GOP lawmaker blames processing error for failure to pay thousands in rent
He publicly commented on the issue after independent journalist Roger Sollenberger published court filings alleging Mills owed $85,000 in back rent at the property in Washington.
'Roger, I know facts are unusual and unfamiliar thing for you, but here's just the past two months where you can see I'm repeatedly asking for payment links and again as I tried with management today, it failed to process,' Mills wrote in a Monday post on X, with screenshots from the payment website and emails requesting a separate link for payment.
''Error code 108 typically indicates an issue with the Windows Installer Service, often meaning another installation is already running. It can also be related to bank connectivity problems in financial software,'' Mills continued.
'Facts are a finicky thing but wouldn't expect you to be anything other than a biased hack!'
Mills' office and The Bozutto Group, the real estate company listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the matter.
Sollenberger reported that Mills was served with notice for failure to pay in January.
'Ledger shows he paid late nearly every month since moving in, missing several months entirely,' the journalist wrote in a Monday post on X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Election 2028 is on — Democrats see opportunity and a wide open primary
The big field in the race for the 2028 presidential sweepstakes is already off and running. Two of the top Democrats vying for the job are former Vice President Kamala Harris and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). The election of either one would address the urgency of putting a woman in the White House for the first time. Harris's decision not to run for governor in her home state of California indicates she will make another White House run. But that's not the only sign that the Democratic stampede towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has started. Democratic presidential wannabes have already made treks to early primary states like South Carolina and New Hampshire. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has already raised $1.6 million dollars for his leadership PAC. Why has the Democratic presidential primary pursuit started so early? Donald Trump's failed imperial presidency has raised the stakes and the Democratic field is wide open. A Democratic House majority after next year's midterms would slow down Trump's excesses but only a new Democratic president in 2029 can undo the damage. Trump's approval ratings are deep underwater and inflation is sky-high. The 2028 GOP nominee will inherit his weak standing and a troubled economy if the president follows through with his reckless handling of the nation's economy. First-half GDP growth was anemic and job creation cratered in the last few months. Trump's only response was to kill the messenger of the bad news. The 2028 MAGA nominee will bear the same economic burden from an unpopular president that Harris inherited in 2024. Democrats smell blood in the water. Even with Harris' inevitable entry into the 2028 race, there is no strong favorite to win her party's nod. A June survey of Democratic voters by Emerson College indicated that she is simply one of three candidates in the field ranging between 10 and 15 percent of the vote, along with former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Last November just after Election Day, another Emerson poll showed the former vice president far ahead of the rest of the pack, with 37 percent support. The difference between the two surveys demonstrates the fluid nature of the race and the fragility of Harris's support. The former vice president only had 107 days to start and run her presidential campaign which is virtually impossible to do. But she failed to break new ground and separate herself from the unpopular incumbent during her brief effort. Will she be more aggressive in 2028? She needs to do much more than to call for a return to the status quo before Trump 2.0. The former veep must be bold especially on economic issues. Bold prescriptions for the nation's economic woes include trust busting for Big Tech and the mammoth grocery chain cartels. Does Harris have it in her to blaze a new trail for her party? She got off to a good start last week on ' The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.' She said that she needed a vacation from a 'broken' political system, at least for now. The establishment Democrat also criticized the parts of the establishment that she believed capitulated to Trump. I'm sure that Paramount, which owns CBS, caught that remark. The avatar of the progressive movement, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will not run in 2028. He lost his presidential bids in 2016 and 2020, but he received millions of votes and had a profound impact on the ideological direction of the Democratic Party. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and Ocasio-Cortez can fill the void with the base left by Sanders if she runs for president. She is a proud Democratic Socialist and a Democratic Socialist won the party's primary in New York City. Another one is mounting a strong primary challenge to the mayor in Minneapolis. Democratic Socialism isn't big in the must-win suburbs in the battleground Electoral College states. But there are lots of them in the big cities that contribute heavily to the Democratic presidential primary vote. Ocasio-Cortez strongly supported the successful primary campaign of Zohran Mamdani in the Big Apple. But a Mamdani loss to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent in November, could take some of the sheen off her presidential profile. Mamdani may have to back off on some of the statements he made in the past, and Ocasio-Cortez may have the same problem if she runs for the nation's highest office. She has supported controversial proposals like Medicare For All during her brief career, but nothing as radical as the things that Donald Trump has actually done in office. A national survey for The Economist last month demonstrated majority support for universal health care compared to little support for Trump's big bad budget bill. Ocasio-Cortez is only 35 years old. Her ascent into the national political pantheon is as much generational as it is ideological. A new generation of young Democrats will demand their place in the sun from the aging baby boomers, like me, who temporarily hold sway in the party. She's a street fighter from New York, like Trump, but she goes to war for progressive ideals instead of outmoded and antiquated policies. The energy within her party is generated on Main Street, not on the boulevards of Washington. She and her mentor Sanders drew enormous crowds during their town hall meetings in crimson red Republican congressional districts across the nation. My party needs to tap her energy and enthusiasm to recover and prosper. Her reputation as a burr in the butt for the Democratic D.C. establishment would serve her well and capitalize on voter hatred for Washington. Most Americans believe the system is terrible and are looking for bold and dramatic change. They got it in a perverse way from Trump. Now it's up to Harris, Ocasio-Cortez and the other Democratic contestants to deliver their own versions of progressive fundamental reform.
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
Pentagon keeps a lid on Golden Dome
The Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville this week typically showcases the Pentagon's missile defense priorities. Organizers expect it will draw 7,300 attendees and 300 exhibitors this year, with Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Heath Collins among the headliners. But Hegseth's public affairs office told organizers to keep Golden Dome off the agenda and muzzled government speakers — at least until a separate event on Thursday, according to event spokesperson Bob English. 'A lot of [attendees] are coming this year because of Golden Dome,' English said. 'Unfortunately, last week, [the Defense secretary's office] came out and said they don't want us talking about Golden Dome during the symposium.' The Pentagon, when asked for comment, pointed to a July announcement about the creation of an office to oversee the missile shield's development. Officials provided no additional information. Organizers described frantic days assessing the new rules' implications. 'There was confusion for about 48 hours about exactly what the policy was or what they intended us to do or not to do,' English said. Officials will still have some conversations about Golden Dome, but in a more structured setting. The Missile Defense Agency posted a notice this week that it will brief industry in an unclassified session Thursday, laying out what threats the shield is meant to stop, what mix of defenses it may use and how the Pentagon wants to buy and build it. But experts contend the conversation belongs in public. 'When it comes to Golden Dome, start talking,' said Tom Karako, a missile defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'There are good answers to these questions because the threat is profound. But there needs to be a lot more communication and persuasion.' The fledgling initiative, launched by Trump soon after he returned to office, received $25 billion in the recently signed GOP megabill. Proponents envision a $175 billion program. The Senate confirmed Gen. Mike Guetlein in July to lead the new Golden Dome office, which aims to unveil the system's architecture by mid-September and conduct the first integrated flight test in late 2028.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Are you ready for ‘Hawley Bucks'?
There is no public policy idea so dumb to preclude some member of Congress from whole-heartedly supporting it. And the latest example is a proposal to hand out billions of taxpayer dollars to taxpayers to offset taxpayers paying billions of dollars in taxes — that is, tariffs. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has just introduced the American Worker Rebate Act. Consider it a plan to rob Peter in order to pay … Peter. President Trump's tariffs are forcing American businesses and consumers to pay billions of dollars in tariffs, which are taxes. So far this year, the U.S. government has collected about $150 billion in tariffs. Normally, the federal government collects between $75 billion and $80 billion for the whole year. The White House is ecstatic about all this increased revenue. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'In reality, tariffs are a source of massive revenue.' But that 'massive revenue' is a result of new taxes coming from Americans. In years past, Republicans went to great lengths to avoid passing anything that could be construed as a tax increase. And, in fairness, no Republican currently in Congress voted for these tariffs. They exist because one Republican, Trump, has unilaterally imposed, then unimposed, then reimposed, then delayed, then reimposed the tariffs. And while many Republicans quietly grumble about Trump's tariffs, they hedge their public remarks so as not to 'poke the bear.' Now that Trump's tariffs are extracting billions of taxpayer dollars from Americans, Hawley proposes to have the government hand out checks to most Americans. Let's call them Hawley Bucks. According to The Hill, Hawley's proposal would offer $600 'tariff rebates.' Children are included, meaning that it 'would give a family of four $2,400.' The senator says, 'Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country.' What a stupid statement. That 'wealth' Hawley's referring to belonged to Americans, and the money isn't 'returning' to America because it was already here. Trump's tariffs took that wealth away from Americans by forcing them to pay the tariffs. Why does the government need to return the money? The Hill reporter nails it: 'The payments are designed to offset higher prices resulting from tariffs.' Just consider some of the many problems with this proposal. First, the renewed inflationary pressure leading to higher prices is self-imposed by Trump's tariffs. Bizarrely, Hawley is modeling his rebates on the COVID-19 stimulus checks, which helped ignite a years-long inflation battle that consumers are still feeling and the Federal Reserve Bank is still fighting. Second, tariffs, like sales taxes, are regressive. They tend to hit lower-income families harder than higher-income families. So, Hawley plans to means-test the rebates. 'The payments would be reduced for households that earn $150,000 or more, a head of household who earns more than $112,500 and individuals who earn more than $75,000.' That's a form of income redistribution. Everyone pays the tariffs, but higher-income families won't get the rebates. There was a time when Republicans strongly opposed income redistribution, while progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) strongly supported it. Now a Republican, with Trump's backing, is proposing income redistribution. Third, some tariff supporters claim the increased revenue will help reduce the current federal budget deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will be $1.9 trillion for 2025. But the tariffs won't reduce the budget deficit if the government is rebating the tariff revenue to Americans. Fourth, the tariff revenue will vary, in part because Trump keeps shifting the tariff rates on various countries. But Hawley's rebates aren't variable. So, if tariff revenue comes in low and the rebates remain the same, the rebates could add to the federal deficit. Finally, progressives have long supported a universal basic income (UBI), in which the government hands out checks to everyone — a guaranteed income for every American. Republicans have opposed proposals that would create a new entitlement program. But Hawley's tariff rebate takes us very close to a UBI. Of course, a new president entering office in 2029 may repeal the tariffs. Or the U.S. Supreme Court may decide that Congress never gave the president the power to impose sweeping new tariffs on any and all countries for whatever reason or for no reason. In that case, tariff revenue would decline sharply. Yet the public would be very reluctant to see their Hawley Bucks eliminated. Although Hawley's proposal is terrible policy, you can appreciate its politics. He is trying to limit the negative consequences of another terrible policy. But rather than create a new entitlement program, Republicans should take steps to eliminate the cause of the problem: Trump's tariffs.
