Trump Begins Selling $100,000 Monthly Subscription Service to Wall Street (msn.com) 209
Trump Media has officially launched its $100,000-per-month data feed giving trading firms machine-readable access to Truth Social posts milliseconds before the public. According to Fortune, five Wall Street firms have already signed up for the service, which "would generate about $500,000 in monthly revenue, or $6 million annually."
Critics argue the service could let President Trump, who owns about 41% of the company, profit from early access to market-moving presidential communications. "I'll be blunt," Gian Luca Clementi, an economics professor at NYU Stern School of Business, told Fortune. "This is insider trading by definition."
"He's going to monetize the role of the office of the president of the United States," he said. "The undisputable fact is that somebody is going to earn some more money than before, and that's the president of the United States." From the report: Trump's media venture has struggled to build a profitable social media business despite its lofty valuation. Truth Social has reported significant operating losses since going public. According to the company's earnings report for Q1 2026, Trump Media & Technology Group netted a roughly $405 million loss and raised less than $900,000 in sales.
Not everyone agrees the arrangement meets the legal bar for insider trading. Shannon Devine, a spokeswoman for Trump Media & Technology Group, has pushed back on the characterization, telling Quartz that Truth API "offers customers the fastest way to ingest publicly available Truth Social data" and that critics "must have invented a new theory of 'insider trading' based on publicly available information."
Classic insider trading law hinges on trading on secret, material information in breach of a fiduciary duty, and Truth Social posts are, by design, meant to become public within moments -- raising real doctrinal uncertainty about whether faster access alone qualifies. But other legal experts argue the greater risk lies ahead. Richard Painter, former White House chief ethics counsel, has argued that the arrangement could violate federal law once Trump posts genuinely market-moving news -- on tariffs, military action, or other policy decisions -- before it's public, with Truth Social effectively acting as a paid "tipper" on the president's behalf. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said he plans to introduced legislation Tuesday to ban the president from selling expedited access to his statements.
Critics argue the service could let President Trump, who owns about 41% of the company, profit from early access to market-moving presidential communications. "I'll be blunt," Gian Luca Clementi, an economics professor at NYU Stern School of Business, told Fortune. "This is insider trading by definition."
"He's going to monetize the role of the office of the president of the United States," he said. "The undisputable fact is that somebody is going to earn some more money than before, and that's the president of the United States." From the report: Trump's media venture has struggled to build a profitable social media business despite its lofty valuation. Truth Social has reported significant operating losses since going public. According to the company's earnings report for Q1 2026, Trump Media & Technology Group netted a roughly $405 million loss and raised less than $900,000 in sales.
Not everyone agrees the arrangement meets the legal bar for insider trading. Shannon Devine, a spokeswoman for Trump Media & Technology Group, has pushed back on the characterization, telling Quartz that Truth API "offers customers the fastest way to ingest publicly available Truth Social data" and that critics "must have invented a new theory of 'insider trading' based on publicly available information."
Classic insider trading law hinges on trading on secret, material information in breach of a fiduciary duty, and Truth Social posts are, by design, meant to become public within moments -- raising real doctrinal uncertainty about whether faster access alone qualifies. But other legal experts argue the greater risk lies ahead. Richard Painter, former White House chief ethics counsel, has argued that the arrangement could violate federal law once Trump posts genuinely market-moving news -- on tariffs, military action, or other policy decisions -- before it's public, with Truth Social effectively acting as a paid "tipper" on the president's behalf. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said he plans to introduced legislation Tuesday to ban the president from selling expedited access to his statements.
Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:5, Insightful)
...so because his friends can no longer make bank by shorting/buying stocks or oil futures or whatever based on soon-to-be-posted tweet on Hormuz open/closed today, the new scheme is just skip all that and directly ask for cash. Same as with the crypto.
Re:Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:5, Insightful)
And the president openly selling access is not ok. I get that we're used to corruption but this? JFC. Why aren't we freaking the fuck out right now?
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't help that the media would sane wash it (Score:5, Informative)
The news media is 90% billionaire owned and they cover it all of that up. Meanwhile every time Joe Biden stuttered we got eight weeks of non-stop coverage. It was so common that it's created a new term in politics called sane washing which is the idea of taking a batshit crazy politician and covering up how insane they are.
