Former First Lady Michelle Obama has become something of a national marriage counselor over the past couple of years by repeatedly opening up in interviews about her 30+ year relationship with former President Barack Obama, offering up advice and revelations that have occurred to her over the years.

In one recent interview, however, Obama sought to dissuade others from idealizing her marriage since, like most other long-term relationships, it had endured its "ups and downs" and "broken things" that could have resulted in a split, according to Hollywood Life.

The key for her, which applies to all others in lengthy relationships, is learning to look past the inevitable disagreements and fights to instead focus on and treasure the good times together with a beloved spouse.

Even the "best of marriages" suffer from "broken things" and conflict

On Monday, "On Purpose" podcast host Jay Shetty posted an hour-long discussion with the former first lady that included a conversation about making marriage or other long-term relationships work despite occasional troubles.

"I don’t want people looking at me and Barack like hashtag 'couple goals' and not know that no, no, there are some broken things that happen even in the best of marriages," Obama said at one point.

"After 31 years, yeah, we still do [cross the line], but you know it quicker. And then you apologize," she continued. "You learn how to say my bad, right? That takes a second, right?"

Learn to deal with inevitable disagreements

"I talk about marriage because I just think that, No. 1, most people don’t talk about it. Because what happens is that by not knowing, you hit, in your relationship, some natural, like, understandable rough patches, and you want to quit," the former first lady said. "And it’s like, 'Oh, no, no, no, no, no. That’s not quit-worthy. That’s just the nature of things.' That’s why I joked, it’s like, 'Oh, you’re mad at your partner, you’re mad for a year and you think the marriage is over.'"

"You don’t quit on it, right? You learn from it. And that’s what sustaining a relationship is. It’s the choice to figure it out, not to quit when it gets hard," Obama explained. "So yeah, I said something that I didn’t mean to say, right? Year five, we might’ve had hurt feelings and it would have taken days to rectify it. Year 30, it’s like, 'Ah, there she goes again,' or 'there he goes again.' I know how to talk to him about it and when, because we’ve practiced it."

Obama previously issued similar marital advice

This isn't the first time that former first lady Obama has seemingly been pressed into the role of national marriage counselor by responding to probing interview questions with surprisingly revelatory answers and advice derived from her own experiences in a three-decade relationship with the former president.

In April 2023, Obama sat for an interview with "CBS This Morning" co-host Gayle King and admitted that there had been around 10 years early in their marriage in which she "couldn't stand" being with Barack but stuck with the relationship because of their two young daughters, Sasha and Malia.

She explained that many couples don't fully realize ahead of time that "marriage is hard" and "ain't always fun," and said, "And a lot of young people quit on marriage over things that are just a part of the commitment. We've been married for 30 years. If I fell out with him for 10, and we had a great 20 years, I'd take those odds anytime."

Obama struck a similar tone in a November 2022 interview with NPR to promote her new memoir at the time, and shared how "We have to understand that marriage is never 50/50," but rather is a constant give and take of compromises and sacrifices that, hopefully, all even out over time between spouses.

She further cautioned that new couples should give serious thought to what they hope to achieve with a long-term relationship before making it official, but once that knot is tied be willing to not "quit too soon" and faithfully endure the bad times and "long stretches of discomfort" that, ideally, are outweighed and overcome by the good times that make a lasting relationship all the more beautiful.

Donald Trump is hoping to have the Supreme Court rule that presidential immunity will block him from being prosecuted in the January 6 case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

If the court does not rule in Trump's favor, Smith just added more evidence against Donald Trump.

According to the most recent reporting, Trump's former Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, may have just buried Trump.

Scavino Rolls Over

Scavino, who has worked for Trump for decades and is still listed as a campaign adviser, spoke with Special Counsel Jack Smith's legal team about Trump's alleged actions that day.

After refusing to testify before the House Select Committee on January 6, Scavino did speak with Smith's team.

According to the ABC News report, Scavino told Smith's team that as the violence started to erupt that day, Donald Trump "was just not interested" in doing more to stop it from raging out of control.

When Trump was told that then-Vice President Pence had to be taken to a secure location, Scavino reportedly told Smith's team that the president's response was, "So what?"

The Selection Committee had accused Trump of "an utter moral failure" as well as "a clear dereliction of duty," and Scavino's account would apparently back that up.

"Smoke coming out of the Capitol"

The report went on to say that Trump had pretty much closed himself off from talking to all but a handful of advisers that day, with Scavino being one of them.

It further claimed that Scavino warned Trump that day, "This is all your legacy here, and there's smoke coming out of the Capitol."

The new report revealed that Scavino was the only other person to have access to Trump's Twitter account at the time, and when the post was made regarding Pence not having "the courage to do what should been done," aides rushed to find Scavino to ask him why he would post something that appeared to agitate the crowd even more. Scavino replied, "I didn't do it," with the implication being that Trump himself made that particular post.

It was not until 4:15 p.m. local time that Trump released a video message that stated, "This was a fraudulent election. But] we have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special." The House Select Committee found that the crowd started to disperse and leave the Capitol once Trump released that message.

When Trump's campaign team was asked about the ABC News report, it called it "second-hand hearsay." Dan Scavino has declined to comment about the report as of this writing.

The aircraft industry was rocked this week after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded more than 170 specific planes.

According to the Washington Times, the FAA grounded 71 Boeing 737 Air Max 9 aircraft. The planes will be inspected "following an incident in which a panel of fuselage blew out of an Alaska Airlines flight."

The inspections required to get the planes airworthy will take "four to eight hours" per aircraft.

The plans that have been inspected so far haven't turned up any critical findings, according to early reports.

What happened?

FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker announced the grounding of the planes, which caused significant disruptions in flights.

"The FAA is requiring immediate inspections of certain Boeing 737 Max 9 planes before they can return to flight," said Whitaker. "Safety will continue to drive our decision-making as we assist the [National Transportation Safety Board’s] investigation into Alaska Airlines Flight 1282."

The Times noted:

The grounding comes after Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, bound for Ontario, California on Friday, returned to Portland, Oregon, shortly after taking off.

A federal investigator said the government’s probe of a blowout in an Alaska Airlines plane Friday is for now focused on the flight-specific accident rather than the model of the jet in question, which was manufactured by Boeing https://t.co/kftO55ThOh https://t.co/kftO55ThOh

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) January 7, 2024

There was an obvious hole in the plane after its fuselage blew out along with one of the plane's windows.

Oxygen masks were activated during the incident, but luckily none of the 174 passengers were injured as the plane was able to land safely.

Social media users react

Users across social media were skeptical about the incident that caused the situation on the plane.

"Once again, the reckless pursuit of profits over safety has led to the grounding of yet another 737 MAX. This stark example of corporate negligence shows what happens when companies prioritize their bottom line over human lives, fast-tracking flawed designs to bolster shareholder pockets. How many more incidents will it take before real change happens? Ask yourself, given this track record, would you dare to set foot on a 737 MAX?" one X user asked.

Another X user wrote, "This is a cursed airframe that will seemingly only continue to have shocking incidents."

Only time will tell if the rest of the planes pass inspection. Boeing can't afford another incident.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise's (R-LA) office announced on Friday that he will miss House votes until sometime in February as he receives treatment for multiple myeloma, including a stem cell transplant. 

Scalise already underwent chemotherapy to treat the blood cancer, and his response was considered positive enough to have the transplant.

Scalise's office said in a statement:

Last month, Leader Scalise successfully completed induction chemotherapy and had a positive response. It has now been determined he is eligible for an autologous stem cell transplant. He is currently undergoing the transplant process, marking a significant milestone in his battle against cancer. Once the procedure is completed, he will be recovering under the supervision of his medical team and will work remotely until returning to Washington next month. He is incredibly grateful to have progressed so well, and is thankful to his entire medical team, family, friends, and colleagues for their prayers and support.

Scalise's absence makes the Republican majority even more razor-thin than it had been previously, however.

Republicans decimated

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) left Congress at the end of 2023, and Rep. Bill Johnson (R-LA) will be leaving in January.

That gives Republicans 219 seats to Democrats 213 after Rep. George Santos (R-NY) was expelled over ethics allegations last month.

Republicans fear that the February special election for Santos' seat will go to Democrat Tom Suozzi, who formerly held it, which would give Democrats 214 seats.

Scalise's absence would make the advantage effectively 218-214, which means that if more than one Republican defects on any particular vote, Republicans could not hold their majority.

A divided government

The divided nature of the House reflects a divided electorate, particularly at the local level for some seats.

While Republicans are seen as having a good chance to win back the Senate in 2024 because of the number of seats up for grabs and their makeup, holding onto the House could be a much tougher proposition.

In some cases, a divided government works well in keeping extreme legislation from being passed when either side has power. The Founding Fathers even said that was part of why they came up with a bi-cameral, three-branch government full of checks and balances.

However, it would be nice to be able to undo some of the damage Biden has caused since taking office as well as stopping him from doing any more damage, and having power in Congress would help with that.

Currently, the House is the only chance Republicans have outside of the courts to stop unchecked Democrat power, and having the Republican majority stand on a knife's edge is a bit precarious for many conservatives.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who was criminally indicted in September on federal bribery and corruption charges, has now been hit with a superseding indictment that alleges even more criminal behavior by the New Jersey senator.

That news prompted the indicted Democrat's colleague, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), to reiterate his prior demand that Menendez be expelled from the Senate since he has adamantly refused to resign, Fox News reported.

Menendez had previously been accused of using his power and influence as a senator to benefit the Egyptian government and military in exchange for bribes, an accusation that has now been expanded to include similar allegations of corruption involving the government of Qatar.

The allegations against Menendez

On Tuesday, Sen. Fetterman posted on social media a link to an article about the superseding indictment against Sen. Menendez and wrote, "Now, accused of selling his honor and our nation for a $24,000 watch. Accused as a foreign agent for *two* nations. How much more before we finally expel @SenatorMenendez?"

Indeed, the new indictment of the senior Democratic senator from New Jersey alleges that he received from Qatar various items of value in exchange for actions to that nation's benefit, including an expensive gold watch and tickets to a racing event, among other things.

Previously, Menendez had been federally indicted on allegations that he had accepted bribes in the form of cash, gold bars, a luxury vehicle, home mortgage payments, a job for his wife, and other items of value in exchange for actions that benefited the Egyptian government and military along with a trio of New Jersey business associates and accomplices.

Fetterman called for Menendez to resign amid criminal allegations

Fox News reported that Sen. Fetterman, in reaction to the initial indictment of Sen. Menendez in September, had said in a statement, "Senator Menendez should resign."

"He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence under our system, but he is not entitled to continue to wield influence over national policy, especially given the serious and specific nature of the allegations," he added at that time. "I hope he chooses an honorable exit and focuses on his trial."

Menendez has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and defied the demands that he resign from the Senate, though he did step down from the powerful chairmanship he previously held of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Fetterman says Menendez should be expelled from Senate

Fetterman continued to call on Menendez to resign and stepped that up to include talk of expulsion from the Senate if he refused to leave voluntarily during an appearance in December on ABC's "The View" that happened to coincide with the expulsion from the House of ex-Rep. George Santos (R-NY) amid an outcry over his alleged dishonesty and fraud, for which he was also criminally indicted.

The Pennsylvania senator told the program's co-hosts, "But to me, I think the more important picture is that we have a colleague in the Senate that has actually did more sinister and serious kinds of things. Sen. Menendez. He needs to go."

"And if you are going to expel Santos, how can you allow somebody like Menendez to remain in the Senate?" he added. "And you know, Santos’ lies were almost funny, and like he, you know, landed on the moon. That kinda stuff. Whereas, you know, Menendez, I think is really a senator for Egypt, not New Jersey."

Menendez attorney dismisses new charges as "desperation" and "persecution"

Fox News reported that Sen. Menendez's attorney, Adam Fee, said in a statement that the new criminal indictment had a "stink of desperation" on the part of federal prosecutors and said, "Despite what they’ve touted in press releases, the government does not have the proof to back up any of the old or new allegations against Senator Menendez."

"What they have instead is a string of baseless assumptions and bizarre conjectures based on routine, lawful contacts between a senator and his constituents or foreign officials," the lawyer added. "They are turning this into a persecution, not a prosecution."

There is a substantial portion of Democratic voters, particularly those who are young and progressive, who do not enthusiastically support President Joe Biden's 2024 re-election campaign and prefer other options to be the Democratic Party's nominee.

A major last-ditch effort to remove and replace Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee has now been launched by a progressive group that is closely aligned with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the Washington Examiner reported.

That group opposing Biden as the nominee is the No Excuses PAC, which is led by Trent Corbin, who previously served as communications director for Ocasio-Cortez, who herself has only offered a tepid endorsement of the incumbent president's bid for a second term.

Progressive group aims to replace Biden as Democratic nominee

The No Excuses PAC, first launched in 2021 to encourage more Democrats to adopt progressive policy positions, has now shifted its messaging to focus on urging President Biden to step aside and allow other Democratic candidates an opportunity to seek the party's nomination.

The PAC's website now reads in bold letters, "Thank you, Joe. Now it's time to go," and makes the case for why somebody other than him should lead Democrats into the 2024 election, most likely against former President Donald Trump.

"President Biden, you’ve accomplished more in three years than most two-term presidents. But battleground state voters say they’ll vote for Trump if you’re the Democratic nominee. It might not make sense. But it doesn’t have to," the PAC said in a new 30-second ad. "The reality is that if you attempt to cling to power, your legacy will be Donald Trump’s final destruction of our democracy. If you step aside, however, you’ll be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history. Thank you, Joe … But now it’s time to go."

The No Excuses website asked viewers of the ad to contribute as little as $3 -- and provided a convenient link to the Democrat-aligned Act Blue fundraising site to do so -- so that the group could move beyond just social media and "put this ad on TV and radio in Washington, D.C. to grab media attention and start a serious conversation among Democratic leaders in 2024."

The PAC concluded, "President Biden has accomplished incredible things in his presidency. And that will be his legacy -- if he steps aside. Otherwise, he will go down in history as the president whose selfishness allowed Trump to complete the destruction of American democracy. That’s why it’s time to say, 'Thanks Joe, but now it’s time to go.'"

Biden losing ground among key Democratic voting blocs

The progressive No Excuses PAC is certainly not alone among Democrats in having serious doubts about President Biden's re-election campaign, as Yahoo News reported in November that a majority of Democrats, 54%, wanted to see "another candidate" step up to challenge the incumbent president for the party's nomination -- a number that included 64% of Democrats age 18-44, a key constituency for the party.

More recently, USA Today reported this week that crucial segments of the Democratic "coalition" of voting blocs that helped elect Biden in 2020 were now crumbling and eroded in comparison to the last election cycle.

Specifically, polling showed that Biden's support among black voters fell from 87% to 63%, he was trailing former President Trump among Hispanic voters by a margin of 39-34% after previously winning that bloc 65-32%, and that Trump was actually leading Biden 37-33% among voters under 35, who typically vote for Democrats by wide margins.

The polling also found that Vice President Kamala Harris was no help to Biden as her approval and favorability numbers were even worse than his, that around 20% of minority and young voters would consider voting for a third-party candidate, and that the addition of third-party candidates into the race generally drew more support away from Biden than from Trump.

Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Biden but hasn't offered much else in support

As for Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, The Hill reported in September that the New York congresswoman was "walking a fine line" after finally endorsing President Biden's re-election effort in July -- much to the critical consternation of her fellow progressives -- but also in appearing to withhold any sort of support as a surrogate for the president on the campaign trail.

It was surmised that Ocasio-Cortez could help stop a progressive insurgency against Biden as the nominee if she spoke more forcefully in support of his candidacy but also that, simply by remaining quiet on the sidelines in 2024, could help foster that same uprising against the incumbent president who is viewed dimly by his party's far-left flank, of which she is an influential leader.

Questions have been raised about Special Counsel Jack Smith about not only his aggressive prosecutorial tactics against former President Donald Trump but also the legitimacy of his initial appointment to the uniquely powerful position he now holds.

Republican 2024 presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently vowed that, if elected as president, he would fire Special Counsel Smith on "day one" of his administration, along with others who've "weaponized" the justice system, Times Now News reported.

Meanwhile, a separate effort at the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to have Smith's November 2022 appointment as special counsel -- and all of the subsequent legal actions that followed that appointment -- declared illegitimate and unconstitutional.

DeSantis would fire Smith on "day one" if elected

The Hill reported last week that Gov. DeSantis, who is challenging former President Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination, appeared on Fox News and spoke with guest host Jason Chaffetz, a former colleague when both served in Congress, about some of the mounting legal woes faced by his chief rival to be the GOP nominee.

"I do think this is gonna be a constant throughout the election year, where there's gonna be different parts of these legal cases that are gonna be front and center," the governor said of the focus on Trump's multiple legal problems. "I think that we win when we hold Biden accountable and talk about the issues that matter to the American people."

DeSantis went on to say, "I think that a guy like me as the nominee will be able to keep the focus on Biden, keep the focus on the Democrats’ failures, but then, more importantly, after you win the election, start holding these people accountable, who have weaponized the legal system to go after their political enemies."

"And that starts with, day one, firing somebody like Jack Smith. That goes to dealing with people who are violating constitutional rights at the state and local government area," he added. "Republicans have turned a blind eye to abuses of power for far too long. We need to actually do something about it."

Questions raised about Smith's appointment and claimed authority

However, while Gov. DeSantis has vowed to fire Special Counsel Smith and others like him who have "weaponized" the justice system at the federal and state levels to go after political opponents, there is a slim possibility that he won't get the chance to do so even if manages to win both the GOP nomination and the 2024 general election.

Reason magazine posted an op-ed last month by law professor Steven Calabresi who, in conjunction with fellow law professor Gary Lawson and former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court that questioned the validity of Special Counsel Smith's appointment and claimed authority under the U.S. Constitution.

The brief first argued that the Office of Special Counsel was never properly created by congressional statute as well as that Attorney General Merrick Garland had no statutory authority to appoint Smith to the "superior" and independent position that lacks any sort of real oversight or departmental control.

What should have happened, in the view of these legal experts, is that Garland at most had the authority to elevate an already-serving U.S. Attorney, who was properly appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, to the powerful position of special counsel and only then appointed "private citizen" Smith to serve as a "special assistant" to that Senate-confirmed special counsel.

Odds are slim that Smith will be ousted

Of course, regardless of how airtight and well-sourced the argument against the legitimacy of Special Counsel Smith's initial appointment -- and by extension, all legal actions he's taken since that potentially unconstitutional appointment -- it seems rather unlikely that Smith will be stripped of his position and claimed authority by the Supreme Court, much less by AG Garland or President Biden.

Instead, Smith's dubious and overtly political prosecution of former President Trump amid an election year will likely continue unabated, with the only hope of any accountability coming with the unlikely event of Gov. DeSantis winning the GOP nomination followed by the general election in November.

A majority of Americans have legitimate concerns about the increasingly apparent decline in President Joe Biden's cognitive capabilities and mental health, and those concerns were exemplified during a live New Year's Eve interview.

While speaking with ABC's Ryan Seacrest during that network's coverage of the New Year's Eve celebration in New York City's Times Square, first lady Jill Biden needed to remind the president that "ice cream" was included among his favorite foods during the holiday season, according to the New York Post.

That is somewhat surprising, given how frequently Biden has publicly proclaimed his deep and abiding love for the frozen treat that he reportedly enjoys year-round and not just during the holidays.

Biden needs reminding of his favorite food

During the exceedingly friendly live interview with the first couple amid the New Year's Eve celebration, former "American Idol" host Seacrest asked President Biden the hard-hitting question, "I’m curious, what sorts of holiday foods have you been enjoying over the last few days?"

"Well, I’ve been eating everything that’s put in front of me," the president replied. "But I’ve eaten pasta, which I love. I’ve eaten a lot of chicken, chicken parmesan. I’ve been eating all Italian foods, basically."

It was at that point that the first lady leaned over and interjected, "And ice cream," to which Biden added, "And ice cream. Chocolate chip ice cream."

Ryan Seacrest asks Joe Biden what he has been eating.

Biden: "I've been eating everything that's put in front of me! I've eaten pasta, which I love. Eaten a lot of chicken, chicken parmesan..."

Then Jill Biden has to remind Joe: "And ice cream!"

Sad. pic.twitter.com/tVROTPFf31

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 1, 2024

Biden claims economic recovery and more jobs as his favorite 2023 memory

Needless to say, that moment sparked plenty of mockery as well as quips of feined and real concerns about President Biden's mental health on social media, according to the Post.

The first lady's ice cream reminder wasn't the only questionable moment during Biden's softball interview with Seacrest, however, as Breitbart reported that some eyebrows were raised about his remarks in response to a question about "what sort of memories, highlights, stand out for you" as 2023 drew to a close.

Biden initially launched into a condensed variation of a story he often tells in speeches about a comment attributed to his father about how "a job’s about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity. It’s about respect," before moving on to discuss joblessness and the economy and claim that everything was better now because of him.

"So many people through the Midwest and the center of the country, their factories are shipped overseas the last couple of times out, and they’re losing hope and faith," the president said. "So we put a lot of jobs back to the United States. People are in a position to be able to make a living now and they’ve created a lot of jobs, over 14 million."

"And I guess what -- I just feel good that the American people got up, they’ve been through a rough time with pandemic but now we’re coming back. We're back," Biden added.

Most Americans don't share Biden's confidence in U.S. economy

President Biden may feel confident that American jobs and prosperity are "back," but that sentiment is not shared by most Americans, according to Breitbart.

In fact, a Wall Street Journal poll found that only 23% of Americans feel Biden's policies have helped them economically, a CNBC poll found that two-thirds of Americans hold a "pessimistic" outlook about the U.S. economy's future, while a Lending Club survey found that more than 60% of Americans continue to live "paycheck to paycheck" -- none of which are emblematic of a strong and vibrant economy or positive financial situation for the country and its citizens.

ABC News reports that former President Bill Clinton is expected to be named in those Jeffrey Epstein documents that are about to be made public. 

In case you missed it, a federal judge has decided that there is no longer any good reason to keep the Epstein court filings secret. Accordingly, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska has ordered the documents to be unsealed after Jan. 1, 2024.

ABC News reports:

The documents stem from a 2015 civil lawsuit centered on allegations that Epstein's one-time paramour, Ghislaine Maxwell, facilitated the sexual abuse of Virginia Giuffre, an alleged trafficking victim. Giuffre also accused Epstein and Maxwell of directing her to have sex with Prince Andrew and several other prominent men.

The big question that has garnered much speculation is whose names are going to be found in the documents.

Is it going to be Bill Clinton?

There is a very strong possibility that Clinton's name will be found in the documents. This is because Clinton has already been linked to Epstein in various ways.

ABC News reports:

Personal flight logs kept by one of Epstein's pilots -- which surfaced in separate lawsuits against Epstein -- showed that Clinton and his entourage had flown extensively on Epstein's jumbo-jet to international destinations such as Paris, Bangkok, and Brunei in 2002 and 2003. But none of the available records included the former president on a trip to Epstein's island.

It has been alleged that Epstein used this island - Little St. James - and his jet - the Lolita Express - to traffic and abuse young women.

To be clear, Giuffre has not accused Clinton of any wrongdoing. But, this does not necessarily mean that Clinton is in the clear.

The bigger question is whether Clinton and others knew what Epstein was up to. They have claimed ignorance, but this has done little to stop speculation.

What other names could be in the documents?

Several other well-known individuals, like Clinton, have also been associated with Epstein and, thus, could be named in the Epstein files that are about to be released.

The names include Bill Gates, former President Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, and many others.

More interesting, however, may be the individuals whom we do not know to be associated with Epstein. Fox News takes the reader through several key individuals who, up until this point, have remained anonymous.

All-in-all, there are about 200 names that had been previously redacted from court documents.

The anonymity, however, is about to end.

Just as former President Donald Trump caught several much-needed legal breaks in some pending cases, he'll soon face another civil case. 

According to CBS News, Trump will now face a lawsuit brought against him by a group of U.S. Capitol Police officers regarding his alleged actions on Jan. 6, 2021 leading up to and during the Capitol protest.

On Friday, a group of judges in a federal appeals court ruled that the lawsuit could move forward.

The three-judge panel shot down Trump's immunity defense, similar to a decision brought against him by two Capitol Police officers and a group of House Democrats.

What happened?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based its decision on a D.C. Circuit's decision earlier in December that ruled Trump wasn't immune from the case.

"'Whether [President Trump's] actions involved speech on matters of public concern bears no inherent connection to the essential distinction between official and unofficial acts,'" Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Bradley Garcia and Judith Rogers wrote in their decision Friday.

The judges decided the case was "indistinguishable" from the other similar case brought against him.

Trump's fight for immunity was shot down as the court decided his actions that day were not part of his presidential duties, despite whether or not he was partially responsible for the riot.

"When a first-term president opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act," Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote.

He added, "The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office."

What's the case?

The group of Capitol Police officers suing Trump also name multiple additional defendants, including members of Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers. Roger Stone was also named.

CBS News noted:

The case was brought in August 2021 by seven Capitol Police officers who defended the Capitol complex on Jan. 6 and were assaulted and harassed during the riot, which they said was the result of "unlawful actions" by Trump and his allies.

The group of officers reportedly seek "civil damages for the physical and emotional injuries" they claimed to have suffered during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Only time will tell if this case is another thorn in the side of Trump's 2024 presidential campaign.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts