The Supreme Court will soon deliberate on Meta’s plea to dismiss a class action lawsuit tied to the Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal.
According to The Hill, the lawsuit asserts that Meta, Facebook's parent company, failed to reveal the misuse of user data, which caused the company's stock value to dip.
Investors have accused Meta of concealing the misuse of Facebook users' data by the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. The data breach was related to Cambridge Analytica’s operations during former President Trump’s 2016 campaign. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals echoed this sentiment, permitting the case to progress.
Meta has contended that the 9th Circuit’s decision reflects a "misguided conception of falsity and the nature of risk," and it contradicts legislative efforts to limit private securities lawsuits. Furthermore, Meta has highlighted previous financial retributions, including a $5.1 billion penalty paid to federal regulators and a $725 million privacy settlement reached with users.
Investors assert that the scandal has had tangible financial repercussions, chiefly a significant drop in Meta's stock price. They argue that Meta’s management of the data breach scandal was inadequate and non-transparent.
Additionally, investors have petitioned the Supreme Court to decline Meta's request for review, stating that it is based on a "mischaracterization" of the 9th Circuit’s findings. They claim the case neither conflicts with Supreme Court decisions nor with other circuit court rulings.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Meta, it could set a precedent affecting how courts evaluate corporate disclosures, especially those related to data privacy and investor risks. This decision could also influence how stringent future data privacy laws are, particularly concerning large corporations within the tech industry.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision will likely capture the attention of corporations nationwide, highlighting the ongoing struggle between investor rights and corporate disclosure obligations. Meta’s previous settlements and penalties underscore the broader implications of this case. With billions already paid in fines and settlements, the company's approach to data privacy remains under rigorous scrutiny.
Investors have argued that the 9th Circuit's ruling should stand. They maintain that Meta’s call for Supreme Court intervention is unwarranted and groundless. Highlighting that the appeals court correctly understood the issues at hand, investors insist there’s no significant legal conflict to be resolved by the higher court.
The underlying issue, they stress, is about ensuring corporate accountability, especially when it concerns the privacy and security of user data, an area becoming increasingly critical in today’s digital information era.
As Meta awaits the Supreme Court's decision, the tech industry and investors alike are left to ponder the potential ramifications. The outcome could redefine how companies disclose and manage data privacy concerns, shaping the future landscape of investor rights and corporate responsibility.
Also notable is the past context of Meta’s operations. The substantial fines and settlements indicate that the company is no stranger to the consequences of data privacy lapses. Yet, the ongoing legal challenges signify that the repercussions of such scandals are far from over.
The Supreme Court is set to review Meta's challenge to a decision by the 9th Circuit, a case that could impact corporate disclosure requirements and the balance between protecting investors and supporting business interests. This review is pivotal, as it addresses issues at the intersection of corporate governance and data privacy regulation, drawing attention from industry experts, policymakers, and investors. The decision could establish a new legal precedent for handling data privacy issues in corporations, potentially influencing future corporate actions and legal norms.
Ashley Biden's past relationship with a man she found "calming" has come into the spotlight.
An exclusive report from Daily Mail revealed that the President's daughter was involved in a tumultuous relationship with a man who had a criminal record, terrorized his family, and eventually died from a drug overdose.
Ashley Biden had a tumultuous period marked by affairs with two men during her time in rehab for drug and sex addiction in 2019, one being Eric Dengler, who later died of a drug overdose.
Dengler had multiple stints in prison for robbery, drug trafficking, and theft. His first term began in 2004 for drug trafficking, and he faced numerous run-ins with the law before his untimely death. At the age of 39, Dengler succumbed to a drug overdose on April 6 of last year, found lifeless in his Delray Beach apartment.
A troubled individual, Dengler was described by those who knew him as someone perpetually mired in substance abuse. Rafael, the ex-boyfriend of Dengler's sister, recounted that Dengler was "always f****d up on heroin or molly" and "never saw him sober."
