Look at the total content here. Maybe 1/2 a house of hundreds of properties they own around the world? This is a way of giving money to people with whom you either won't or can't donate to in the open. They have art to sell which is usually old and somewhat meaningless to them. Buyers are willing to purchase the art for $$ which is then given to the family to disburse however they see fit. The illusion of "need" to sell this stuff is wishful thinking. This is a strategy of the real money chain that has ruled almost all society for thousands of years. (by the way - art isn't taxed really... totally different process for handling those transactions usually... WHERE the auction happens matters)
Possibly. Could also be that $ is owed, and the best way to transfer payment is through the sale of art. We all assume everything about the sale is on the up and up. If agreements are made and money trades hands behind the scenes, no one else can afford the asking price except the intended recipient. If someone else comes along and happens to pay way too much for something, that supports the rest of the sale prices.
I also believe Musk paid $0 for Twitter, refer to EO 13818 "Trump’s Executive Order 13818 Seizes Assets of ANYONE Involved in Human Rights Abuse or Corruption" https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201700923
Twitter was allegedly involved in private accounts and trafficking. Human rights abuse or corruption assets are allowed to be seized, this would include stocks, businesses, properties, arts, artefacts etc.
To think about, not me telling anyone that is what happened or is happening now but it stands to reason that assets are seized if found guilty, which would suggest that trials for some of the higher ups have already happened.
Largest contractor for military, known entity, has money, has a large voice. As I say its connecting dots that make logical sense rather than verified truth.
Musk met with trump at that conference of tech leaders trump formed early on in his presidency, started working with him and then had a public "falling out" just like trump had with many other people in his administration. This removes optics that musk is on Trump's side, it played out very similar with sessions if you recall
I also believe Musk paid $0 for Twitter, refer to EO 13818 "Trump’s Executive Order 13818 Seizes Assets of ANYONE Involved in Human Rights Abuse or Corruption" https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201700923
You may believe this, but I can assure you, it didn't go down this way.
Twitter was a publicly traded company meaning the people who owned Twitter was anyone who owned Twitter stock. These was tens of thousands of people. There were almost 800 million shares of twitter.
In fact, Musk overpaid and tried to back out of the deal.
Also you should read the text of 13818, it does not apply to Americans.
The text says it only applies to "foreign persons."
Any time a sanctions program is issued you can go on the Treasury's sanctions website and see who is sanctioned, banks and financial companies need to do this to see if their customer is a drug dealer or the brother of the head of Hamas. So you should be able to check what I'm saying.
Turns out it was a paltry 5% so not majority shareholder. Prince Alwaleed, Vanguard Group, Blackrock, Morgan Stanley were the major holders. Thanks for the info.
The shareholders owned twitter until Musk bought it from the shareholders and then took it private. Publicly traded companies will not be part of EO13818. The shares any individual owns will be but not the entire company.
Prince Alwaleed owned 5%, Morgan Stanley 8.4%, Blackrock 6.7%, Vanguard Group 10.78% - So not one individual to seize it from, if they are foreign owned, operated and involved in human rights abuses it could still occur, but must admit I believed it was more cut and dry than that.
Because it's not them doing the selling.
😎
Good answer from SMSPirate at X:
Executive Orders 13848/13818
Almost a 'fire sale' but not quite-true downsizing would be many properties and many antiquties... But I agree with ^^^ 😎
Correct
Possibly. Could also be that $ is owed, and the best way to transfer payment is through the sale of art. We all assume everything about the sale is on the up and up. If agreements are made and money trades hands behind the scenes, no one else can afford the asking price except the intended recipient. If someone else comes along and happens to pay way too much for something, that supports the rest of the sale prices.
The Astors are selling, too..
https://x.com/RipsBeard107/status/1713972471446020494?s=20
I also believe Musk paid $0 for Twitter, refer to EO 13818 "Trump’s Executive Order 13818 Seizes Assets of ANYONE Involved in Human Rights Abuse or Corruption" https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201700923
Twitter was allegedly involved in private accounts and trafficking. Human rights abuse or corruption assets are allowed to be seized, this would include stocks, businesses, properties, arts, artefacts etc.
To think about, not me telling anyone that is what happened or is happening now but it stands to reason that assets are seized if found guilty, which would suggest that trials for some of the higher ups have already happened.
So Twitter was just given to Musk, free of charge?
Why Musk, then? Why not you or me or my friend Fred down the street?
Largest contractor for military, known entity, has money, has a large voice. As I say its connecting dots that make logical sense rather than verified truth.
What does having large military contracts have to do with running Twitter?
So those with the most money and influence should run Twitter?
None of that makes any logical sense to me.
Musk met with trump at that conference of tech leaders trump formed early on in his presidency, started working with him and then had a public "falling out" just like trump had with many other people in his administration. This removes optics that musk is on Trump's side, it played out very similar with sessions if you recall
Ok, but why and how was it determined that Elon Musk should be given Twitter? Other than he met with Trump?
You may believe this, but I can assure you, it didn't go down this way.
Twitter was a publicly traded company meaning the people who owned Twitter was anyone who owned Twitter stock. These was tens of thousands of people. There were almost 800 million shares of twitter.
They got paid.
https://smartasset.com/investing/what-will-happen-to-your-twitter-stock
In fact, Musk overpaid and tried to back out of the deal.
Also you should read the text of 13818, it does not apply to Americans.
The text says it only applies to "foreign persons."
Any time a sanctions program is issued you can go on the Treasury's sanctions website and see who is sanctioned, banks and financial companies need to do this to see if their customer is a drug dealer or the brother of the head of Hamas. So you should be able to check what I'm saying.
I thought majority of shares were Saudi Arabia owned? Which would be foreign assets as well as it occurring after "Saudi Purge"
https://fortune.com/2015/10/07/saudi-prince-twitter-stock/
Turns out it was a paltry 5% so not majority shareholder. Prince Alwaleed, Vanguard Group, Blackrock, Morgan Stanley were the major holders. Thanks for the info.
Interesting about assets frozen and Alwaleed
https://qalerts.app/?n=539
The shareholders owned twitter until Musk bought it from the shareholders and then took it private. Publicly traded companies will not be part of EO13818. The shares any individual owns will be but not the entire company.
Prince Alwaleed owned 5%, Morgan Stanley 8.4%, Blackrock 6.7%, Vanguard Group 10.78% - So not one individual to seize it from, if they are foreign owned, operated and involved in human rights abuses it could still occur, but must admit I believed it was more cut and dry than that.
https://qalerts.app/?n=539
u/#q15