6 men charged in woman's removal from Idaho town hall
Six men were charged by prosecutors in northern Idaho for removing a woman from a Kootenai County Republican Central Committee town hall in February.
Teresa Borrenpohl, a former Democratic nominee for state office, was hauled out of the meeting by individuals in plain clothes who refused to identify themselves at her request. Five of them were hired by the private security firm Lear Asset Management, which had its license revoked by the city after the town hall, according to The Associated Press.
Paul Trouette, Russell Dunne, Christofer Berg and Jesse Jones were charged with misdemeanor battery, false imprisonment, and violations of security agent duties and uniform requirements, while Alex Trouette IV is charged with security agent duties and uniform violations, the Coeur d'Alene City Prosecutor's office told The Hill.
Michael Keller, who was not hired by the security firm, is being charged with misdemeanor battery, the prosecutor's office said.
'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 told AP.
The incident comes as GOP leadership in Washington, D.C., has largely encouraged members of Congress to shy away from town halls amid vocal backlash from constituents, who many Republicans insist are Democratic activists.
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) was the latest leader to face shouting and pointed questions at a town hall Monday about the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to slash spending and overhaul the federal workforce under President Trump.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate passes stripped-back version of ‘no-cause' eviction bill, but House likely to oppose it
Senators scaled back the bill to lessen the effect on tenants — raising the likelihood of a clash with the House. (Getty Images) The New Hampshire Senate passed a bill Thursday intended to make it easier for landlords to terminate tenancies. But before passing it, senators scaled back the bill to lessen the effect on tenants — raising the likelihood of a clash with the House. In current law, New Hampshire landlords must cite a specific reason to initiate evictions, including nonpayment of rent, failure to follow the lease, behavior affecting the health or safety of others, or a business reason by the landlord, such as a renovation. As originally passed by the House, House Bill 60 would have allowed for 'no-fault' or 'no-cause' termination of tenancies for leases six months or longer. In those cases, landlords could ask a tenant to leave at the end of the lease period with no reason given. Republicans argue allowing no-cause evictions would let landlords treat leases as fixed-length contracts with tenants, and relieve them of the burden of finding a reason if they no longer wished to rent to someone. But Democrats and legal aid organizations argue it would increase the pace of evictions and could make it easier for landlords to discriminate. On Thursday, the Senate dramatically altered the bill, keeping the 'no-fault' evictions but adding a trigger provision that prevents application of the law unless the state has had a 4% or higher rental vacancy rate for four quarters in one calendar year, as determined by the Federal Reserve. Currently, the Federal Reserve estimates New Hampshire has exactly a 4% vacancy rate, citing U.S. Census data. The Senate's version would also allow landlords to use no-cause evictions only with leases of 12 months or more. And it would exempt tenants who are subject to no-cause evictions from having those evictions added to their record for the purpose of rental applications and tenant screening reports, easing concerns from housing advocates about the effects of the original bill. Those changes earned the support of Senate Democrats; the amended bill was voted through unanimously Thursday. But before the bill can go to Gov. Kelly Ayotte's desk, it must receive final sign-off from the House, and some House Republicans have made it clear they are not happy with the Senate's changes. Rep. Joe Alexander, a Goffstown Republican and the chairman of the Housing Committee, said he will be requesting a Committee of Conference with the Senate to attempt to find a compromise when the House meets on Thursday. The Senate's version of the bill does not fit with the House's position, Alexander said in an interview. And he noted that the full House already voted down two attempted Democratic amendments to add trigger provisions. 'The House position is the lease is a contract,' Alexander said. 'And (in) every other place in contract law, when a contract ends, both parties go their separate ways unless there's conversation about renewing it. So we're just trying to bring it in line with all other contract law in the state.' Elliott Berry, a former attorney for New Hampshire Legal Assistance who has been following the bill, said even with the Senate changes, he and other housing advocates believe HB 60 could harm tenants. 'It's going to make a lot of landlords take the easy way out,' he said. 'And so tenants who for whatever reason feel any kind of antagonism towards them in general, well-based or not, they're going to be in jeopardy.'
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California to Sue Trump for ‘Illegal' National Guard Mobilization
California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at Gemperle Orchard in Ceres on April 16, 2025. Credit - Justin Sullivan—Getty Images Governor Gavin Newsom of California announced that his state plans to file a lawsuit early Monday against Donald Trump for mobilizing the National Guard over the weekend to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles. As news broadcasts and social media have proliferated with scenes of violence and mayhem on the streets of southern California, Newsom alleged in an interview with MSNBC on Sunday evening that it is the U.S. President who 'created the conditions you see on your TV tonight.' Newsom condemned the violence, calling it 'unacceptable' and 'wrong.' He added that there were 'a lot of great people out there, doing the right thing,' but that 'insurgent groups' and 'anarchists' were infiltrating the demonstrations 'to create real problems.' 'They're just playing right into Donald Trump's hand. And they need to be called out and they need to be arrested,' Newsom said of the bad actors. 'They're doing more than damage to buildings and to property. They're potentially damaging the very foundation of our republic. Democracy is in the balance.' When asked if he supports the peaceful protesters, Newsom responded emphatically: 'Of course I support them. Protest is the foundation of this democracy. It's what makes this country great. And that needs to persist. And right now people need to come out. But we need to be mindful of the toxicity of this moment, and then we have to deal with these elements that are coming in that are intentionally trying to take advantage of this in a way that only aids and abets Donald Trump.' Newsom added that his priority is to keep peaceful protesters as well as 'those that are enforcing the laws in a respectful and responsible way' safe. Newsom, whose second and final term as Governor ends in 2027 and who is speculated to be a 2028 Democratic presidential contender, repeatedly focused his blame for the escalation of the situation in California on Trump: 'He's exacerbated the conditions. He's lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire,' Newsom said, calling the mobilization of the National Guard 'an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' 'Donald Trump needs to pull back. He needs to stand down. Donald Trump is inflaming these conditions. This is Donald Trump's problem right now, and if he can't solve it, we will.' Here's what to know. Mass protests and demonstrations have taken place across Los Angeles county since Friday in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting undocumented residents and laborers. While local officials, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the city council, sided with peaceful protesters in opposition to the immigration enforcement actions, demonstrations grew increasingly violent, as clashes intensified between some demonstrators and law enforcement officials. Rocks and molotov cocktails have been thrown; police vehicles and self-driving Waymo cars have been vandalized; and authorities have used tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets to attempt crowd control, according to reports. 'Everyone has the right to peacefully protest, but let me be clear: violence and destruction are unacceptable, and those responsible will be held accountable,' Bass said in a post on X on Saturday. In a White House memorandum on Saturday, Trump said the anti-ICE protests 'constitute a form of rebellion' against the U.S. and ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to deploy 2,000 National Guard personnel in response. In a post on X, Hegseth said the National Guard would be mobilized 'IMMEDIATELY.' Hegseth added that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized—they are on high alert.' To mobilize the National Guard, Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federalization of the National Guard in cases of an invasion or a rebellion, or if the President is unable to execute the country's laws with 'regular forces.' Section 12406, however, also states that 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.' Newsom confirmed that he did not request the deployment of the National Guard, making it the first time since 1965 that the National Guard has been activated to a state without a governor's request. In an open letter to Hegseth, Newsom's office called the mobilization 'a serious breach of state sovereignty' and requested that the Pentagon chief 'immediately rescind' the order and 'return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' The Democratic Governors Association backed Newsom in a statement, saying: 'It's important we respect the executive authority of our country's governors to manage their National Guards.' Moreover, an 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, limits federal military personnel from being used for civilian law enforcement within the U.S., which means in Los Angeles the National Guard forces mobilized by Trump can protect federal agents, such as ICE officials, and federal properties, such as detention centers, but they cannot arrest protesters. The Posse Comitatus Act 'prohibits troops from being used domestically unless the Insurrection Act is invoked,' constitutional scholar and dean of UC Berkeley Law School Erwin Chemerinsky tells TIME, 'and the President has not done that.' According to Reuters, Trump still could invoke the Insurrection Act, but doing so would enter 'riskier legal territory.' The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was when President George H.W. Bush mobilized the National Guard to quell riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of the police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King. But a key difference between 1992 and now is that then-Governor of California Pete Wilson had requested federal assistance. Calling in troops to suppress protests has also raised First Amendment concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on Saturday that it also plans to file a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, calling the mobilization of the National Guard an 'abuse of power.' Earlier on Sunday, Trump's 'border czar' Tom Homan, who has previously threatened arrest for anyone who obstructs immigration enforcement, told MSNBC that he would not rule that out even for officials like Newsom and Bass. 'I'll say it about anybody,' Homan said. 'It's a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.' 'Governor Newsom is an embarrassment to the state,' Homan added. 'Criminal aliens are walking the streets of this state every day because of him and his policies.' In his interview hours later with MSNBC, Newsom responded, saying: 'That kind of bloviating is exhausting.' Newsom challenged Homan to arrest him but to 'lay your hands off' law-abiding, tax-paying undocumented residents. 'He's a tough guy. Why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me,' he said. 'Come after me. Arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy. I don't give a damn. But I care about my community. I care about this community.' Newsom criticized the Trump Administration for targeting non-criminal undocumented residents for immigration enforcement and pushed back on the accusation that California does not cooperate with the federal government. 'I have no problem with going after criminals. We coordinate and collaborate with ICE,' Newsom said, pointing to the state handing over more than 10,000 inmates to ICE since he took office in 2019. 'When these guys say we don't go after criminals, again, they're lying, and they're knowingly lying.' When asked if Trump could be putting the spotlight on Los Angeles to take attention away from his recent fallout with Elon Musk, Newsom said 'of course,' also citing Trump's struggles to pass the massive tax and spending package known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in Congress as well as ongoing challenges related to Trump's global trade war. 'He's the master of distraction. He's the commander of chaos. That's what Donald Trump does,' said Newsom. Newsom claimed that Trump used 'the guise of immigration' to create a 'manufactured crisis' in order to challenge the Posse Comitatus Act. 'This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about power. This is about ego,' said Newsom. 'This is a consistent pattern of practice of recklessness. This guy has abandoned the great principles of this great democracy. He's threatening to go after judges he disagrees with, cut off funding to institutions of higher learning, he's on a cultural binge, he's rewriting history, censoring historical facts. This is something completely different, and this is part of that ongoing play that is unfolding in front of our eyes.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The governor, House, and Senate each created a budget for NH. Now, they must agree on one.
The rear of the New Hampshire State House on May 19, 2025. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin) When the New Hampshire Senate approved its proposal for the state's two-year spending plan on Thursday, it set off a new phase of the lengthy state budgeting process. That process began in February when Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte released her budget proposal. Then, House lawmakers got their turn to rework that proposal and in April, they approved their version of the budget before handing it off to the Senate. Soon, the House and Senate will enter what is known as a committee of conference, where negotiators will hash out the differences of their two budgets with the hope of agreeing on one proposal. Once that is complete — and both chambers sign off once again — Ayotte will have the opportunity to approve the budget, veto it, or allow it to go into law without her signature. The new fiscal year begins July 1, so officials from the three bodies have to approve a single budget by then in order to fund the government. Perhaps the most contentious disagreement between the Legislature and the governor was on revenue projections. Months of lagging business tax revenues, combined with the millions of dollars the state must pay out to victims of a massive abuse scandal in its juvenile justice system and the end of pandemic-era federal funding, have made this a particularly tight fiscal environment. In February, Ayotte unveiled her budget proposal and with it her revenue projections, which were immediately labeled as optimistic. Ayotte predicted the state's revenues would rebound quickly and provide the state with around $6.3 billion over the next two years. House Republicans were quick to balk at those projections. 'We're just not as optimistic as the governor is with growth,' Rep. John Janigian, a Salem Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, told the Bulletin at the time. 'We think it's a steamship: It takes time to turn it. It's moving in a positive direction, but at a slower rate.' The House Ways and Means Committee projected $5.8 billion in revenue later in February. Ayotte rejected those figures, telling reporters in April she was 'confident that the revenue numbers that I laid out in my budget are actually more accurate revenue numbers than the lower proposals made by the House.' The Senate's projections ended up falling in the middle. The Senate Ways and Means Committee voted to accept a projection of roughly $6.1 billion total revenue over two years. That's about $228.1 million above the House's estimate, but $172.1 million below Ayotte's. While the Senate landed closer to the governor than the House did, Ayotte still expressed her frustration. 'I disagree with that vote,' she said at a press conference soon after. 'And I also will tell you this: I don't understand why Republicans are joining with Democrats who want to put us in a position to raise taxes instead of adopting, I think, what would be a more accurate revenue picture for the state.' When she announced her budget in February, Ayotte emphasized the need for belt-tightening, calling her plan a 'recalibration' during a speech in the State House. Still, her budget kept many agencies and programs intact. In some cases, it expanded programs. That includes the state's voucher-like education freedom accounts, which she proposed opening to students attending public school at all income-levels, increased funding for state services for people with disabilities aimed at eliminating the waitlists for those services, and an additional $32 million for special education. Ayotte also tried to recoup funds through changes to Medicaid. She proposed instituting premiums on some recipients based on their income, charging higher copays for prescriptions, and allowing Medicaid to purchase name-brand drugs when those drugs are cheaper than generics. Each chamber's proposal was determined largely by how optimistic or pessimistic their revenue projections were. So for the House, which projected a gloomy financial outlook, steep cuts to Ayotte's budget were proposed. 'We must fit (the budget) to the revenues proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee,' Rep. Ken Weyler, a Kingston Republican and chairman of the House Finance Committee, said during a hearing in March. 'That revenue differs from the governor's estimate by almost $800 million in an almost $16 billion budget. Obviously, this is a bigger challenge than most budgets, but less than some previous challenges.' Weyler said the governor's budget is 'on a path to overspend by about $50 million.' When Republican House lawmakers got their hands on the budget, they decided to cut costs by axing several agencies. They voted to eliminate the Office of the Child Advocate, the state's child-focused watchdog overseeing New Hampshire's child welfare, juvenile justice, and youth care systems. They moved to disband the Housing Appeals Board, which allows residents to contest decisions from their local planning and zoning officials. They proposed eliminating the State Council on the Arts, the Human Rights Commission, and the Right-To-Know Ombudsman, among others. The House's budget also included a lot of layoffs. It proposed eliminating 190 positions in the Department of Corrections, 34 in the Liquor Commission, 27 in the Department of Education, 14 in the Department of Business and Economic Affairs, eight in the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, eight in the Department of Safety, five in the Secretary of State's Office, and three in the Insurance Department. Among the most controversial moves made by the House were a 3% cut to Medicaid reimbursement rates, a cut to the $1 billion Ayotte set aside in an effort to eliminate the developmental disability services waitlist, and some funding for community mental health centers. It also increased some state fees to help make up for lost revenue, including fees for vanity license plates, dam registrations, wetlands dredging and filling, sewage, state elevator inspections, trucking, agricultural products and equipment, fisheries habitats, driver's licenses, and motor vehicle titles. 'Preliminarily, there's been a difference between what (House Ways and Means) see as revenue and what your budget proposes,' Weyler told Ayotte during a hearing in February. 'We may have to be making some further adjustments as we go, and I hope you will support them.' Ayotte ultimately didn't support many of those adjustments. In May, after the House finalized its budget, she told reporters, 'My takeaway is that my budget was a lot better.' When the Senate's turn to amend the budget began last month, senators quickly moved to reverse the Medicaid reimbursement rate cut and the cuts to developmental disability services and community mental health centers. However, on many of the others they looked for a middle ground. For example, they restored the Office of the Child Advocate, but with reduced funding. Their proposal calls for four positions to be eliminated from the office as opposed to all nine. Sen. Sharon Carson, who spearheaded the proposal, told the Bulletin she 'know(s) the value of the work they do' so they were 'trying to find a middle ground that the House will accept.' They took a similar approach to several of the other agencies. For the State Council on the Arts, (which they also debated axing, but eventually reversed course) senators turned it into a volunteer council, appropriating just $1 but allowing it to accept donations and tap into a business tax credit. They also reinstated the State Commission on Aging but cut about $130,000 to bring its total funding down to $150,000. Ayotte's proposal came out to a total of roughly $16 billion. The House's proposal trimmed that down to spend a total of around $15.5 billion over two years. And the Senate, seeking a middle ground, created a budget that spends roughly $15.9 billion. The current state budget for fiscal years 2024-25 is $15.4 billion. Now, the Senate and House must agree on one proposal. The House is allowed to accept all the amendments made by the Senate outright, but it is most likely that the two chambers enter into the committee of conference process to hash out differences between their budgets. Their deadline to pass a single budget is June 26. Once they approve a budget, it goes to Ayotte's desk and the governor can sign it, veto it, or allow it to be enacted without her signature. Ayotte does not have the option of a line-item veto — as many other state constitutions allow their governors to do — which means she has to accept or reject the budget in its entirety. The state's new fiscal year begins July 1. The new budget must be finalized and enacted by then to fund the government.