Ashley Biden, now 42, described their connection in her diary entries, mentioning that he was "calming" and a "great kisser." This relationship, which blossomed during her rehab, stood in stark contrast to Dengler's tumultuous lifestyle.
Ashley's diary, later stolen and published online, paints a vivid picture of her internal struggles. Beyond her relationship with Dengler, the entries delve into her encounters with a married businessman identified as "Kevin." These affairs occurred simultaneously during her treatment.
She spoke of "Kevin" with both intense attraction and ultimate regret. In her writings, she grapples with the secrecy of the affair, the guilt it induced, and its implications for her ongoing struggle with addiction. Her relationship with Kevin culminated in feelings of relapsed helplessness.
Moreover, Ashley does not shy away from confronting the ghosts of her past. She hints at childhood trauma, suggesting she was "hyper-sexualized" at a young age and questioning if she was molested, though she can’t recall specifics. These admissions portray a woman entangled in complexities from her early years.
Ashley's marriage to Howard Krein is also detailed in her diary, revealing significant levels of distrust and unhappiness. She expressed that their relationship was beyond repair, noting that all affection and trust had disappeared.
Her legal issues began during her college years, involving arrests for marijuana possession, underage drinking, and obstructing police officers. These problems continued into her adulthood, culminating with Aimee Harris stealing and illegally distributing her diary, for which Harris was sentenced in April.
The diary, which was sold to activists from Project Veritas for $20,000, exposed Ashley's private thoughts to public scrutiny. In her legal filings, Ashley confirmed the diary's authenticity, putting an end to ongoing speculation.
In conclusion, Ashley Biden’s past reveals a woman battling numerous challenges. Her affair with Eric Dengler, amidst his criminal past, and her entanglement with "Kevin" during rehab illustrate the difficulties she faced. Her diary details these events, further illuminated by her troubled marriage and historical legal issues.
Donald Trump, despite facing legal troubles, continues to actively campaign and attract enthusiastic support.
Trump, leading in key swing states, faces tighter race against President Joe Biden due to legal issues, and seems to have more vocal supporters than ever, as the Daily Mail reports, as evidenced by a crowd of supporters as he departed a fundraising dinner in the affluent area of Beverly Hills, California.
Trump, ever the showman, interacted with his followers by blowing a kiss from the window of his SUV. This display of affection followed a busy schedule of campaign events, including a stop in Phoenix on Thursday and a fundraiser in Silicon Valley before arriving in Beverly Hills.
Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills, traditionally liberal bastions, are seeing some shifts. Republicans are eyeing opportunities with wealthy entrepreneurs and others who have leaned right since the 2020 election. Despite these efforts, Trump's campaign is not without its hurdles.
Trump's New York hush-money trial has been a significant challenge. The former president made politicized statements during each court appearance, keeping his legal issues in the public eye. However, this hasn't significantly dampened his support in certain regions.
Trump maintains a lead over President Joe Biden in key swing states, according to recent polls. In Arizona, a Fox News poll on Thursday showed Trump leading Biden 51% to 46%. Similarly, in Nevada, Trump leads Biden 50% to 45%. Polling averages from Real Clear Politics have consistently shown Trump ahead in these states since November.
Voter sentiment regarding Trump's legal troubles varies. In Arizona, 63% of voters said the trial did not matter to them, while 36% felt it was important, with 25% stating it mattered "a lot." In Nevada, 65% of voters were indifferent to the trial, whereas 35% believed it mattered.
Opinions on the fairness of the trial are also divided. In both Arizona and Nevada, 51% of voters felt Trump received a fair trial, while 46% thought it was unfair. These mixed sentiments indicate a complex landscape for the upcoming election.
A survey conducted by the New York Times and Siena College among 2,000 voters before and after the verdict revealed slight shifts in support. Initially, Trump led Biden 48% to 45%. After the verdict, the numbers adjusted to 47% for Trump and 46% for Biden, indicating a tightening race.
Nationally, Trump's lead has decreased from three points to one percent. Despite this, Trump has retained 93% of his initial supporters. However, 7% have shifted, with 3% moving to Biden and 4% remaining undecided.
Those who shifted away from Trump are primarily young, nonwhite, disengaged, and Democratic-leaning voters. Interestingly, about a quarter of Biden's 2020 supporters who initially leaned towards Trump have now reverted to supporting Biden.
The demographic shifts are significant as Trump has lost about one-fifth of the "double haters" -- voters who disliked both candidates but previously supported him. This loss highlights the ongoing volatility and complexity of the current political climate.
As Trump continues his campaign efforts, his legal issues remain a focal point. The support he receives at events like the Beverly Hills fundraiser showcases his enduring appeal among his base, despite the challenges he faces.
New York Judge Juan Merchan has brought to light possible jury misconduct in former President Donald Trump's hush money case
Concerns arose after a Facebook comment implied that a verdict in the Trump matter was known before its official announcement, as Breitbart reports.
Merchan, presiding over Trump's trial regarding allegedly falsified business records, issued warnings to Trump attorney, Todd Blanche, and Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass. The concern was spurred by a comment posted by a Facebook user who claimed a connection to one of the jurors.
The letter from Merchan to Blanche and Steinglass highlighted the potential misconduct. The comment, found on the Unified Court System's Facebook page, suggested that the jury's decision was known before the official announcement date.
The post that sparked the concern was made by a Facebook user named Michael Anderson. Anderson's comment indicated insider knowledge, stating, "My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted." The comment further expressed gratitude: "Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!" This suggested the user had an expectation of the outcome prior to its release.
The comment came to the court's attention due to its implications. Despite being a week old, it was relevant to the ongoing trial and specific proceedings.
The comment was made in response to a routine notice on the UCS page, unrelated to President Trump's case, posted on May 29. A day later, on May 30, Trump was officially found guilty.
This jury's findings included guilty verdicts 34 counts of falsifying business records. These counts were linked specifically to payments made to adult entertainer Stormy Daniels. The comment has since been deleted from the Facebook page, but its existence raised significant concerns about the integrity of the jury process.
Under New York law, a verdict can be contested based on juror misconduct. To do so, the misconduct must be proven by a preponderance of evidence. Additionally, it must be shown that the misconduct posed a substantial risk of prejudice. This condition is integral for any move to vacate a verdict.
Judge Juan Merchan's letter was explicit: “The comment, now labeled as one week old, responded to a routine UCS notice, posted on May 29, 2024, regarding oral arguments in the Fourth Department of the Appellate Division unrelated to this proceeding.” He underscored the necessity for court awareness in such situations.
Trump's entire trial and subsequent conviction related to falsified business records and election-related payments, was thus brought into question. The social media post raised concerns about potential breaches in juror protocols.
Judge Merchan's proactive stance in notifying both the defense and prosecution demonstrated a sense of vigilance about the possible ramifications. The court's response to such information is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
The concern ultimately hinges on the ability of the defense to prove that the juror misconduct, as suggested by the comment, was significant enough to affect the trial's outcome. This development adds another layer of complexity to Trump's legal battles, particularly given the sensitive nature of the trial's context.
Former Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee predicts challenges regarding his incarceration due to Secret Service protection requirements.
Former President Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment during his 2016 presidential campaign.
According to Just The News, Former Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee predicted on Wednesday that former President Donald Trump would be jailed. He suggested that if Trump is sentenced, the Secret Service might be compelled to file a court motion to protect him.
On the heels of a New York jury's verdict, Donald Trump was found guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges stem from efforts during his 2016 presidential campaign to conceal a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress.
Trump's conviction marks a historic moment as he becomes the first U.S. president to be found guilty of felony crimes. This unprecedented legal outcome has triggered debates and predictions about his sentencing and what it entails for his security detail.
Huckabee, speaking on the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show, raised concerns about the feasibility of incarcerating a former president under Secret Service protection. He questioned the logistics and legality of such a scenario.
Huckabee elaborated on his concerns, emphasizing the Secret Service's legal obligations:
If they're foolish enough to push this and actually try to incarcerate the president, which, I'm not sure – how do you do that when he's under Secret Service protection? Do they go with him?
He suggested that presenting the former president at a prison facility like Rikers Island would hinder the Secret Service's ability to perform its duties:
I think they would probably file some court motion and say, 'we cannot guarantee the ability to protect the former president as we are required by law to do if you put him in Rikers Island. You're not going to do it.
Moreover, Huckabee argued that the law governing the Secret Service's responsibilities would likely prevent Judge Juan Merchan from ordering Trump's incarceration. This, he claimed, would conflict with the protection statutes.
The implications of Trump's legal woes extend beyond his personal fate. His sentencing date is set for July 11, just days before the anticipated Republican National Convention, where Trump is expected to be formally nominated.
Huckabee's predictions, therefore, hold weight not just for Trump but for the broader scope of American politics. They highlight the intersection of legal challenges, Secret Service protocols, and Trump's enduring influence within the GOP.
As July 11 approaches, the court's decisions and the responses of the Secret Service will be closely watched. Huckabee's hypothesis underscores the entangled nature of legal obligations and political dynamics in Trump's case.
Former President Donald Trump's sentencing on July 11 will coincide with his expected nomination by the Republican Party. Mike Huckabee has suggested that the Secret Service might file motions to ensure Trump's safety in jail, adding complexity to the situation. This historic conviction, its implications, and the upcoming Republican National Convention mark a significant moment in American politics. Huckabee's comments highlight the challenges of enforcing legal consequences on a former president.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office has requested the gag order against Donald Trump remain in place through his sentencing.
According to the Washington Examiner, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office has argued that Donald Trump should remain under a gag order while awaiting his July sentencing. This restriction could complicate Trump's preparations for the upcoming presidential debate with Joe Biden in late June.
Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor for Bragg, who previously held a high-ranking position in the Biden Justice Department, wrote to Judge Juan Merchan to keep the gag order in place. Colangelo's letter requested that the order remain until the July 11 sentencing hearing and through additional post-trial motions.
"The People oppose any immediate termination of the Orders and agree with defendant’s proposal for further briefing," Colangelo stated in his letter, requesting a specific briefing schedule for the post-trial motions.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche argued that the gag order should be lifted, especially now that the trial has concluded. Blanche pointed out that the Biden campaign has used Trump's guilty verdict to discourage voters from choosing him as the next president.
Blanche emphasized the impact on Trump's First Amendment rights, highlighting his status as a leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election. He also cited the upcoming presidential debate on June 27 as a crucial reason for lifting the order.
Blanche added in a footnote that the defense does not concede there was ever a valid basis for the gag order, reserving the right to challenge the First Amendment harms caused by it.
Trump has been fined $10,000 for violating the gag order during the trial, with Judge Merchan warning of potential jail time for further violations. "The last thing I want to consider is jail," Merchan said, acknowledging Trump's status as a former and possibly future president.
Trump's sentencing is scheduled for July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention, where he is expected to be nominated as the 2024 Republican presidential candidate. It remains uncertain whether Trump will face detention time, a fine, or probation, or if the sentencing will be delayed depending on the election's outcome in November.
The gag order has significant implications for Trump's campaign as he navigates the legal and political challenges ahead. With the presidential debate on June 27, the defense argues that Trump's ability to communicate freely is crucial.
"The concerns articulated by the government and the Court do not justify continued restrictions on the First Amendment rights of President Trump," Blanche stated. The defense maintains that the gag order infringes on Trump's ability to engage with the electorate effectively.
The decision to maintain or lift the gag order rests with Judge Merchan, who must balance legal considerations with the broader implications for the upcoming election.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office seeks to extend the gag order against Donald Trump through his July sentencing, raising concerns about its impact on his presidential campaign. The defense argues for lifting the order, citing First Amendment rights and the upcoming debate. Judge Merchan's decision will significantly influence Trump's campaign and the broader election landscape.
Representative Lauren Boebert's absence from a GOP primary debate sparked criticism from her rivals vying for Colorado's 4th Congressional District seat.
According to Newsweek, Boebert's controversial switch to a new district and her personal scandals were focal points of the debate. Boebert's GOP opponents accused her of avoiding the debate to dodge questions about her record and district switch.
Representative Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, announced in December 2023 that she would run for the state's 4th Congressional District, citing a "fresh start" following a tumultuous year for her family. Critics suggest her switch was motivated by fears of losing to Democrat Adam Frisch, who she narrowly defeated in the 2022 midterms by a margin of around 500 votes.
The debate, hosted by the Republican Women of Weld and the Lincoln Club of Colorado, featured Boebert's five GOP rivals but was notably absent of the congresswoman herself. Despite participating in two debates the previous week, Boebert did not attend this one, drawing ire from her competitors. They lambasted her legislative record, her decision to vote against certifying the 2020 presidential election results, and her connection to the district.
Boebert has received endorsements from key Republican figures, including House leadership, the Colorado Republican Party, and former President Donald Trump. Trump's support has been vocal and unwavering, describing her as a "Proven Conservative and Effective Leader" and a "trusted America First Fighter."
State Representative Mike Lynch criticized Boebert for not showing up, emphasizing his own legislative achievements and dedication to his district. "This race and this time is important enough that we need people who know how to get stuff done," Lynch stated. "I would never abandon my district."
Deborah Flora, a former talk radio presenter, stressed the need for the party to rebuild. "This district needs someone that reflects them and will reach out to our neighbors and treat them like what they are—not our enemy," Flora said. She positioned herself as a unifier who understands and respects her constituents.
Former state Senator Jerry Sonnenberg emphasized the importance of integrity and character. "If you're looking for someone that wants to be on TV, I'm not it. If you want somebody that's a workhorse, and not a show horse, that's me," Sonnenberg asserted, highlighting his commitment to working hard for the district.
Boebert has faced backlash over personal scandals, including an incident where she was kicked out of a Denver theater for inappropriate behavior. This, combined with her legislative choices, has given her opponents ample ammunition.
Peter Yu, a business owner, and Richard Holtorf, another state representative, also criticized Boebert during the debate. Yu underscored his local connections, stating, "I believe hard work matters, people realize that's who I am, that's why I'm out there."
Invoking a sense of urgency, Holtorf called for a "fighter" to represent the district. He criticized Boebert's voting record, particularly her opposition to water projects that are important to Colorado.
Pollster Floyd Ciruli noted that despite Boebert's controversies, her financial resources, name recognition, and Trump's support could give her an edge. "She's got the money, she's got universal name identification," Ciruli remarked, acknowledging the multi-candidate ballot might play in her favor.
Lauren Boebert's absence from the GOP primary debate for Colorado's 4th Congressional District seat has drawn significant criticism from her rivals. The debate, marked by attacks on her legislative record and personal scandals, highlighted the contentious nature of her candidacy. With endorsements from Trump and other Republican leaders, Boebert remains a formidable contender despite her current polling challenges. Her opponents, emphasizing their own connections and commitments to the district, aim to present themselves as more viable alternatives to the controversial congresswoman.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan advocates for Congress to cut funding for prosecution activities in politically sensitive investigations.
According to Fox News, Jordan's proposal seeks to cut funding for prosecutors pursuing cases against former President Donald Trump, whom he claims are influenced by political agendas.
Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, specifically targets defunding what he refers to as "lawfare activities" conducted by state and federal prosecutors engaged in sensitive political cases. Those mentioned are Special Counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
Jordan criticized these prosecutors, accusing them of politicizing their roles. He pointed to Bragg's conviction of Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Jordan argues that Bragg campaigned on prosecuting Trump only after he announced his 2024 presidential run.
Similarly, Jordan mentions that Willis initiated her investigation into Trump in early 2021 but proceeded with indictments only after Trump declared his candidacy. Equally scrutinized is Smith's appointment as Special Counsel just days after Trump's announcement, focusing on Trump's involvement in the January 6 incident and handling classified records.
Jordan's proposal was sent to House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole on Monday. He emphasized that this initiative builds on existing reforms for the fiscal year 2025, stressing the need for oversight on what he describes as politically driven prosecutions and abusive tactics targeting political opponents.
In addition to proposing defunding measures, Jordan's committee has already advanced the "No More Political Prosecutions Act" and the "Forfeiture Funds Expenditure Transparency Act." These actions align with his broader goal of eliminating federal funding for prosecutors involved in what he deems "lawfare."
Jordan calls for federal funding cuts to federal prosecutors and state prosecutors like Bragg and Willis. His aim includes withdrawing funds from the FBI except for essential operations and advocating for greater accountability and transparency within the bureau.
He elaborates by suggesting the appropriations process should address the alleged weaponization of the federal government. Jordan underscores the need for reforms that would tie FBI funding to specific policy changes, including the mandatory recording of interviews.
The proposal extends beyond the prosecutors handling Trump's cases. Jordan also seeks to limit taxpayer funding for President Biden’s immigration policies, efforts to censor online speech, and support for jurisdictions that defund their police departments.
In his communication, Jordan argued that oversight is critical for protecting fundamental freedoms and addressing what he describes as the misuse of professional conduct rules for political ends. He emphasized the importance of eliminating federal support for initiatives that classify online speech as misinformation.
By emphasizing these points, Jordan aims to ensure that the appropriations process continues to be a powerful check against the perceived weaponization of federal entities. His proposal underscores concerns over the allocation of law enforcement resources and misconduct allegations within FBI leadership ranks.
Former President Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges from the investigations by Bragg, Smith, and Willis, stands at the center of this funding dispute. Jordan's proposal, if enacted, could impact the federal and state prosecutions that have entangled Trump in ongoing legal battles.
As Trump awaits a Supreme Court ruling on potential immunity from Smith's Jan. 6 investigation, Jordan's push to defund these prosecutorial efforts introduces a new dynamic to the legal landscape surrounding the former president.
Jordan urges Congressional support to reinforce the appropriations process as a safeguard against politicized government actions. He invites collaboration to advance policy changes that promote greater transparency and accountability in law enforcement.
In summary, Jim Jordan, as House Judiciary Chair, has proposed an appropriations package aimed at defunding certain law enforcement activities he views as politically motivated, particularly those involving former President Donald Trump.
Jordan targets prosecutors like Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, and Fani Willis, accusing them of political bias in their cases against Trump. His proposal also calls for cuts to FBI funding and taxpayer support for specific federal policies, advocating for greater government accountability.
According to Breitbart News, Former President Donald Trump may face travel bans from the UK, Canada, and other countries following his recent felony conviction on 34 counts of falsifying records related to a payoff to Stormy Daniels.
Trump's legal team announced plans to appeal the verdict immediately. Despite the conviction, his support base appears resilient, with a significant surge in campaign donations.
Several countries, including the UK and Canada, enforce strict entry policies against individuals with criminal records. Unless special accommodations are made, this could complicate Trump's international travel plans, especially to these nations.
In the UK, convicted felons are typically barred from entry. Scotland and Ireland have similar, albeit slightly more lenient, restrictions. The legal nuances of these policies could play a critical role in Trump's ability to travel internationally.
Israel and Australia also have laws restricting entry for individuals with felony convictions. The interpretation and enforcement of these laws vary, potentially impacting Trump's travel options.
The upcoming November 5 election will test the effect of Trump's conviction on his voter base. Political analyst Karl Rove emphasized the potential deterrent effect on voters, particularly in swing states.
"If he is found guilty, let’s not underestimate that there is a problem," said Karl Rove. He noted that an 11% drop in support could significantly impact results in key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, where races are often tightly contested.
Rove elaborated, "Think about this. Those numbers, like 11% less likely to vote for him, think about Michigan, where they’re, in the RealClearPolitics average, Donald Trump is up by one-half of 1% — or Pennsylvania, where he’s up by 2%, or Wisconsin, where he’s up by 3/10 of 1%."