If you're a low information voter who doesn't pay attention to politics then what you came away from in the last election is that Kamala Harris was going to help you get an abortion and Donald Trump was going to lower the price of eggs. Yeah that's absolutely fucking insane but that's what happens when so many people are so low information and our news media no longer even tries to inform them. Anyone who did last cycle got fired.
I watched as a couple dozen well respected journalists got fired from their jobs for reporting things Trump said and did.
Re: (Score:2)
Walking in the middle of 5th Avenue is almost certain to get you run over. Do it, Donnie!
Re: (Score:3)
Republican "god" can do no wrong, though. The man could walk into the middle of 5th Avenue, shoot a woman in the head, and then fuck her shattered skull, and they'd still sing his praises. Indoctrination. Cultism. Brainwashing. So many different names for how they idolise this man.
It's worse than that. They will find a way to justify why that woman needed to be killed and skullfucked, trying to turn it into a necessary event that their heroic manbaby had to do. There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
The irony is, a few years ago you couldn't get them to shut up about dementia, government corruption or "crime" families... now their silence is deafening. Seems they were just trying to prepare us for Trump rather than warning us about Biden.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh shut up you absolute fake I came here just to see how you paid freaks would try to twist this
nice try
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine we're conserving our energy.
People know what to do in November, and then after.
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:2)
It would be nice to believe that but a lot of people who did one of the wrong things last time are proudly crowing about how they will do it again
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shellshock. Cowardice in the face of maga republicans blatantly abusing state power to punish opponents. TPTB shielding maga republicans because they are needed for the war.
I used to think holding your nose and supporting the US was needed when the alternative was greater power of China, power jumpstarted by the US in the first place though, which is both totalitarian and out for territorial expansion. Now I don't give a shit any more. The US is not the lesser of evils any more, maybe they never were.
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:2)
The US might have been the lesser of evils but even if so it was primed to become the worse, through the too-strong executive branch. Too much depended on thoughts and prayers.
You can't blow off the United States (Score:4, Insightful)
We will take Canada and Mexico first and then the rest of South America and once we have that we will use those resources and the slaves we get from there to launch attacks into Greenland and use that as a launching base to take Europe. Or at least that will be the plan.
The people doing all this will be incompetent morons so it will probably come crashing down after a few hundred million people have died. That's the best case. It's also possible that we will launch nuclear weapons and end the entire human race. We firmly believe that God will protect us so we aren't afraid of other countries nuclear arsenals.
The world needs to wake up and realize just how fucking insane us Americans are. Literally 35% of us believe that causing Armageddon is a good thing. And that 35% is currently in charge of the country.
Re:Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:4, Interesting)
Why aren't we freaking the fuck out right now?
Because there are four categories of people here:
1} Non-indoctrinated non-investors... are freaking the fuck out right now but are powerless.
2} Indoctrinated non-investors... don't have money so don't care what Trump does to the stock market.
3} Non-indoctrinated investors... are quietly more interested in any money-making opportunity than principles.
4} Indoctrinated investors... have been encouraging all of this.
Category 1 is way, way outnumbered.
Remember when the very hint of being shady like this would disqualify someone from a office nearly as high as President? This is why I was upset when Trump started lying in his first term. He normalized deceit then and he's been normalizing corruption now.
This is Pandora's box; there's no real reason for anyone in the future to not follow this precedent because America statistically condoned it. Frankly without an armed revolt making it clear that misbehaving won't be tolerated, it obviously will be.
Re: (Score:3)
Category 1 isn't outnumbered, it's the largest category. But by definition their numbers don't really matter right now.
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to make a not so subtle point, there WAS an armed revolt, but it was in defense of all this, not in opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
$100,000/mo feed, which will generate $500,000/mo in revenue? So, all five customers? LOL. Let me guess, every hedge fund company.
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:4, Informative)
I never see Democrats defend Pelosi trading. I see maggots defending Trump grifts constantly. I hang out in places where I'm exposed to both. Stop making shit up, maggot.
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:4, Insightful)
I never see Democrats defend Pelosi trading. I see maggots defending Trump grifts constantly. I hang out in places where I'm exposed to both. Stop making shit up, maggot.
I think there's some nuance needed there.
Pelosi's trading is legal, it's highly problematic from an ethics perspective, but it's completely legal and somewhat common for legislators to do. So she can be criticized for using an unfair advantage, but it's not unprecedented nor a major sin.
Trump's grifts on the other hand do violate laws and precedent, those laws just aren't enforced.
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:5, Informative)
1. You have no evidence that Pelosi insider traded anything and her husband has always been a wealthy real estate investor and venture capital guy.
2. The Pelosi's are worth somewhere in the $300m mark and she has served 20(!) terms in Congress, that's 40 years.
3. Trump and his family have made north of $2 billion since 2025
4. Democrats have for years had bills to ban stock trading with scant Republican support.
So who's ignoring what again? TDS is what you are infected with.
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:4, Insightful)
Faux News isn't "evidence."
There are hordes of evidence- [it's just all bs]
Yawn
Re: (Score:2)
Pelosi's trading is well documented, public information in fact. But proving insider trading, even under the STOCK Act, is very difficult and nobody has picked up the case. There's a lack of concrete legal evidence to convict. Going ahead without evidence as a political witch hunt would fail spectacularly, another Ken Starr debacle like his empty accusation during the Whitewater scandal.
For what it's worth, I would be fine charging Pelosi and the entire Trump family for how they have abused their position.
Re: (Score:3)
You can google yourself.
You're the one claiming it's well-known, but you are unable to provide a single link.
Figures.
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'm not going to play that game. You can google yourself.
If you can't be bothered to support your statements don't expect anyone to be bothered to care about what you have to say.
It's a matter of such renowned concern that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not be appraised of it.
See above.
Re: (Score:2)
9.2 million according to Paragon Health Institute, and no one else.
Let's say it's true though. Is it all fraud? Much of it is automatic enrollment. Simply bad management by the government, as it continues to re-enroll people that have not been eligible since the end of the pandemic. (which is where most of them got added in)
Most straight-forward solution is to fast track the delayed eligibility reviews. And the OBBBA mandates that states do the reviews on a schedule, but it doesn't offer resources or a grac
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:4, Informative)
1) Nobody ignores Congress insider trading.
2) Even that filthy practice comes nowhere fucking near selling early access to your posts because you know your elected office moves markets.
There's no TDS involved here. Your bootlicking is a fucking cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the person who ignored Pelosi in the room with you right now?
Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile the Democrat lemmings here ignore people like Nancy Pelosi. Multiple people in both houses having been doing this crap for decades and you so called educated folks ignore that very obvious fact.
But but but Trump.
This is exactly why I rarely post here anymore. Your TDS has blinded you. Just like how you ignore that the DSA is taking over the DNC while you aren't paying attention.
Do you believe it is possible to ever focus on a given topic without being required to evaluate every other instance of any other situation that could be remotely construed to be similar having ever occurred in human history?
If you were in court defending a client from a murder charge would you chastise the court for their failure to enumerate all the other murders who murder too? Would you drone on about how it is unfair to single out your client while asserting the court is suffering from MDS (Murderer Derangement Syndrome)?
Congress won't act (Score:5, Insightful)
So corruption and embezzlement continues.
Re: (Score:3)
Mike Johnson needs to be put before a court of law for his lack of action, because his lack of action could definitely violate some laws, or even what is in the US Constitution for not following what is required of the Speaker of the House.
Re: (Score:2)
Courts won't do anything.
And given that attendance for the No Kings protests was half to a third of BLM, there is really little incentive for office holders to change course. The American people just aren't that interested in what goes on in the nation's capital.
Re: (Score:2)
But ya, BLM. Or Something.
Re: (Score:2)
The Congress says precisely 1 thing about the Speaker- that Congress shall chose (chuse, if we're being accurate) it, which puts its firmly outside of the enforcement of the other branches.
The Constitution also says that only Congress shall set its rules, which also puts enforcement of those firmly outside of the enforcement of the other branches.
You need to be put before a court of law for your fucking ignorance, and desire to wield the state in ways it is prohib
Re:Congress won't act (Score:4, Funny)
On the bright side, if the Democrats take the house next year they'll have no shortage of things to impeach Trump for. If anything, the hardest thing will be to whittle down the list to the charges that are most likely to get the votes needed to impeach.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, do we really need more impeachment theater?
How about maybe just once this time, and then we can get them doing important work like trying to fucking curtail his ass with laws they can actually get through the Senate.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you that impeachment is theater. But so is anything else.
What good is passing laws that will be vetoed or just ignored?
There is no power in this nation that can stand against an uncooperative President. Every ability to take action is under the executive branch. Everyone who has not sworn personal loyalty has been dismissed.
Congress can make speeches and write letters. The courts can issue rulings, and threaten "contempt!" ...and they can all be ignored. A show can be made of following pro
But her emails (Score:3, Insightful)
~nt~
Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
If Obama did this. There would have been an impeachment hearing that same day.
Re: (Score:3)
The government and propaganda machines want Americans turned against one another instead of the single real parties, members of th
Re: (Score:2)
A gift of Trump is the openness with which he does it. But as said above, no-one with any ability to do anything about it seems to care. I guess we have to wait for the whole system to collapse.
Re:Just imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
All presidents end up quite wealthy after one or two terms. They all do this. Trump just does it at an entirely new level, and doesn't even try to hide it.
Oh look! It's more of the bOtH sIdEs bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who paid Ford after he left office did it so that Carter would know he would be taken care of by the same people when he left office. Like I said, they used to hide it.
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides, am I right guys?
Moron.
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Informative)
They all do this
NONE of them have done this, not in 250 years. Not until Trump. Presidents make a lot of money after they leave office, yes, especially in recent decades. They command incredible speaking fees (Obama famously got $400k for one speech), they write books that make millions, etc. There are lots of people who are willing to give them money to get close to them, get their advice, etc.
But until Trump, none of them has used the office of the president to make money. No one else has sold pardons. No one else has set up a public stock and a memecoin to facilitate billions of dollars in bribes. No one else has brazenly sold insider secrets to stock traders.
Trump's corruption isn't just new in scale, it's a completely new thing that the United States of America has never before seen. We've seen plenty of corruption elsewhere in government, at all levels, but never in the oval office.
Re:Just imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that you had to point this out is in itself very telling: it shows that the issue isn't simply the extent of corruption, but also the overwhelming success with mass disinformation and censorship.
I know the term is overused, but Americans really are being gaslit into believing that these brazenly criminal acts are things that previous administrations have always done, or that the current administration deserves to do it because they have secured the power to do so. And neither of these are even remotely true.
There's this insidious mass delusion facilitated by the oligarchy and mainstream media. Their fascist playbook is:
1. Commit as many crimes as possible, as quickly as possible, so that people don't have time to react or investigate. This is Steve Bannon's "muzzle velocity" strategy.
2. Control media messaging and suppress honest journalism by taking ownership of media corporations and threatening those who refuse to be silenced.
3. Delay or bury investigations through misuse of government resources and agencies. Ignore court rulings.
4. With cooperation of tech companies, set up mass surveillance to make people afraid to oppose them.
5. Instill hopelessness in the public by showing that they are still getting away with these crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
He also stirred up racial tension by declaring a fucked up kid who was addicted to Lean and got into fights constantly could have "been my son."
Know how I know you're a racist piece of shit?
Fuck that guy, and Trump and Biden and Clinton and W and HW and all the rest. They're all pedophiles. Most have ridden on the Jet or been to Zoro ranch or had Epstein in their homes. They're all evil as fuck.
This is at least true- but mostly because Obama was a fucking hawk who enjoyed murdering the fuck out of people overseas.
Your racist horse shit notwithstanding.
Insider info (Score:4, Interesting)
What's going to be awesome is when the SEC starts shitting all over anyone actually using this service while completely ignoring the source of the insider information.
Anyone with an actual trading license that they want to keep should steer very wide of this shit.
Re: Insider info (Score:2)
This.
Insider trading is happening all the time anyway. The participants do not need it to be officially documented with a paid subscription to insider trading.
Re:Insider info (Score:5, Insightful)
What's going to be awesome is when the SEC starts shitting all over anyone actually using this service while completely ignoring the source of the insider information.
Anyone with an actual trading license that they want to keep should steer very wide of this shit.
Is this the same SEC that is under the control of Trump and which settled Elon's little security violations for a trivial fine that wasn't even levied against him [reuters.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Found the guy who thinks Trump will be in charge forever.
What's the statute of limitations on insider trading?
Care to take that risk? Go ahead and sign up.
Re:Insider info (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Rules of law are for the poor. Any troubles and you just buy a pardon.
Re: (Score:2)
The Gold tier will include pre-approved pardons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say all that as if it's fact. Unless/until it's decided by a court, it's conjecture.
Eyeroll. We don't know that eating chicken on Sunday is illegal until someone takes it to court and loses.
Give me a fucking break. Does that kind of logic strike you as insightful?
There is enough going on to easily make a case, it'll just be a matter of if they do and who wins.
This is an assertion we can work with, but it's wrong.
That said, specifically in reference to insider trading, it doesn't fit the traditional definition.
More accurately, it fits the definition of what the courts have found not to be insider trading for as long as SEC rule 10b-5 has been in existence.
Trump has no fiduciary responsibility to any consumer of that information, or to the organizations he has the power to move.
Wh
Re: (Score:3)
Eyeroll. We don't know that eating chicken on Sunday is illegal until someone takes it to court and loses. Give me a fucking break. Does that kind of logic strike you as insightful?
Way to strawman this. It's relevant here because it's actually being discussed by the people in a position to take it to court. Very big difference between a pure hypothetical, and a real world debated potential case.
This is an assertion we can work with, but it's wrong.
Again, you state opinion as fact.
While it's true that this is uncharted territory- it's uncharted in the same way that Congresscritters trading on insider information was. It required an act to make it illegal, because there's no fiduciary responsibility. That information didn't come from the inside- it came from the most outside place possible.
The problem with this assertion is that there are credible grounds to consider Trump's actions as falling under the existing acts. Thus, we won't know if it does until it's decided by a court.
you can now buy Inside Trading! (Score:3)
Yes I did type that with a straight face, well more of an angry face; we have been forced to put savings, retirement, and everything else into the market to earn any type of fair inflation-following interest. Everyone's money is there even if you try to avoid it - now make it fair regardless if you have 1,000,000,000 or 0.01
Re: you can now buy Inside Trading! (Score:2)
That or something similar like there is a maturation period where if you sell it during the period your return is prorated and the remainder goes into the general fund. I think it should be longer than 24 hours though
Re: (Score:2)
Something like that might deter high frequency traders who are basically exploiting noise. This is different. It's advance insider access to announcements that cause real changes. Well, that and the usual Trump noise, but even that usually takes well over 24 hours before it's obvious TACO.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop using the word insider. It's a weasel word. There's nothing insider about this.
Insider is not a weasel word. The president providing advanced notice of material policy decisions to people who pay him so they can exploit the markets is of course insider trading.
Imagine someone finds out that the SEC is going to ban the trading of cryptocurrencies.
Imagine he tells the world.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading
For insider trading to be insider trading it has to be an insider doing the trading or disclosing and it has to be material non public information. Your example fails both tests.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading....
Given your example is not insider trading conclusions drawn from your incorrect assertion are themselves also invalid.
Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Of *course* it's in support of insider trading. What else would be the motivation for knowing some presidential action moments before everyone else does?
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe paying Trump $100,000/month is worth it just to get on his good side? Even if there is no value whatsoever in the access, funneling money to him might be worth it for some.
Re: Of course (Score:2)
It isn't because he doesn't stay bought
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe paying Trump $100,000/month is worth it just to get on his good side? Even if there is no value whatsoever in the access, funneling money to him might be worth it for some.
Worth it for what? If the answer is a different financial motivation, then it's just a different form of corruption.
How about an OnlyFans? (Score:3)
No Pay? No public information for you!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: How about an OnlyFans? (Score:3)
When milliseconds count (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: When milliseconds count (Score:2)
Re: When milliseconds count (Score:2)
The random garbage can also move markets, so that's material as well
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are those connections all insider trading?
You're confusing speed of a transaction with advanced market knowledge. Sporting analogy: Me running faster than you just means I am fitter or bought better running gear, or paid a better running coach to give me an edge. On the other hand me beating you to the finish line because I started running before the starting gun would disqualify me in the race.
Re: (Score:2)
You just have to wait the correct number of milliseconds until it becomes public information, then execute your trade. I'll bet someone has figured out the delay to allow enough time for some model or another to run. All nice and legal, just like how the two term restriction only applies to consecutive terms.
Re: (Score:3)
All nice and legal, just like how the two term restriction only applies to consecutive terms.
The 22nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about consecutive terms. It's two terms, period, end of sentence.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Would get anybody else a long prison sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the actual caselaw surrounding it, it would be fucking insane.
There needs to be a breach of fudiciary trust or confidence.
A third party monetizing their power to affect traded corporations, and people having a better read of that shitbag is not insider trading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For an extra $100k you get a pardon!
This should go into the coffers of the US (Score:2)
Not a private entity.
I don't think this is a good idea. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You voted for it. No complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Direct criminal action sounds "shady" to you? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump money laundering accounts (Score:2)
Capitol One did a review of several HUNDRED accounts held by the Trump Org in 2021 and closed them, tell Mango Mussolini he had 90 days to move them elsewhere but later granted him an extension.
By contract, they had the right to do so without explanation and he or any other person with similar terms could close or move their accounts without notice.
Instead of simply complying, he decided to sue.
Thanks to that boneheaded move it's now known that the reasons were because the accounts exhibited activity consis
I Have Only One Question (Score:3)
Just one simple question, which will hopefully become more relevant early next year ... is this an impeachable crime?
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans will not impeach him, no matter what he does.
Re: (Score:2)
Just one simple question, which will hopefully become more relevant early next year ... is this an impeachable crime?
Who cares? We make a big fuss about impeachment, but the word has largely lost meaning. No one will remove a sitting president even if they have been impeached.
There is no functioning check or balance against his corruption.
Going to? (Score:2)
Fixed.
Another of those preclusive authorities? (Score:3)
Is insider trading one of those preclusive constitutional authorities the Supreme Court was talking about? Or will this fall under an unofficial act?
It's hard to tell since the Supreme Court has said a president is immune from nearly every crime even though the Founding Fathers said the opposite.
Felon scammer escalates the scam (Score:2)
What else is new? People like this escalate the crap they are doing until they are stopped. Ordinarily such a person would have been awarded a long prison sentence by now (independently of his rapes), but being rich apparently makes you immune to the law in the great US. I still wonder what Epstein did wrong to actually end up in prison and then being suicided. Not rich enough?
Wrong verb tense (Score:5, Insightful)
"He's going to monetize the role of the office of the president of the United States,"
That ship sailed long ago, and Trump was making dirty money off his presidency hand-over-fist long before this latest grift.
No shit, Sherlock! (Score:2)
"I'll be blunt," Gian Luca Clementi, an economics professor at NYU Stern School of Business, told Fortune. "This is insider trading by definition."
Would anyone expect any less from President Pedo?
Torn between two thoughts (Score:2)
(a) There's a sucker born every minute.
(b) A fool and his money are soon parted.
To be fair, I've thought this about all Trump schemes and fund raising. Perhaps some new laws will result from his tenure to prevent future president from the kinds of self-dealing he's done while in office, and SCOTUS will uphold them, though I'm dubious they'll actually be needed (as much) going forward. /super-cynical
Bidding starts... (Score:2)
The point is vendor lock-in (Score:2)
Being a borderline accessory to insider trading is co-incidental to the true purpose of this deal; vendor lock-in. Forcing the government onto Truth Social isn't the cash cow that Trump and family, wanted. So, they identified someone who cares sufficiently to spend money on a shitty product, to gain a first-mover advantage.
Subscription model is a smart move.. (Score:2)
He can make it impossible to cancel by keeping them on the phone with one of his long rambling stories.
Corruption ranking (Score:3)
The US is now 29th out of 182 countries, and dropping.
https://www.transparency.org/e... [transparency.org]
In fact if you look at the graph, the Trump terms stand out.
Speaking for the rest of the world (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is going right beside my Trump bible! (/high level of sarcasm, F him)