Texts between Naomi Biden and her father, Hunter Biden, paint a troubling picture of his behavior during 2018.
Daily Mail reported that these messages highlight his unreliability and erratic behavior, complicating his defense in a gun crimes trial. On October 12, 2018, Hunter Biden purchased a revolver, attesting on a federal form that he was not a drug abuser. However, court-revealed messages show a stark contrast to his claims of stability and sobriety during that period.
Days earlier, Hunter had had an encounter with his father, President Joe Biden, for lunch on October 7, 2018. Hunter went silent for several days following this meeting, causing concern within his family. The persistent efforts by Naomi Biden to reach her father only highlighted his absence and unreliability.
Naomi Biden shared a series of texts displaying her turmoil during her testimony. On October 17, 2018, she reached out to her father about car keys at 1:45 p.m. but received a response only by 11:44 p.m. when Hunter requested her to call him. This pattern of delayed and chaotic communication continued over the next few days.
The following day, Naomi sent multiple texts attempting to arrange a car swap, but Hunter took his time to respond, necessitating several follow-ups. Their communication on October 19, 2018, although finally addressing the car issue, further revealed Hunter's erratic approach.
In May 2018, Naomi experienced further heartbreak from her father during a visit to Los Angeles. They agreed to meet at the Chateau Marmont on May 21, but Hunter failed to appear on time, later citing work-related issues. Naomi’s texts expressed her worry and disappointment as she waited with a cold steak and salad.
Hunter Biden's unreliability wasn't confined to his absence. In June 2018, Naomi learned that Hunter was heading to the Esalen Writers Camp in Big Sur, highlighting that he was occupied with other commitments that did not include his daughter. June 20, 2018, messages reveal his struggles with writing and self-consciousness about sharing his thoughts.
Naomi also sought her father's financial assistance multiple times. In August 2018, she asked for funds while in Chicago and drove from Wyoming to California to see him after he failed to visit her in Jackson. During this period, Hunter had been staying at a rehab facility in Brentwood following his battle with substance abuse.
On September 2, 2018, Hunter expressed his feelings of exhaustion and familial challenges to Naomi. This communication further underscored the instability that marked their relationship during this period.
In October 2018, Joe Biden left a voicemail message urging Hunter to seek help, reflecting the family's ongoing concern for his well-being. By this time, Naomi's attempts to contact her father had become increasingly desperate and frequent.
Messages from October 18, 2018, reveal Naomi's frustration and distress as she struggled to coordinate logistics with Hunter. Her texts ranged from inquiries about car keys to expressions of deep emotional need, emphasizing her longing for their father-daughter relationship.
Prosecutor Leo Wise's questioning centered around Hunter's interactions with a dealer called "Frankie" and whether Hunter had given Frankie access to his Wells Fargo account. These inquiries aimed to underline Hunter's unreliability and questionable associations during that time.
Hunter's challenges with maintaining communications and fulfilling promises, along with his evident struggles with substance abuse and familial issues, were clearly visible through the extensive text exchanges with his daughter, Naomi. These revelations in court have undoubtedly added complexity to his ongoing legal battles over the gun purchase incident.
The U.S. Department of Justice has firmly dismissed accusations of collusion with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in the case against former President Trump.
In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte stated that claims of DOJ politicization are unsupported by any evidence, Fox News reported.
The letter, addressed to Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, was sent late Monday. It followed a verdict where Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The allegations included speculation that the Justice Department had a role in the investigation led by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.
In Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte's letter, the claims were characterized as "conspiratorial speculation" and "completely baseless." He assured that an extensive review had revealed no communication between the DOJ officials and Bragg’s office about Trump’s case. Uriarte emphasized, “The Department does not generally make extensive efforts to rebut conspiratorial speculation, including to avoid the risk of lending it credibility.”
The backdrop to this denial is Jim Jordan's April 30 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Jordan brought attention to the perceived politicization at the DOJ, pointing to the appointment of Matthew B. Colangelo by Bragg. Colangelo, a former senior DOJ official, was alleged to have been brought on board to expedite the investigation against Trump.
This speculation spurred the judiciary committee's concerns, prompting the current comprehensive clarification from the Department of Justice. Uriarte's exploration included a meticulous search of email communications since January 20, 2021, encompassing all relevant DOJ officials' accounts, including Colangelo’s.
Uriarte reiterated the independent nature of the two entities. "The District Attorney’s office is a separate entity from the Department," he noted. He clarified that the Department does not supervise, approve, or control the decisions or work of the District Attorney’s office.
Such independence is foundational to the functioning of the governmental justice system. Uriarte's statement aimed to quash any notion suggesting the District Attorney’s compliance with DOJ directives. The letter communicated that the Justice Department respects this separation, countering any accusations implying otherwise.
These clarifications from Uriarte's office illustrate efforts to maintain transparency and dispel doubts. The autonomy between the two legal entities is central to upholding public trust in judicial processes.
Uriarte pointed out the potential harm caused by unfounded accusations. He reinforced that baseless accusations undermine public confidence in the justice system and endanger the safety of law enforcement officials.
Such claims can lead to threats of violence, posing a significant risk to those administering justice. He stated, “Accusations of wrongdoing made without—and in fact contrary to—evidence undermine confidence in the justice system and have contributed to increased threats of violence and attacks on career law enforcement officials and prosecutors.”
In conclusion, the Department of Justice has denied any involvement in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of former President Trump, affirming its independence. Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte clarified to the House Judiciary Committee that there were no conspiratorial communications between the DOJ and Bragg's office.
This statement was in response to concerns raised by Jim Jordan regarding the hiring of Matthew B. Colangelo, emphasizing the need for separation of authorities and highlighting the negative impact of false allegations on the justice system and its officials.
A Delaware jury found Hunter Biden guilty on all federal gun charges related to his 2018 firearm purchase.
A juror from Hunter Biden's gun crime trial expressed skepticism about the defense's 7-Eleven narrative and emphasized that "nobody is above the law."
Fox News reported that this verdict was reached after only three hours of deliberation in Wilmington, Delaware. A juror from Sussex County provided insights into the jury's decision-making process, expressing disbelief in Biden's defense.
The 68-year-old juror, speaking to Fox News, revealed skepticism about the defense's claim. Biden had stated that he went to a 7-Eleven to purchase coffee, but the juror suggested he was actually buying drugs.
Prosecutors argued Biden was contacting drug dealers when he met someone at a convenience store at 5 a.m. Biden’s texts and memoir, "Beautiful Things," supported this claim, describing 7-Elevens as places where he would buy drugs.
With no prior knowledge of the case or political bias, the juror found the deliberations deeply personal. They had family members with experiences in gun ownership and drug addiction.
The jury found Hunter Biden guilty of making false statements in purchasing a gun. He misled officials about his drug use on ATF Form 4473 in October 2018. Biden was also convicted of making false statements to a federally licensed gun dealer.
Additionally, he was found guilty of possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user or addict of controlled substances. The trial lasted six and a half days and included emotional testimonies from Biden’s family. Testimonies came from his daughter, Naomi Biden, ex-wife Kathleen Buhle, and his sister-in-law turned girlfriend, Hallie Biden.
Hunter Biden's fight against addiction has been public, yet it did not sway the jury. Instead, the juror described the process as an equal application of justice.
Prosecutors meticulously aimed to prove Biden’s deception when purchasing the firearm from StarQuest Shooters & Survival Supply in Wilmington. They presented evidence to show that Biden lied on the necessary forms.
The defense's argument about Biden visiting a 7-Eleven for coffee did not convince the jury. Instead, the evidence pointed towards attempts to procure illegal substances.
Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, faced a robust legal challenge. The public nature of the trial and the involvement of the family added layers of complexity. The testimonies from his close relations provided emotional depth. They illustrated the struggles and personal battles intertwined with the legal proceedings.
As the trial concluded, the juror reflected on the emotional impact. They were affected by the gravity of the case but found clarity in the deliberation process, leading to the unanimous guilty verdict. In closing, Hunter Biden's trial highlighted significant legal and personal battles. The jury’s decision underscores the principle that truth and justice prevail, irrespective of one's background or connections.
Senator Richard Blumenthal and other Democrats have escalated their criticism of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito after his uncompromising remarks were secretly recorded and published.
The recordings, published by Rolling Stone, feature Alito expressing strong views on ideological differences during the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3. These comments have stoked ongoing ethical concerns and efforts by Democrats to enforce a code of conduct on the Supreme Court.
