A Spokane man is in hot air after allegedly attempting to evade arrest on a protection order violation by cloistering himself within a clothing dryer. No, it was not a big “Canyon-aire-o” sized dryer but it was a stackable apartment version.
Police claim that it was the work of a K-9 who found our hapless crook, but I have it on good authority it might have been the Snuggles Dryer Sheet bear who ratted him out.
As the impeachment of Donald Trump unfolds, it is inevitable that comparisons are drawn to the Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton impeachments. This column in The Hill discusses the most notable distinction: the narrowness of case for impeachment. While Trump has long been portrayed as a type of perpetual criminal motion machine and many have claimed that an array of crimes are proven from the Russian investigation, none of the crimes discussed over the last three years will apparently be included in this impeachment. The question is why. Democratic members insisted after the Mueller hearings that the impeachable acts were now laid bear on the record. If such violations are so obvious and proven, it is unclear why the Democrats are insisting on proceeding on such a narrow basis — a decision that greatly reduces the chances of success in the Senate.
Lisa Darlene Glaze, 50, a paramedic in Arkansas has been arrested for allegedlycutting a 1.7-carat diamond ring from a deceased woman’s finger at a hospital. She is accused of selling the ring (valued at roughly $8,000) at a pawnshop for $45.
I often speak at judicial conferences but clearly I am running with a much slower judicial crowd. Three Indiana judges have been suspended after a late night shootout following heavy drinking and a trip to a White Castle. The controversy left various people shot and under arrest — and three judicial careers in taters.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has caused a stir in suddenly injecting the possible use of bribery as a basis for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Converting the Ukrainian controversy into a bribery theory is both constitutionally and historically unsound. It would undermine the credibility of the impeachment effort by struggling to reshape the facts into a more compelling criminal image. Impeachment cannot be an exercise in creative reconstruction. It is not license for imaginative or untested theories of criminality. The House needs to establish a clear and credible theory of impeachable conduct based on well-established definitions. Ironically, I testified on this issue in the Clinton impeachment hearings but last had this argument (over broadening such definitions for purposes of impeachment) with my opposing counsel in the last impeachment trial: Adam Schiff.
Note: I will be doing commentary today with CBS and BBC on the impeachment hearings.
The concerted public rehabilitation of Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski, 86, took another blow this month after a former French model came forward with a detailed account of a rape that was also supported by two women (including a former girlfriend of Polanski). Valentine Monnier recounted the rape at his chalet to Le Parisien newspaper which allegedly occurred in 1975 when she was 18.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the curious profile of the emerging impeachment against President Donald Trump. Notably, while Democratic members have been saying for three years that there are established crimes and impeachable offenses found by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, reports indicate that none of those allegations will be the basis for impeachment. Instead, Democratic members are saying that they want to limit impeachment to the Ukrainian controversy. Not only that, but they want to hold just a couple weeks of public hearings and vote an impeachment vote. If so, this would be the most narrow and least developed impeachment of a president in our history.
In another example of our age of rage, Hoyt Hutchinson, 32, took a knife to the famous “Baby Trump” protest balloon that has followed President Donald Trump from England to the United States. Hutchinson reportedly stated on a video that “I’m going down here to make a scene, so y’all watch the news. This is pathetic. I’m fixing to get rowdy.” In a sign of our times, people have donated money to support him in this property destruction. Many now believe that they have a privilege to stop others from speaking. Conservatives have rightfully objected to such disruptive acts on campus, but this is a conservative who is being heralded for his own anti-free speech act. A similar act of destruction was committed by a woman in London who was upset with the protest balloon’s appearance.
According to WDJT, a Wisconsin man was pulled over by police after calls of a possible DUI driver with a hawk on his shoulder. Police pulled over Ernesto Martinez-Garnica and found a brown chicken in the car. The chicken was sober but Martinez-Garnica was not, according to police. The chicken’s name is Teresa.
Well, at least that is what the instruction sounded like to me from U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson who told the jury not to watch or rent or download the movie The Godfather. It reminded me of that old cartoon showing a jury in cataclysmic shock with the judge saying “the jury will disregard the witness’s last remark.” The instruction seemed to highlight the movie and its connection to longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.
Below is my column on the latest alleged crime by President Donald Trump: “Felony bribery.” The allegation shows not only a fundamental misunderstanding of legal standards but a fundamental failure in legal analysis.
I have previously disagreed with the overextended and unsupported claims of critics on allegedly clear criminal violations by President Donald Trump, including past statements by Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and is a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. I am no fan of President Trump and have repeatedly criticized him for his language and actions in office. However, legal analysis continues to erode as analysts assure viewers that well-established crimes have been committed. The latest such example by Painter is that Trump continues to fundraise for Senators, a common practice of all presidents in election years. Painter insists that any such fundraising can constitute “felony bribery” since these senators will likely sit in judgment in any impeachment trial.
For years, I have written about the violent, anti-free speech agenda of Antifa and its academic enablers. For that reason, a recent interview in the Seattle Times Pacific Lutheran University Professor of Nordic Studies Troy Storfjell caught my attention. While there are a rising number of faculty supporting the curtailment of free speech on campuses, most avoid openly participating in physical violence or supporting such violence. Not the case with Storjell who declaring that he is entirely comfortable with the use of violence to silence those who hold opposing views.
Kinley Rice is a woman in Oklahoma with a remarkable account of how an American Airlines contractor stole her Patagonia jacket then put it on the Internet for sale. She came across her own jacket and reported it to authorities. The story once again raises the failure of the TSA and airlines to take basic steps to prevent continued thefts from luggage. Despite billions in subsidies and profits, airlines continue to refuse to take relatively low cost measures to stop thefts, particularly continual and active surveillance of all baggage handling areas.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on growing and preemptive criticism of the Durham investigation by Democrats. Given the acknowledgment that United States Attorney John Durham is a widely respected and apolitical prosecutor, the rising criticism of his investigation seems suspiciously premature. For those of us who support full and transparent investigations of both sides of the 2016 election controversy, the campaign against Durham is reminiscent of the attacks on Special Counsel Robert Mueller.