Despite the legal setbacks, Trump’s support base remains robust. Within 24 hours of the guilty verdict, his campaign raised $53 million in donations, indicating strong backing from his supporters.
The substantial fundraising suggests that many of Trump's followers are unfazed by the conviction. This financial boost could significantly affect his campaign strategy moving forward.
The conviction's long-term impact on Trump's political career and public perception remains to be seen. His rallying support and maintaining momentum will be critical as the November election approaches.
Trump's plans to appeal the conviction add another layer of complexity to the situation. The appeal process could extend for months, leaving his travel and campaign plans uncertain. If the appeal fails, the conviction could solidify the travel bans from countries with strict entry laws. Such bans have significant political and diplomatic implications, potentially affecting Trump's international engagements.
Donald Trump's recent conviction on 34 counts of falsifying records has far-reaching implications for his travel and electoral prospects. Countries like the UK and Canada may impose travel bans, while the impact on his voter base remains uncertain. Despite these challenges, Trump's support remains strong, evidenced by substantial fundraising efforts. The upcoming November election will be a critical test of his political resilience and public support.
In a surprising turn of events, former President Donald Trump has joined TikTok, and the announcement of the move came just days after Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Trump launched his account on the social media platform with a video from a UFC event held in New Jersey on Saturday evening, and the 13-second clip featured Trump entering the arena, waving to the crowd, and taking selfies with fans, as the Daily Mail reports.
The video montage was met with enthusiastic cheers from attendees at the Prudential Center in Newark. Trump interacted with fans, shaking hands and posing for selfies as he made his way through the audience.
UFC President Dana White introduced Trump to the crowd, accompanied by Kid Rock's "American Bad Ass." Trump responded with, "It's my honor," and later quipped, "That was a good walk on, right?"
Trump captioned his first TikTok video with, "Launching my TikTok at UFC 302," and quickly gained traction on the platform, amassing 220,000 followers. The former president became acquainted with TikTok during his recent hush money trial, with his son, Donald Trump Jr., introducing him to the app while awaiting the trial's verdict. Donald Trump Jr. has 345,000 followers on TikTok himself.
The timing of Trump's TikTok debut comes amid ongoing potential bans on the app unless ByteDance, the company owning TikTok, divests from Chinese ownership. During his presidency, Trump attempted to ban TikTok, citing national security concerns.
Despite these concerns, Trump acknowledged that banning TikTok might benefit Meta, even though he still considers ByteDance a national security threat. This move mirrors the steps taken by President Joe Biden's campaign, which joined TikTok in February and accumulated 334,000 followers.
Trump received a loud ovation from approximately 17,000 fans at the UFC event. Some in the crowd wielded "Trump 2024" flags, and as Dana White escorted the former president through the audience, the cheers grew louder. Commentators noted the overwhelming round of applause Trump received.
Comedian Theo Von and NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers were among those who encountered Trump at the event. The former president also shook hands with UFC commentator Joe Rogan and watched the Makhachev vs. Poirier fight from a ringside seat.
After his victory, fighter Kevin Holland shook hands with Trump, adding to the night’s highlights. The video ended with Trump boasting about the reception he received, encapsulating the night's enthusiastic atmosphere.
Despite the celebratory atmosphere at the UFC event, Trump's legal issues loom large. Last Thursday, Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money scheme involving Stormy Daniels. The conviction is tied to a $130,000 payment made to Daniels to influence the 2016 election.
Trump's sentencing is slated for July 11, and each of the 34 counts carries a potential maximum sentence of up to four years in prison. However, despite these legal battles, Trump’s popularity appears undiminished as evidenced by a $52 million fundraising surge following the guilty verdict.
A poll reflected a 6% increase in positive views of Trump among the electorate after the verdict. This marks a notable shift in public perception, even as Trump faces three other trials concerning handling classified documents, influencing the 2020 election, and the January 6 riots.
The frenzy surrounding Trump’s TikTok debut, coupled with his presence at UFC 302, suggests that the former president remains a polarizing yet influential figure. While his legal battles are far from over, Trump's ability to capture public attention—and support—remains undiminished.