The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Joe Biden's administration withholding funding from Oklahoma over its refusal to direct patients to an abortion hotline, NBC News reported. The court upheld the new regulation that replaced former President Donald Trump's prohibition on such referrals.
Almost immediately after taking office, Biden mandated that providers discuss all options with pregnant mothers, including adoption, prenatal care, and abortion. At first, Oklahoma complied with the mandate of giving out the hotline allegedly providing factual data about the procedure to callers.
However, after the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the state refused to even provide the hotline phone number despite agreeing to do so at first. Oklahoma is now a state where abortion is illegal except when the life of the mother is in danger.
It also bars anyone from pushing a woman to get an abortion. Now, Oklahoma has paid the price as the Biden administration reallocated $4.5 million in Title X public health funding over that rule.
Oklahoma sued the administration for Title X funding as the prohibition complied with the state's new rules. The state's attorneys argued that the Department of Health and Human Services could not restrict the funding based on those rules.
They warned that doing so would cripple "critical public health services" for Oklahomans. "Depriving these communities of Title X services would be devastating," the states' attorneys said in a court filing.
However, a federal judge disagreed and would not compel the Biden administration to return the grants. Similarly, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Oklahoma, ruling that directing patients to a hotline was not equivalent to referring a mother for abortion.
The challenge failed at the state Supreme Court and finally at the highest court in the nation. Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted that the rules regarding funding were the same across all states.
"Congress routinely conditions federal grants on compliance with requirements contained in agency regulations, and this court has repeatedly upheld such requirements," Prelogar said. However, justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch objected to Tuesday's decision.
The latest ruling in favor of the Biden administration will surely bolster Democrats' argument about keeping abortion legal after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Reversing the Supreme Court's terrible decision that set a worse legal precedent was a feat half a century in the making.
It meant that the ability to kill babies up to the moment of birth was no longer the law of the land but rather a state-by-state issue. Although it was something conservatives worked for it and Christians prayed for, it seems to have backfired.
According to Roll Call, the abortion issue has energized Democratic voters in the 2024 presidential election. Jessica Mackler, president of the abortion activist EMILY’s List, said it has become an asset for Vice President Kamala Harris, who is radically pro-abortion.
"She is somebody who has put this issue front and center because she understands that the stakes are incredibly high for voters across the country and for people across the country. And I think that that is the reason that we see this electric energy in voters across the country," Mackler touted.
While this ruling is disappointing for Oklahoma, the embrace of abortion as a winning issue points to a larger sickness in the American soul. It's a sad fact that leftist women want nothing more than the right to kill their own children, but it's worse that their votes will move the needle accordingly.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) slammed President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for ignoring a request from Gold Star families to visit with them at Arlington National Cemetery, the New York Post reported. The families were commemorating the third anniversary of their loved ones' deaths after Biden's disastrous pullout from Afghanistan.
Cotton, a decorated Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. Host Kristen Welker asked Cotton about former President Donald Trump's decision to visit the cemetery for a wreath-laying ceremony and allegedly using it as a campaign photo op.
"He didn't take campaign photos there," the Arkansas Republican shot back, rejecting her premise. "These families — Gold Star families — whose children died because of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ incompetence invited him to the cemetery, and they asked him to take those photos," Cotton said before laying into Biden and Harris for not showing up.
Cotton turned the tables on the president and vice president for their decision to ignore the grieving families. "You know who the families also invited? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris," Cotton pointed out.
"Where were they? Joe Biden was sitting at a beach," Cotton said, referring to Biden's Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, residence, where he has spent more than a week and counting.
"Kamala Harris was sitting at her mansion in Washington, D.C. She was 4 miles away — 10 minutes," Cotton said of Harris, who lives at the Naval Conservatory as the vice president. "She could’ve gone to the cemetery and honored the sacrifice of those young men and women, but she hasn’t," the senator said of Harris.
"She never has spoken to them or taken a meeting with them,” he continued. Cotton believes Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan abruptly in August 2021 led to the deaths of 13 service members at the Kabul airport.
"It is because of her and Joe Biden’s incompetence that those 13 Americans were killed in Afghanistan," Cotton added. The families of the fallen heroes seem to believe that as well.
The media has attempted to portray Trump's actions as an affront to those whose family members were killed. Harris had claimed that Trump's visit "disrespected sacred ground, all for the sake of a political stunt," Fox News reported.
In response, the Gold Star families released a joint statement supporting Trump. "We, the families of the brave service members who were tragically killed in the Abbey Gate bombing, are appalled by Vice President Kamala Harris’ recent attempts to politicize President Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery," the families said.
"President Trump was invited by us, the Gold Star families, to attend the solemn ceremonies commemorating the three-year anniversary of our children’s deaths. He was there to honor their sacrifice, yet Vice President Harris has disgracefully twisted this sacred moment into a political ploy," the families added.
Harris should tread lightly on this issue. She has admitted to being the "last person in the room" when Biden made the fateful decision to abandon the conflict, and now she shares the blame.
Biden and Harris don't have the decency to show their faces to the grieving families. This is why the Gold Star families support Trump's willingness to show up for them and even take videos and photos, and Cotton is correct to point that out.
President Joe Biden claimed while on vacation in Rehobeth Beach, Delaware, that he "worked tirelessly" to recover Hersh Goldberg-Polin, a dual Israeli-American citizen who was taken hostage by Hamas on October 7 when the terrorist group attacked Israel and whose body was recovered on Saturday.
"I am devastated and outraged," Biden said in a statement about Goldberg-Polin's death, noting that he "lost his arm" trying to help others during the attack.
"I have worked tirelessly to bring their beloved Hersh safely to them and am heartbroken by the news of his death," Biden continued. "It is as tragic as it is reprehensible."
Goldberg-Polin was one of six hostages found under a tunnel in Rafah on Saturday.
He claimed that there would be repercussions for Goldberg-Polin's death.
"Make no mistake, Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes," he said. "And we will keep working around the clock for a deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages."
Biden hasn't been in the public eye much since stepping down from his re-election bid in late July.
His successor, Vice President Kamala Harris, has kept a low profile on support for Israel, but has been pressured by pro-Hamas allies on the left to cease support for Israel.
Biden's Israel policy is one area where he has not gone as far to the left as possible, and it cost him votes in the primary.
Harris is probably more anti-Israel than Biden, but she isn't actually running the country at this point, so it's easy to say just about anything.
Israel is an ally of the United States, and there is only so much a leader can do to act against them.
Democrats have tried to walk the line between supporting Israel and supporting the Palestinians since Barack Obama was president, and their anti-Israel sentiment has become more pronounced with every passing year.
It's a vocal minority of voters who are totally anti-Israel, but they are very, very vocal.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the 2024 election.
Crime-ridden San Francisco was the scene of yet another brazen attack over the weekend when a promising young NFL standout was caught in an altercation with a would-be thief.
As Breitbart reports, the San Francisco 49ers football team confirmed that its 1st round draft choice, Ricky Pearsall, sustained a gunshot wound to the chest during an attempted robbery on Saturday, the aftermath of which was depicted in a video taken at the scene.
News of Pearsall's misfortune first emerged in a report from local NBC affiliate reporter Gia Vang.
The San Francisco-based journalist wrote on social media, “49ers Ricky Pearsall has been shot in Union Square in an attempted robbery. According to Sup. Peskin's office, the suspect is in custody and Ricky is in stable condition. His office has been in touch with Central Command. More to come.”
The professional football franchise confirmed the alarming reports, which first appeared in local San Francisco media, noting that at the time of its statement, the rookie was in “serious but stable” condition at an area hospital.
Taking to X to inform the public Pearsall's status after the event, the team wrote, “He sustained a bullet wound to his chest and is in serious but stable condition.”
The team went on to add, “We ask that you please respect his privacy at this time. Our thoughts and prayers are with Ricky and the entire Pearsall family.”
Evan Sernoffsky, director of strategic communications for the San Francisco Police Department, later issued a statement providing the press with more background on what occurred.
Sernoffsky's statement on X explained, “On August 31, 2024, at approximately 3:37 p.m., San Francisco Police offers responded to the area of Geary Street and Grant Avenue on a report of a shooting.”
The statement went on to note that officers found “two male subjects suffering from injuries,” with both ultimately transported to the hospital for further evaluation.
“During the preliminary investigation, officers learned one of the subjects attempted to rob the victim, San Francisco 49ers player Ricky Pearsall. During the attempted robbery, a physical altercation ensued, and both the suspect and victim were injured,” the spokesperson continued.
In a piece of incredible footage taken at the scene and posted by Adam Schefter, Pearsall can be seen walking to a waiting ambulance after he was shot by the suspect, who was later reported to be in police custody with charges pending.
Despite the seemingly dire scenario that unfolded on Saturday, the 49ers confirmed on Sunday that Pearsall had been released from the hospital on Sunday and would be able to continue his recuperation from home, as the Daily Mail noted.
The team added of Pearsall, “He and his family, along with the entire San Francisco 49ers organization, would like to thank the San Francisco Police Department, emergency medical services, doctors and staff at San Francisco General Hospital,” and those are sentiments that scores of football fans surely share.
Fact-checkers slammed Vice President Kamala Harris for several contradictions during an interview on Thursday, Newsweek reported. Harris and her running mate Tim Walz sat for the interview with CNN's Dana Bash meant to help the campaign.
The interview was Harris's first since naming Walz her vice presidential running mate. She was asked softball questions, and Bash seldom pushed back on Harris's statements.
Despite the help from Bash, there were several times that Harris' answers were not completely truthful or at least evasive which could imperil her candidacy. She made claims about positive job numbers, her immigration record, and other key policy proposals.
One of the most glaring problems came when she was asked about banning fracking. This is an important issue to voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania, and it's clear that she has that in mind when suddenly flip-flopping on it.
Even a leftist media outlet couldn't ignore some of the incongruencies, though Newsweek attempted to spin them. Harris touted President Joe Biden's administration that created "over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs" as well as "300,000 new clean energy jobs."
This is not entirely true, as the numbers for manufacturing jobs are revised based on seasonal fluctuations, and green jobs are projected but not actual. However, one glaring omission was the role the COVID-19 pandemic played in the rebound in employment.
In the years following the lockdowns, businesses reopened, and people went back to work, resulting in a significant increase in jobs. Harris similarly falsly claimed that illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador was down by playing with the timing.
While the decrease was true as of 2023, the 2024 data already revealed an increase year over year in the number of these immigrants illegally crossing into the U.S. However, Harris's most dubious claim was her changing views on fracking.
When Harris was a candidate for president in the 2020 presidential election, she unequivocally supported a ban on fracking. She implied that those vies have changed, but the rhetoric on the issue only softened when she was reflecting Biden's views as his running mate.
Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance, who is former President Donald Trump's running mate, slammed Harris. "If you look at the way that Kamala Harris has governed, she's actually governed as a far-left person," Vance said on Fox & Friends Friday, Fox News reported.
"She's just trying to pretend that she's not far left now because, of course, she wants to win the American people's votes over the next couple of months. But if she does, she's going to do the same thing that she's been doing for the last few years," Vance predicted.
He went on to point out that she is claiming to have moved to the center while her record shows she's a rabid leftist. "She has governed as a person who believes those things, and unfortunately, the American people are far off because of it," Vance said.
Harris is an avowed leftist who will continue to govern as such despite her lies. She had to tell a different tale in the interview because the truth is unpopular with the American people, and she knows it.
Attorney Steven Sadow said revelations about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' remarks are the “death knell” for the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump, Newsweek reported. In a filing Monday, Sadow asserted that Willis made statements that could prejudice jurors against Trump.
Trump has been accused of attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election. He allegedly called Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and ordered him to "find votes" that would give the state's electoral college votes to Trump.
However, the case could be in jeopardy with Willis at the helm. As Trump's attorneys have argued, there is evidence that Willis has made prejudicial remarks against Trump while pursuing legal action against him.
Sadow believes that an opinion from Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold Nelson Hill suggests that Trump's defense has a point. Willis had made false claims of racism while speaking to a church in January that could jeopardize the jury.
Sadow believes that Hill provided the rationale for dismissing Trump's case in a 1981 opinion. "[B]efore a trial, the court should be sensitive to the potential for prejudice to the defendant," Hill said at the time.
"I believe that a trial court should disqualify the state's attorney if his continued presence in the case would cause a reasonable potential for prejudice to the defendant. A reasonable potential for prejudice standard would rigorously protect defendants," Hill added.
"It would not require a showing of actual, or likely, harm. Rather, the trial court would focus on the possibility of an unfair trial. Yet, this rule would place the burden on defendants of demonstrating some real, not imagined, chance of prejudice,'" Hill said.
Sadow thinks this is easily proven in Trump's case, though the judge in Trump's case incorrectly relied on a later decision in Williams v. State in 1988 to overlook Wills' conduct. "Here, even Hill's 'reasonable potential for prejudice' pretrial standard is easily met," Sadow wrote in the filing.
"With nationwide slanderous media coverage on every available network, appellants have shown that there is not only a 'real chance,' but a substantial probability, for unfair treatment during the trial process," he added. Willis has denied any prejudice, though she hasn't responded to the latest iteration of the charge from Sadow.
The speech Trump's defense referenced happened on Jan. 14 at the historically black Big Bethel AME Church in Atlanta, the New York Post reported. Willis addressed the congregation and attempted to explain away allegations about an improper relationship.
The co-defendants in Trump's case outed Willis' affair with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she hired for the case. In the course of that explanation, Willis implied that her critics were motivated by racism though she didn't mention Trump or his case by name.
"They only attacked one. First thing they say, ‘Oh, she’s gonna play the race card now,'" Willis told the congregation. "But no, God, isn’t it them that’s playing the race card when they only question one?"
Willis was already compromised because of her improper relationship with Wade. However, Trump's defense is correct that the case should be dismissed because she poisoned the well of potential jurors by making such remarks about racism.
Special counsel Jack Smith's superseding indictment revised the charges against former President Donald Trump, CNN reported. Smith was forced to do so following the Supreme Court's decision granting presidential immunity.
Trump's attorneys argued that his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, fell under the protection of his presidential duties. The Supreme Court agreed with Trump in a 6-3 ruling.
This meant that some charges Smith pursued would likely be negated upon appeal. To complicate matters, Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion did not provide a roadmap for how Smith could successfully proceed, which meant he had to go back to the drawing board.
A new grand jury returned the new indictment Wednesday, which contains key revisions and additions to the charges. Smith has attempted to turn the focus to Trump's status as a political candidate during the unrest to skirt the immunity issue.
As Georgia State University constitutional lawyer Anthony Michael Kreis pointed out, Smith has pivoted to "trying to make a clean case for why this is indictable and why these indictable offenses all stem from conduct that Donald Trump did as a candidate and not as president in any formal or official capacity." This means that certain presidential briefings have been removed from Smith's case.
Also gone are references to Trump's conduct while the unrest occurred which would confirm his role as an official. During the breach of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters, Trump took meetings with presidential advisers who implored him to intervene.
Based on their recommendations, Trump posted a message to protesters on X, then Twitter, to "remain peaceful." Later that day, he posted a video message from the Rose Garden asking rioters to leave the building.
The new indictment no longer references those actions or a call Trump engaged in with then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy during the unrest. Notably, prosecutors removed Trump's alleged comment from the outer Oval Office that "this is what happens when they try to steal an election." The comment fits neatly with their narrative, but the venue does not.
One portion that remains despite its ties to official proceedings is Trump's conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence about holding off on certifying the votes. Smith has recast the conversations as those between Trump, the candidate, and Pence, his running mate, while downplaying their respective roles as president and vice president.
While Smith has reworked some of the previous charges, he has also added new information to find something that sticks. His revised indictment adds more background about the electoral vote certification process that he believes will help.
This is because the obstruction charge requires a threshold imposed by another Supreme Court ruling from a Jan. 6 defendant. As Reuters reported, obstruction of an official proceeding happens only if the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" of records or documents in the proceedings.
It may be a stretch, but Smith is attempting to link Trump's conduct that day to an effort to hinder the use of certifying documents by Congress. Because staffers were forced off the Senate floor during the certification, they took documents with them.
Smith's theory dictates that if Trump was the impetus for them to move those documents, the obstruction charge could remain. It seems like a stretch, but Smith is desperate to salvage his case against Trump as the election draws nearer.
Smith is intent on prosecuting Trump no matter the obstacles. This case and the charges appear highly politicized, given the hoops Smith is willing to jump through to ensure there is something he can pin on the former president.
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment Tuesday to retool charges against former President Donald Trump, Breitbart reported. Trump slammed this move as "an effort to resurrect a 'dead' Witch Hunt" and called for the charges to "be dismissed immediately."
Smith originally charged Trump with four crimes in connection with an alleged effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The case hit a roadblock as the president's legal team asserted that his conduct fell under presidential immunity.
The question of whether the privilege applied reached the Supreme Court, which sided with Trump in July. This forced Smith back to the drawing board to work around the issue.
What the new grand jury came up with this week was a revision to the same charges with language that skirts immunity. "The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States," Smith said.
Trump called Smith's decision to pursue "a 'dead' Witch Hunt in Washington, D.C." was "an act of desperation." He charged that Smith was trying to "save face" and called Tuesday's move "a ridiculous new Indictment against me, which has all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY," Trump wrote on Turth Social.
"His Florida Document Hoax Case has been completely dismissed," Trump noted. Earlier this year, a Florida judge threw out Trump's classified documents case in the Sunshine State on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed.
Trump said Smith's indictment was "merely an attempt to INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION, and distract the American People from the catastrophes Kamala Harris has inflicted on our Nation, like the Border Invasion, Migrant Crime, Rampant Inflation, the threat of World War III, and more..." Smith's effort will now continue with just two months left before Election Day.
Trump makes it clear that he believes the continued legal attacks are political. Smith is pursuing charges even after the Supreme Court defanged most of them, which defies reason except if the aim is something other than justice.
According to Fox News, Trump is still being charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Trump has pleaded not guilty to them all.
However, Trump is no longer being accused of using the Justice Department in his efforts to overturn the election results. That charge initially came through Jeffrey Clark, who was a senior official in Trump's Justice Department.
Clark allegedly wanted to send letters to state officials claiming that his office "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election" to stop the certification. Trump did not participate but rewarded Clark by keeping on as acting attorney general.
Clark and Trump were dropped as co-conspirators. These changes came just three days before the court's deadline for Smith to make his decision on what to do with the case in light of the immunity decision. It's unlikely that the trial will proceed before the November election.
Trump has faced several legal challenges while trying to conduct a presidential campaign, and now he must continue to defend himself despite the case being on shaky ground. Smith's decision to file a new indictment suggests this is no coincidence.
An Arizona judge set a 2026 trial date for Rudy Guiliani, Mark Meadows, and 16 others connected to former President Donald Trump, CNN reported. These defendants are accused of conspiring to subvert the 2020 presidential election results on behalf of the former president.
Arizona Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen, who is a Democrat, ordered the trial to begin on January 5, 2026, to prosecute a case that will be six years old by then. He clarified that the start date is still a "moving target" despite the decision on Monday.
The date is six months later than originally requested. However, the judge explained that it would allow defense attorneys time for the discovery process and interviews for some 80 witnesses the prosecutors have listed for the trial.
Notably, Trump is not one of those indicted but is referred to as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in legal filings about the alleged attempt to overturn the election results. Prosecutors have claimed to this fact proves that the indictment is not politically motivated.
Prosecutors claim that several Republicans planned to unlawfully cast electoral votes in a scheme allegedly cooked up by conservative attorney John Eastman. Arizona has dubbed them fake electors as they planned to cast electoral votes for Trump on the notion that he had won the state.
Earlier this month, prosecutors successfully flipped their first defendant when Jenna Ellis, Trump's 2020 campaign attorney, turned state's witness to avoid charges for herself. She will now testify against others in Trump's circle.
Initially, prosecutors pinned her with several felony counts which later proved useful for turning her. They struck a similar plea deal with Loraine Pellegrino, who was nabbed for allegedly signing a false electoral document, that has also turned her into a witness.
Pellegrino will plead guilty to a false document charge, but the other criminal charges concerning the conspiracy will be dismissed. Others of the so-called fake electors will have to wait until 2026 for their cases to be adjudicated as they face criminal charges.
Still, White House aide and Trump confidant Boris Epshteyn, who was also named in the indictment, is sticking to a plea of not guilty. Meanwhile, other big fish like Guiliani, Trump's personal attorney at the time, and then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, are not going down without a fight.
Meadows objected to the indictment claiming he was involved in advocating for Trump but didn't participate in the elector effort. His attorneys requested moving his trial to federal court because his conduct fell under official duties at the time.
"Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se. Rather, it consists of allegations that he received (and occasionally responded to) messages from people who were trying to get ideas in front of President Trump or seeking to inform Mr. Meadows about the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the President’s campaign," the filing said.
"This is precisely the kind of state interference in a federal official’s duties that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits and that the removal statute shields from adjudication in a state court," Meadows' attorneys argued. Guiliani's attorneys also cited the Constitution but took a First Amendment approach.
"How is Mr. Giuliani to know that, oh my gosh, he presided over a meeting in downtown Phoenix. How is he to know that that's a crime?" Guiliani's attorney, Mark Williams, said about Guiliani's claims about a stolen election, according to CBS News.
Although Trump wasn't indicted, this case is being used to pressure Trump's associates to turn against him because they repeated claims that many people felt were worth exploring about the 2020 election. The left will stop at nothing to get Trump, whether directly or through his associates and supporters.
In the wake of his decision to step down from the ballot in November, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has lost his Secret Service protection.
Kennedy, who had been running as an independent presidential candidate, had been denied Secret Service protection despite repeated requests until former President Donald Trump was shot at a Pennsylvania rally in July.
But just over a month later, law enforcement sources told the New York Post that his protection was being pulled because he is no longer an active candidate.
Kennedy will still be on the ballot in blue states, he said, but will be removing his name from swing states.
The Post said it was customary for the Secret Service to scale back or terminate its protection when a candidate suspends their campaign.
Kennedy cited evidence of at least 34 distinct threats against him in his requests for protection.
In addition, his father Bobby Kennedy and uncle President John F. Kennedy were both assassinated.
The Secret Service has been under fire since Trump's shooting, which has been attributed to failures in communication between the agency and local law enforcement, among other failures.
It came out after the Trump shooting that the Secret Service repeatedly denied requests from the Trump campaign for additional protection.
On the day of the shooting, some Secret Service resources were apparently diverted to First Lady Jill Biden, who was also in the region.
Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned 10 days after the shooting.
At least five of Secret Service personnel that were on duty the day of the shooting have been placed on administrative duty while the incident is investigated.
They haven't lost their jobs, but are not allowed to do any kind of security planning.
Trump has said the personnel who have been protecting him are doing a good job, but the higher-ups seem to be making political decisions that benefit the Biden-Harris administration rather than doing a fair and impartial job of protecting everyone who needs it.