Update: Vice President Kamala Harris is now the Democratic presidential nominee
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
At about the 30 second mark it starts.
Neo-Nazi Influencer Nick Fuentes Now Says ‘Trumpism Is a Cult’
The white nationalist also claimed Trump’s supporters had an “endless tolerance for being humiliated”www.thedailybeast.com
Well his PAC just got hit with a class action lawsuit and the SEC would like to speak to him.....His lil empire might be crumbling...
SEC Seeks Court Order Sanctioning Elon Musk for Testimony No-Show
Musk's attorney said reimbursing the SEC for duplicative travel would be a fair remedy, but an SEC lawyer said a deterrent was needed.October 28, 2024 at 12:42 PM
4 minute read
Administrative Law
By Ellen Bardash
The SEC has asked a San Francisco federal court to sanction Elon Musk for failing to show up to testify about his 2022 acquisition of Twitter as scheduled in September.
Both SEC attorney Robin Andrews and Musk's attorney, Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, submitted statements to the court on Friday.
Spiro said that reimbursing the SEC for counsel's duplicative travel expenses is a fair resolution, but Andrews argued that adding a finding that Musk violated a court order to appear is a needed deterrent.
The proposed sanctions in question are linked to testimony scheduled for Sept. 10, a date rescheduled from a year earlier, when Musk also did not appear. On Sept. 9, three SEC attorneys flew to Los Angeles but were allegedly informed by email the morning of Sept. 10 that Musk had flown to Florida for a SpaceX rocket launch and would not be testifying that day.
The SEC claims Musk knew of the launch and should have informed counsel of his change of plans more than three hours before he was scheduled to testify.
"Only after the SEC sought court intervention (again) and stated its intent to seek sanctions did Musk finally appear," the SEC's statement read. "The court should make clear that disregard for court orders comes with real consequences."
Spiro's statement says the rescheduling was due to an emergency, as the rocket launch was dependent on changing weather conditions and wasn't guaranteed to go forward until shortly before the launch was scheduled.
Musk has stipulated to pay just under $3,000 for the SEC's September travel expenses, which Spiro wrote is enough to resolve the issue without court intervention. A finding that Musk violated a court order isn't warranted on top of the reimbursement, Spiro wrote, because the court order in question stated testimony could be rescheduled with written consent, a requirement that had been met.
During a brief hearing on Sept. 27, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley confirmed Musk's deposition was rescheduled for Oct. 3. The latest filing confirms Musk showed up to testify for roughly four hours at the SEC's Los Angeles office on that date.
"As a practical matter, the answer is straightforward: there is no sound reason to decide whether Mr. Musk violated the court's order given that he has now complied with that order and offered all of the compensation the SEC seeks," Spiro wrote.
"Only ordering reimbursement of travel costs would not serve as a real deterrent for many individuals considering violating a court order—much less someone of Musk's extraordinary means," Andrews wrote. "Reimbursement of the SEC's travel costs is inadequate because it does not fully address Musk's conduct and is inconsequential to him."
The SEC first turned to the court seeking enforcement of its investigative subpoena in October 2023. In its petition to the court, the SEC indicated a private investigation into whether Musk's 2022 acquisition of what was then Twitter violated federal securities laws had been going on since April 2022, when Musk first announced he was seeking to acquire the company. A deal was ultimately reached Oct. 27, 2022.
The commission claimed Musk had agreed in May 2023 to testify that September but said two days before the scheduled hearing that he would not be appearing, with part of his objection being to holding the hearing in San Francisco. Musk, according to the petition, refused the SEC's offer to have him instead testify in Fort Worth, Texas, in October or November 2023.
As of Oct. 28, Corley had not issued a ruling or scheduled a hearing on the sanctioning dispute.
SEC Seeks Court Order Sanctioning Elon Musk for Testimony No-Show
Musk's attorney said reimbursing the SEC for duplicative travel would be a fair remedy, but an SEC lawyer said a deterrent was needed.
October 28, 2024 at 12:42 PM
4 minute read
Administrative Law
Ellen Bardash
By Ellen Bardash
The SEC has asked a San Francisco federal court to sanction Elon Musk for failing to show up to testify about his 2022 acquisition of Twitter as scheduled in September.
Both SEC attorney Robin Andrews and Musk's attorney, Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, submitted statements to the court on Friday.
Spiro said that reimbursing the SEC for counsel's duplicative travel expenses is a fair resolution, but Andrews argued that adding a finding that Musk violated a court order to appear is a needed deterrent.
The proposed sanctions in question are linked to testimony scheduled for Sept. 10, a date rescheduled from a year earlier, when Musk also did not appear. On Sept. 9, three SEC attorneys flew to Los Angeles but were allegedly informed by email the morning of Sept. 10 that Musk had flown to Florida for a SpaceX rocket launch and would not be testifying that day.
The SEC claims Musk knew of the launch and should have informed counsel of his change of plans more than three hours before he was scheduled to testify.
"Only after the SEC sought court intervention (again) and stated its intent to seek sanctions did Musk finally appear," the SEC's statement read. "The court should make clear that disregard for court orders comes with real consequences."
Spiro's statement says the rescheduling was due to an emergency, as the rocket launch was dependent on changing weather conditions and wasn't guaranteed to go forward until shortly before the launch was scheduled.
Musk has stipulated to pay just under $3,000 for the SEC's September travel expenses, which Spiro wrote is enough to resolve the issue without court intervention. A finding that Musk violated a court order isn't warranted on top of the reimbursement, Spiro wrote, because the court order in question stated testimony could be rescheduled with written consent, a requirement that had been met.
During a brief hearing on Sept. 27, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley confirmed Musk's deposition was rescheduled for Oct. 3. The latest filing confirms Musk showed up to testify for roughly four hours at the SEC's Los Angeles office on that date.
"As a practical matter, the answer is straightforward: there is no sound reason to decide whether Mr. Musk violated the court's order given that he has now complied with that order and offered all of the compensation the SEC seeks," Spiro wrote.
"Only ordering reimbursement of travel costs would not serve as a real deterrent for many individuals considering violating a court order—much less someone of Musk's extraordinary means," Andrews wrote. "Reimbursement of the SEC's travel costs is inadequate because it does not fully address Musk's conduct and is inconsequential to him."
The SEC first turned to the court seeking enforcement of its investigative subpoena in October 2023. In its petition to the court, the SEC indicated a private investigation into whether Musk's 2022 acquisition of what was then Twitter violated federal securities laws had been going on since April 2022, when Musk first announced he was seeking to acquire the company. A deal was ultimately reached Oct. 27, 2022.
The commission claimed Musk had agreed in May 2023 to testify that September but said two days before the scheduled hearing that he would not be appearing, with part of his objection being to holding the hearing in San Francisco. Musk, according to the petition, refused the SEC's offer to have him instead testify in Fort Worth, Texas, in October or November 2023.
As of Oct. 28, Corley had not issued a ruling or scheduled a hearing on the sanctioning dispute.
Yummy.
i appreciate this response. i'll take it point by point and try to be succinct.I think that is crazy framing. Minority and dissident opinions should always be welcome.
I'm the OG Kamala supporter on this board. I was saying ten months ago that she was the only person who could beat Trump and needed to be the Democratic candidate. Cultists worshipped Biden as the only thing between us and another Trump term and I was accused of being MAGA on a regular basis, despite a 20+ year history on this board and documented support for Democratic candidates in the last four presidential elections. None of that mattered because I was smart enough to see what is obvious to everyone now-- Biden could not beat Trump. There is no better example of why negative vibes should be welcome than that.
The conspiracy theories, baseless attacks and lack of rational thinking is what makes it a cult.
"Kamala issues"??? I care about the same issues I've cared about for years, it's hard to know where to start. You can read through this thread for starters:
(If you do, you'll see plenty of cultists calling me a Trump supporter because I worried she wasn't progressive enough... Kool Aide shit.)
I care about health care. I hated Biden as the nominee in 2020 and one key reason was he went so far as to say he would veto Medicare for All. The ACA was a huge, phenomenal improvement over the system of 20 years ago but you still have people suffering and dying because they don't have health care. Democrats still want to coast on Obama's changes from 2010 but that's not good enough to be the permanent system.
I really like Kamala's proposal to expand home health care for seniors. That's really important. Not going far enough but I appreciate some progress-- not every potential Dem nominee would have made that emphasis.
Her proposal not to tax tips is ridiculous pandering that I think she knows is wrong but Trump floated that bullshit out first and it seems to be popular... Its wrong because it discriminates against salaried and hourly workers, making under-the-table payments more lucrative and incentivizing that sort of payment. The way to help working people is a fair progressive tax system where you make middle class taxes as low as possible but still have some to fund key services, not exempting special classes entirely.
