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).