According to Fox News, Blumenthal characterizes Alito as a "loose cannon" whose behavior undermines the integrity of the Court. In the recording, Alito states, "...there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised." This remark has drawn ire from various corners, prompting further scrutiny of Alito's conduct.
The event also featured Chief Justice John Roberts, who responded to questions from a liberal filmmaker posing as a conservative supporter. This interaction has added to the controversy, with Roberts being seen as condoning Alito's contentious views.
Blumenthal expressed disappointment, stating it was "discouraging and outrageous" that Roberts seemed to support Alito’s behavior. The criticism follows past reports and mounting calls for ethical reforms within the Supreme Court.
Lauren Windsor, the filmmaker who recorded the conversation, described the secret recordings as "major news." She believes they expose significant aspects of the justices' ideological stances.
Not everyone sees the recordings as problematic. Fox News host Mark Levin and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network dismissed the recordings as clickbait and maintained that there was nothing inappropriate in the discussions.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse also weighed in, criticizing Alito as acting like a "movement activist." He contrasted Alito's responses with those of Chief Justice Roberts, arguing that Roberts "answered like a judge" despite his faults.
Some symbols associated with Alito, such as the display of an upside-down American flag and an "Appeal to Heaven" flag at his home following the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, have further fueled concerns. These symbols are seen as indicative of a particular ideological bent that some believe is inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have intensified their push to implement a code of conduct for the Supreme Court in light of these ethical concerns. This push has been partly driven by Alito's refusal to recuse himself from cases linked to the 2020 election.
Alito's comments made during the event included his agreement with statements from the filmmaker about returning the country to godliness, which many found troubling. "People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that," said the filmmaker, to which Alito responded, "I agree with you."
Senator Blumenthal's remarks reflect a growing concern among some lawmakers about the ethical standards of Supreme Court justices. "Alito mocks ethics," Blumenthal asserted.
In summary, this story revolves around heightened scrutiny of Justice Alito following secret recordings of his uncompromising views, the ethics debate surrounding the Supreme Court, and ongoing efforts to establish a code of conduct for justices. As the debate rages on, the question remains: how far will efforts to enforce a judicial code of conduct go? And what impact will this have on public trust in the Supreme Court?
Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee allegedly withheld evidence that President Donald Trump had tried to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops for the safety of the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021.
This concealed evidence clashed with the committee's public narrative and was revealed in a hidden transcript and testimony from Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato.
Representative Liz Cheney, who was a key member of the January 6 Committee, attended and took part in an interview with Anthony Ornato on January 28, 2022. According to The Federalist, Ornato revealed that President Trump had suggested deploying thousands of troops to maintain order during the Capitol events.
Cheney and the committee had publicly asserted they had "no evidence" of Trump’s offer of 10,000 National Guard troops. However, Ornato’s testimony provided a starkly different account.
Ornato detailed that White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asked Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser if additional troops were necessary. Bowser declined, requesting only a limited, non-armed National Guard presence.
Ornato's account underscored that Meadows and Trump were frustrated with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller's slow deployment response during the Capitol breach.
Further, the January 6 Committee allegedly misrepresented or suppressed critical parts of Ornato's interview, painting an inaccurate picture. Reports indicated that fewer than half of the 1,000 interviews the committee conducted are publicly available.
Representative Barry Loudermilk has been a vocal critic of the committee’s actions, accusing them of hiding evidence contradicting their narrative. Loudermilk is now leading an investigation into their conduct.
Ornato’s testimony mentioned Trump’s efforts to set up a quick reaction force at Joint Base Andrews and emphasized how President Trump was concerned about the potential size of the crowd expected on January 6.
Ornato recounted that Meadows continually asked, “Where is the National Guard?” and was insistent on securing the Capitol. Despite these testimonies, Cheney’s final report maintained that the Department of Defense did not intentionally delay deploying the National Guard.
Kash Patel’s testimony supported Ornato’s claims, contradicting the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that dismissed the matter due to the suppressed evidence. Cheney's report also contended that Trump did not order National Guard deployment.
Stories and conspiracy theories about Ornato emerged from committee allies before further interviews could be conducted, which many view as an attempt to discredit conflicting testimonies.
Recent revelations have caused significant controversy, with Representative Loudermilk stressing the need to uncover all facts in his investigation. More testimonies and previously withheld documents have raised concerns about the transparency and ethics of the January 6 Committee. The discovery of evidence regarding Trump's request for National Guard troops underscores the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation.
The federal judge in the classified documents case against former President Trump has denied a motion to dismiss some of the charges.
According to Fox News, the legal team sought dismissal of more than six of the 41 counts related to allegations of illegally hoarding classified documents and conspiracy to conceal them.
In the high-profile case presided over by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, Trump's attorneys targeted charges connected to obstruction and false statements. The former President's team had pushed to dismiss these counts, citing various legal arguments.
On Monday, June 10, Judge Cannon issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the counts in question. She emphasized that the alleged deficiencies are permissible under the law and often pertain to evidentiary matters that are inappropriate for a decision at this stage of the proceedings.
Judge Cannon explained that such deficiencies do not necessitate dismissal as long as the jury is properly instructed. Moreover, she pointed out that providing adequate verdict forms to the jury would address any technical issues sufficiently.
Judge Cannon stated in her ruling:
The identified deficiencies, even if generating some arguable confusion, are either permitted by law, raise evidentiary challenges not appropriate for disposition at this juncture, and/or do not require dismissal even if technically deficient, so long as the jury is instructed appropriately and presented with adequate verdict forms as to each Defendants' alleged conduct.
Despite rejecting most of the motion, Judge Cannon offered a minor victory for Trump's defense team. She agreed to remove a prejudicial paragraph from the indictment, which the defense had argued was unnecessary for proving the primary charges.
This paragraph was deemed inflammatory by Trump's lawyers, who believed it would bias the jury against their client. The judge's decision to excise this section indicates a careful balancing act between fair trial principles and legal procedures.
Nevertheless, Trump's defense has faced several setbacks. Multiple motions to dismiss other aspects of the case, including references to the Presidential Records Act, have been turned down by Judge Cannon over the past months.
The series of pretrial motions and disputes have contributed to delays in the trial. This particular motion to dismiss the half-dozen counts is only the latest in a series of pretrial requests that have been accumulating since the indictment.
The complexity of the case and the numerous legal wranglings have meant the court has had to address several contentious issues before the trial can proceed. These procedural battles are shaping the landscape of one of the most noteworthy legal cases involving a former president.
The charges against Trump, stemming from allegations of illegally hoarding classified documents and conspiring to hide them from the federal government, have generated significant attention. This isn't the first instance of legal challenges faced by Trump's team in this high-stakes matter.
Judge Aileen Cannon's refusal to dismiss several key counts in the Trump classified documents case has set the stage for further legal battles. While the defense achieved a small concession by removing a paragraph from the indictment, the primary legal obstacles remain. With multiple motions for dismissal rejected, the case continues to advance slowly toward a full trial.
The Justice Department has denied allegations that it colluded with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office in the prosecution of former President Trump.
According to Fox News, the Justice Department described the allegations as "conspiratorial speculation" and "completely baseless."
The letter, penned by Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte and addressed to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, was sent late Monday and later acquired by Fox News. This move comes in the wake of a jury's recent verdict finding Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Chairman Jim Jordan wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland on April 30, raising eyebrows over what he deemed a politicized prosecution of Trump. Jordan’s concerns specifically referenced the involvement of Matthew B. Colangelo, a former senior Justice Department official, in Bragg's prosecution.
Uriarte's letter aimed to quell these fears by detailing the Justice Department's steps to ensure its independence from the District Attorney’s office. He noted that a comprehensive search for email communications since January 20, 2021, revealed no contact between the Department's leadership and the District Attorney’s office concerning Trump’s investigation or prosecution.
Uriarte emphasized, "The Department does not generally make extensive efforts to rebut conspiratorial speculation," but concluded that due to the Attorney General’s commitment to transparency, extraordinary measures were taken to confirm the fallacy of the claims.
Uriarte categorically dismissed the allegations of collusion as undermining public confidence in the justice system and endangering law enforcement officials. He remarked that such baseless accusations contribute to increased threats against officials and prosecutors.
Jordan had written in his letter, "New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg is engaged in one such politicized prosecution, led in part by Matthew B. Colangelo." He claimed that Colangelo was hired specifically because of his history with Trump and his family business, making him a key prosecutor in the trial.
