
Seems like kinda the same issue here. Ok, sure maybe SBF does the same thing if you put him in charge of a company. But we've seperately made sure he won't experience that temptation again.
SBF has a history of not complying which is how he wound up detained anyway. Still, 14.5 years is a long time without your polycule.
The idea that we need to protect people from these white collar criminals getting out of prison and starting another buisness just seems bonkers to me. First, we have laws that limit who is allowed to run various sorts of financial institutions and, besides, if you go give someone like SBF your money after he gets out I think it's a bit hard to say you are being defrauded at that point.
I think this is a very legitimate reason that white collar sentences often should be much lighter than other sentences even for a given level of harm. The take them off the street justification no longer makes much sense because their mere conviction for fraud does most of that work. A thief or rapist can break into your house without any participation of a victim but SBF can't start a new buisness without someone giving him money.
Madoff restarted his ponzi after the SEC shut him down in the 90s. His investors were theoretically sophisticated. SBF can rebrand, it's super effective in the post-fact era. He can also reach a lot of people, needing only to find those for whom his conviction isn't a recent memory.
Personally I think the home invader who cons himself into their victim's house is just as bad as the one who breaks in.
Ironically, it seems to me the argument that there is a need to protect sophomore investors from SBF in the future (it would be alot harder for him to get access to consumer money again) would be much stronger if he was contrite and explained how sorry he was and he'd never do it again.
His unwillingness to do that despite facing a substantial penalty for it suggests it's unlikely that he's going to spin any yarn in the future suggesting to investors he's changed unless he actually believes it. In other words, they'd be going in with their eyes open. Might that happen? Sure.
But I guess I don't see that as a con anymore than a ton of perfectly legal but dumb buisness ventures are cons.
That may be true re: deliberately running a con. However, what seems to be true about SBF is that (even if he knew he was violating certain rules) he really didn't believe (and doesn't believe) he was conning anyone.
Sure, it seems plausible he comes back and does something similar again. But there isn't any reason to suspect that he's going to persuade people to invest via delibrate lies rather than telling them exactly what he has maintained the whole time -- yes I violated some of the rules but if I hadn't gotten unlucky investors would have made money.
At that point, I think it's hard to say a sophisticated investor is being conned. Rather, that sounds alot like a sophisticated investor saying, "I know there is a real risk that SBF violates the same kind of laws he did before but I want to bet on that making money".
I'm not clear to me why there is a government interest in preventing sophisticated investors from taking that kind of dumb risk.
Agreed, he didn't appear to be running a scam but he did loan depositors' money to his girlfriend's failing investment firm without their consent. And obscured that fact. And claimed a completely phony level of financial protection. That's considerably different from an honest but risky crypto play.
Considering the scam du jour (pig butchering) relies on phony crypto storefronts, I think it's safe to say that unsophisticated investors might be clientele of an FTX reboot. But even sophisticated investors aren't insulated from fraud. Perhaps this should be like being disbarred or losing a medical license.