One of the former Minneapolis police officers who was convicted in connection to the death of George Floyd, whose passing prompted the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, has been released from custody.

A very nasty Sen. Raphael Warnock called Donald Trump a “clear and present danger” and a “plague on the American conscience.” This is a man who claims to be a pastor. He made these comments after an assassination attempt on President Trump’s life. Warnock is more Marxist than pastor. Is this who Georgia wants to […] The post Sen. Warnock Puts a Target on President Trump’s Back appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Hollywood power couple Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez are headed for divorce after two years of marriage, the second time the two were in a relationship. Lopez filed for the divorce herself on Tuesday in L.A. and did not use an attorney, TMZ reported. She listed the date of separation as April 26, 2024. According to the report, Lopez choosing to file the divorce on August 20 potentially carried some significance because they held a large wedding ceremony in Georgia exactly two years ago for their family and friends. TMZ said that there did not appear to be any kind of a prenup agreement in place and that money issues between the two have not yet been settled. The report added that she decided to be the one to file for divorce despite not having everything settled in terms of who gets what because there of “PR concerns.” TMZ reported earlier this summer that the two were quietly selling the mansion they bought together in Beverly Hills after they got married. Affleck and Lopez first met in early 2002 on the set of the crime comedy “Gigli” while Lopez was married to Cris Judd. Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. In July 2002, Affleck and Lopez were spotted kissing at her birthday party. Two days later, she filed for a divorce from Judd. By November of that year, the two were engaged and set to be married the following year. However, just one day before their wedding in September 2003, they decided to push back the wedding date, citing “excessive media attention.” “When we found ourselves seriously contemplating hiring three separate ‘decoy brides’ at three different locations, we realized that something was awry,” they said at the time. “We began to feel that the spirit of what should have been the happiest day of our lives could be compromised. We felt what should have been a joyful and sacred day could be spoiled for us, our families and our friends.” By January 2004, they decided to call off the wedding and the two went their separate ways for the next 17 years until they rekindled their relationship in early 2021 following a series of failed relationships that each had dealt with in recent years.

The Supreme Court is poised to issue a landmark decision on whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity from prosecution for actions taken during his tenure. The case, pivotal for both Trump’s legal battles and future presidential powers, centers on allegations of conspiracy and obstruction related to the 2020 election. Trump’s attorneys argue that his actions, including pressuring state officials and coordinating with the Republican National Committee to challenge electoral results, fall within his official duties and should be protected by presidential immunity. They cite the 1982 Supreme Court case, Fitzgerald v. Nixon, which granted former President Richard Nixon immunity from civil damages for official acts, as a key precedent supporting their position​. Pictured here are three men who are praying the Supreme Court grants Trump Presidential immunity today…. pic.twitter.com/xHkjUHtBc0 — @Chicago1Ray (@Chicago1Ray) July 1, 2024 However, lower courts, including a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, have unanimously rejected this claim, ruling that Trump’s actions after the election were not official acts but rather personal and political maneuvers. This decision allowed Special Counsel Jack Smith to proceed with a trial, prompting Trump to seek a stay from the Supreme Court​. The case, known as Trump v. United States, has attracted significant public and legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s decision could redefine the scope of presidential immunity, impacting not only Trump but also future presidents. Legal experts suggest that the court might adopt a middle-ground approach, distinguishing between actions taken within the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties and those clearly political or personal in nature. Good Monday. We could see a significant Supreme Court ruling on “Presidential Immunity” this morning. If SCOTUS denies immunity, then Obama can face charges for spying on Trump’s 2016 campaign. It works both ways! pic.twitter.com/6DsFht4fUD — Charles R Downs (@TheCharlesDowns) July 1, 2024 Several key issues are under consideration. Firstly, whether Trump's efforts to organize alternate slates of electors and communicate with Congress members to object to electoral votes can be deemed official acts. The court is also examining whether his pressure on Vice President Mike Pence to delay the electoral count constitutes an abuse of power beyond constitutional boundaries​​. Trump’s defense emphasizes that his conduct was part of his constitutional responsibilities, arguing that any prosecutorial action against a former president for official acts is unprecedented and would set a dangerous precedent. Conversely, the prosecution insists that Trump's actions were overtly political and aimed at subverting the electoral process, thereby falling outside the scope of legitimate presidential duties​​. The Supreme Court’s impending ruling, expected within weeks, will not only determine Trump’s legal fate but also clarify the extent of legal protections afforded to a sitting or former president. The decision could influence ongoing and future investigations, shaping the legal landscape for executive accountability in the United States​​. The outcome holds significant political ramifications as well, particularly with Trump being a prominent candidate for the 2024 presidential election. A ruling in his favor could bolster his campaign, while a decision against him might complicate his path to re-election. Regardless of the verdict, the case underscores the ongoing debate about the balance of power and accountability at the highest levels of government. The post Supreme Court to Rule on Trump’s Presidential Immunity: High Stakes for Legal and Political Landscape appeared first on The Conservative Brief.