UNBIASED - June 10, 2024: Jury Begins Deliberations in Hunter Biden's Trial, Donald Trump Attends Pre-Sentencing Hearing, Supreme Court to Hear Facebook's Data Breach Case, and More.

Episode Date: June 10, 2024

1. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Stemming from Facebook/Cambridge Analytica Data Breach (0:33)2. Defense and Prosecution Present Closing Arguments in Hunter Biden's Firearm Trial; Jury Begins Deliberations (6:36)3. Trump Attends Pre-Sentencing Interview With Probation Officer Ahead of July 11th Sentencing Date (10:43)4. Quick Hitters: Apple Announces New "Apple Intelligence," UN Security Council Approves US Resolution for Permanent Ceasefire, Trump Says He'll Nix Taxes on Tips (12:45)Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Monday, June 10th, and this is your daily news rundown. If you love the unbiased approach that this episode provides and you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever platform you listen, share the show with your friends, and if you're watching on YouTube, please go ahead and hit that thumbs up button and subscribe to the channel if you're not already. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. This morning started off with a release of orders from Supreme Court justices, including the acceptance of a case called Facebook versus

Amalgamated Bank. As a refresher, orders are different than opinions in that orders are very brief. Oftentimes they don't come with any notes at all from the justices and typically just grant or deny certain requests of the court. Opinions on the other hand are actual decisions from the justices in cases that they've heard and also the rationale behind those decisions. With opinions, we know how each justice ruled, whereas with orders, justices rarely publicize how they voted on any given order. So today was an order day. The justices denied 87 petitions for writ of certiorari and granted two, meaning they won't hear the merits of those 87 cases, but they will hear

the merits of two. Those two cases, it was one case called Advocate Christ Medical versus Becerra, Becerra being the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. And the second case was Facebook versus Amalgamated Bank. Advocate Christ Medical is a case involving Medicare and what the phrase entitled to benefits means in the Medicare Act. If you want more on that case, I do have a few links for you in the sources section of my website, which you can always find a link to in each episode description. But the second case, Facebook versus Amalgamated Bank, actually stems from quite a big data breach that took place years ago. So this case deals with whether

Facebook was required to disclose details of that data breach to investors. But in a more general sense, the justices in hearing this case and deciding the case will clarify how much disclosure of damaging information on SEC forms is enough. So you may remember the Cambridge Analytica data breach back in 2016. Facebook ended up having to pay just over $5 billion in civil penalties to settle charges by the FTC and SEC as a result of that breach, but it's that breach that's at the center of this case. So a little bit of background, in 2014, this researcher and professor at Cambridge University developed a personality quiz app that ended up on Facebook. Roughly 270,000 people end up installing it, sharing their data with it, which not only included their data, but also information

about that person's Facebook friends. So based on the data that was collected, the guy who designed the app would then create these personality scores that could allegedly predict voter behavior. Well, in 2015, this guy that developed the app goes ahead and sells the data that he had obtained through this quiz to Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm. Cambridge Analytica then allegedly used that data to help Ted Cruz's presidential campaign and later Trump's campaign. Despite this was all despite telling Facebook that it had already deleted all of the data that it bought from the developer. But the issue here is with the investors who say that Facebook didn't properly disclose that data misuse, which ultimately ended up tanking the stock and

hurting them. So all of the news reports about Cambridge Analytica using the data for Trump's campaign came out in March 2018. In April, the next month, Facebook released its first quarter earnings, which were above analysts' expectations. At the same time, Facebook told investors that there may be possible headwinds in the second quarter because one, it was expecting an increase in expenses driven by investments in data security, but did not specify why. Two, it was hiring more employees. And three, because Europe was imposing a regulatory change called the GDPR. So the data breach and the details of the data breach were never really specified. Then in July, when Facebook announced its second quarter earnings, they were down.

And in a letter to investors, Facebook attributed the down earnings to that regulatory change in Europe. However, the earnings announcement again didn't mention anything about Cambridge Analytica. The day after Facebook announced its second quarter earnings, its stock price declined nearly 19%, amounting to $100 billion in shareholder value, which at the time was the largest single-day stock price drop in U.S. history. vested in Facebook between February 2017 and July 2018, and they alleged fraud. And they said the fraud in part stemmed from a statement made by Facebook on its quarterly SEC filing called the 10K filing. Basically, there's a section of the 10K form titled risk factors where companies are supposed to disclose, quote, material factors that make an investment speculative or risky, end quote. And in filling out that form, Facebook did warn of security breaches and improper access to data. But

investors said that the way the statement was phrased was as if it was a hypothetical, not an actual event that had taken place. So this case goes up on appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of the investors. And now Facebook has taken that decision to the Supreme Court to try to get it reversed because according to Facebook, the Ninth Circuit's decision imposes, quote, expansive risk disclosure requirements that will force public companies to inform investors of past incidents that pose no threat to the business, end quote. So again, the justices, when they do hear this case, which will be sometime after October, they'll have to clarify what is required of companies when it comes to these risk factor disclosures. And as an aside, but also related

note, there are two opinion days this week, back to back, the first on Thursday, the second on Friday. And as I said, as we get closer to the end of the month, we'll start seeing these decisions in more of those controversial cases. So stay tuned for my episode later this week, where I'll talk about the opinions that are released at the end of the week. In other legal news, Hunter Biden's trial ended today with closing arguments and the jury is currently in deliberations. So to recap, at the center of this case is whether Hunter Biden knowingly lied on a form when he bought a gun in 2018. Specifically, federal law prohibits people who are users of controlled substances from buying or owning a firearm. So naturally, when you buy a firearm, you have to acknowledge on a federal form, an ATF form,

that you are not an unlawful user of controlled substances. Well, when Hunter filled out the form, he did exactly that. He checked no, that he was not an unlawful user of controlled substances, but the prosecution says this was a lie, that Hunter was in fact addicted to drugs, specifically cocaine, when he bought the gun, and that he knew he was an addict at the time that he made the purchase and, you know, checked off no anyway and therefore lied on the form. Now, before we get into closing arguments, let me just tell you what the jury has to find. To return a guilty conviction, the jury has to find that the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt doubt that Hunter Biden was abusing

controlled substances around the time that he purchased the gun and for the 11 days thereafter in which he possessed the gun, that he knew he was abusing controlled substances when he filled out that form, and that he knew he was violating the law when he filled out the form and answered no. So that's what the jury has to find. But if the jury has any reasonable doubt, and therefore the prosecution didn't meet their burden, then they'll return a not guilty verdict. When it came time for closing arguments, the prosecution went first, as is typical, and the prosecution focused on the testimony of Hunter Biden's ex-girlfriends, as well as an FBI agent who testified as to the contents of Hunter's laptop. Specifically, Hunter's ex Hallie, who was the one that found the gun, threw it in the dumpster, and started this whole investigation, testified that she saw crack residue in Hunter's car at the time that

she found the gun, which was 11 days after he had purchased it. Hunter's ex Zoe testified that she saw Hunter using drugs in late September of 2018, which was just a couple of weeks before he bought the gun. And then the FBI agent came on and testified as to messages that Hunter had sent his relatives about his addiction and messages he sent to apparent drug dealers wanting to buy drugs around the time that he bought the gun. The defense focused on the burden of proof, which is normal because remember, the prosecution has to prove its charges beyond a reasonable doubt. So as the defense, you want to raise any and all reasonable doubt that you possibly can.

And in doing that, convince the jury that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. So Hunter's attorney focused on the idea that the prosecution did not charges beyond a reasonable doubt. So Hunter's attorney focused on the idea that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter knew his purchasing of the gun was illegal when he bought it because of his drug use, obviously. His attorney also focused on the fact that the prosecution didn't show any direct evidence of drug use in October 2018 outside of testimony, meaning no one actually witnessed any drug use during October 2018. They found drug residue, sure. There were text messages, sure. But no one actually saw him using drugs during the month of October. So again, Hunter's

team is really focused on convincing the jury that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter was not only addicted to drugs or a user of drugs at the time that he bought the gun, but also that he knew he was an unlawful user of drugs when he filled out the form and that he knew he was breaking the law when he filled out and signed the forms. All of those things have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, just before I hit the record button on this episode, the jury went into deliberations. So there could be a verdict by the end of the day today or by the end of the day tomorrow. So stay tuned for an update there because there very well could be a verdict by the end of the day today. Just depends how the jury's feeling. And in that case, I'll cover it in tomorrow's

episode. Now onto the third story. The theme of this episode is just legal news, apparently, because in some other news, Donald Trump seemingly confirmed that he did attend his pre-scheduled pre-sentencing hearing with a probation officer at Mar-a-Lago this afternoon. The apparent confirmation came by way of a fundraising email to his supporters. It read in part, quote, I'm actually about to speak to a probation officer about my rigged conviction, end quote. The interview was scheduled to take place today, but the reason that no one knew for sure whether he would go is because defendants aren't necessarily required to attend these pre-sentencing interviews. And you might be wondering why would a defendant not be required to go to these pre-sentencing interviews?

And the answer is just that it's just not required. Like, it can only hurt the defendant by not going. So if the defendant does go, it's sort of their opportunity to try to positively impact their sentence. Whereas if they don't go and they don't sit for questions, the probation officer can then go tell the judge that the defendant didn't show up and it would probably ultimately end up hurting the defendant's sentencing. So when it comes to what happens at a pre-sentencing interview, think of it as a process where you as the defendant are asked about everything that could potentially impact

your sentence. So questions about the conviction, the defendant's version of the story and conviction, the defendant's employment history, criminal history, personal history, familial history, health status, financial status, reasons and or motive for committing the crime. Basically anything that a judge would want to take into account before handing down the sentence. So that is what Trump sat for today. And now from here, Trump's team will submit their sentencing recommendation to the sentence. So that is what Trump sat for today. And now from here, Trump's team will submit their sentencing recommendation to the judge. The court should have that by Thursday. The Manhattan

DA will also submit a sentencing recommendation, likely sometime this week as well. And then sentencing is of course scheduled for July 11th. So just about a month away, exactly a month away from tomorrow. Now let's finish with some quick hitters. Apple announced Apple Intelligence at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference today. The company said its new AI features that will roll out with iOS 18 will be able to manage your notifications, automatically write things for you, summarize text in mail and messaging apps, and let you generate new genmojis, which are emoji-like reactions that are created just for you when you cannot find the right emoji to describe what you're trying to say. So these are just a few of the new features that will roll out in the near future. But for more,

I do of course have a couple of links for you in the sources section, and you can dive into that a little bit further. The United Nations Security Council was set to hold a vote this afternoon on a permanent ceasefire proposal by the United States between Israel and Hamas. At the time I'm recording, we don't yet have the result of the vote, but just so you're aware, if it does pass, which it is expected to, this would actually be the second ceasefire proposal to pass the UN Secretary Council. The first one to pass was in March. Now, obviously, there has been no ceasefire despite the March vote. So even if this proposal passes today, it doesn't guarantee an actual ceasefire. That is to say, there's no real binding effect.

And yesterday, as the final quick hitter, Donald Trump held a rally in Nevada where he vowed to end taxation on tips for service workers if he's elected. He said, quote, When I get to office, we are going to not charge tax on tips. We're not going to do it. And we're going to do that right away. First thing in office, because it's been a point of contention for years and years and years. And quote, currently federal law requires workers that earn wages based on tips to report their tip

earnings on their taxes, which is then taxed at the same rate as regular income. So for this to change, the law would need to be changed by Congress. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic night and I will talk to you tomorrow.