Uriarte retorted, "The District Attorney’s office is a separate entity from the Department," underscoring that neither supervises nor controls the other’s work. The aim was to debunk any notions that the Justice Department had any sway over Bragg's decisions.
Reinforcing his point, Uriarte highlighted that the Committee's "self-justifying ‘perception’ asserted” was unfounded. He maintained that the Justice Department and the District Attorney operate independently, casting doubt on the supposed collusion.
Uriarte wrote, "Accusations of wrongdoing made without -- and in fact contrary to -- evidence undermine confidence in the justice system." He stressed that the Department's efforts should conclusively put the speculation to rest.
This response seeks to address the growing speculation and restore faith in the judicial processes. The letter seeks to clarify that cooperative engagement between these two entities does not occur as alleged by certain political voices.
In summary, the Justice Department denies any form of collusion with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg in the prosecution of former President Trump and asserts that such accusations are baseless and harmful to the integrity of the justice system. With efforts to debunk these rumors that have been laid out clearly, the Department hopes to reinforce the notion of an impartial justice system.
Three teenagers in Spokane, Washington, are facing serious legal consequences after defacing a rainbow road mural with e-scooters.
The teens were arrested for first-degree malicious mischief, potentially resulting in a decade-long prison sentence under new hate crime legislation.
According to Daily Mail, nineteen-year-old Ruslan V. V. Turko and two unnamed minors were apprehended on Wednesday after they were seen creating skid marks on an LGBT rainbow road mural. The incident occurred in front of Riverfront Park in Spokane, Washington.
Prosecutors charged the teens with first-degree malicious mischief, a severe offense under freshly enacted Washington state legislation. This law, which took effect on June 6, redefines hate crimes to include property defacement, making it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Turko was released on his own recognizance with specific conditions after appearing in court on Thursday, despite prosecutors requesting a $15,000 bond to repaint a vandalized mural. The conditions of his release include avoiding the crime scene and any contact with co-suspects, reflecting the serious approach the court is taking towards handling such hate crimes.
Witnesses at a nearby bar observed the teens in action, damaging the freshly painted rainbow road mural with their e-scooters. They confronted the teens and took photos of the act with their mobile phones.
One of the minors responded with offensive language towards the witnesses, epitomizing the brazen attitude that accompanied the vandalism. The city had only just completed re-painting the mural before this incident unfolded.
In response to the actions, Lime, the e-scooter company, condemned the vandalism and expressed its support for the LGBTQ community. The company declared its commitment to preventing future occurrences by creating a no-ride zone around the mural.
Lime's official statement expressed strong disapproval of the vandalism, emphasizing that the company would take immediate action against the perpetrators. "All of us at Lime condemn these vile acts in no uncertain terms," stated Lime.
Lime confirmed it would support local pride and arts organizations, stressing that they wouldn't allow "the hateful few" to dampen Pride Month celebrations. Additionally, Lime pledged resources to uplift and protect LGBTQ+ individuals.
Previously, in May, the mural was set on fire by another group, an act captured on surveillance footage. A community fundraiser was held to gather funds for the reconstruction of the mural, which underscores ongoing struggles against hate crimes.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed new legislation in March that redefines hate crimes to include property defacement, a direct response to repeated vandalism of LGBTQ+ landmarks in Spokane. This law aims to strengthen legal actions against such offenses, reflecting the community's commitment to resilience and inclusivity through re-painting, fundraising, and advocating for enhanced legal protections.
To summarize, three teenagers, including Ruslan V. V. Turko, face significant legal repercussions following their arrest for vandalizing an LGBT rainbow road mural. Their actions coincide with new legislation that classifies such defacement as a felony hate crime. The combined efforts of local authorities, witnesses, and corporate bodies aim to combat these hate-driven offenses and support the LGBTQ community.
Meghan McCain has launched a scathing critique against Jennifer Lopez on her podcast.
McCain called Lopez "deeply unpleasant" and recounted a negative experience from a 2019 interview on The View amid poor tour sales and marital rumors.
Daily Mail reported that McCain, co-host of the podcast Citizen McCain, did not hold back in her criticism of Lopez. According to McCain, her interview with Lopez on The View was far from pleasant.
McCain described Lopez's entourage during the interview as unnecessarily large, noting that it exceeded even the President's. She called on Lopez to "humble herself" and criticized Lopez's attitude and behavior.
The criticism came in the backdrop of troubling news for Lopez. The singer has faced problems with her recent tour, "This Is Me... Now," which was later rebranded to "This Is Me... Live." Despite the rebranding, ticket sales remained poor, forcing a cancellation.
McCain's remarks add to the recent wave of unfavorable news for Lopez. Her latest album, "This Is Me... Now," debuted at number 38 on the Billboard chart in February, far below expectations. This commercial performance and the cancellation have not boded well for the star.
Also, rumors about marital strife between Lopez and her husband, Ben Affleck, have been circulated. Reports suggest they live separately despite making public appearances together at family events.
This is not the first time McCain has targeted Lopez. A previous episode titled "Why is JLo Flopping So Badly?" went viral on TikTok but was temporarily removed for alleged bullying. McCain expressed frustration over this takedown, defending her statements as truthful and not bullying.
During her latest podcast episode, McCain recounted various negative experiences people have had with Lopez. She shared anecdotes of Lopez's supposedly difficult behavior towards service workers and others.
Guest Carlos King, a producer, expressed surprise at McCain's claims, noting he had good experiences with Lopez. However, McCain insisted her experiences and those of many others depicted a different reality.
Lopez's tour rebranding seemed aimed at mimicking the success of other significant female performers like Taylor Swift and Madonna. However, even creative leaps, such as the documentary accompanying her album, have not been well-received, with McCain critiquing it as "not good."
Live Nation insiders reportedly supported canceling the tour due to poor sales. However, Lopez's pride and determination seemed to have driven the decision to proceed initially.
To conclude, Meghan McCain's recent comments on her podcast bring to light her ongoing grievances with Jennifer Lopez. McCain believes that Lopez's attitude and behavior negatively impact her career and public perception. In the face of poor tour sales, a struggling album, and rumored personal issues, Lopez’s challenges seem multifaceted. She remains a contentious figure, eliciting strong opinions all around.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider Meta's plea to halt a class action lawsuit by investors stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
This lawsuit accuses Meta, the company formerly known as Facebook, of not revealing the abuse of user data, which led to a decline in its stock value.
According to The Hill, investors filed a lawsuit claiming that Meta did not adequately inform them about how Facebook users' personal data could be exploited. They allege that Cambridge Analytica, a company that backed former President Trump's 2016 campaign, improperly used this data.
According to the investors, Meta's mishandling of the incident caused a noticeable drop in the company’s stock price. Despite Meta's arguments, a lower court ruling permitted the case to move forward. Now, the Supreme Court will review this decision.
Meta, which has rebranded from Facebook, has already endured substantial financial consequences due to this data breach. The company previously paid a $5.1 billion fine to federal regulators and settled a $725 million privacy case with users.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the lawsuit had merit and allowed it to proceed. Meta is challenging this, claiming that the lower court’s decision was flawed.
Meta contends that the lower court’s understanding of the issues was misguided. It argued that the ruling "reflects a misguided conception of falsity and the nature of risk." Furthermore, Meta claims it contradicts Congress’s attempts to limit private securities lawsuits.
On the other hand, the investors believe that Meta is misrepresenting the case's foundation. According to them, the lawsuit does not conflict with any Supreme Court or circuit court decisions. Investors state that the issues raised by Meta are based on a "mischaracterization of what the Ninth Circuit held." This directly contradicts Meta’s assertions about requiring a Supreme Court review.
The central legal question that the Supreme Court will address is whether the lower court’s allowance of the case aligns with existing legal precedents. Meta insists that continuing the lawsuit sets a dangerous precedent for future cases involving information disclosures and stock prices.
The origins of the Cambridge Analytica scandal have significantly impacted Meta's finances and reputation. This lawsuit adds another layer of complexity to the issues arising from the misuse of Facebook data.
What remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court will side with Meta's interpretation or uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. The outcome of this reviewing process will have wide-ranging implications for Meta and its investors.
The highest court in the United States will weigh in on Meta's attempt to dismiss a class action lawsuit over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The lawsuit alleges that Meta's previous failure to disclose the misuse of user information negatively impacted its stock price.
The case continues despite Meta having paid substantial settlements and fines over similar privacy issues. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Ninth Circuit's ruling could set important legal precedents.