I could go on and on... Where I distrust her the most and think she could be a significant downgrade from Biden is on standing up to large corporate interests. The fact that she has not expressed support for Lina Khan and a lot of the pro-business shit from her prominent surrogate Mark Cuban is worrisome:
Exclusive | GOP-led House panel rips FTC Chair Lina Khan, says agency has become ‘political tool’ in election
The powerful House Oversight Committee is calling for Lina Khan, to be replaced, accusing her of infusing “left-wing ideology” into the antitrust agency, flouting due process for compan…nypost.com
Progressives gear up for their first big fight if Harris wins: Protecting Lina Khan
While liberals have held their tongues as Kamala Harris tacked to the center, they're preparing for a major battle over the future of the party, with personnel emerging as a flashpoint.www.nbcnews.com
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." You don't see that on this board. I hated Biden as the nominee and still hold those same beliefs yet he was the best domestic president of my lifetime, the best since LBJ.
There's good and bad. We should talk about both and anybody who only sees good when they look at Biden or Harris or ANYONE is unsophisticated at best. Discussion of her flaws should be welcome-- I'm not undermining her candidacy and obviously she is more progressive than Trump so only a complete moron looks at an argument that Harris is not progressive enough and says "So you must support Trump."
I agree, although I reject that my framing was crazy as it drew a pretty straight line from your words. That said, two things. Yes minority and dissident opinions should be welcome, the reason being that when the dissident shares a common goal, it yields a refined strategy in pursuit of said goal/s. To carry on this exchange as if a number of your posts in this thread presented no value in that vein is, I believe, farcical. In the common parlance, you gon really sit up here and act like a lot of that wasn't just on some old hating ass shit? or at BEST, act like your mind is blown that they'd be perceived as such? If anything it's confounding that you could go from backing her then to ripping her now.
Hyperbole is typically a linguistic red flag indicating weak points. People's belief that Joe was the only one that could beat Trump was not unfounded, and given what's at stake and the facts that we not only 1-absolutely needed the candidate most likely to win and 2-needed to rally hard as fuck behind said candidate, was not the result of some mass psychosis. The man not only did a great job but beat Trump before, and people are less likely to gamble when so much is on the line. Even describing this as cult worship is more an indicator of your disposition than an accurate description of that support. In the common parlance, ain't nobody ever worshipped no gotdamn joe biden, but we had his back. Question, who was a better bet than joe or kamala?
Yes Kamala issues a bunch of question marks. This exchange being about the way you post about her in here, I didn't think that required dilution but that was probably my fault, no shade. I meant issues that you have with candidate harris that undergird your posting in this thread as previously described.
Regarding her shifting positions in that thread, I think that a fracking ban would have been bad for the economy and when she realized that, she changed her position. Not that I support fracking on the merits, but her clean energy push can hopefully allow for a staggered pullback that minimizes economic pain as we pursue our clean energy goals. i think it was sensible.
I am no expert in the nuance of the healthcare conversation but I do believe medicare for all is one of those sounds good but implementation ain't that simple kinds of things. The hybrid models that work in the places where most people THINK socialized 100% healthcare is the golden solution is probably better (I'm a fan of copying best models), and so I think her shift on medicare for all was sensible too.
Gun buyback is kinda ridiculous so I'm glad she dropped that too. Not taxing tips sounded fine to me, although I hadn't considered the implication that it could be seen as unfair to salaried workers. But I think that can be fixed with a lil refinement. I realize these are probably not your complete list, but just offering my thoughts on what you shared. I can't pre-judge her stance on corporate interests, given that she hasn't really generated many datapoints there yet.
I'll end with this: Progressives have always been pregnant with ideas and light on strategy, it's always been my peeve and why I never took Bernie very seriously. I have said many times here goals are not plans. Folding your arms or worse, throwing stones, is more damaging to the ultimate cause than anything and that's the basis of most criticisms of that group. I think Kamala should stick a mary j blige boot in netanyahu's ass but running around screaming that in the faces of a LARGELY unsophisticated electorate while we are trying our hardest to just get her elected is tantamount to signal jamming, which runs counter to the strategic outcome we're all pursuing.
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." - George Orwell, 1984. The nuance between the two thoughts escapes most.
Last edited:
Exactly the Republicans that want to stay viable, better keep away from him. I don’t wanna hear you Republicans a couple of days after the election saying that Trump was wrong. Trump was this Trump was that….. because you could have said the same thing before November 5
Oh, I want his ass to suffer
Means nothing because they can’t vote
Why are you always like this? This means a lot because of Florida. Yes, that picture and videos from Puerto Rico but still it matters. You would depressed people at a damn funeral. Actually may put you in a box with the disease because of your wishy-washiness.
Last edited:
