Author

admin

Browsing

LOS ANGELES — The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening statements for the first, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, begin this week.

Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube will face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

“This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

“Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

José Castañeda, a Google Spokesperson, said that the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true.” In a statement, he said, “Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.”

The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being.

In New Mexico, opening statements begin Monday for trial on allegations that Meta and its social media platforms have failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

Prosecutors have said that New Mexico is not seeking to hold Meta accountable for its content but rather its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful, saying they uncovered internal documents in which Meta employees estimate that about 100,000 children every day are subjected to sexual harassment on the company’s platforms.

Meta denies the civil charges while accusing Torrez of cherry-picking select documents and making “sensationalist” arguments. The company says it has consulted with parents and law enforcement to introduce built-in protections to social media accounts, along with settings and tools for parents.

A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

The House Oversight Committee’s deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell ended less than an hour after it began on Monday morning, when the convicted accomplice of the late Jeffrey Epstein pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

Maxwell appeared before lawmakers virtually for a closed-door interview in the House bipartisan probe into the federal government’s handling of Epstein’s case.

She is currently serving out a 20-year sentence at a Texas prison.

Both House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a member of the committee, said they expected Maxwell to plead the Fifth Amendment in the lead-up to her scheduled sit-down.

The former British socialite was found guilty in December 2021 of being an accomplice in Epstein’s scheme to sexually traffic and exploit female minors.

The DOJ said at the time of her sentencing that Maxwell ‘enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways.’

Comer announced lawmakers would hear from Maxwell late last month during a meeting on holding former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear for his Epstein probe.

‘We’ve been trying to get her in for a deposition. Our lawyers have been saying that she’s going to plead the Fifth, but we have nailed down a date, Feb. 9, where Ghislaine Maxwell will be deposed by this committee,’ Comer said at the time.

Contempt proceedings against the Clintons stalled, however, after they agreed via their attorneys to appear in person on Capitol Hill just days before the full House of Representatives was expected to vote on referring the pair to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal charges.

Comer’s team had been in a back-and-forth with Maxwell’s attorney for months trying to nail down a date for her to speak to committee lawyers.

He agreed to delay her previous planned deposition in August after her lawyer asked him to wait until after the Supreme Court decided whether it would hear her appeal. The Supreme Court turned down Maxwell’s case in October.

She and the Clintons’ depositions are part of the House Oversight Committee’s months-long probe into how the government handled Epstein’s case. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Senate Republicans confirmed half a dozen of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees last week, continuing a quick pace to green-light as many of his picks as possible.

While the Senate GOP is moving fast to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees, the president and some of his allies want to see an over-century-old tradition in the Senate that provides bipartisan guardrails to the judicial nomination process be eviscerated.

They contend that the blue slip tradition is slowing down Republicans from being able to confirm picks, and that Democrats are holding the process hostage. 

‘Nuking the blue slip would be a huge mistake,’ Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told Fox News Digital.

Tillis, like several other Republicans, has argued that the blue slips are a valuable tool of the minority, and that inevitably, the GOP would need to use the tradition to their advantage when Democrats regain control of the upper chamber.

The Senate has confirmed 33 judges since the start of Trump’s second term, a figure that dwarfs the number of total judicial nominees, including U.S. attorneys, district and circuit court judges, moved through the upper chamber during his first go-round in the White House.

During the first year of his first term, the Senate confirmed 19 Article III nominees, including the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. 

Though Republicans are far ahead of Trump’s first time clip, Democrats under former President Joe Biden still outpaced them in this metric. Biden clocked 42 total judicial nominees confirmed during the first year of his term.

Whether the Senate can outpace Trump’s final total of 234 judicial nominees from his first term remains to be seen, but for now the blue slip appears to be safe. 

Still, Trump sounded off on the practice late last year in the Oval Office, arguing that the GOP should ‘get rid of blue slips, because, as a Republican President, I am unable to put anybody in office having to do with U.S. attorneys or having to do with judges.’

Much of his frustration with the tradition, which has been around for over 100 years in the upper chamber, likely stemmed from the nominations of Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan getting derailed by blue slips last year.

He’s taken his frustrations out on Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a vocal proponent of the practice, and other Republicans that want to maintain the tradition. 

Notably, Grassley modified the tradition in 2017 to allow for circuit court judges to skirt the process, further boosting the number of judges Republicans were able to confirm under Trump despite Democratic objections. 

When asked if the Senate’s pace in confirming judicial nominees further affirmed that the blue slip was here to stay, Grassley told Fox News Digital, ‘It doesn’t need to be a present question.’

‘Because it’s a question of 110 years, and everybody in the Senate wants to maintain the blue slip,’ Grassley said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party secured a sweeping win in Sunday’s parliamentary elections, capturing about 316 seats in the 465-member lower house and achieving a governing supermajority alongside allies. The result gives her a strong mandate to advance a conservative agenda focused on defense, immigration and economic reforms, the Associated Press reported.

A heavy metal fan and drummer, Takaichi — who has long cited former British PM Margaret Thatcher as a personal and political inspiration — expressed gratitude for President Trump’s support, thanking him for his congratulatory message following the victory and signaling continued alignment with Washington.

Trump praised her leadership in a post after the results were announced. ‘Congratulations to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her Coalition on a LANDSLIDE Victory in today’s very important Vote,’ Trump wrote on social media, ‘Sanae’s bold and wise decision to call for an election paid off big time. Her Party now runs the Legislature, holding a HISTORIC TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY — The first time since World War II. Sanae: It was my Honor to Endorse you and your Coalition. I wish you Great Success in passing your Conservative, Peace Through Strength Agenda. The wonderful people of Japan, who voted with such enthusiasm, will always have my strong support.’

The election outcome represents one of the strongest performances for the ruling party in years and solidifies Takaichi’s position only months after taking office as Japan’s first female prime minister.

Following the results, Takaichi said she was prepared to move forward with policies aimed at making Japan ‘strong and prosperous,’ as she seeks to implement reforms and bolster national security, the Associated Press reported.

Her agenda includes boosting defense spending, revising security policies and stimulating economic growth, while maintaining a tougher posture toward regional threats such as China. Known for her hawkish stance on Beijing, Takaichi is expected to maintain Japan’s close alignment with the United States.

‘Takaichi’s landslide win shows other leaders that defiance of China can be popular with voters. Nobody has to appease or please Xi Jinping anymore,’ Asia analyst Gordon Chang told Fox News Digital.

U.S. officials also welcomed the outcome. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described aid on Fox News’ ‘Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo’ that Takaichi is a strong ally and emphasized that her leadership strengthens the strategic partnership between Washington and Tokyo.

Takaichi’s victory is widely seen as a geopolitical signal as well as a domestic political triumph. Analysts say the strengthened mandate could deepen cooperation with the United States on security and economic policy at a time of rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

The snap election, called just months into her premiership, was widely viewed as a referendum on her leadership. With the opposition fragmented, voters delivered a decisive result that now gives Takaichi political space to pursue her agenda through the remainder of the parliamentary term.

Takaichi backs strengthening Japan’s defense posture and supports constitutional revision to expand the role of the military. Economically, she has praised the stimulus-driven policies associated with former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Her public thanks to Trump underscores how central the U.S. alliance remains to Tokyo’s strategy moving forward, experts say, as she prepares to translate electoral momentum into legislative and security action at home and abroad.

Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The House Oversight Committee’s deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell ended less than an hour after it began on Monday morning, when the convicted accomplice of the late Jeffrey Epstein pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

Maxwell appeared before lawmakers virtually for a closed-door interview in the House bipartisan probe into the federal government’s handling of Epstein’s case.

Her attorney apparently told lawmakers, however, that she could not implicate neither President Donald Trump nor former President Bill Clinton in any wrongdoing.

‘[B]oth President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing. Ms. Maxwell alone can explain why, and the public is entitled to that explanation,’ lawyer David Oscar Markus posted on X after the deposition.

Markus also told lawmakers that she would only answer questions if her prison sentence was cut short by Trump, according to the statement.

‘If this Committee and the American public truly want to hear the unfiltered truth about what happened, there is a straightforward path. Ms. Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump.   Only she can provide the complete account. Some may not like what they hear, but the truth matters,’ his statement said.

Maxwell is currently serving out a 20-year sentence at a Texas prison.

‘As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell took the fifth and refused to answer any questions. This is obviously very disappointing,’ House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told reporters after the deposition. ‘We had many questions to ask about the crime she and Epstein committed, as well as questions about potential co-conspirators. We sincerely want to get to the truth for the American people and justice for the survivors.’

Comer said Maxwell’s lawyer told the committee that she would only answer questions if she was granted clemency by President Donald Trump.

Maxwell did say through her attorney, however, that neither Trump nor 

Democrats on the panel, who spoke after Comer, accused Maxwell of trying to lobby for a pardon and demanded that Trump publicly rule out the possibility.

‘What we did get was another episode in her long-running campaign for clemency from President Trump, and President Trump could end that today,’ said Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va. ‘He could rule out clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell, the monster. The question for all of us today is why hasn’t he done that?’

The former British socialite was found guilty in December 2021 of being an accomplice in Epstein’s scheme to sexually traffic and exploit female minors.

The DOJ said at the time of her sentencing that Maxwell ‘enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways.’

Comer announced lawmakers would hear from Maxwell late last month during a meeting on holding former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear for his Epstein probe.

‘We’ve been trying to get her in for a deposition. Our lawyers have been saying that she’s going to plead the Fifth, but we have nailed down a date, Feb. 9, where Ghislaine Maxwell will be deposed by this committee,’ Comer said at the time.

Contempt proceedings against the Clintons stalled, however, after they agreed via their attorneys to appear in person on Capitol Hill just days before the full House of Representatives was expected to vote on referring the pair to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal charges.

Comer’s team had been in a back-and-forth with Maxwell’s attorney for months trying to nail down a date for her to speak to committee lawyers.

He agreed to delay her previous planned deposition in August after her lawyer asked him to wait until after the Supreme Court decided whether it would hear her appeal. The Supreme Court turned down Maxwell’s case in October.

She and the Clintons’ depositions are part of the House Oversight Committee’s months-long probe into how the government handled Epstein’s case. 

Comer told reporters on Monday that five more depositions would happen in the coming weeks including former Victoria’s Secret CEO Les Wexner on Feb. 18, Hillary Clinton on Feb. 26, Bill Clinton on Feb. 27, Epstein accountant Richard Khan on March 11, and Epstein attorney Darren Indyke on March 19.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing one of the most serious crises of his premiership after a cascade of resignations, renewed scrutiny over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington and mounting unrest inside the ruling Labor Party ahead of a critical meeting of members of Parliament Monday evening.

On Monday, Scottish Labor leader Anas Sarwar became the most senior party figure to call for Starmer’s resignation, saying ‘the distraction needs to end and the leadership in Downing Street has to change,’ according to the Associated Press. His intervention piles fresh pressure on the prime minister.

At the center of the crisis are newly publicized materials detailing Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, revelations that have reshaped the political stakes and triggered questions about vetting at the highest levels of government. Documents cited by Fox News Digital report Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein after his 2008 conviction, and that Epstein transferred about $75,000 in 2003 and 2004 to accounts connected to Mandelson or his husband.

Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff and one of the most influential figures inside Downing Street, stepped down on Sunday after acknowledging his role in recommending Mandelson for the diplomatic post. In a resignation statement obtained by The Guardian, McSweeney said the decision was ‘wrong’ and he accepted responsibility, calling his departure the ‘only honorable course.’

The pressure intensified hours later when Tim Allan, the prime minister’s director of communications, also resigned, according to GB News. Allan, a veteran New Labor strategist, became the second senior aide to exit as the political fallout deepened.

Dr. John Hemmings, director of the National Security Center at the Henry Jackson Society, told Fox News Digital the prime minister is now under escalating political pressure and that ‘it’s unclear as to whether he’ll survive.’

‘Prime Minister Starmer is coming under ever-increasing political pressure to resign here in London in the wake of the scandal around Lord Mandelson — his appointed ambassador to the United States — and his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. He has lost two close aides and is under attack for his China foreign policy. The Chagos Deal is under scrutiny and his trip to Beijing was largely viewed as devoid of real results,’ Hemmings said.

Alan Mendoza, executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, added: ‘It is extraordinary to be in a situation where a prime minister who won a landslide general election victory only 20 months ago is now on the verge of being forced to resign. We are here as a result of a series of policy U-turns and bad judgment calls culminating in the Lord Mandelson debacle. His fate is now ultimately in the hands of the Parliamentary Labor Party tonight. If he feels he no longer has their confidence, then there is every chance that this will be the end of Keir Starmer.’

Starmer has sought to contain the damage, saying he regrets the appointment. In remarks reported by GB News on Monday, the prime minister said: ‘I have been absolutely clear that I regret the decision that I made to appoint Peter Mandelson. And I’ve apologized to the victims, which is the right thing to do.’ He added that scandals of this kind risk undermining public faith in politics.

The prime minister now faces a showdown with Labor lawmakers, with backbench MPs expected to challenge his leadership at a party meeting Monday evening U.K. time. A senior Labor MP told GB News the ‘clock is ticking’ and called for decisive action to ‘cleanse politics.’

Downing Street has insisted Starmer will not resign despite the double departure. A spokesperson told journalists that the prime minister is ‘getting on with the job in hand and delivering change across the country,’ and he remains ‘upbeat and confident,’ and retains Cabinet support.

