The dog that is Trump Media & Technology Group continues to fail bigly:
Before former President Donald J. Trump’s social media company made its stock market debut, many investors were lining up to bet on its collapse. After the company’s share price plunged following an initial surge, the appetite to bet against the stock has grown even more ravenous.
Trump Media & Technology Group, which trades under the ticker DJT, slipped on Wednesday to below $50 per share, extending a steep decline this week that pulled the stock down from its high near $80 and erased more than $2 billion of market value.
Trump Media is the most “shorted” special purpose acquisition vehicle in the country, according to the financial data company S3 Partners. Short-sellers bet that the price of a stock will fall. They do that by borrowing shares of a company and selling them into the market, hoping to buy them back later at a lower price, before returning the shares to the lender and pocketing the difference as profit.
The demand to short Trump Media, the parent company of the social media platform Truth Social, is so great that stock lenders can charge enormous fees, making it hard for short-sellers to turn a profit unless the shares fall significantly. Still, there is a lot of interest in taking the bet.
“They are looking for this stock to crater and crater very quickly,” said Ihor Dusaniwsky, managing director of predictive analytics at S3... (our emphasis)
We still like our suggestion that "ETTD" should be his stock's sticker symbol.
Meanwhile, in the Malignant Loser's hush- money- for- porn- stars trial, Judge Juan Merchan has decided he's seen enough of the delaying tactics:
The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's criminal case in New York rejected his last-minute bid to delay the start of the trial until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Trump's presidential immunity claim.
Trump had asked to push back the start date for his trial, which is related to a "hush money" payment made by an attorney for Trump to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, until after the Supreme Court rules on whether he is shielded from criminal prosecution by "presidential immunity" in another one of his criminal cases. The trial is slated to begin April 15.
Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan denied the request Wednesday, saying it was "untimely" and that Trump's lawyers had months to raise the issue before the motion was filed in March.
"This Court finds that Defendant had myriad opportunities to raise the claim of presidential immunity well before March 7, 2024," Merchan wrote. "Defendant could have done so in his omnibus motions on September 29, 2023, which were filed a mere six days before he briefed the same issue in his Federal Insurrection Matter and several months after he brought his motion for removal to federal court on May 4, 2023."
Merchan noted in his ruling that pre-trial motions are supposed to be filed within 45 days of arraignment. Trump was arraigned in this case last April. The judge also said that the fact that Trump had waited until "a mere 17 days prior to the scheduled trial date of March 25, 2024, to file the motion, raises real questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion."... (our emphasis)
Sincerity = none; actual purpose = escape justice.
In addition to the Malignant Loser being held accountable, his "lawyers" should also face sanctions when all is said and done for filing frivolous motions and generally abusing the justice system in this and his other trials (see: Giuliani, Rudy and Eastman, John). Maybe add in a Trumpist judge or two.
UPDATE: More bad news for the Malignant Loser, this time in his Georgia election interference/ RICO case:
Donald Trump attempted to dismiss his case in Fulton County, Georgia, on First Amendment grounds — but Judge Scott McAfee on Thursday denied the motion.
"Although the First Amendment is 'a broad umbrella that shelters all political points of view and shields a wide range of avenues for expression,' free speech — including political speech — is not without restriction," the judge wrote.
McAfee explained in simple terms that the First Amendment does not covers "categories [that] include speech integral to criminal conduct, fraud, or speech presenting an imminent threat that the government can prevent."...
McAfee's 14- page ruling is here (pdf).
