Judge James Boasberg looked at U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro's request to vacate his earlier orders and said no. Scathing was the word used. When a judge's ruling gets described as scathing, someone f*cked up so badly that the legal system felt compelled to editorialize.
Pirro wanted those losses off the books. The judge disagreed. The losses remain. Federal investigations tend to produce losses, financial and otherwise, and Pirro discovered this the way everyone else does: by asking nicely if the consequences could please go away.
They could not.
The technical setup here is flawless. Support broke. Resistance held. The trend continued in the exact direction it was already going, which is how trends work until they don't. Retail traders watching this headline are frantically Googling whether judicial rulings affect the VIX. They are drawing Fibonacci retracements on a PDF of the court order. Someone just went long on legal appeals because the RSI looked oversold.
Boasberg wrote his ruling. Pirro read his ruling. The losses stayed exactly where they were. This is called price discovery, except instead of price it's accountability, and instead of discovery it's a judge telling you to sit down.
The most predictable part of this entire saga is that someone, somewhere, is building a trading strategy around federal investigation outcomes. They have a spreadsheet. They have a thesis. They have a Robinhood account with $847 in it. They do not have a law degree, but they watched Suits twice, so they feel confident.
Pirro's request got denied. The books stay as they are. The investigation continues doing whatever investigations do when judges use the word scathing. And somewhere a day trader just shorted the entire concept of judicial review because the chart told him to.
Leave a Comment