The political damage, however, extends beyond staffing turmoil. Mandelson was withdrawn from the ambassador role after additional details about his relationship with Epstein emerged, and he resigned from the Labor Party earlier this month, leaving Starmer confronting what experts describe as the most acute test of his leadership since taking office.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Progressive Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, shared a vulgar six-word warning for President Donald Trump as Democrats continue to hunt for links implicating him in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

It comes after Ghislaine Maxwell’s closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee in which the convicted Epstein accomplice invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering any questions from lawmakers.

‘We’re gonna be on his a–,’ Crockett told reporters on Monday morning after the deposition concluded. ‘We have a 34-count convicted felon, and there are people that are still shielding him from any type of accountability as it relates to a child sex-trafficking ring.’

She then pivoted to contrasting Trump’s treatment with how House Republicans have handled the Clintons, who are also being asked to testify, though Crockett insisted it was not a partisan situation.

‘Right now we know that they were willing to try to throw the Clintons in prison for not showing up yet,’ Crockett said. 

‘Then we went through the hearing as it relates to the Clintons, I said, ‘Listen, we know that Donald Trump’s name is mentioned more. Bring him in, too.’… This, for the Democrats, this isn’t partisanship. This is about right versus wrong.’

Crockett was referring to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., launching contempt proceedings against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for initially refusing to appear in person on Capitol Hill for their own closed-door depositions.

The Clintons’ attorneys wrote to Comer announcing they would finally agree to come in under his terms just days before the full House of Representatives was set to vote on referring the ex-first couple to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal charges.

But a public spat has erupted since then, with the Clintons demanding they instead get to testify at televised hearings. Currently, they are slated to be grilled during closed-door, videotaped depositions.

When asked about that back-and-forth by Fox News Digital, Crockett said, ‘What they want to do is they want to go behind closed doors and then come out with whatever spin that they want to put on it and have it be a he said, she said.’

‘They are playing games right now. And again, this is all about shielding and distracting from the president of the United States, who is absolutely mentioned in those files,’ Crockett told Fox News Digital.

Both Trump and Bill Clinton’s names do appear in the Epstein files released by both the committee and the DOJ, but neither is implicated in any wrongdoing related to the late pedophile.

Crockett is currently mounting a long-shot bid for the Senate seat occupied by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Amy Klobuchar introduced a bipartisan measure to crack down on money laundering by increasing penalties and ensuring laws apply to systems used by drug traffickers and terrorists.

Grassley, R-Iowa, and Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced the ‘Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Finance and Counterfeiting Act’ Friday to enhance criminal money laundering statutes.

The bill would update counterfeiting laws to prohibit state-of-the-art counterfeiting methods and increase penalties for bulk cash smuggling.

The bill would also ensure money laundering laws apply to informal value transfer systems that are often used by drug traffickers and terrorists.

The introduction of the bill comes as Trump administration officials warn that hostile actors, like cartels and terrorists, are funding operations through complex financial channels across the U.S. border. 

Grassley and Klobuchar also said the bill would prohibit the cross-border shipment of blank checks for the purpose of evading reporting requirements.

‘Criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations depend on ill-begotten cash to carry out their dark deeds. As money laundering methods have evolved over time, so must the government’s efforts to exact justice,’ Grassley said, adding that their bill would ensure law enforcement ‘has the tools they need to track down dirty money, hold criminals accountable and prevent further crimes.’

Klobuchar added that as criminals and terrorist organizations ‘develop new methods to launder money, we must provide our law enforcement with the tools they need to keep American communities safe.’

‘This bipartisan legislation makes necessary updates to anti-money laundering statutes and counterfeiting laws, ensuring the law enforcement community can stay one step ahead of those working to undermine our nation’s safety and security,’ she said.

The bill also would establish a new money laundering violation that would prohibit the transfer of funds into or out of the United States — funds specifically being transferred with the intent to violate U.S. income tax laws.

The bill would also prohibit conspiracies to create illegal money services businesses; grant wiretapping authority to investigate currency reporting, bulk cash smuggling, illegal money services businesses and counterfeiting offenses; and grant the U.S. Secret Service the explicit authority to investigate ransomware crimes and other uses of unlicensed money transmitting; and would ensure compliance with financial institutions. 

The measure has wide support in the law enforcement community and has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the National Association of Police Organizations and the National District Attorneys Association.

‘By clarifying the law in response to recent court decisions, strengthening penalties and expanding investigative authorities, this legislation will restore critical law enforcement tools and help disrupt transnational criminal organizations,’ Patrick Yoes, president of the Fraternal Order of Police said, adding that the organization ‘strongly supports this bill, which would prevent criminals and terrorists from profiting from their crimes and protect public safety and national security.’

The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys also endorsed the bill saying the ‘targeted reforms will strengthen investigations, improve prosecutorial clarity and better reflect how modern money-laundering schemes actually operate.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Numerous women urged Attorney General Pam Bondi in a high-profile Super Bowl ad on Sunday to release more files from Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking cases, signaling their dissatisfaction with the Department of Justice’s efforts to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Prominent Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., immediately elevated the ad, which came in the wake of the DOJ releasing more than 3 million pages of files and concluding its review.

Schumer shared a video of it on X, calling it ‘the most important ad’ of the day.

‘You don’t ‘move on’ from the largest sex trafficking ring in the world. You expose it. #StandWithSurvivors,’ Schumer wrote.

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., who has been leading Democrats’ inquiries into Epstein matters in the House, shared a similar message.

The women in the commercial conveyed their disapproval of the DOJ as the words ‘Tell Attorney General Pam Bondi it’s time for the truth’ flashed across the screen.

The commercial comes after the DOJ announced last month the release of more than 3 million pages from the case files. The department said it started with more than 6 million pages but withheld a major portion for a variety of reasons, including because the information could identify alleged victims or was protected by legal privileges.

The omitted files led top supporters of the Epstein legislation, including Epstein’s victims and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to contend that the DOJ failed to comply with the transparency law.

The DOJ has disputed that claim, saying its review was ‘very comprehensive’ and that it did not hide any information for the purpose of protecting President Donald Trump or other wealthy and politically connected people, including former President Bill Clinton, who were once friends with Epstein but were never accused of crimes associated with him.

Massie is among lawmakers who said they planned to visit the DOJ on Monday to review undisclosed files.

The Super Bowl commercial was created by World Without Exploitation, a project of the Tides Center, a progressive nonprofit.

It flashed images of several women holding photos of their younger selves and images of redaction marks, a nod to frustrations surrounding the DOJ heavily redacting some files while neglecting to redact names in others.

‘After years of being kept apart, we’re standing together,’ one of the women says. ‘Because this girl deserves the truth.’

The department said it has moved swiftly to correct any redaction mistakes that have been brought to its attention.

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment on the commercial.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., filed a formal complaint against Verizon on Monday after the carrier handed over his phone data to the Biden-era Department of Justice during its probe of President Donald Trump and the 2020 election – a move Republicans say violated the Constitution.

Lawyers for Hagerty wrote in the complaint to the Federal Communications Commission, reviewed by Fox News Digital, that Verizon should publicly admit wrongdoing and discipline employees who were involved in complying with a subpoena for his phone data. Otherwise, the FCC should declare that Verizon violated federal law and assign an independent monitor to watch over the company, Hagerty’s lawyers wrote.

‘Such discipline by the FCC would send a clear message that companies cannot collude with politically motivated prosecutors to violate customers’ rights,’ Hagerty’s lawyers wrote. ‘Verizon is not above the law.’

The Tennessee Republican’s complaint detailed how Verizon complied with former special counsel Jack Smith’s team by giving the prosecutors a narrow set of Hagerty’s and several other GOP senators’ phone data as part of Smith’s investigation into President Donald Trump and the 2020 election.

Verizon justified its actions in a letter to the Senate in the fall, saying the subpoenas appeared ‘facially valid’ and only contained phone numbers. They did not identify the subscribers or include information about Smith’s investigation, Verizon said.

The phone company said it did not notify the senators about the subpoenas because they were accompanied by court-authorized gag orders.

Fox News Digital reached out to a Verizon spokesperson for comment on the FCC complaint.

Republicans have widely condemned the subpoenas, saying they violated the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which gives Congress members an added layer of protection when it comes to prosecutorial matters.

Smith has repeatedly stood by them, saying he handled them according to DOJ policy at the time. The policy in question has since been changed to require prosecutors to notify the courts if requested gag orders pertain to Congress members. Previously, it did not include that requirement, leading the courts to authorize gag orders against the senators and deprive them of the ability to try to quash the subpoenas.

Hagerty’s FCC complaint is the latest instance of a senator seeking recourse for the subpoenas. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was also targeted in Smith’s probe, supported a controversial provision in the government spending bill last year that gave senators the ability to bring $500,000 civil lawsuits against the DOJ.

The provision caused significant infighting because of the perception that it would allow senators to enrich themselves, and the House later voted 426-0 to repeal it.

Hagerty’s complaint comes one day before Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., another of Smith’s targets, holds a Senate hearing called ‘Arctic Frost Accountability.’ Witnesses set to testify include executives of Verizon and AT&T.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS