![image reuters com image reuters com](https://i.tribune.com.pk/media/images/jlo-ben-diddy1724576608-0/jlo-ben-diddy1724576608-0.jpg)
In an episode of his podcast Collect Calls With Suge Knight, former Death Row Records CEO Suge Knight made bold claims regarding Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez's divorce. Knight suggested that the FBI provided Affleck with compromising footage of Lopez, allegedly obtained during raids on Sean "Diddy" Combs' homes earlier this year. The footage, according to Knight, shows Lopez engaging in illicit activities and could have played a significant role in the couple's separation.
Knight detailed his theory, claiming that the FBI did Affleck a "solid" by revealing the footage before it potentially became public, particularly in light of the damaging videos of Diddy that have surfaced recently. “I’m quite sure they said, ‘We want to show you some things about your wife,’” Knight speculated.
The timing of these allegations coincides with Jennifer Lopez’s recent filing for divorce from Affleck on August 20, 2024, marking exactly two years since their formal wedding ceremony in Georgia. Lopez cited irreconcilable differences, listing their date of separation as April 26, 2024 according to People. Sources close to Lopez have stated that she was "heartbroken" and had "tried really hard to make things work," but was ultimately "done waiting" for the marriage to improve
Adding to the intrigue, Affleck has also been linked to Kick Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is known to be a Trump supporter. Reports of their alleged relationship have further fueled speculation surrounding the reasons behind the couple’s split.
As these rumors continue to circulate, neither Lopez nor Affleck has commented on Knight’s claims or the alleged FBI involvement. The unfolding drama adds a new layer to the highly publicized breakup, leaving many questions about what truly led to the end of their relationship.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