v niche bar and restaurant
AP News Summary at 5:00 p.m. ESTRivian Automotiv e (NASDAQ: RIVN) stock is on a roll. A recent move higher has gone into overdrive over the past two days. That's because of yesterday's announcement that many investors see as a pivotal moment for Rivian's long-term success. The company has received a conditional commitment from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for a large loan that should support Rivian into its next phase of growth. That has shares moving higher again today by 3.7% as of 12:15 p.m. ET. The news, combined with progress in the underlying business, has pushed the stock up by over 20% in the past week. Start Your Mornings Smarter! Wake up with Breakfast news in your inbox every market day. Sign Up For Free » Rivian's push toward profitability Rivian's business has been progressing reasonably well, even in the face of supply chain issues and lower consumer demand for electric vehicles (EVs) than some expected. In its third-quarter report earlier this month, Rivian management reiterated its expectations to generate positive gross margin in the current quarter. The company has reduced capital spending plans and made cost-cutting efforts to help achieve that goal. One decision was to begin the first line of its R2 vehicle production at its existing production facility in Illinois. A prior plan to invest additional capital in a second manufacturing plant in Georgia was put on hold with that decision. However, yesterday's announcement of a $6.6 billion conditional loan from the DOE to help fund that second facility's construction has investors seeing a path toward another phase of growth for Rivian. The plant will ultimately have the capacity for 400,000 vehicles annually, and the project should result in 7,500 full-time operations jobs by 2030. Investors who envision the additional capacity leading to positive free cash flow for the company are buying the stock ahead of those business results. That's an aggressive position to take, but one that could pay off in the end. Investors should just realize the many risks that still remain, and allocate any position accordingly. Should you invest $1,000 in Rivian Automotive right now? Before you buy stock in Rivian Automotive, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now... and Rivian Automotive wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $839,060 !* Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service has more than quadrupled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of November 25, 2024 Howard Smith has positions in Rivian Automotive. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy . Why Rivian Stock Surged Higher Again Today was originally published by The Motley Fool
PFS Bancorp, Inc. Authorizes Stock Repurchase ProgramWhy Rivian Stock Surged Higher Again Today
A federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the US. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok's petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company's challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment. "The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States," said the court's opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. "Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary's ability to gather data on people in the United States." TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, though its unclear whether the court will take up the case. "The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans' right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,'' TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people," Hughes said. Unless stopped, he argued the statute "will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025." Though the case is squarely in the court system, its also possible the two companies might be thrown some sort of a lifeline by President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action. The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. The US has said it's concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that's difficult to detect — a concern mirrored by the European Union on Friday as it scrutinises the video-sharing app's role in the Romanian elections. TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the US hasn't provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing's benefit in the US. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasised pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government. Friday's ruling came after the appeals court panel, composed of two Republican and one Democrat appointed judges, heard oral arguments in September. In the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with how TikTok's foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform. On Friday, all three of them denied TikTok's petition. In the court's ruling, Ginsburg, a Republican appointee, rejected TikTok's main legal arguments against the law, including that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also said the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to ''suppress content or require a certain mix of content" on TikTok. "Content on the platform could in principle remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing," Ginsburg wrote, using the abbreviation for the People's Republic of China. Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court, issued a concurring opinion. TikTok's lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators - for which the company is covering legal costs - as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc. Other organisations, including the Knight First Amendment Institute, had also filed amicus briefs supporting TikTok. "This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans' access to information, ideas, and media from abroad," said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the organisation. "We hope that the appeals court's ruling won't be the last word." To assuage concerns about the company's owners, TikTok says it has invested more than USD 2 billion to bolster protections around US user data. The company has also argued the government's broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient. Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it's impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm - the platform's secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan - would turn the US version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content. Still, some investors, including Trump's former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok's US business. This week, a spokesperson for McCourt's Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than USD 20 billion in capital. (This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
AIT Stock Soars to All-Time High, Reaching $277.05
WASHINGTON — The House Ethics Committee on Monday accused Matt Gaetz of “regularly” paying for sex, including with a 17-year-old girl, and purchasing and using illicit drugs as a member of Congress, as lawmakers released the conclusions of a nearly four-year investigation that helped sink his nomination for attorney general. The 37-page report by the bipartisan panel includes explicit details of sex-filled parties and vacations that Gaetz, now 42, took part in from 2017 to 2020 while the Republican represented Florida's western Panhandle. Congressional investigators concluded that Gaetz violated multiple state laws related to sexual misconduct while in office, though not federal sex trafficking laws. They also found that Gaetz “knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct” the committee's work. “The Committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress,” the report said. Before the report came out, Gaetz denied any wrongdoing and criticized the committee's process. “Giving funds to someone you are dating — that they didn’t ask for — and that isn’t ‘charged’ for sex is now prostitution?!?” he posted on X, the website formerly known as Twitter. “There is a reason they did this to me in a Christmas Eve-Eve report and not in a courtroom of any kind where I could present evidence and challenge witnesses.” Gaetz , who was first elected in 2017, spent the majority of his time in Washington enmeshed in scandals that ultimately derailed his selection by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Justice Department . Gaetz abruptly resigned from Congress last month. His political future is uncertain, although Gaetz has indicated interest in running for the open Senate seat in Florida. The committee painted a damning portrait of Gaetz's conduct, using dozens of pages of exhibits, including text messages and financial records, travel receipts, checks and online payments, to document a party and drug-fueled lifestyle. The committee said it compiled the evidence after issuing 29 subpoenas for documents and testimony and contacting more than two dozen witnesses. In addition to soliciting prostitution, the report said Gaetz “accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts.” That same year, investigators said Gaetz arranged for a staffer to obtain a passport for a woman with whom he was sexually involved, falsely telling the State Department that she was his constituent. In some of the text exchanges made public, he appeared to be inviting various women to events, getaways or parties, and arranging airplane travel and lodging. At one point he asked one woman if she had a “cute black dress” to wear. There were also discussions of shipping goods. One of the exhibits was a text exchange that appeared to be between two of the women concerned about their cash flow and payments. In another, a person asked Gaetz for help to pay an educational expense. Regarding the 17-year-old girl, the report said there was no evidence Gaetz knew she was a minor when he had sex with her. The woman told the committee she did not tell Gaetz she was under 18 at the time and that he learned she was a minor more than a month after the party. But Gaetz stayed in touch with her after that and met up with her for “commercial sex” again less than six months after she turned 18, according to the committee. Florida law says it is a felony for a person 24 or older to have sex with a minor. The law does not allow a claim of ignorance or misrepresentation of a minor's age as a defense. Joel Leppard, who represents two women who told the committee that Gaetz paid them for sex, said the findings “vindicate” the accounts of his clients and “demonstrate their credibility.” “We appreciate the Committee’s commitment to transparency in releasing this comprehensive report so the truth can be known,” Leppard said in a statement. At least one Republican joined all five Democrats on the committee earlier this month in voting to release the report despite initial opposition from GOP lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, to publishing findings about a former member of Congress. While ethics reports have previously been released after a member’s resignation, it is extremely rare. On behalf of the Republicans who voted against making the report public, the committee chairman, Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi, wrote that while the members did not challenge the findings, “we take great exception that the majority deviated from the Committee’s well-established standards,” to drop any investigation when a person is not longer a member of the chamber. Guest added that releasing this report sets a precedent that “is a dangerous departure with potentially catastrophic consequences.” But Maryland Rep. Glenn Ivey, a Democratic member of the committee, said that for transparency, it was crucial for the public and Congress as an institution to read the findings. "I think that’s important for my colleagues here in the House to know how the committee reviews certain acts," he told The Associated Press. "Some of these were obviously conduct that crossed the line, but some of them weren’t.” Mounting a last-ditch effort to halt the publication of the report, Gaetz filed a lawsuit Monday asking a federal court to intervene. He cited what he called “untruthful and defamatory information” that would “significantly damage” his “standing and reputation in the community.” Gaetz’s complaint argued that he was no longer under the committee’s jurisdiction because he had resigned from Congress. The often secretive, bipartisan committee has investigated claims against Gaetz since 2021. But its work became more urgent last month when Trump picked him shortly after the Nov. 5 Election Day to be the nation's top law enforcement officer. Gaetz resigned from Congress that same day, putting him outside the purview of the committee's jurisdiction. But Democrats had pressed to make the report public even after Gaetz was no longer in the House and had withdrawn from consideration for Trump's Cabinet. A vote on the House floor this month to force the report’s release failed; all but one Republican voted against it. The committee detailed its start-and-stop investigation over the past several years, which was halted for a time as the Justice Department conducted its own inquiry of Gaetz. Federal prosecutors never brought a case against him. Lawmakers said they asked the Justice Department for information about its investigation, but the agency refused to hand over information, saying it does not disclose information about investigations that do not result in charges. The committee then subpoenaed the department for records. After a back-and-forth between department officials and the committee, the department only handed over “publicly reported information about the testimony of a deceased individual,” according to the committee's report. The report said Gaetz was “uncooperative" throughout the committee's investigation. He provided “minimal documentation” in response to the committee’s requests, it said. “He also did not agree to a voluntary interview.”
Today's Hoda Kotb Shows Off Her Suburban Home Christmas DecorationsTrump offers a public show of support for Pete Hegseth, his embattled nominee to lead the PentagonKen McCallum says service must make ‘uncomfortable choices’ as it faces more aggression from Russia, China and Iran
- Previous:
- Next: 25 niceph
