The U.S. Secret Service acknowledged a critical security lapse during former President Donald Trump's July 13 rally in Pennsylvania, leading to a horrifying shooting incident.
Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe admitted on Friday that the agency failed to sufficiently protect Trump from the rooftop shooter at the event, resulting in tragic casualties, as Breitbart reports.
During a press conference, Rowe faced the media to discuss the agency's shortcomings in the protection of Trump at the aforementioned rally. A shooter, identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks, managed to infiltrate security and fire on the crowd, leading to devastating outcomes.
The rally ended in tragedy when Crooks took advantage of a poorly monitored rooftop near the rally's perimeter. According to Rowe, Crooks shot Trump and took the life of one attendee, while injuring two others. The lack of adequate rooftop surveillance was highlighted as a glaring oversight in the protection strategy.
“This was a failure. We should have had better protection for the protectee,” Rowe stated. He elaborated that the building, which was close to the outer perimeter, should have had more presence and better coverage from the Secret Service’s point of view.
Rowe emphasized the need for more vigilant eyes on such critical positions, particularly rooftops, which offer strategic vantage points. The rooftop, in this case, was left inadequately covered, leaving a vulnerable spot in the security layout.
A video taken by one of the injured rally-goers surfaced, showing Crooks running on the roof in unrestricted fashion. This footage, along with a detailed timeline provided by the FBI, painted a clearer picture of the movements and actions of the shooter on that fateful day.
Rowe admitted that the Secret Service’s counter-snipers failed to detect Crooks on the roof either with or without a firearm until he opened fire. This significant lapse allowed Crooks to position himself and carry out the attack undetected. “As far as the timeline of him running back and forth, I know the FBI has provided a bit of a chronology as well. And so I’d have to go back and look at that,” Rowe noted, underscoring the complexity of reconstructing the events based on available data.
Despite the video evidence and available reports, the root cause of the failure boiled down to a lack of comprehensive surveillance, especially on vantage points such as rooftops. “But the bottom line is…this was a Secret Service failure. That roofline should have been covered. We should have had better eyes on that,” Rowe confessed.
In a direct response to a question from Sen. John Kennedy, Rowe confirmed that the counter-snipers did not spot Crooks until the shooting commenced. This critical delay in detection underscored the need for procedural and technological improvements in the Secret Service’s operational protocols.
During the press conference, Rowe's remarks highlighted the gravity of the oversight and the urgent need for corrective actions. Enhanced training, better technology deployment, and comprehensive surveillance systems on potential threat points are likely to be among the steps taken moving forward. Moreover, the tragedy has spurred discussions on the re-evaluation of security measures not only for high-profile political figures but also for public events that attract large crowds. Such measures could prevent similar incidents in the future.
Recapping the events, a shooter named Thomas Matthew Crooks exploited a lapse in the surveillance of a rooftop during Donald Trump's rally on July 13, leading to a fatal shooting. Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe acknowledged the agency's failure and stressed the need for better rooftop surveillance. The incident and its aftermath highlight the importance of robust, multi-layered security measures in protecting public figures and attendees at large events.
Rowe's acceptance of responsibility marks a pivotal moment for the Secret Service, initiating a phase of intense scrutiny and potential reform. Ensuring such lapses do not recur will be paramount for the agency going forward.
The White House abruptly revoked plea deals with key individuals behind the 9/11 attacks on Friday, following significant bipartisan opposition.
The agreement, which proposed eliminating the death penalty as a potential sentence in the terrorists' cases, was rescinded by the Biden-Harris administration's defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, two days after the initial announcement, as Breitbart reports.
Initially, the administration had announced a plea deal to remove the death penalty for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-conspirators, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. This deal faced intense backlash from both parties, resulting in a rapid about-face by the administration.
The news of the proposed plea deal quickly garnered strong reactions from political figures and the public. Many viewed the idea of such an agreement as a betrayal to the memory of the nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 attacks. The anger culminated in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s decision to revoke the deal.
Austin took full responsibility for the decision. “I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009,” he stated.
Sen. J.D. Vance, one of the White House's most vocal critics, lambasted the Biden-Harris administration during a recent rally. "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have weaponized the Department of Justice to go after their political opponents, but [their administration is] cutting a sweetheart deal with 9/11 terrorists,” he said vehemently.
Vance then emphasized the need for a more hardline approach against terrorists by stating, "We need a president who kills terrorists, not negotiates with them.” His comments echoed the sentiments of many Americans outraged by the prospect of leniency toward those who engineered the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil.
The original plea deal required the accused terrorists to plead guilty to all charges, which included the murder of 2,976 individuals in the 9/11 attacks. However, the condition of the plea deal to eliminate the death penalty was met with widespread disapproval, leading to its revocation.
All three accused terrorists, Mohammed, Bin ‘Attash, and Hawsawi, have been detained at the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay since 2003. The facility, known for holding terror suspects, has long been a subject of political contention regarding the treatment and legal process afforded to detainees.
The defendants had reportedly agreed to confess to all charges in exchange for the removal of capital punishment from their sentencing. The plea deal, initially aimed at concluding prolonged legal proceedings, was seen by many as undermining justice for the lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.
The bipartisan backlash against the plea deal reflects the sensitive nature of the 9/11 attacks within American consciousness. Politicians from both sides of the aisle condemned the administration's initial decision and demanded that the death penalty remain on the table for the accused terrorists.
While some saw the potential plea agreement as a pragmatic approach to expedite justice, the overwhelming public and political sentiment leaned heavily towards upholding the possibility of the death penalty. This reaction played a crucial role in the administration’s decision to annul the plea agreement.
The swift revocation highlights the intense scrutiny and pressure faced by the Biden-Harris administration in handling highly sensitive matters, especially ones involving national security and historical trauma.
Democrats in the United States are attempting to make significant strides to overturn a recent Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, aiming to make it a focal point in the upcoming election.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden are leading efforts to challenge -- and reverse -- the effect of the ruling through legislative and constitutional amendment proposals, as Global News reports.
On Thursday, Schumer introduced the No Kings Act, a legislative proposal designed to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity. The proposed law aims to explicitly state that presidents are not above criminal law and to clarify congressional authority in determining the application of federal criminal statutes.
The Supreme Court's decision, handed down on July 1, grants presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their official duties. This ruling directly impacts the federal criminal case against former president Donald Trump, who faces charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Democrats argue that this ruling sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future presidents to commit criminal acts without fear of prosecution. Schumer emphasized the need for congressional action, stating, "Congress must use all its tools to restore trust and accountability to the highest court in the land."
Earlier this week, President Joe Biden expressed his support for a constitutional amendment to nullify the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. This proposal, part of a broader set of suggested court reforms, would require approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-quarters of the 50 state legislatures. Schumer highlighted that legislation would be the "fastest and most expedient method" to overturn the ruling. The No Kings Act also seeks to remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over presidential immunity appeals, empowering Congress with the final decision on such matters.
The Senate is currently in recess and will not reconvene until September. Despite this, Schumer believes that the legislative path offers a quicker resolution compared to the lengthy process of amending the Constitution. However, he did not specify a timeline for the vote.
Republicans in Congress have expressed strong opposition to the Democrats' initiatives. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell criticized Biden's proposal, asserting that it would "shred the Constitution." U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed this sentiment, labeling Biden's proposals a "non-starter." Many in the GOP support the Supreme Court's ruling, arguing that it allows presidents to perform their duties without the distraction of potential prosecutions. They contend that this immunity is essential for the effective functioning of the executive branch.
To pass the No Kings Act, Democrats will need at least 60 votes in the Senate to overcome filibuster rules, necessitating support from at least nine Republican senators. Given the current political climate, securing these votes may prove challenging.
Democrats are concerned that the Supreme Court's ruling could enable future presidents to engage in criminal activities without consequence. Schumer remarked, "Make no mistake about it: we have a very strong argument that Congress, by statute, can undo what the Supreme Court does, that does not require a constitutional amendment."
The ruling's implications are significant, especially in light of recent events involving former President Trump. The case against Trump, centered on his attempts to reverse the 2020 election outcome, highlights the potential risks of unchecked presidential power. Schumer and Biden's efforts underscore a broader debate about the balance of power between the branches of government and the role of the judiciary in shaping the limits of executive authority. The No Kings Act represents a critical step in this ongoing discussion.
As the Senate prepares to reconvene, the outcome of the No Kings Act remains uncertain. The political divide in Congress poses a significant hurdle for Democrats seeking to pass the legislation. Despite the challenges, Schumer remains optimistic about the possibility of legislative success. He believes that clear and decisive action is necessary to safeguard the principles of accountability and the rule of law.
The upcoming months will be crucial in determining the fate of the No Kings Act and the broader efforts to address presidential immunity. The debate will likely intensify as the 2024 election approaches, making this issue a pivotal topic in American politics.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is currently facing backlash over a decades-old op-ed.
Shapiro is under fire and facing claims of disqualification from some on the left as he emerges as a possible running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris, due to a 1993 pro-Israel op-ed in which he expressed doubts about a two-state solution in the Middle East, as Breitbart reports.
Shapiro, a Democrat with increasing prominence, authored a piece in 1993 that questioned the feasibility of a peaceful resolution between Israelis and Palestinians. At the time, he was a 20-year-old student at the University of Rochester.
The opinion piece, titled “Peace not possible,” has resurfaced amid discussions about Shapiro potentially joining Harris’s ticket. In it, Shapiro argued that Palestinians were too entrenched in conflict to successfully form their own state.
In his 1993 op-ed, Shapiro disclosed his experience volunteering at an Israeli army base during his teenage years. This background framed his perspective that a peaceful accord between Israeli and Palestinian leaders would not resolve the ongoing conflict.
Shapiro wrote that Palestinians lacked the ability to establish a peaceful homeland, even with support from Israel and the United States. He stated, “They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own.”
Further, Shapiro expressed a grim view on Middle Eastern peace, asserting that a stable coexistence was historically dubious and unlikely to be achieved. He claimed, “Using history as precedent, peace between Arabs and Israelis is virtually impossible and will never come.”
The op-ed has ignited a storm of criticism from left-wing Democrats, particularly pro-Palestinian advocates and activists. Within the White House, anti-Israel staffers are reportedly incensed at the potential selection of Shapiro as Harris’s running mate.
Detractors argue that Shapiro’s historical stance reveals a deep-seated opposition to Palestinian statehood. They point to his dismissive tone toward Palestinian aspirations as indicative of broader biases. However, Shapiro’s spokesperson, Manuel Bonder, has attempted to mitigate the fallout. Bonder emphasized that Shapiro’s views have evolved significantly over the past three decades.
According to Bonder, the governor now endorses a two-state solution as the viable path forward for Israeli-Palestinian peace. “The governor’s position has changed over the last three decades,” Bonder stated, noting his present-day support for a dual-state framework.
As this controversy unfolds, Shapiro’s defenders claim he is facing an antisemitic backlash from the progressive left. They argue that the 1993 op-ed is too dated to reflect his contemporary policies and beliefs.
Despite the heated debate, Shapiro's supporters are rallying around his current diplomatic stance. They urge critics to consider his contemporary political actions and statements rather than focusing on a single youthful commentary.
The resurfacing of Shapiro's 1993 article comes at a critical juncture. With discussions of the 2024 election cycle ramping up, every piece of a candidate’s history is scrutinized for ideological consistency and potential liabilities.
A joyous homecoming for four U.S. hostages became a source of unexpected challenges for President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris late Thursday night.
Harris and Biden’s welcome ceremony for four freed hostages, including journalist Evan Gershkovich and former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, was marred by bizarre unscripted remarks and confusing comments that, for some, exposed the vice president's inability to speak extemporaneously, as CNN reports.
Harris and Biden arrived at Joint Base Andrews shortly before midnight to greet the freed hostages, leading to the widely-criticized events that followed.
During the emotional event, Harris delivered unscripted remarks about diplomacy. She said, “This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy.”
These unscripted comments quickly drew the ire of the Republican National Committee, which mocked Harris online. In response, Harris' campaign released an edited video of her remarks, emphasizing diplomacy and family unity.
The edited version sent out by Harris's campaign presented a polished message: “This is an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and strengthening alliances. This is an incredible day and you can see it in the families and their eyes.”
President Biden also faced scrutiny for his actions and comments during the event. He climbed aboard the airplane after the hostages had already disembarked, raising eyebrows and leading to confusion among spectators.
Furthermore, Biden's speech contained confusing comments about his remaining time in office. He told the crowd, “You’re stuck with me as president for a while, kid. There’s no way out, okay? You get me for at least another hundred -- 90 days or so.”
These remarks added another layer of ambiguity, as Biden misstated the time frame of his presidency, which his team often has to correct.
The White House has previously corrected Biden’s verbal mistakes, including nine corrections to his speech to the NAACP in May. Such patterns are now becoming a point of contention and criticism among both parties.
In response to the mounting criticism, both Biden's and Harris’ teams went into overdrive to clean up the backlash from their public dealings at Joint Base Andrews. The campaign efforts underline the significance of managing public perception in the lead-up to the 2024 elections.
Despite the celebratory nature of the event, the missteps by both leaders overshadowed what should have been a moment of unity and relief. Meanwhile, online platforms buzzed with mixed reactions from both critics and supporters. Biden's words and actions during such crucial moments have taken center stage, raising questions about his management of public appearances and statements.
In conclusion, Vice President Kamala Harris joined President Joe Biden at Joint Base Andrews to welcome four released hostages, including journalist Evan Gershkovich and ex-Marine Paul Whelan. Harris' unscripted remarks on the significance of diplomacy elicited online ridicule, while Biden's comments and actions fostered further confusion. The responses from their respective campaigns aimed to mitigate the backlash, underscoring the high stakes of public perception in the run-up to the elections.
In a bold move aimed at sanctuary cities, Republican Rep. Burgess Owens of Utah proposed significant changes on Friday.
Owens' Sanctuary City Oversight and Responsibility in Enforcement (SCORE) Act seeks to arrest the Biden administration's continued provision of federal funding to sanctuary cities that send illegal migrants to non-sanctuary municipalities without appropriate arrangements, as Fox News reports.
The SCORE Act intends to ensure sanctuary cities are accountable for the migrants they admit. Owens’s proposal underscores that cities providing refuge cannot sidestep their responsibilities by offloading migrants to other communities unprepared for the influx.
The proposed legislation aims to restrict FEMA Shelter and Services Program (SSP) funding from being used to send migrants to communities without local consent. Cities like Denver have been aiding migrants by providing tickets to non-sanctuary municipalities such as Salt Lake City.
An alarming incident in Denver saw more than 1,500 tickets issued to migrants to travel to Utah’s Salt Lake City without notifying local officials. This act epitomizes the chaos the SCORE Act seeks to address.
Under the new bill, any migrant being relocated must have a documented sponsor at the destination. This ensures migrants do not end up requiring government shelters in their new locations. The bill mandates a quarterly report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on FEMA grant usage. This measure ensures transparency and ensures compliance with the new funding restrictions.
FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program funding is designed to assist financially in supporting migrants as they await their court appearances. However, the new restrictions aim to close loopholes that cities have exploited.
Rep. Owens took to social media platform X with a video explaining the proposed legislation. In the video, he expressed concerns regarding the current administration's handling of border security and migrant distribution.
"If this administration won't fight for American safety, security, and rule of law, our Republican majority will," Owens stated passionately. He emphasized that taxpayer funding for migrant relocation should be meticulously controlled.
Owens conveyed a clear message to sanctuary cities: "My message to these sanctuary cities is simple — you cheered on open borders, and you welcomed these migrants with open arms. Now that your resources and services are overwhelmed, you will not be allowed to ship these desperate people into our communities."
He pointedly criticized self-declared sanctuary cities like Denver, which have been sending migrants to non-sanctuary cities such as Salt Lake City. The newly proposed bill seeks to cut this funding and close what Owens calls a "loophole" fueling the crisis in Utah.
The SCORE Act reflects a concerted effort to manage migrant distribution and the associated financial logistics. It emphasizes holding sanctuary cities accountable for their decisions and ensuring that non-sanctuary cities are not overwhelmed.
In summary, the SCORE Act proposed by Rep. Burgess Owens aims to cut federal funding to sanctuary cities that transport illegal migrants to non-sanctuary municipalities without proper consent and arrangements.
Misty Roberts Clanton, the now-former mayor of DeRidder, Louisiana, was detained Thursday after she was accused of engaging in illicit sexual activity with a minor, prompting her immediate resignation.
Clanton, 42, who served as DeRidder’s first female mayor and was in her second term, resigned on Saturday, effective immediately, as the Daily Caller reports.
In her resignation note obtained by KPLC, Clanton expressed her dedication to the town she served. “For nearly 15 years, my love and passion for DeRidder has been my foundation while serving as Mayor,” she wrote, explaining the need to refocus her priorities. Clanton submitted her letter to the DeRidder City Council.
The Louisiana State Police (LSP) released details of Clanton’s arrest, revealing that its Special Victims Unit commenced an investigation on July 26. Following interviews with two juveniles, the LSP confirmed that Clanton had sexual relations with one of them during her tenure as mayor.
After the inquiry, Clanton voluntarily surrendered to authorities. She has been hit with charges of third-degree rape and contributing to the delinquency of juveniles. Adam Johnson, Clanton’s attorney, conveyed that she “maintains her innocence” and trusts that the public will respect her constitutional presumption of innocence.
Clanton was released on a $75,000 bond following her detention. This high-profile case has sent shockwaves through the small town of DeRidder, which boasts a population of fewer than 11,000 residents.
Having served DeRidder for almost fifteen years, Clanton had plans to run for a third term before her abrupt resignation. In recent years, she divorced her husband, affirming that it was a “personal decision” without any scandalous factors.
As DeRidder’s first female mayor, Clanton has been a notable figure in the community. She acknowledges the challenging public perception women in leadership roles often face. “I’ve learned there are a group of people who expect women to be perfect,” she remarked. Despite the gravity of the charges, Clanton’s attorney is confident in her innocence and calls for the public’s patience and open-mindedness as the legal proceedings unfold.
Clanton’s resignation and subsequent arrest have left the local community grappling with mixed emotions. The charges of third-degree rape and contributing to the delinquency of juveniles are severe, and the details revealed by the LSP investigation paint a troubling picture of events. The focus now shifts to the legal arena, where Adam Johnson will represent Clanton, defending her stance of innocence.
The LSP continues to underscore the seriousness of the charges, making it clear that their investigation was thorough, involving multiple interviews and corroborating evidence from the juveniles involved.
As a prominent local figure who once aimed for a third term, Clanton’s legacy is now marred by these damning accusations. Whether her claims of innocence will stand up in court remains to be seen, but the impact on her reputation is already significant.
DeRidder residents are left to reconcile their former mayor's leadership and dedication to the town with the gravity of the charges against her. Clanton’s decision to step down has provided a degree of immediate resolution, but the long-term repercussions will unfold in the coming months and possibly years.
The legal process is expected to be closely followed by both residents and broader audiences, as it touches on larger societal issues regarding leadership, trust, and accountability.
Allegations have surfaced that acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe's decisions may have endangered former President Donald Trump's safety.
Sen. Josh Hawley claimed that a whistleblower blamed Rowe's for cutbacks to the Secret Service's threat assessment team around the time of the July 13 assassination attempt on Trump's life, as Just the News reports.
On Thursday, Hawley revealed allegations from an insider within the Secret Service. The whistleblower accused acting Director Ronald Rowe of making cuts to the agency's threat assessment team, a decision that allegedly played a role in an attempt on former President Trump’s life.
Last month, Trump sustained an injury during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. This incident raised significant concerns about the Secret Service's protective measures. According to the whistleblower, the threat assessment team had not been allocated to the event, nor had any preliminary evaluation of the rally site been undertaken.
Hawley emphasized that the absence of the Secret Service Counter Surveillance Division might have allowed the perpetrator to go unnoticed. He cited the whistleblower's assertion that the gunman could have been apprehended in the parking area had the division been present.
The senator also highlighted further accusations. The whistleblower alleged that agents who voiced their concerns about security at Trump’s events had faced retaliation. These warnings, some purportedly ongoing for months, seem to have been ignored.
Previous security lapses have been a cause for worry within the Secret Service. At a Trump event at a golf course last year, the agency's reliance on local law enforcement was deemed inadequate. This, coupled with the recent Butler rally incident, showcases recurring issues within the organization.
Hawley has requested comprehensive information regarding the decision to reduce the threat assessment team's resources. He has set a deadline of Aug. 8 for a detailed response from the Secret Service, seeking transparency on several fronts. Specific details sought include the staffing levels for the rally, the number of agents who aired security concerns, and the punitive actions faced by these agents.
The Secret Service has yet to provide a public response to these claims. Rowe’s decision-making is under scrutiny, especially given the potential implications for national security. The integrity of the Secret Service's protective duties is now undeniably questioned.
Hawley conveyed a strong message regarding the importance of these allegations. "The whistleblower's claims suggest that if the Secret Service Counter Surveillance Division had been present, the outcome might have been different," he stated. This assertion calls into question the adequacy of current security practices.
The call for an internal review and reevaluation of security protocols is echoed by many. Ensuring that protective measures are not compromised by resource limitations is paramount for the safety of public figures.
To reiterate, the senator seeks clear explanations regarding the cut resources for threat teams and the overall personnel assignments for the event. He also demands information on the repercussions faced by agents who raised safety alarms about Trump’s events.
As the deadline for a response approaches, the public and governmental bodies are closely watching how these serious allegations are addressed. The efficacy of the Secret Service’s leadership and its commitment to all-encompassing security stands under a large magnifying glass.
A chilling discovery about an ancient Egyptian mummy has revealed the harrowing circumstances surrounding her death.
A study released on Friday delved into the gruesome demise of the so-called "Screaming Woman," who died in excruciating pain approximately 3,500 years ago, resulting in her mouth being left agape in her last moments, according to the Daily Caller.
The mummy, named the "Screaming Woman," was found to have suffered a cadaveric spasm upon her death, a condition where the body's muscles stiffen due to intense pain. This rare phenomenon resulted in her face frozen in a tormented scream. The study provided insights into her life and death, indicating she was about 48 years old at the time of her passing.
Researchers examined the mummification process, which revealed unusual methods. Dr. Sahar Saleem, a co-author of the study, highlighted that "the classic method of mummification in the New Kingdom [circa 1550 to 1070 B.C.] included the removal of all organs except the heart." However, in the case of the Screaming Woman, all organs were left intact, suggesting a unique burial practice.
The embalming substances used were of high quality, including juniper resin and frankincense, typically employed to deter insects and bacteria. Her preserved state, along with her dyed natural hair and wigs, suggested she was of considerable wealth and influence. The woman wore rings and elaborate wigs that further indicated her high status. These indicators of wealth pointed towards a significant societal position, potentially linked to her burial near prominent figures.
Her final resting place was near the tomb of Senenmut, a well-known architect and government official of the time. Given the proximity of their burials, it is speculated that the Screaming Woman might have been closely related to Senenmut. The family ties could potentially explain the luxurious embalming process and burial rituals.
Saleem remarked on the facial expression of the mummy, clarifying that "the mummy’s screaming facial expression in this study could be read as a cadaveric spasm, implying that the woman died screaming from agony." This phenomenon has historically been associated with violent deaths, such as assaults, suicides, and drownings.
Even though it is clear that she died in extreme pain, the specific cause of her death remains unknown. The lingering mystery around her demise has led researchers to consider several possible causes, including assault, suicide, drowning, or severe internal ailments.
The research underscores the significance of the Screaming Woman's unique mummification and burial. Using imported embalming substances and maintaining her organs inside the body indicate the possible importance and wealth of the individual. This method of embalming diverged sharply from the standard practices of her time.
Her ancient remains also demonstrated signs of health issues common in that era. Tooth attrition and joint degeneration were noted, which likely contributed to her suffering. However, these conditions would not alone account for the intense pain captured in her final expression.
The Screaming Woman's story adds a poignant layer to our understanding of ancient Egyptian burial rituals and social hierarchies. The extraordinary measures taken to preserve her body highlight a respect for her status and a desire to honor her in death.
As Saleem noted, the condition captured in the Screaming Woman's death is rare but can occur in various severe and traumatic circumstances. This insight invites further exploration into the exact details of her life and death. What remains clear is that her death was harrowing, and her legacy has been immortalized through both her burial and the recent scientific scrutiny.
The study shines a light on the methods and substances used in ancient Egyptian mummification, expanding our knowledge of their cultural practices. Despite the best efforts of modern science, the exact nature of her final moments remains a mystery, deepening the intrigue surrounding her life and death.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a consequential decision on presidential immunity earlier this summer, impacting former President Donald Trump's ongoing legal battles related to the 2020 election interference case.
The ruling was delivered with a 6-3 majority, sending the case back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings, and as a result, Trump received a small sum as reimbursement for costs and fees he paid as part of his appeal process, as Newsweek reports.
The Supreme Court's decision vacated an earlier judgment by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, compelling further examination of Trump's claims.
The Department of Justice has accused Trump of unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol unrest. Trump has consistently maintained his innocence in the face of four felony charges and sought immunity from prosecution for actions he deemed official.
In addition to the broader immunity ruling, the Supreme Court awarded Trump $3,232.80 to cover court document printing and clerk fees. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, Scott Harris, relayed the judgment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' clerk on Friday. Following this notification, the D.C. Circuit Court instructed that Trump’s case be advanced to the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., for subsequent judicial review.
Judge Tanya Chutkan initially set the start date for Trump's trial last March, but the proceedings were stayed due to the appeal. With the Supreme Court's ruling, the case, as noted by journalist Kyle Cheney, may now resume under Judge Chutkan, although unlikely to commence before the 2024 presidential election.
This landmark ruling delineates the boundaries of presidential immunity, separating official from unofficial conduct. Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade highlighted the significance of the ruling, pointing out the rights of both the defendant and the public to a speedy trial. McQuade further indicated that special counsel Jack Smith could potentially revise the indictment while maintaining probable cause.
McQuade remarked on the judicial process, asserting that amending the indictment to focus purely on unofficial acts would not necessitate returning to the grand jury. This procedural shift allows the DOJ to streamline its approach, maintaining transparency regarding Trump's unofficial actions, which will undoubtedly be subject to further legal examination.
Moreover, this nuanced ruling allows former presidents to continue engaging in official duties without fear of future litigation, while also ensuring that personal conduct remains subject to legal scrutiny. Trump's legal team argued that his interactions with the Justice Department during his presidency were official acts, which would now be exempt from prosecution.
McQuade also speculated on the potential outcomes based on the current judicial landscape. She expressed that the ongoing legal progress could be pivotal, given the timing relative to the upcoming election. Trump's alleged interference in the 2020 election remains under the DOJ’s lens, underscoring the ongoing significance of these legal proceedings.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling neither exonerates nor convicts Trump but provides a critical clarification of presidential immunity. The broader implications of this decision are multifaceted, influencing both Trump's defense strategy and the DOJ's prosecutorial tactics.
With the case now poised to potentially progress under Judge Tanya Chutkan, both observers and legal experts will closely monitor the unfolding judicial developments.
In summary, this decision delineates the scope of presidential immunity, affects Trump's ongoing legal battles, and provides him modest financial relief for court-related expenses. The case's return to the lower courts marks a pivotal step in this high-profile legal saga, with significant ramifications for both the judicial process and the former president's political future.