Former Bachelorette notable Rachel Lindsay was stunned when her husband of four years, Bryan Abasolo, filed for divorce on January 2 and informed her of the fact through a text message.
The unexpected message led to heightened tension and conflicting demands in the legal and financial proceedings in which the reality television personalities are now involved, as PEOPLE reports.
Lindsay, 39, first learned about the divorce filing through a text message from Abasolo at 11:43 a.m. on January 2, shortly after he left their house. This revelation came as a complete surprise as the couple had previously discussed handling their divorce process amicably and discreetly.
Abasolo, 44, cited "irreconcilable differences" as the reason behind the split. Yet, the method of communication -- via text message -- left Lindsay in a state of disbelief.
"I discovered Bryan had filed for divorce on January 2 via text message," Lindsay said in her filing. She further elaborated that they had a conversation earlier in the kitchen where Abasolo failed to mention his intention of filing for divorce that very day.
In the text message, Abasolo wrote, "Hey...I just wanted to let you know that I officially filed." Lindsay's immediate response was, "Wait what?" signaling her confusion and shock. Following the news, Lindsay ceased sharing her location with Abasolo that same night. The filing had not only created emotional turmoil but also led to logistical and legal confrontations.
Abasolo's actions contradicted their previous discussions about settling the matter amicably. He insisted that all communication regarding the divorce proceedings go through their respective lawyers.
Beyond the emotional strain, financial tensions surfaced quickly. Abasolo requested emergency spousal support and $75,000 to cover his legal fees. This demand intensified the conflict between the two.
Lindsay accused Abasolo of being uninterested in resolving their issues amicably, stating, "[He] informed me in no uncertain terms that everything must go through lawyers." Living under the same roof has become "very awkward and strained," according to Abasolo, who expressed his desire to move out but cited financial constraints as a barrier.
Lindsay opened up about her challenging experience on her podcast, Higher Learning with Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay. She shared that she was "just trying to take it day by day," revealing the emotional toll that the divorce has taken on her. She also mentioned making efforts to settle the matter swiftly and amicably but noted that Abasolo was not interested in such discussions.
The podcast has provided Lindsay with a platform to navigate through this difficult phase publicly, while still maintaining a degree of composure and resilience.
The living arrangement remains tense, as both parties are still residing in the same house. Abasolo's claim that he cannot afford to move out has added to the existing strain.
Lindsay's response to the divorce filing on June 26, nearly six months after the initial notice, highlights the ongoing and unresolving nature of their separation. Abasolo's request for spousal support and legal fees remains a contentious issue, further complicating an already strained relationship.
Joe Biden's debate performance against Donald Trump last night ignited widespread criticism, leading to concerns over his capability to serve as president.
Additionally, an allegedly "suspicious noise" during the debate fueled fevered speculation on social media about whether one of the candidates passed wind, as the Daily Mail reports.
During the debate, microphones picked up an unusual sound that left viewers wondering about its origin. Social media quickly buzzed with theories, suggesting that Joe Biden, 81, might have passed wind while Trump, 78, accused him of profiting from tariffs on China. Alternative speculations included the possibility of either candidate, or a moderator, having taken a sip of water.
Biden's overall debate performance was widely regarded as disastrous. He appeared tired, hoarse, and often stumbled over his words, even trailing off into silence at one point. Moderator Jake Tapper had to step in when Biden lost his train of thought, highlighting the former Vice President's struggle to present himself effectively.
Despite Biden's combative stance, his lack of coherence compared to Trump was conspicuous. As a result, his performance attracted substantial criticism from within his own party. Some prominent Democrats, including senior strategists and donors, openly questioned his suitability to continue in the presidential race.
One donor bluntly stated, "Biden needs to drop out. No question about it." A senior Democrat strategist emphasized the urgency, saying, "Biden is about to face a crescendo of calls to step aside. Parties exist to win - this man on the stage with Trump cannot win." Steve Schmidt, a former Republican campaign strategist who has since turned Democrat, also weighed in, declaring, "Biden lost the country tonight, and will not get it back. If Trump is a threat and democracy is on the line, then Biden must step aside."
Throughout the 90-minute debate, Biden repeatedly lost his train of thought and mixed up topics. Viewers noted his evident fatigue and difficulty in maintaining a clear line of argument against Trump.
Behind-the-scenes footage from the debate and afterward painted an even bleaker picture. Biden, holding his wife's hand, struggled to exit the stage. Jill Biden's encouragement at a watch party appearance seemed condescending to some observers, as she told her husband, "You answered every question right, Joe - you did such a great job answering every question. You knew all the facts!"
After the debate, Biden made an unexpected stop at a local restaurant. It was there that he was confronted with questions his debate performance, with one person asking, "Some are concerned that you're not fit for the job... do you have any concerns about your performance?" Biden responded by dismissing the fitness concerns and blamed Trump, saying, "Well... it's hard to debate a liar."
Adding fuel to the fire, Trump's campaign seized the opportunity to mock Biden’s performance. They released a video titled 'Needless to say, the drugs didn't work,' which showcased Biden's debate blunders and further criticized his ability to lead.
The debate drew considerable attention not only for its content but also for the ongoing speculation surrounding the "suspicious noise." As the debate progressed and social media frenzy escalated, users dissected each moment with fervor, leading to numerous memes and clips going viral.
The debate's unusual "suspicious noise" moment remains a topic of intense speculation. While some are convinced it was a candidate passing wind, others argue that it might have been a moderator inadvertently creating the sound while sipping water. Regardless of the actual source, the incident has captivated audiences and added a layer of levity to an otherwise serious political event.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, the fallout from Biden's performance is unlikely to dissipate quickly. With calls for Biden to step down growing louder, the Democratic Party faces a critical juncture in determining its path forward.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck a monumental blow to what many refer to as the administrative state on Friday by issuing a 6-3 ruling that limits its capability to interpret laws and dismantles the Chevron deference doctrine, which had empowered federal administrative agencies for 40 years.
This decision is anticipated to strengthen judicial power, potentially complicating the enforcement and promulgation of a variety of regulatory policies, as Axios reports.
In a move that concludes the so-called Chevron deference era, the Supreme Court's ruling marks a significant shift in how federal law is interpreted and enforced.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, asserted that the Chevron doctrine contradicts the Administrative Procedure Act. According to Roberts, courts should not defer to agencies' interpretations but, instead, exercise independent judicial judgment.
Chevron deference originated from the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. It allowed courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws, provided those interpretations were reasonable. However, Friday's ruling signifies the end of this judicial standard.
The consequences of this decision are expected to be far-reaching. Regulatory policies, such as those under the Clean Air Act, which previously relied on Chevron deference, remain valid under statutory stare decisis. However, new challenges against federal rules in courts are likely, with judges now wielding more discretion to invalidate agency decisions.
This ruling comes on the heels of another court decision just one day earlier, which limited federal agencies' use of administrative law judges. These consecutive decisions underscore a trend towards reducing the power and autonomy of federal agencies.
Justice Elena Kagan, in a forceful dissent, expressed deep concerns about the majority's ruling. She viewed it as a direct assault on agency authority, contrary to congressional intention. Kagan argued that Congress crafts regulatory statutes with the understanding that they will contain ambiguities, which agencies, not courts, are better equipped to resolve.
Kagan warned that the ruling is likely to cause significant disruption. She forecasted that it transfers exclusive power over numerous issues, particularly those requiring expert judgment, from agencies to the courts. In her words, the decision epitomizes the Court's tendency to undermine agency discretion and substitute judicial judgment for specialized expertise.
The impetus for dismantling Chevron deference arose from cases involving National Marine Fisheries Service regulations. Challengers argued that Chevron violated constitutional principles, specifically Articles I and III.
The government defended Chevron deference, emphasizing its role in curbing judicial policymaking and maintaining checks on judicial power. However, with this new ruling, the era of courts deferring to agencies on ambiguous statutes has come to a close, much to the delight of conservative groups.
This ruling is expected to empower federal judges to take more assertive stances in overturning agency decisions. Historical decisions, like those made by Texas District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who paused the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, may become more commonplace.
The end of Chevron deference signifies a monumental shift in the judicial landscape, reshaping the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies. Experts anticipate that the ruling will prompt a surge in legal challenges against agency regulations.
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has announced with profound sadness the passing of his wife, Rhonda Massie.
Rhonda Massie was lovingly remembered by Thomas Massie as his high school sweetheart and the mother of their four children, though no cause of death has been disclosed, as Fox News reports.
Rhonda Massie was an individual of notable academic and personal accomplishments. During their high school years, she distinguished herself by graduating as the valedictorian. Her exceptional academic prowess continued as she was admitted to both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University. Opting for MIT, she earned a Mechanical Engineering degree, underscoring her intellectual dedication and capability.
Beyond her academic achievements, Rhonda devoted her life to her family. She was the integral heart of the Massie family, and her role as the mother of four children was one she cherished deeply.
In the days leading up to her death, Rhonda spent time with her family, creating lasting memories. Highlighting this was a recent week-long tour of Mt. Rainier that Rhonda and Rep. Massie shared with their grandson.
This time spent in nature, amid the splendor of Mt. Rainier, holds sentimental value for the Massie family as they reminisce about the happiness Rhonda brought into their lives.
Rep. Thomas Massie shared an emotional tribute announcing Rhonda’s passing, capturing the profound love and admiration he held for her.
"Yesterday my high school sweetheart, the love of my life for over 35 years, the loving mother of our four children, the smartest, kindest woman I ever knew, my beautiful and wise queen forever, Rhonda went to heaven," Massie expressed. His heartfelt words reflect the deep bond they shared and the significant loss the family now faces.
In his announcement, Massie also expressed gratitude for the prayers and support extended to his family during this difficult time. "Thank you for your prayers for our family in this difficult time," he said, recognizing the collective sympathy from friends, constituents, and colleagues.
Rhonda's academic journey is a testament to her intelligence and drive. As valedictorian of her high school, she set the groundwork for her successful university education. Her acceptance into both MIT and Harvard speaks volumes of her capabilities.
Choosing MIT, she pursued and completed a degree in Mechanical Engineering, a demanding and competitive field. Her success in academics was paralleled by her commitment to family life, where she played a pivotal role in nurturing and supporting her children alongside her husband.
Rep. Massie's tribute details Rhonda's life not only as an accomplished academic but also as a devoted family woman, emphasizing how she balanced her professional intelligence with personal dedication. "She was valedictorian at our high school where we went to the prom together, accepted at MIT and Harvard, earned a Mechanical Engineering degree from MIT, and devoted her life to our family," Massie reminisced.
Specific information regarding the cause of Rhonda Massie's death has not been disclosed at this time. The Massie family has chosen to withhold these details, likely to maintain their privacy as they navigate through their grief.
The nation, represented by Massie's colleagues and constituents, has extended its sympathy. This support underscores Rhonda’s impact not just as the wife of a congressman but as a cherished individual in her own right.
President Joe Biden this week publicly acknowledged his difficulties with speaking and debating following a lackluster performance in the first presidential debate.
In light of that disclosure, the White House press secretary has been forced to downplay an earlier claim that videos showing Biden in a frail state were altered, admitting that even the president himself recognizes his current limitations, as Breitbart reports.
During a recent press briefing on Air Force One, Karine Jean-Pierre addressed the issue, confirming President Biden's struggles. This comes as a notable change from her previous assertions that these videos were manipulated.
Jean-Pierre previously dismissed these videos as "cheapfakes," suggesting they were altered in bad faith. She stated, "Yeah, we -- and I think you all have called this the 'cheapfakes' video. And that’s exactly what they are. They are cheapfakes video. They are done in bad faith." However, in a recent shift, she acknowledged Biden's own admission that he is not as smooth in speaking and debating as he used to be.
The acknowledgment follows Biden's problematic first presidential debate, in which he appeared confused, frightened, and occasionally slurred his speech. The performance was widely criticized and sparked concerns about his public speaking abilities.
Following the debate, Biden addressed a rally in North Carolina where he candidly admitted his challenges. He told the audience that he cannot walk or speak as well as he used to, an honest acknowledgment that resonated with many.
The White House Press Secretary, during her briefing on Air Force One, elaborated, "He understands, look, he’s not as smooth as he used to be on the debate stage, he doesn’t speak as smoothly as he used to -- I mean, you heard him say and acknowledge where he is today."
The Democratic Party now finds itself in a complex situation. Some party members are reportedly considering removing Biden from the ticket. However, any such move would require Biden's consent and would be further complicated by changes the party made to its primary rules earlier this year.
In a significant strategic alteration, the Democratic Party placed South Carolina as the first primary state. This move was aimed at preventing potential challengers from gaining traction against Biden, ensuring a smoother path toward his re-nomination.
Jean-Pierre, while addressing reporters on Air Force One, underscored Biden's unwavering commitment to fighting for democracy and freedom despite his speech issues. This commitment remains a cornerstone of Biden's presidency as he navigates these personal challenges.
Moreover, Biden's acknowledgment of his limitations has stirred a complex conversation within the Democratic Party. Removing a sitting President from the ticket would be unprecedented and challenging, particularly given the primary rules adjustment designed to shield Biden from early challenges.
As the 2024 presidential race heats up, Biden's admission adds a new layer of scrutiny and dialogue around his candidacy.
It spotlights the broader concerns surrounding his public appearances and overall fitness for the role, and the Democratic Party faces potential turbulence as it navigates these developments and gears up for the 2024 race with an adjusted primary strategy.
The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a critical obstruction charge used against numerous Jan. 6 defendants in a pivotal 6-3 decision.
This ruling significantly affects ongoing cases related to the Capitol unrest, including some against former President Trump, potentially nullifying two of his charges, as the Gateway Pundit reports.
On Friday, the high court issued a ruling on a case involving statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2), which pertains to obstruction of official proceedings. This statute encompasses altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing records, documents, or other objects to impair their use in an official proceeding. It also includes obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
The court determined that, to prove a breach of this statute, the government must demonstrate that the defendant impaired or tried to impair the availability or integrity of items used in an official proceeding.
Over 300 Jan. 6 defendants were charged under this specific statute by the Department of Justice, making the ruling highly impactful on various ongoing cases. Among these cases are those involving former Trump, with two of Smith’s four charges relying on this statute.
The Supreme Court's ruling vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanded the Fischer case for further proceedings consistent with their interpretation of 18 USC §1512(c)(2).
The opinion stated, "To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so." The majority went on, "The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
In reaction to the ruling, Smith suggested he might seek alternative approaches if the Supreme Court's decision leads to reversing two of the charges against Trump.
Smith contended that the "obstruction" charges against Trump would remain valid since the alternative electoral certificates represent “documents” that were fraudulently employed in an “official proceeding.” This stance implies that Smith is determined to pursue the charges despite the Supreme Court ruling.
Meanwhile, Matthew Graves, U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., issued a cautionary statement to the Supreme Court and Jan. 6 defendants currently incarcerated under 18 USC §1512(c)(2). This announcement has introduced uncertainty and concern among those affected by the statute.
The recent ruling has prompted a reevaluation of the legal strategies being used in these high-profile cases.
The Supreme Court’s decision inevitably sets the stage for ongoing legal battles and adjustments in prosecutorial approaches for cases tied to the events of Jan. 6.
Analysts predict that the ruling will be scrutinized closely in the upcoming proceedings, potentially leading to more redefined interpretations of similar statutes in the future. All eyes now turn towards the remanded Fischer case and how the D.C. Circuit will handle it in light of the Supreme Court's instructions.
Wrestling icon Hulk Hogan is considering a run for political office, citing “common sense leadership” and dissatisfaction with the current state of American politics.
Hogan is exploring political ambitions while promoting his new venture, "Real American Beer," aiming to unite Americans across different divides.
During a recent interview at NewsNation, the legendary wrestler, whose real name is Terry Bollea, expressed frustration with rising gas and food prices and concerns over national security. Hogan remarked:
If I was the VP, and then all of a sudden I roll right into that top spot, four years later … you get 12 good years out of me. And then all of a sudden, we would really be on track.
Hogan criticized the current debate rules in American politics, likening them to the scripted nature of professional wrestling. He argued that debates should allow for more candid and unrestricted exchanges between candidates. This sentiment underscores his desire for a more transparent and genuine political discourse.
When asked about his preference between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, Hogan remained neutral. He stated his support for any candidate who could effectively address the nation's challenges and improve the country’s direction.
Hogan’s political musings come at a time when he is also focused on his new business venture, "Real American Beer." He believes the beer can serve as a unifying force for Americans, bringing people together over a shared love for simple pleasures.
The inspiration for "Real American Beer" stemmed from Hogan's observation of the backlash against Bud Light’s marketing campaign. He saw an opportunity to create a product that resonates with “Middle America, NASCAR, wrestling, country western, mom, apple pie.” Hogan claims that his beer is positioned to fill a gap in the market, appealing to a broad and diverse audience.
At 70, Hogan remains in remarkable shape, attributing his fitness to a rigorous training regimen maintained over the past 55 years. His dedication to health and fitness is as much a part of his persona as his wrestling career and potential political aspirations.
Hogan also commented on the upcoming boxing match between Mike Tyson and Jake Paul, expressing his support for Tyson despite the significant age difference between the two fighters. He acknowledged the unpredictability of the fight, noting that both competitors have considerable skills.
Reflecting on his wrestling career, Hogan recalled being fired by Vince McMahon Sr. for accepting a role in the movie "Rocky III." This decision led to a three-year stint in Japan and Minnesota, significantly influencing his professional journey. His return to wrestling under Vince McMahon Jr. marked a transformative period for the industry, with Hogan playing a pivotal role in its evolution.
Hogan's consideration of a political career and his new business venture suggests a new chapter for the wrestling legend. His focus on “common sense leadership” and unifying the nation reflects his desire to make a substantial impact beyond the wrestling ring.
In conclusion, Hulk Hogan explores a potential political future, expressing dissatisfaction with current American politics and promoting his new product, "Real American Beer." He aims to bring a sense of unity and straightforward leadership to the political arena, much like he did in the world of professional wrestling. Hogan’s legacy continues to evolve, potentially extending into public service and business innovation.
The Supreme Court has halted a monumental settlement that would have provided billions to families affected by the opioid crisis.
According to Daily Mail, the Court sided with the Justice Department, finding legal protections for the Sackler family unauthorized by current law.
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court blocked the nationwide settlement involving Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family. This decision overturns an earlier ruling that had upheld the settlement plan, which would have allocated up to $6 billion to resolve thousands of lawsuits. The settlement was designed to shield the Sackler family from future civil claims related to their role in the opioid crisis.
The settlement included provisions for the families of Raymond and Mortimer Sackler to retain billions and relinquish ownership of Purdue Pharma. The plan proposed restructuring Purdue Pharma into an entity focused on the treatment and prevention of opioid addiction. However, the Justice Department accused the Sacklers of withdrawing $11 billion from the company before it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 to address its liabilities from numerous lawsuits.
The opioid epidemic has caused over 500,000 overdose deaths in the United States over the past two decades. The proposed settlement, approved in 2021, was estimated to provide $10 billion to creditors. However, the Biden administration objected to the settlement, resulting in the court putting it on hold last summer.
