Robert, I feel the courts are going to milk the whole "what if" scenario. Before it was incumbent upon shareholder lawyers to prove Trump would have done anything, if at all. Now that Trump has established a resounding YES, he would have done more, now the courts will keep playing the "but for - what if" game because there's no way to go back in time to say what the real outcome would or could have been. So it turns into a big speculative clusterfuk proof of burden to both sides of the argument. One side can say tons would have been achieved while the other claims very little. Basically one sides words and analysis against the others. You can have expert testimony until you're blue in the face, the reality will be no one knows WTF would have transpired due to how bad DC is screwed up.
So how do the courts end this nonsense??? How do they come up with a fair damages assessment?
I'm worried courts will use the whole who knows what could have happened logic approach, or that no one can say exactly what would have happened, to screw us over. It's easy enough to do with all of the known dysfunction going on in DC for years now.
This is all going to depend on how pro government the judge is or not.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
