The deputy chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Defense and Security Committee has chastised Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for his “arrogance” about NATO defense spending. His policies jeopardize the alliance’s existence.

Trudeau’s policies are the freeloading policies of a failing NATO. “If everyone followed Trudeau’s policies, there would be no NATO,” he remarked.

This year, Canada is set to spend 1.37 percent of its GDP on defense, significantly lower than the two percent objective agreed upon by heads of government in 2014.

Members have decided that 2% should be the minimum as concerns rise about Russia’s ongoing assault on Ukraine.

Trudeau reiterated last week that his government is on a “concrete” track to meet the minimum aim by 2032.

“The world is getting more dangerous, more unstable, which is why we’ve committed to reaching the 2 percent, why we’ve almost doubled our investments in defense over the past years, and will continue to over the coming years,” Mr. Trump stated.

He stated that Canada intends to purchase submarines, increase its funding in NORAD, and improve partnerships with NATO.

Many Americans, particularly those who support President-elect Donald Trump, believe it is still too slow. Turner stated that if countries such as Canada do not step up, there will be consequences for those “who cheat.”

The Republican senator penned an op-ed in Newsweek describing Canada’s prime minister as NATO’s greatest threat.

In the op-ed, he stated that Trudeau’s leadership has been so arrogant that it believes it is beyond the need to recognize that authoritarianism is one of the most serious challenges to democracy.

The only way to preserve democracy is to have a robust defense. Trudeau’s policies have outsourced it.

They’ve freeloaded on American taxpayers. The alliance’s call, which Canada also agreed to, is for everyone to pay their fair share and get above 2%, which Justin Trudeau has failed to meet.

Related:

Trudeau GST Tax Holiday to Cost Taxpayers $6.3 Billion

Trudeau GST Tax Holiday to Cost Taxpayers $6.3 Billion

(VOR News) – On Friday, the United States Supreme Court refrained from issuing a rule on Facebook’s permissibility of shareholders advancing a securities fraud claim.

The litigation alleges that Facebook, a subsidiary of Meta, misled investors about the improper utilization of user data from the social media site.

At their hearing on November 6, the justices denied Facebook’s appeal against a lower court’s ruling that allowed a class action lawsuit initiated by Amalgamated Bank in 2018 to proceed.

On November 6, the Supreme Court stated that the issue should not have been addressed and, therefore, opted not to resolve the fundamental legal question at hand. The intervention ensures that the lower court’s verdict remains in force.

The court issued a one-line order for dismissal without providing a rationale. This month, the Supreme Court addressed two cases concerning the ability of private litigants to hold companies accountable for purported securities fraud. One such instance was the dispute involving Facebook.

The alternative case for chip manufacturer NVIDIA, renowned for its specialization in artificial intelligence, was discussed on November 13th. The Supreme Court rendered a verdict in the NVIDIA case on November 13th.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Facebook claimed that the company had inappropriately withheld information from investors concerning a 2015 data breach involving the British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica.

The incident impacted over 30 million Facebook users.

Facebook faced allegations of misleading investors, constituting a violation of the Securities Exchange Act, a federal statute established in 1934 that requires publicly traded companies to disclose the risks they encounter.

In 2018, media claims indicated that Cambridge Analytica had improperly utilized Facebook user data during Donald Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign, resulting in a fall in Facebook’s stock market price.

The investors have submitted a claim for unspecified monetary damages to partially offset the value of the stock they previously possessed.

The inquiry at hand was whether the company had contravened the law by declining to disclose details regarding the prior data breach in later business-risk disclosures while characterizing such scenarios as merely hypothetical.

Andy Stone, a representative, expressed his discontent with the Supreme Court’s decision to refrain from clarifying this specific legislative provision.

Stone asserted, “The plaintiff’s allegations are unfounded, and we will persist in our defense as the district court reviews this case.”

Facebook asserted that it was not obligated to disclose that the risk it had previously cautioned about had already materialized, as “a reasonable investor” would interpret risk disclosures as forward-looking statements.

President Joe Biden’s administration expressed its support for shareholders in this instance.

Initially dismissed by United States District Judge Edward Davila, the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated the action.

The decision compelled Facebook to appeal to the Supreme Court.

As Alan Morrison, a law professor at George Washington University, states, the plaintiffs are anticipated to pursue discovery, a process entailing the sharing of information between the litigating parties, following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal.

Morrison also indicated that Facebook “may refile their motion to dismiss under a slightly altered standard, partially to achieve delay.”

After the Cambridge Analytica data breach, the United States government commenced inquiries into privacy protocols, alongside other lawsuits and a congressional inquiry. In 2019, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated enforcement action against Facebook.

The company ultimately resolved the complaint for $100 million. Consequently, Facebook was obligated to remit a distinct penalty of $5 billion to the Federal Trade Commission of the United States.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency overseeing fraudulent activities in the securities sector, has had its authority curtailed by prior Supreme Court rulings.

SEE ALSO:

Pam Bondi has been appointed as US Attorney General following Gaetz’s resignation.

PayPal’s Technical Challenges Are Affecting Thousands Of Customers Globally.

(VOR News) – President-elect Donald Trump selected Pam Bondi, a former Florida Attorney General and ally, to succeed Matt Gaetz on Thursday after the latter withdrew from consideration.

Gaetz’s drug use and sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl were the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee. He denies any wrongdoing.

During Trump’s first administration, Pam Bondi, 59, served on the Opioids and Drug Abuse Commission. He served as police chief of the third-most populous state from 2011 to 2019.

She was also a member of Trump’s defense team at his first impeachment hearing, where he was charged with using military assistance to get Ukraine to look into the wrongdoing of his opponent, now President Joe Biden. The Senate cleared Trump on all charges.

The right-wing America First Policy Institute, which has collaborated with Trump’s campaign to create government concepts, most recently had Pam Bondi as its legal branch leader.

Unlike Pam Bondi, Gaetz lacks the experience necessary to serve as attorney general and will likely encounter resistance from Senate Democrats and some Republicans.

According to Jones Walker defense attorney David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor in Florida, “She is unequivocally qualified for the position on paper.” Throughout her life, she battled in court. Her resume stood out from the previous nominee.

In a tweet announcing his intention to nominate Bondi, Trump praised her skills as a prosecutor and her firm stance against crime as Florida’s first female attorney general. Trump said that even though Bondi was elected on November 5th, while numerous state and federal criminal investigations were underway, he pledged to keep federal prosecutions from being politicized.

According to Trump, “The biased Department of Justice has been weaponized against me and other Republicans for an excessive duration.” That is not true anymore.

Discussion about Pam Bondi

In 2013, the Trump Foundation may have broken federal law by giving $25,000 to a political action committee that supported Pam Bondi. Bondi thought about looking into the for-profit Trump University.

Pam Bondi disputed that her decision to end her legal actions against Trump University following the 2016 disclosure of Trump’s $25,000 gift had anything to do with her decision to withdraw from those actions. According to her, all pertinent material was made public by her office.

The Trump team attributed the erroneous money disclosure to a “series of unfortunate coincidences and errors.” New York state fraud investigations resulted in the dissolution of both Trump University and the Trump Foundation.

After misleading Trump University students, he settled for $25 million and was fined $2 million for misusing charitable funds.

Following Special Counsel Jack Smith’s acquisition of two indictments against him for his interference in the 2020 election and his possession of secret materials after leaving office, Trump has voiced his displeasure with the present leadership of the Justice Department and pledged retaliation.

Bondi remains loyal

She and several other lawyers claimed that Smith’s appointment was illegal in an amicus brief they prepared in support of Trump in the secret information litigation. The Justice Department filed an appeal after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump nominee, rejected the case.

According to a long-standing rule against charging a sitting president, Smith and other top Justice Department officials are examining how both Trump criminal cases were resolved.

Trump was incensed with the obstructionism of the Justice Department during his first administration. Bill Barr specifically refuted Trump’s baseless claims that he lost the 2020 election due to fraud, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions permitted an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Trump’s objectives for the Justice Department have been delineated through his public remarks and interviews with former department lawyers and Mark Paoletta, a conservative lawyer who develops the department’s policy.

Federal prosecutors may give illegal immigration cases priority.

Cities might have to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement to obtain a portion of the department’s $291 million justice assistance award.

The Civil Rights Division will probably refocus its attention from legal challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the public and commercial sectors to police accountability to religious freedom.

SEE ALSO:

PayPal’s Technical Challenges Are Affecting Thousands Of Customers Globally.

Matt Gaetz Withdraws as Trump’s Pick for Attorney General