The Sackler families expressed optimism about reaching a resolution that avoids extensive legal battles. They stated, "The Sackler families remain hopeful about reaching a resolution that provides substantial resources to help combat a complex public health crisis. The unfortunate reality is that the alternative is costly and chaotic legal proceedings in courtrooms across the country."
Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon argued against the deal, stating that it allowed the Sacklers to control their contributions and granted them the functional equivalent of a discharge. Purdue Pharma pled guilty to three criminal charges in 2021 related to its marketing practices. As part of the settlement, a $750 million pool was designated for direct payments to victims, with compensation ranging from $3,500 to $48,000.
Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized the legal limitations in his statement, saying, "Nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge." Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned of the potential negative impact of the decision on victims, stating, "Opioid victims and other future victims of mass torts will suffer greatly in the wake of today's unfortunate and destabilizing decision."
Edward Neiger, representing some of the victims' families, expressed his disappointment, saying:
Today's Supreme Court ruling marks a major setback for the families who lost loved ones to overdose and for those still struggling with addiction. The Purdue plan was a victim-centered plan that would provide billions of dollars to the states to be used exclusively to abate the opioid crisis and $750 million for victims of the crisis, so that they could begin to rebuild their lives.
The Sackler family members have not been involved in Purdue Pharma since before its bankruptcy filing. They previously received over $10 billion from the company, half of which they claimed went to taxes. The Supreme Court's decision raises the possibility of extended legal battles and uncertainties for the victims seeking compensation.
Ed Bisch, an advocate for victims' families, hailed the decision as a step toward justice, stating, "This is a step toward justice. It was outrageous what they were trying to get away with." He criticized the Sacklers' actions, saying, "They have made a mockery of the justice system, and then they tried to make a mockery of the bankruptcy system."
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the Sacklers remain confident in their legal position. They stated, "While we are confident that we would prevail in any future litigation given the profound misrepresentations about our families and the opioid crisis, we continue to believe that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward."
The Supreme Court's narrow 5-4 decision to block the nationwide settlement between Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family is a significant setback for the victims of the opioid crisis. The ruling sides with the Justice Department, finding that the legal protections granted to the Sackler family in the settlement are unauthorized by current law. While the Sackler family remains confident in their legal position and hopeful for a swift negotiated agreement, the decision has been met with disappointment from victims' advocates, who see it as a step away from justice and a mockery of the bankruptcy system.
According to Daily Mail, Michelle Obama has kept her distance from Joe Biden’s re-election campaign due to personal frustrations involving the Biden family.
Obama has refrained from campaigning for Biden because of how the Biden family treated her friend Kathleen Buhle during her divorce from Hunter Biden, although both families deny any rift.
Michelle Obama has notably not participated in Joe Biden's re-election efforts in person or on social media. Her decision stems from frustrations over Kathleen Buhle's treatment during her contentious divorce from Hunter Biden.
Despite these reports, spokespeople from both the Biden and Obama camps firmly deny any animosity between the two families.
The friendship between Michelle Obama and Kathleen Buhle blossomed during the Obama administration. Michelle and Kathleen spent considerable time together, often working out and sharing cocktails at the White House. This bond was tested when Buhle’s marriage to Hunter Biden ended acrimoniously in 2017, with Buhle accusing Hunter of misusing family funds for drugs and prostitutes while battling his addiction to crack cocaine.
The details of this divorce recently resurfaced during Hunter Biden's federal gun trial in Delaware. Michelle’s frustration reportedly lies in her perception of how the Biden family treated Buhle during this tumultuous period.
The dynamic between the Obama and Biden families has reportedly shifted since their White House days. Former President Barack Obama himself has expressed candid opinions about the Biden family, reportedly describing their behavior as peculiar after a 2017 fundraiser for the Beau Biden Foundation.
While Michelle Obama was hesitant to campaign for Joe Biden in 2020, she ultimately did so due to political pressures. However, her reluctance appears more pronounced this election cycle. In contrast, Barack Obama has remained an active supporter of Biden, participating in multiple fundraising events.
The White House and representatives for Michelle Obama have been quick to dismiss rumors of a rift. Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, emphasized the strong familial bond between the Bidens and the Obamas. He highlighted the close support the former President and First Lady have shown for Biden’s leadership and agenda.
Crystal Carson, a spokesperson for Michelle Obama, also denied any tension. She affirmed Michelle's ongoing support for the Biden-Harris campaign and reiterated her friendship with both Kathleen Buhle and the Biden family. Carson also noted that Dr. Jill Biden recently joined Michelle Obama’s family in celebrating the life of Mrs. Marian Robinson.
Despite the denials, Michelle Obama's absence from Biden's campaign has not gone unnoticed. Her powerful influence and popularity could be a significant asset, and her distance may raise questions among supporters and detractors alike.
As the campaign progresses, it remains to be seen if Michelle Obama will eventually join the re-election efforts, as she did in 2020. Her potential involvement could provide a notable boost to Biden’s campaign, which continues to navigate complex political and personal landscapes.
In conclusion, Michelle Obama's decision to refrain from campaigning for Joe Biden is rooted in her frustration over the treatment of her friend Kathleen Buhle during her divorce from Hunter Biden. This decision has been met with firm denials of any familial rift from both the White House and Obama's representatives. The evolving dynamics between the Obama and Biden families, along with Michelle’s influence, will continue to be of interest as the campaign unfolds.
Walgreens announced plans to close a significant number of its 8,700 US stores due to underperformance and lowered profit forecasts for fiscal year 2024.
According to Daily Mail, the pharmacy chain is targeting non-profitable locations, those in close proximity to each other, and those grappling with theft issues, according to CEO Tim Wentworth.
The Illinois-based company announced on Thursday, citing several challenges affecting its business. Walgreens also operates under the Duane Reade banner and has been facing a decline in sales, particularly in the US retail segment.
Following the announcement, Walgreens’s shares fell more than 15 percent in premarket trading. The company's stock value had already declined 40 percent for the year before the announcement.
Retail expert Neil Saunders criticized Walgreens for its high prices and lackluster deals, noting that these factors have contributed to the company's struggles. "The numbers from US retail – where sales plunged by 4 percent – are particularly disappointing, although not entirely surprising," Saunders said.
Walgreens has long been struggling to lose front-of-store customers, a trend exacerbated by the current cost-of-living crisis. Customers are increasingly seeking better deals elsewhere, finding Walgreens' prices uncompetitive compared to mass merchants.
While the exact number and locations of the store closures were not specified, the closures could affect a meaningful percentage of underperforming stores. CEO Tim Wentworth emphasized that the focus will be on locations that are not profitable, are situated close to each other, or are dealing with significant theft issues.
"It could shutter a 'meaningful percent' of the stores of the quarter-or-so locations that are underperforming," Wentworth said. The company did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment about the store closures.
In addition to the US store closures, Walgreens has already closed 484 stores in the UK and 625 stores in the US as of February 2024. The company plans to simplify its healthcare portfolio, including changes to its ownership stake in VillageMD.
CEO Tim Wentworth, who joined Walgreens in October of the previous year, is navigating the company through declining in-store demand and weak sales of COVID-related products. As part of its strategic adjustments, Walgreens will no longer be the majority owner of VillageMD.
The company also adjusted its profit forecast for fiscal year 2024, now predicting $2.80 to $2.95 per share, down from the previous forecast of $3.20 to $3.35 per share made in March. Analysts had expected an annual profit of $3.20 per share.
For the third quarter, Walgreens reported adjusted earnings of 63 cents per share, falling short of the estimated 68 cents per share. This shortfall reflects the ongoing challenges the company faces in a competitive retail environment.
In summary, Walgreens is closing a notable portion of its 8,700 US stores due to underperformance and a challenging retail environment. The company’s stock has suffered, with shares dropping significantly, and its profit forecast has been lowered. CEO Tim Wentworth is steering the company through these turbulent times with a focus on profitability and strategic adjustments.