(Total Views: 626)
Posted On: 02/04/2022 4:12:48 PM
Post# of 148899
I read the article. Shorts are blowing up my DM asking me questions. Why do you think I know something you don’t ? Maybe I do maybe I don’t…..
Who do you think paid for that article ? Does anyone have a copy of anything from the DOJ or SEC ? Nope haven’t seen it yet.
That article was pure speculation and absolutely no facts. Oh the 10q it states they have received subpoenas. Yea no shit I have 10 of them on my desk doesn’t mean I am suspect of a crime….
Same with my argument it’s pure speculation because I don’t have direct information to their investigation. Who does ? Not the shorts.
However since I work in law enforcement and I’m not a dirty short, I’d like to think I’m probably correct on my assumption in regards to the investigation, based on what we know.
If NP got fired or arrested due to the investigation then I will say I was wrong about everything I said. I’m betting I’m right on this one. He didn’t.
Sorry Craig that article only proves more of what I am saying. Tell me, who paid for that article!? I know who did, do you ? Message the person who wrote it see what they say. Then get back to me. I’m assuming you’ve never practiced criminal law based on the fact that you actually think that the article has proven my argument otherwise. It actually solidified my point.
Funny how shorts are slowly covering these past few days. How many firms on here are wondering, oh shit maybe we should close our naked short position on cydy. I mean there is only 35 million short shares still out there, how many are not accounted for???
I didn’t watch the market close but I’m assuming there was a lot of covering at the end today.
Who do you think paid for that article ? Does anyone have a copy of anything from the DOJ or SEC ? Nope haven’t seen it yet.
That article was pure speculation and absolutely no facts. Oh the 10q it states they have received subpoenas. Yea no shit I have 10 of them on my desk doesn’t mean I am suspect of a crime….
Same with my argument it’s pure speculation because I don’t have direct information to their investigation. Who does ? Not the shorts.
However since I work in law enforcement and I’m not a dirty short, I’d like to think I’m probably correct on my assumption in regards to the investigation, based on what we know.
If NP got fired or arrested due to the investigation then I will say I was wrong about everything I said. I’m betting I’m right on this one. He didn’t.
Sorry Craig that article only proves more of what I am saying. Tell me, who paid for that article!? I know who did, do you ? Message the person who wrote it see what they say. Then get back to me. I’m assuming you’ve never practiced criminal law based on the fact that you actually think that the article has proven my argument otherwise. It actually solidified my point.
Funny how shorts are slowly covering these past few days. How many firms on here are wondering, oh shit maybe we should close our naked short position on cydy. I mean there is only 35 million short shares still out there, how many are not accounted for???
I didn’t watch the market close but I’m assuming there was a lot of covering at the end today.
(15)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
