This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Israel and Iran are at war.
Leaders of the small Middle East democracy are worried about their continued existence, amid Iranian threats to wipe the country off the map, and are insistent the rogue Islamic regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, which could do just that.
President Donald Trump is being pushed both directions, from one side to get America involved and just end the continued threat from Iran. The other side says it's not America's fight and he must stay out.
Then there's Russia and Ukraine still launching rockets, blowing up things and killing people in a war that's gone on for years already.
Further, China is threatening Taiwan, and there's war in Africa.
Franklin Graham, chief of the worldwide Christian ministry Samaritan's Purse, has posted online a simple request.
"Will you join me in lifting up President Donald J. Trump in prayer?"
He explained, "From our earthly view, we see ominous storm clouds gathered around the globe. With Iran and Israel engaged in war, Russia and Ukraine in continued deadly conflict, China imposing an imminent threat to Taiwan, war in Sudan, and more, it seems as though the whole world is on the brink of fracturing."
He said, "Our President needs wisdom and strength from God. The decisions he is called upon to make will affect each one of us, our country, and the entire world. I pray that God will direct his steps as he leads our nation through the most turbulent times we have experienced in decades."
Graham then quoted Matthew 24:7, "The Bible tells us, 'For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has handed California Gov. Gavin Newsom a huge loss in his fight with President Donald Trump over the activation of National Guard troops to protect federal assets during the ongoing Los Angeles riots.
That violence, attacks on federal officers, destruction of vehicles, vandalism of buildings and more, started when federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers launched a raid to deliver warrants and make arrests in a cartel criminal investigation, involving, among other things, laundering money.
Local activists claimed it was nothing but immigration raids and triggered riots, with Trump calling out National Guard troops to protect federal assets.
Newsom sued, and a leftist local judge ordered the president to return control of the troops to Newsom.
That now has been put on hold.
Explained constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, "Gov. Gavin Newsom just lost a major ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that President Donald Trump is likely to prevail in his deployment of National Guard troops. Newsom and various Democratic politicians have insisted that Trump's order is unlawful and that Newsom has to agree to any request for deployment. The Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Newsom does not have such a veto over deployments."
The appeals court action blocked an injunction created by a leftist, Charles Breyer, the entry level court judge "who suggested in open court that Trump was acting like another 'King George.' He then wrote an opinion that included many Democratic talking points — suggesting, for example, that Trump was creating disorder by calling out the National Guard to deal with disorder," Turley explained.
"Breyer further indicated that the violence in Los Angeles was relatively minor, despite potentially deadly attacks on law enforcement, arson, and looting," Turley noted.
The appeals court cited the justifications for calling on the troops to include:
"Whenever— (1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; (2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia."
Breyer claimed Trump could not use part three "if there was any possibility of executing federal laws absent the use of the National Guard troops."
The appeals court said that was misguided, as, "Section 12406 does not have as a prerequisite that the President be completely precluded from executing the relevant laws of the United States in order to call members of the National Guard into federal service, nor does it suggest that activation is inappropriate so long as any continued execution of the laws is feasible."
"Defendants have made the required strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. We disagree with Defendants' primary argument that the President's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is completely insulated from judicial review. Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor to § 12406, our review of that decision must be highly deferential. Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under § 12406(3), which authorizes federalization of the National Guard when 'the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Additionally, the Secretary of Defense's transmittal of the order to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard—who is authorized under California law to 'issue all orders in the name of the Governor,' CAL. MIL. & VET. CODE § 163— likely satisfied the statute's procedural requirement that federalization orders be 3 issued 'through' the Governor," the ruling said.
Even if there was a procedural mistake, the court said, "that would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court's TRO. Our conclusion that it is likely that the President's order federalizing members of the California National Guard was authorized under § 12406(3) also resolves the Tenth Amendment claim because the parties agree that the Tenth Amendment claim turns on the statutory claim. We also conclude that the other stay factors—irreparable harm to Defendants, injury to Plaintiffs, and the public interest—weigh in Defendants' favor. Thus, we grant the motion for a stay pending appeal."
The court ruling acknowledged the violence of the riots, how protesters blocked traffic and used shopping carts to barricade a street for hours, rioters who attacked federal officers and threw mortar-style fireworks at them.
Others were "dangerous" because they threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at officers, burned vehicles, vandalized property.
The result was that officers were injured.
Trump's response was to call the Guard troops to protect federal officers and property, and Newsom demanded that the order be reversed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed a state law in Tennessee that bans the infliction of transgender procedures on minors.
The 6-3 ruling revealed a pointedly leftist trio on the court demanding the agenda of chemically and surgically altering children to accommodate what almost always is a temporary gender dysphoria.
The majority opinion, supported by the conservative members of the court, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ruling found the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Regarding the state's SB 1, Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions, while Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Ketanji Jackson and Elena Kagan.
"We are asked to decide whether SB1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review," Roberts found.
The ruling is significant, as there are about 20 other states that have similar laws preventing the infliction of body alterations and mutilations on minors.
The case revolved around the fact, according to the court, the "growing number of states restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity."
In Tennessee, SB1 "prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's biological sex and asserted identity."
"At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor's congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury," the court noted.
Three "transgender minors," their parents, and a doctor challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A trial judge halted the law but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to take effect, as the law "did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review."
The ruling said SB1 "is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review."
The law's classifications are based on age and medical condition.
"Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review," the court explained.
In fact, the plaintiffs claimed the classifications were based on sex, but they are not, the ruling said.
"The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex. SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to any minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, regardless of the minor's sex; it permits providers to administer puberty blockers and hormones to minors of any sex for other purposes," the ruling said.
Also, the ruling said, "the court rejects the plaintiffs' argument that, by design, SB1 enforces a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex."
The court said, "Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. SB1's age- and diagnosis-based classifications are rationally related to these findings and the State's objective of protecting minors' health and welfare."
"In today's historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism," said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood."
Roberts wrote, "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."
Leftists who brought the fight to create mandates for transgenderism, one of Joe Biden's highest priorities while in office, included an official of Lambda Legal, who said, "This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive."
Sotomayor explained the basis for her claim it is sex discrimination, asserting in her dissent, the "law conditions the availability of medications on a patient's sex. Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Billionaire Elon Musk, the former head of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, took a shot Tuesday at the credibility of the Wall Street Journal, saying the newspaper "sucks" at journalism.
Musk posted a meme on X mocking the @WSJ handle of the publication, suggesting it stands for "We Suck at Journalism."
While Musk himself did not pinpoint what may have triggered his sentiment, his Grok artificial intelligence device explained, "Elon Musk's dislike for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) stems from a series of critical articles they've published about him, which he and his supporters perceive as inaccurate, misleading, or agenda-driven. Here are the key reasons based on available information:
Critical Reporting on Personal and Professional Life: The WSJ has published several articles that Musk believes misrepresent him. For instance, a January 2024 report alleged pervasive drug use by Musk, raising concerns among his companies' directors, which he denied and labeled as "trash." Another April 2025 article claimed Musk was secretly trying to create a "legion" of offspring, citing controversial personal details, which Musk dismissed, comparing WSJ unfavorably to TMZ.
Tesla Succession Claims: In May 2025, the WSJ reported that Tesla's board was seeking a successor for Musk as CEO due to his focus on government roles and Tesla's declining stock price. Musk and Tesla's board called this "absolutely false," accusing the WSJ of unethical journalism for not including their denial. Musk publicly stated this was a "deliberately false article" and a "discredit to journalism."
DOGE and Government Role Criticism: The WSJ has scrutinized Musk's role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), including a February 2025 report about a team member's resignation after racist tweets surfaced, which Musk may have seen as unfairly targeting his leadership. Additionally, a December 2024 editorial criticized Musk and Trump over a "budget fiasco," suggesting Musk's influence led to governance issues, which likely fueled his frustration.
Perceived Bias and Sensationalism: Musk has repeatedly called out the WSJ for what he sees as biased or sensationalist reporting. In posts on X, he's described the WSJ as "the worst newspaper in the world," unfit even for "parrot droppings," and accused it of lying with "sheer audacity." His mother, Maye Musk, also criticized a WSJ article as "dishonest" in May 2025, reflecting a family sentiment against the outlet.
Broader Media Distrust: Musk's criticism aligns with his broader skepticism of mainstream media, particularly outlets like the WSJ, which he views as part of an establishment pushing narratives against him. He's suggested the WSJ's reporting is driven by motives to undermine his influence, especially given his high-profile role in Trump's administration and his ownership of X.
On the other hand, the WSJ has defended its reporting, stating in response to Tesla's denial that it stood by its claims and that Tesla was given a chance to comment before publication. Some argue Musk's reactions are strategic, redirecting attention from negative stories or rallying his base against perceived media bias. His public feuds, like challenging the WSJ to drug tests, amplify this narrative.
Musk's dislike seems rooted in a pattern of WSJ articles that he believes unfairly target his personal life, business decisions, and political influence, coupled with his distrust of traditional media. However, the WSJ's perspective suggests they're holding a powerful figure accountable, highlighting a tension between investigative journalism and Musk's public persona."
Just last week on June 10, the Journal posted a story titled, "U.S. Agencies Tracked Foreigners Traveling to See Musk."
The paper reported: "Several U.S. government agencies in 2022 and 2023 tracked foreign nationals coming and going to Elon Musk's properties, according to people familiar with the matter.
"The investigation included the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department. It focused on people visiting the tech billionaire, from countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, who might have been trying to influence him."
There is plenty of reaction to Musk's assertion about the Journal sucking, including:
"Perfect!"
"There is no coming back from that name."
"Don't remember the last time I VISITED any legacy corporate media websites like WSJ… Let alone read an article from them. X is where it's at."
"I had to get a subscription when in college- it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever seen! It was so far left even new college liberals were unimpressed!"
"I've been calling them this for years. I'm glad to see that a lot of people are starting to see it now."
"Every mainstream media does. It's what they do the best."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has shot down a lower court's "bully tactics" that allowed state officials in New York to force religious objectors to pay for abortion.
The decision comes in Diocese of Albany v. Harris, and cited the high court's own earlier decision in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.
The issue is leftists in various states keep trying to force religious organizations and others to pay for abortion, which violates the religious rights of people in those groups.
The court's announcement Monday about its decision was brief: "The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the court of appeals for New York for further consideration in light of Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry."
Becket, the organization that was fighting the case on behalf of the religious group members, explained further: "The Supreme Court has ordered New York courts to reconsider Diocese of Albany v. Harris, a case challenging New York's abortion mandate, in light of Becket's unanimous victory in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. In 2017, a group of Catholic and Anglican nuns, Catholic dioceses, Christian churches, and faith-based social ministries challenged New York's mandate forcing them to pay for employees' abortions. After New York courts declined to protect the faith groups, Becket and Jones Day asked the Supreme Court to step in."
It's not the first trip to the high court for the case, Becket noted, "In 2021, the justices reversed the lower courts' rulings and told them to reconsider the case, but the courts ignored that instruction. Now the Supreme Court has ordered the New York courts to go back to the drawing board."
It was the New York State Department of Financial Services that had demanded an abortion mandate for health care plans. At that time, it promised to exempt all employers with religious objections.
"But after facing pressure from abortion activists, New York narrowed the exemption to cover only religious groups that primarily teach religion and primarily serve and hire those who share their faith. This exception does not apply to many religious ministries—including the ministries challenging the mandate here—because they serve all people, regardless of faith," Becket explained.
"For example, the exemption doesn't extend to the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm and their Teresian Nursing Home because they serve the elderly and dying regardless of religious affiliation."
Becket spokesman Eric Baxter noted, "New York wants to browbeat nuns into paying for abortions for the great crime of serving all those in need. For the second time in four years, the Supreme Court has made clear that bully tactics like these have no place in our nation or our law. We are confident that these religious groups will finally be able to care for the most vulnerable, consistent with their beliefs."
"Religious groups in the Empire State should not be forced to provide insurance coverage that violates their deeply held religious beliefs," explained Noel J. Francisco, of Jones Day, which also worked on the case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A decorated Major League Baseball pitcher reminded the world Who it is that originated the rainbow Friday night during his team's "Pride Night" game against the San Francisco Giants.
Three-time Cy Young Award winner Clayton Kershaw wrote a Bible reference on his rainbow-logo Los Angeles Dodgers cap: "Gen 9:12-16" – which speaks of God's covenant with "every living creature."
Reports Fox News, the reference to the biblical book of Genesis was written on the front of his cap. Genesis 9:12-16 reads:
"And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.'"
As Fox reported, Kershaw notably protested the organization's decision in 2023 to honor the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence before the team's Pride Night game that season. Kershaw said his opposition was based solely on the group's mockery of Christianity.
"I don't agree with making fun of other people's religions,"Kershaw said. "It has nothing to do with anything other than that. I just don't think that, no matter what religion you are, you should make fun of somebody else's religion. So, that's something that I definitely don't agree with."
The Giants beat the Dodgers, 6-2.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The suspect in the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife, is a political appointee of the state's governor and last year's Democratic vice presidential candidate, Tim Walz.
He is Vance Luther Boelter, 57, appointed by Walz in 2019 to serve on the governor's Workforce Development Board. Boelter reportedly also leads an international security firm.
State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot and killed in the attack at their home, which took place after 2 a.m. Saturday. State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife are alive after the attack at their home, but wounded. Both lawmakers were Democrats. According to reports, Boelter, who is still at large, was dressed as a police officer when he approached the homes.
In a statement, Walz called the assassinations and attempts acts of "targeted political violence."
The Gateway Pundit reports that Boelter's LinkedIn account lists him as the CEO of Red Lion Group.
Boelter apparently left a manifesto in his car, along with flyers for area "No Kings" rallies, meant to protest President Trump's immigration enforcement activities.
There are allegations that the attack involved a recent vote on Minnesota's health care program, MinnesotaCare.
Area residents have been told not to attend the local "No Kings" rally for fear of related violence.
Anyone with information about Boelter's whereabouts is asked to call the tipline at 877-996-6222 or email bca.tips@state.mn.us.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Denver, a progressive, leftist, Democrat enclave run by progressives, leftists and Democrats, demands that homebuilders build the structures the city prefers or pay an exorbitant extra fee.
And now it's being sued because its programs actually discourage what it purports to encourage: affordable housing.
It is the Pacific Legal Foundation that has brought the case on behalf of Denver homebuilder redT Homes, and CEO Nathan Adams.
The case challenges "Denver's permitting scheme, which forces builders to either set aside units to sell at below-market prices or pay huge fees to help create affordable housing."
A report at Complete Colorado explained, "At issue in this case is Denver's Linkage Fee ordinance, which was passed in 2022, that Adams' attorneys refer to as 'an exorbitant ransom for permission to build much-needed homes and exacerbates the problem the fee is trying to solve.'"
The report explains Denver's website demands that builders must be:
Those fees are moving, in just days, to $2.50 per square foot to $9 per square foot, depending on the type of construction.
The city claims the fees "support permanent housing and supportive services for at-risk residents, low- and moderate-income workforce rental housing and moderate-income for-sale housing.":
However, PLF said the company's expertise is in products ranging from "LiteHomes" to townhomes and apartments. And it explains Denver's agenda actually turns against solving the problem of a shortage of thousands of housing units.
"The City's regulations force home builders to pay for problems they do not create. The result: Developers have to increase the price of homes to cover the increased costs, making it harder for Denver families to buy homes," the PLF said.
"The excessive red tape has already priced redT out of some projects completely. Two of its upcoming projects may be headed down the same path: four single-family homes, which are subject to $25,000 in fees, and two duplexes, which are subject to $45,000 in fees," PLF said.
"Denver claims these fees are justified because new residents generate more housing demand. This rationale, however, misses the mark—the housing shortage stems from regulations that restrict supply by making it harder to build homes. Denver is punishing the very builders working to solve the housing crisis," according to the report.
"There's also a constitutional problem with these inclusionary zoning fees. The Supreme Court determined in a quartet of rulings that governments cannot burden homebuilders with costs for problems they do not create. Taken together, those cases established that permit conditions for new construction must be proportional and directly related to its impact. Anything above and beyond is an unconstitutional property taking," the PLF said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has responded to Israel's overnight strikes on Iran's nuclear weapons and military complex by calling for the rogue Islamic regime to make a deal "before there is nothing left."
"I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done. I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come – And they know how to use it." Trump wrote on social media.
"Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end."
He said, "Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All."
Israel launched coordinated strikes against Iranian nuclear complex targets and military sites early Friday, late Thursday, in Washington.
Trump continued, "Two months ago, I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to 'make a deal.' They should have done it! Today is day 61. I told them what to do, but they just couldn't get there. Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!"
Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the U.S. had not been "involved" in the strikes.
"Our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel."
Iran's immediate losses included, according to reports, Hossein Salami, the chief commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and multiple nuclear scientists.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the offensive could continue for days or weeks.
The Daily Mail described Israel's attacks as "devastating."
"Explosions boomed across the Iranian capital as simultaneous raids targeted buildings believed to be the homes of senior military commanders and advisers," the report said.
It reported that more than 200 Israeli jets were involved.
It also reported, "The preemptive strikes came after Israel said Iran has made significant advances towards the creation of a nuclear weapon, including the enrichment of uranium."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver, a Democrat, has been indicted on charges of impeding police, interfering with federal law enforcement and more after she was seen on video apparently breaking into a federal immigration detention center.
The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, who promised to hold the Democrats involved in the episode accountable.
McIver pulled her stunt May 9 at Newark's Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed, privately owned facility that Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses as a detention center.
McIver claims she was just doing her job at the time.
McIver is accused of obstructing Homeland Security agents during the May 9 incident. The indictment comes from a federal grand jury, which charged she was "forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers."
"During her continued attempts to thwart the arrest, McIver slammed her forearm into the body of one law enforcement officer and also reached out and tried to restrain that officer by forcibly grabbing him," the Department of Justice charged. "McIver also used each of her forearms to forcibly strike a second officer."
McIver claimed, "The charges against me are purely political — they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight."