Woman dragged out of Republican town hall suing for $5M
Teresa Borrenpohl, the Idaho woman who was dragged to the floor and pulled out of a local Republican town hall in February, is seeking $5 million in damages from a private security firm and the men she says were responsible for her forcible removal from the meeting.
Borrenpohl, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for a state House seat last fall, filed a notice of tort claim, which is a legally required precursor to a civil lawsuit in Idaho, on Monday.
The suit concerns an incident from Feb. 22 in Coeur d'Alene in which Borrenpohl heckled lawmakers attending a town hall meeting attended by state legislators and hosted by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee (KCRCC).
Borrenpohl's suit names Kootenai County Sheriff Robert Norris and KCRCC Chair Brent Regan, as well as Lear Asset Management, the private security firm for the event, and five Lear guards, including the company's CEO Paul Trouette.
'Town halls are intended to foster conversation and discourse across the aisle, which is why I am deeply alarmed that private security dragged me out of the public meeting for simply exercising my fundamental right of free speech,' Borrenpohl said in a statement.
'Since this disturbing incident, I have received an outpouring of support from people across the country, for which I am immensely grateful. Along with words of comfort and sympathy, folks have described similar acts of aggression in their own neighborhoods, reinforcing to me the importance of demanding accountability in my own case.'
Efforts by The Hill to reach Lear Asset Management and Trouette by telephone were not successful, but Trouette in remarks to The Washington Post defended his company.
'The Constitution provides freedom of speech, but it does not provide a license to be disruptive,' he told the newspaper.
Separately, Trouette and four other men face charges of battery and false imprisonment for actions related to the incident, according to a report in The New York Times. Those charges were brought by the Coeur d'Alene Prosecutor's Office. Two other men face separate charges.
The City of Coeur d'Alene also revoked Lear's business license for violating city ordinances that require security agents to wear clearly marked uniforms, per the Times.
Trouette told the Times those charges were baseless.
'We believe these charges are false and should have never been made,' he said.
Viral video from the event shows several men pulling Borrenpohl out of her seat and into the aisle as she yells 'Who are these men?'
Norris is seen in the video encouraging the men and recording the encounter on his phone, while Regan, who was speaking at the podium, also is shown expressing support for her physical removal.
The KCRCC defended its actions in a Feb. 27 statement released five days after the event, arguing Borrenpohl interrupted the proceedings, shouted insults and prevented other people from participating, something it described as a 'heckler's veto.' It also described Borrenpohl as a 'known agitator' while saying her behavior crossed a line and that she was warned to cease her disruptions and asked by Norris to leave at least five times.
'The KCRCC acted wholly within our legal rights and Idaho law to ensure the peace, safety, and rights of those in attendance,' the group wrote.
Borrenpohl's attorney said the sheriff and the security firm should both be held responsible for their treatment of her client.
'Today is the first step in the civil legal system for pursuing justice for Teresa and holding Lear Asset Management and Sheriff Norris responsible for the disturbing events that happened at the town hall event,' Borrenpohl attorney Wendy Olson said in a statement. 'We have put the county on notice that its public officials intentionally obstructed Teresa's constitutional rights and physically assaulted her in the process.'
Borrenpohl alleges that she 'suffered pain, scratches, bruising and emotional distress' from the ordeal.
2024 Election Coverage
'Ms. Borrenpohl was fearful for her safety throughout the time the men assaulted her. Because the men were unidentified, because Sheriff Norris directed them to physically remove her, and because of the manner in which they dragged her from the auditorium, Ms. Borrenpohl feared that she was being kidnapped,' it reads.
According to Borrenpohl's claim and video of the incident, several people in the crowded auditorium were loudly responding to elected officials' remarks during the forum — some in support and others against, including Borrenpohl.
'Although several in the auditorium stood, pointed, and yelled, Ms. Borrenpohl remained seated while she was speaking,' the claim reads. 'No other person was physically grabbed and removed from the auditorium in the same manner prior to the unidentified men dragging her from the auditorium. Nor were any who supported the speakers confronted or asked to leave.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
DNC chair, almost crying, claims David Hogg is making it impossible to lead party: ‘No one knows who the hell I am'
DNC Chair Ken Martin vented about party Vice Chairman and Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg to the point of near tears in a recent call with top Dem brass, saying, 'No one knows who the hell I am. 'I'll be very honest with you: For the first time in my 100 days on this job, the other night I said to myself for the first time, 'I don't know if I wanna do this anymore,' ' Martin bluntly admitted in leaked audio of the May 15 Zoom meeting, which was obtained by Politico, Martin, who was elected boss of the Democratic National Committee in February, bemoaned the shadow that Hogg cast over him by igniting a firestorm within the party over his plans to fund primary challenges against incumbent Dems. Advertisement 'No one knows who the hell I am, right?' Martin said during the call, in which he singled out Hogg, who was in the meeting. 'I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to put ourselves in a position to win,' the chairman said. 'I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to,' he said, directly addressing Hogg. 'So it's really frustrating.' Advertisement 3 Ken Martin didn't mince words about his frustrations with DNC Vice Chair David Hogg in leaked audio. AP 3 Hogg has been working to fund Democratic primaries against safe DEM incumbents despite his role as a party's vice chair. Getty Images for Fast Company Toward the end of the leaked audio, Martin's voice grew softer, and he paused at least twice, appearing to be on the verge of choking up. The DNC boss told Hogg, 'I deeply respect you' and 'was looking forward to working with you' while griping about the dilemma that the 25-year-old school mass-shooting survivor created. Advertisement Martin, referring to the state of the DNC, said, 'It has plenty of warts, and we're all trying to change those, for sure, but the longer we continue this fight, the harder it is for us to actually do what we all want to do, which is make a difference in this country again.' About 10 people were reportedly on the call. The Post reached out to the DNC and Hogg for comment. Hogg later posted text messages with the Politico reporter who broke the story as evidence that he didn't leak the audio. Advertisement Martin was meanwhile adamant that 'I'm not going anywhere' after the leaked audio surfaced. 'I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats,' he said in a statement obtained by Politico. 'As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda. 'That's the work that I will continue to do every day.' Hogg announced in April that his 'Leaders We Deserve' group would shell out about $20 million to meddle in Democratic primaries located in safe districts to edge out what it considers complacent incumbents in favor of ones who are more feisty. 3 Hogg has argued that the party needs to become more combative. Getty Images Last month, Hogg's group made its first endorsement, backing Illinois state Sen. Robert Peters (D) for the seat held by US Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), in Illinois' 2nd Congressional District. Kelly is running to replace retiring Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in 2026. Many Democrats are incensed that Hogg is attempting to retain his role as a vice chair at the DNC and intervene in primaries at the same time. Hogg is one of three vice chairs. As with the Republican National Committee, the DNC provides candidates with resources and strategic assistance and is generally expected to be neutral in party primaries. Advertisement 'Our job is to be neutral arbiters,' Martin previously said in another leaked April call. 'We can't be both the referee and also the player at the same time.' Martin had pressured Hogg to either sign a neutrality pledge or step down from his highly coveted perch. Last month, around the time of the leaked Martin Zoom call, the DNC Credentials Committee heard complaints that Hogg and fellow Vice Chair Malcolm Kenyatta were improperly elected to their positions in February. The complaint was furnished by Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who pointed to committee rules calling for the party to have as close to gender parity as possible. She argued that the election of Hogg and Kenyatta flouted those rules. Advertisement The DNC subpanel recommended that the party hold new elections for the vice chair positions to rectify that issue. All of that controversy has clouded the DNC's efforts to go on the offensive against Republicans and President Trump amid deep soul-searching within the party over what went awry during the 2024 presidential election.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Mike Johnson downplays Elon Musk's influence and says Republicans will pass Donald Trump's tax and budget bill
With an uncharacteristically feistiness, Speaker Mike Johnson took clear sides Sunday in President Donald Trump's breakup with mega-billionaire Elon Musk. The Republican House leader and staunch Trump ally said Musk's criticism of the GOP's massive tax and budget policy bill will not derail the measure, and he downplayed Musk's influence over the GOP-controlled Congress. 'I didn't go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world,' Johnson said on ABC's 'This Week.' 'What we're trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,' Johnson insisted. Johnson said he has exchanged text messages with Musk since the former chief of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency came out against the GOP bill. Musk called it an 'abomination' that would add to U.S. debts and threaten economic stability. He urged voters to flood Capitol Hill with calls to vote against the measure, which is pending in the Senate after clearing the House. His criticism sparked an angry social media back-and-forth with Trump, who told reporters over the weekend that he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk. The speaker was dismissive of Musk's threats to finance opponents — even Democrats — of Republican members who back Trump's bill. 'We've got almost no calls to the offices, any Republican member of Congress,' Johnson said. 'And I think that indicates that people are taking a wait and see attitude. Some who may be convinced by some of his arguments, but the rest understand: this is a very exciting piece of legislation.' Johnson argued that Musk still believes 'that our policies are better for human flourishing. They're better for the US economy. They're better for everything that he's involved in with his innovation and job creation and entrepreneurship.' The speaker and other Republicans, including Trump's White House budget chief, continued their push back Sunday against forecasts that their tax and budget plans will add to annual deficits and thus balloon a national debt already climbing toward $40 trillion. Johnson insisted that Musk has bad information, and the speaker disputed the forecasts of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that scores budget legislation. The bill would extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, cut spending and reduce some other levies but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over the decade, according to the CBO's analysis. The speaker countered with arguments Republicans have made for decades: That lower taxes and spending cuts would spur economic growth that ensure deficits fall. Annual deficits and the overall debt actually climbed during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and during Trump's first presidency, even after sweeping tax cuts. Russell Vought, who leads the White House Office of Budget and Management, said on Fox News Sunday that CBO analysts base their models of 'artificial baselines.' Because the 2017 tax law set the lower rates to expire, CBO's cost estimates, Vought argued, presuming a return to the higher rates before that law went into effect. Vought acknowledged CBO's charge from Congress is to analyze legislation and current law as it is written. But he said the office could issue additional analyses, implying it would be friendlier to GOP goals. Asked whether the White House would ask for alternative estimates, Vought again put the burden on CBO, repeating that congressional rules allow the office to publish more analysis. Other Republicans, meanwhile, approached the Trump-Musk battle cautiously. 'As a former professional fighter, I learned a long time ago, don't get between two fighters,' said Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin on CNN's 'State of the Union.' He even compared the two billionaire businessmen to a married couple. 'President Trump is a friend of mine but I don't need to get, I can have friends that have disagreements,' Mullin said. 'My wife and I dearly love each other and every now and then, well actually quite often, sometimes she disagrees with me, but that doesn't mean that we can't stay focused on what's best for our family. Right now, there may be a disagreement but we're laser focused on what is best for the American people.'
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Trump Means to Provoke, Not Pacify
President Donald Trump is about to launch yet another assault on democracy, the Constitution, and American traditions of civil-military relations, this time in Los Angeles. Under a dubious legal rationale, he is activating 2,000 members of the National Guard to confront protests against actions by ICE, the immigration police who have used thuggish tactics against citizens and foreigners alike in the United States. By militarizing the situation in L.A., Trump is goading Americans more generally to take him on in the streets of their own cities, thus enabling his attacks on their constitutional freedoms. As I've listened to him and his advisers over the past several days, they seem almost eager for public violence that would justify the use of armed force against Americans. The president and the men and women around him are acting with great ambition in this moment, and they are likely hoping to achieve three goals in one dramatic action. First, they will turn America's attention away from Trump's many failures and inane feuds, and reestablish his campaign persona as a strongman who will brush aside the law if that's what it takes to keep order in the streets. Perhaps nothing would please Trump more than to replace weird stories about Elon Musk with video of masked protesters burning cars as lines of helmeted police and soldiers march over them and impose draconian silence in one of the nation's largest and most diverse cities. Second, as my colleague David Frum warned this morning, Trump is establishing that he is willing to use the military any way he pleases, perhaps as a proof of concept for suppressing free elections in 2026 or 2028. Trump sees the U.S. military as his personal honor guard and his private muscle. Those are his toy soldiers, and he's going to get a show from his honor guard in a birthday parade next weekend. In the meantime, he's going to flex that muscle, and prove that the officers and service members who will do whatever he orders are the real military. The rest are suckers and losers. During the George Floyd protests in 2020, Trump was furious at what he saw as the fecklessness of military leaders determined to thwart his attempts to use deadly force against protesters. He's learned his lesson: This time, he has installed a hapless sycophant at the Pentagon who is itching to execute the boss's orders. Third, he may be hoping to radicalize the citizen-soldiers drawn from the community who serve in the National Guard. (Seizing the California Guard is also a convenient way to humiliate California Governor Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, with Trump's often-used narrative that liberals can't control their own cities.) The president has the right to 'federalize' Guard forces, which is how they were deployed overseas in America's various conflicts. Trump has never respected the traditions of American civil-military relations, which regard the domestic deployment of the military as an extreme measure to be avoided whenever possible. Using the Guard could be a devious tactic: He may be hoping to set neighbor against neighbor, so that the people called to duty return to their home and workplace with stories of violence and injuries. In the longer run, Trump may be trying to create a national emergency that will enable him to exercise authoritarian control. (Such an emergency was a rationalization, for example, for the tariffs that he has mostly had to abandon.) He has for years been trying to desensitize the citizens of the United States to un-American ideas and unconstitutional actions. The American system of government was never meant to cope with a rogue president. Yet Trump is not unstoppable. Thwarting his authoritarianism will require restraint on the part of the public, some steely nerves on the part of state and local authorities, and vigilant action from national elected representatives, who should be stepping in to raise the alarm and to demand explanations about the president's misuse of the military. As unsatisfying as it may be for some citizens to hear, the last thing anyone should do is take to the streets of Los Angeles and try to confront the military or any of California's law-enforcement authorities. ICE is on a rampage, but physically assaulting or obstructing its agents—and thus causing a confrontation with the cops who have to protect them, whether those police officers like it or not—will provide precisely the pretext that some of the people in Trump's White House are trying to create. The president and his coterie want people walking around taking selfies in gas clouds, waving Mexican flags, holding up traffic, and burning cars. Judging by reactions on social media and interviews on television, a lot of people seem to think such performances are heroic—which means they're poised to give Trump's enforcers what they're hoping for. Be warned: Trump is expecting resistance. You will not be heroes. You will be the pretext. Conor Friedersdorf: Averting the worst-case scenario in Los Angeles Instead, the most dramatic public action the citizens of Southern California could take right now would be to ensure that Trump's forces arrive on calm streets. Imagine the reactions of the Guard members as they look around and wonder what, exactly, the commander in chief was thinking. Why are they carrying their rifles in the streets of downtown America? What does anyone expect them to do? Put another way: What if the president throws a crackdown and nobody comes? This kind of restraint will deny Trump the political oxygen he's trying to generate. He is resorting to the grand theater of militarism because he is losing on multiple fronts in the courts—and he knows it. The law, for most people, is dreary to hear about, but one of the most important stories of Trump's second term is that lawyers and judges are so far holding a vital line against the administration, sometimes at great personal risk. Trump is also losing public support, which is another reason he's zeroing in on California. He is resolutely ignorant in many ways, but he has an excellent instinct for picking the right fights. The fact of the matter is that tens of millions of Americans believe that almost everything about immigration in the United States has long been deeply dysfunctional. (I'm one of them.) If he sends the military into L.A. and Guard members end up clashing in high-definition video with wannabe resistance gladiators in balaclavas, many people who have not been paying attention to his other ghastly antics will support him. (For the record, I am not one of them.) So far, even the Los Angeles Police Department—not exactly a bastion of squishy suburban book-club liberals—has emphasized that the protests have been mostly peaceful. Trump is apparently trying to change that. Sending in the National Guard is meant to provoke, not pacify, and his power will only grow if he succeeds in tempting Americans to intemperate reactions that give him the authoritarian opening he's seeking.
