Impartial referees are just as important in the big election in November as in the big game this Sunday‚ a lawmaker argued Wednesday during a congressional hearing on private funding for administering elections.  “The millions of private dollars being funneled to local offices raises serious questions about the conditions placed on their use‚” House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil‚ R-Wis.‚ said. “Imagine this Sunday night at the Super Bowl if the refs were paid for by a tech billionaire from San Francisco.”  “How do you think Taylor Swift and Kansas City Chief fans would feel about that?” Steil asked. “I don’t think they would be OK with that. This wouldn’t instill confidence in the game.” Explaining his metaphor‚ Steil said: “The same goes for our elections administration. Undue private influence distorts Americans’ confidence in our elections. Zuckerbucks distorts confidence in our elections.”  In 2020‚ Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife gave more than $400 million to the liberal nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life‚ which distributed grants to local election offices to run their elections. Critics contend the grants were lopsided‚ intended to turn out the Democrat vote.  After Zuckerberg announced he no longer would fund election administration‚ the Center for Tech and Civic Life established a five-year‚ $80 million project called the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence‚ a coalition of election groups.  The groups’ backers included  Big Tech funders  as well as the liberal dark-money group Arabella Advisors. In election circles‚ “Zuckerbucks” continued to be used as a broad term for private dollars that fund government election offices.  “The American system of self-governance is under attack‚” journalist and author Mollie Hemingway‚ who has reported on the impact of private grants in the 2020 election‚ told the House Administration Committee. “Instead of having election administration that is rigorously nonpartisan and impartial under the law‚” Hemingway said‚ “we have allowed the private takeover of government election offices by partisan oligarchs and their army of activists‚ who use those offices to tilt the election toward favored candidates.”  She later added:  In the last presidential election‚ nonprofit groups with very strong ties to the Democrat Party and funded by one of the world’s most wealthy and powerful men‚ Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg‚ took over government election offices‚ most notably in Democrat areas of swing states. Since then‚ the efforts by partisans to further infiltrate government election offices to ensure favorable outcomes have only increased. In 2020‚ 75% of the “Zuckerbucks” grants to election offices in Arizona went to areas that Joe Biden went on to carry‚ according to the Capital Research Center‚ an investigative think tank that monitors nonprofits.  In Pennsylvania‚ 83% of the Zuckerberg grants went to areas that would be won by Biden. In Michigan‚ it was 86%. In Wisconsin‚ it was 90%. In Georgia‚ it was 94%. And in Nevada‚ 100% of the Zuckerberg-funded grants went to areas that Biden ended up winning. The average amount per capita spent in a jurisdiction carried by Donald Trump was 55 cents while the average in jurisdictions carried by Biden was $3.75—about seven times more‚ according to the Capital Research Center.   The new effort‚ the Alliance for Election Excellence‚ includes organizations that clearly are aligned with and financed by the Left‚ Scott Walter‚ president of the Capital Research Center‚ told the House panel.  “Two of them‚ the Center for Secure and Modern Elections and the Institute for Responsive Government‚ are not even independent nonprofits but are pop-up groups set up by Arabella Advisors’ vast ‘dark money’ network previously mentioned‚” Walter said.  Walter presented a hypothetical‚ reversed situation that would benefit Republican candidates.   “Imagine if alumni of a 501(c)(4) run by‚ say‚ Republican Karl Rove‚ were running a (c)(3) charity that had received hundreds of millions from right-leaning billionaire Charles Koch‚ and they were trying to fund local election offices and convince the offices to implement ‘improvement plans‚’” Walter said. “There would not be enough electrons in the cosmos to power the outrage at the websites of The New York Times and CNN‚ and rightly so.” Rep. Joseph Morelle‚ D-N.Y.‚ the committee’s ranking member‚ said the hearing was the result of Trump’s “temper tantrum” over the loss of the 2020 presidential election. Morelle said opposing private funding for elections is a hypocritical position for Republicans‚ who recently called for private control of the Federal Aviation Administration and Amtrak. “The majority’s alleged concern about charitable foundation financing in the realm of election administration is disingenuous at best‚” the New York Democrat said. “Of course‚ we all know the reason my colleagues across the aisle oppose this partnership: because President Trump lost the 2020 presidential election fair and square‚ and the majority cannot and will not accept that fact. That’s the reason we’re here.” The Center for Tech and Civic Life didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Signal for this report.  The House Administration Committee previously advanced an omnibus election reform bill‚ the American Confidence in Elections Act‚ which includes a proposal by Rep. Claudia Tenney‚ R-N.Y.‚ to ban private funding of election administration. Tenney co-chairs the House Election Integrity Caucus.  So far‚ 27 states have banned the use of private dollars to operate election offices. Still‚ the nonprofit Alliance for Election Excellence will continue funding election administration‚ Steil said. That effort includes the states of Nevada‚ Michigan‚ and Wisconsin.  “What do those three states have in common? I’ll give you a hint. They are presidential swing states that haven’t banned Zuckerbucks‚” Steil said. “Why don’t you see a state like Pennsylvania? Their Democratic governor signed a ban on Zuckerbucks. So‚ even some Democrats realize that this is a problem.”  “In Congress‚ I have a solution on how to prevent undue private influence in elections administration‚” the Wisconsin Republican added. It’s why this committee passed the Americans Confidence in Elections Act.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Why Taylor Swift‚ Super Bowl‚ and Mark Zuckerberg Get a Shoutout in This Election Reform Hearing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It would take a sweeping legal ruling for the Supreme Court to effectively kick former President Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado and elsewhere‚ say legal scholars who’ve analyzed the arguments set for Thursday in the case.  “In order for Trump to lose‚ he has to lose bigly. Or is it big league? He has to lose on everything‚” said Josh Blackman‚ a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston. Blackman was part of a panel discussion Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation‚ parent organization of The Daily Signal‚ along with other lawyers analyzing the case of Trump v. Anderson.  Addressing some points made by other speakers‚ Blackman said the nation’s highest court would have to overcome major obstacles to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s Dec. 19 decision to bar Trump from the state’s primary ballot because of his role in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6‚ 2021.   “The court has to find‚ No. 1‚ that Colorado can enforce Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]. No. 2‚ that the president is an ‘officer of the United States‚’” Blackman said. “No. 3‚ there was an insurrection. No. 4‚ that Trump engaged in insurrection. No. 5‚ there is no First Amendment defense to whatever Trump did on Jan. 6. No. 6‚ the phrase ‘officer of the United States’ refers to the presidency.”  Colorado’s high court determined that Trump is disqualified from the state’s primary ballot because of the Capitol riot under the 14th Amendment‚ Section 3‚ which prohibits anyone who engaged in an insurrection from holding a civil office in the U.S. government. “If Trump is correct on any one of those junctures‚ any one of those steps‚ then he is on the ballot‚” Blackman said. “It would take an absolute and complete collapse of Trump’s legal team to lose everything. It’s possible. But he would have to lose every single human point.” Here are answers to four big questions ahead of the oral arguments Thursday in the Trump ballot case.  1. To Whom Does Section 3 Apply? The language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress‚ or elector of President and Vice-President‚ or hold any office‚ civil or military‚ under the United States‚ or under any state‚ who‚ having previously taken an oath‚ as a member of Congress‚ or as an officer of the United States‚ or as a member of any State legislature‚ or as an executive or judicial officer of any State‚ to support the Constitution of the United States‚ shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same‚ or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  Blackman is the co-author of a friend of the court brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court. It contends that “civil officer‚” referred to in Section 3‚ applies only to an appointed official or to someone who previously took an oath—not to the president or vice president. To back up that point‚ he referenced the Constitution’s appointments clause‚ commissions clause‚ impeachment clause‚ and oaths clause.  Further‚ Blackman noted in speaking of the Civil War-era provision‚ even Confederate President Jefferson Davis‚ as well as numerous Confederate politicians and military officials‚ previously had taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution in appointed or elected positions.  Trump is unique in history as someone whose only oath to the Constitution came as he was sworn in as president on Jan. 20‚ 2017.  “This is the ultimate off-ramp for the Supreme Court‚” Blackman told the Heritage audience. Section 3 might not even apply to the ballot‚ said Patrick Strawbridge‚ who filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the Republican National Committee.  “Relevant language with respect to former President Trump’s case prohibits any person from holding any office or military post in the United States‚” Strawbridge said. “It doesn’t prevent someone from being nominated. It doesn’t prohibit someone from appearing on a ballot. … It doesn’t even prohibit someone from actually being elected.” “It just prohibits someone from holding office‚” he said. “Even setting aside all of the other arguments about whether Section 3 applies‚ there really is no textual basis to assume that a state official can determine the person will not appear on the ballot. The prohibition is on holding office.”  2. What’s Supreme Court Precedent? Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita‚ a Republican who also co-authored a brief for the high court‚ argued that neither the courts nor state officials can decide how to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  Rokita referred to an 1869 precedent in which Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled in a case involving Cesar Griffin‚ convicted in a shooting case in Virginia. Griffin appealed to have the conviction voided because the judge in the case was a former Confederate official.  “Justice Salmon Chase took that very view a few months after the 14th Amendment was adopted. In the 1869 case of Griffin‚ several criminal defendants in Virginia challenged their sentences on the theory that the sentencing judge had once been a Confederate official and couldn’t hold office under Section 3‚” Rokita said.  “But Justice Chase rejected that theory. … He said only Congress is able to provide for the proceedings necessary to ascertain which person Section 3 covers. There is evidence that Congress agreed with Justice Chase’s view. Key drafters of the amendment‚ such as [Rep.] Thaddeus Stevens‚ explained Section 3 will not execute itself.” Stevens‚ a House Republican from Pennsylvania‚ was best known for leading the impeachment effort in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson. 3. Is Section 3 Still Relevant? If the section of the 14th Amendment does cover Trump‚ it’s not clear that it is still relevant‚ since Congress twice voted to remove the barrier to office.  Section 3 is unique in specifying that Congress “may by a vote of two-thirds of each House‚ remove such disability” for holding office‚ noted Hans von Spakovsky‚ manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.  Congress voted by majorities of two-thirds to do so in both 1872 and 1898. “It specifically gave Congress the power to void Section 3 and basically remove it from the amendment. There is nothing like that anywhere else in the Constitution‚” von Spakovsky said. “It makes sense that they put this in‚ because this section was put into the 14th Amendment by Republicans who controlled Congress‚ because they were angry that all these Confederate military officers and government officials were getting reelected to Congress.”  Acknowledging that the Trump ballot case provokes political divisions‚ von Spakovsky noted: “The most important thing for anyone in this situation to do is to divorce themselves from whether they like or don’t like Donald Trump.” 4. What Happens Jan. 6‚ 2025‚ If Supreme Court Punts? There are grounds for the Supreme Court‚ led by Chief Justice John Roberts‚ to punt on the issue of Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot‚ Blackman said.  Drawing on Chase’s Griffin precedent in 1869‚ the high court could determine that it’s a matter for Congress to decide. This effectively could allow Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado and elsewhere‚ but leave a murky situation about whether the former president could be inaugurated if he wins the election.  “If the court accepts the Salmon Chase argument and says‚ ‘OK‚ states‚ you can’t do this‚ only Congress can do it‚’ well‚ guess what happens on Jan. 6 of 2025?” Blackman asked rhetorically. “What happens if there are Democratic majorities in both houses‚ and they go to the Capitol and start counting votes.” He then presented an almost dystopian scenario:  They go to Alabama‚ alphabetically. Someone objects that the vote isn’t ‘regularly given‚’ language in the Electoral Count Act‚ because Donald Trump is disqualified.  They break up into respective houses. If a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate reject the vote‚ then the vote is not counted. Do you really believe if the Supreme Court punts on this issue‚ that the Democrats in Congress will say‚ ‘We are going to accept this sitting down?’ If Trump actually wins‚ they could disqualify him on Jan. 6. … My fear is that if the court‚ a majority‚ takes this off-ramp and says Congress can do it‚ then you are going to let Congress do it. The problem is‚ this lingers on to Inauguration Day.  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post Would Trump Have to ‘Lose Bigly’ at SCOTUS to Be Kicked Off Ballot?  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Tucker Carlson's Claims About Western Journalists Are Wrong Says...Putin's Spokesman

You Love to See It: Fetterman Still Hitting the Pro-Hamas Chorus

In less than 24 hours‚ congressional Republicans suffered a string of embarrassing mishaps: failing to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas‚ the implosion of an aid bill to Israel‚ and failed coordination on border policy. But instead of just reporting on what happened and the state of play on Capitol Hill‚ CNN’s Dana Bash decided to kick off Wednesday’s Inside Politics with a victory dance in the end zone. “Today on Inside Politics: epic failure‚ dysfunction‚ humiliation‚ and inability to govern. And that's the most charitable way to describe the congressional Republicans right now‚ a stunning series of mind-boggling defeats and self-owns‚” she boasted at the top of the show.     Bash was looking forward to the next shoe to drop: “And minutes from now‚ Senate Republicans will almost certainly torpedo the most conservative border bill before them in decades.” The assertion that the border bill was “the most conservative…in decades” was a false one that she repeated as part of the liberal media’s narrative to claim Republicans were rejecting a solution to the border crisis for political gain: We start right here in our nation's capital where Senate Republicans are about to kill the border deal. The very kind of tough-on-immigration policy that they themselves demanded. The reason? It's simple. It's what Donald Trump wants. He'd rather rant on the campaign trail about the unprecedented surge of migrants than let his party rewrite antiquated laws in the hopes of starting to solve the border crisis. Of course‚ there was no serious thought given to why this border bill was suddenly needed by the White House and Democrats when they’ve spent months claiming the border was closed and that there was no crisis. And the gloating didn’t stop there. “If it were only today's vote‚ it would be tough enough‚ but it's not. The collapse of this immigration deal is only piling on to a terrible‚ horrible‚ no good‚ very bad day for congressional Republicans‚” she mocked‚ making a reference to the kid’s book by the same name from author Judith Viorst; complete with an on-screen graphic. “There was the hyped vote to impeach the Homeland Security secretary. It failed. And it's later a standalone package for Israel also failed‚” she added. She also took some swipes at Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) for being inexperienced despite them being the same age. “Speaker Johnson is new to the job and maybe didn't learn one of the cardinal rules of the House: don't put anything on the floor unless you definitely have the votes‚” she sniped. Bash was supposedly one of CNN’s top journalists who had the credibility to host their major political and election events like town halls and debates. But given this behavior‚ one could easily mistake Bash a political operative celebrating the failures of their opposing side. Oh‚ that’s right. She was. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Inside Politics February 7‚ 2024 12:00:47 p.m. Eastern DANA BASH‚ CNN HOST: Today on Inside Politics: epic failure‚ dysfunction‚ humiliation‚ and inability to govern. And that's the most charitable way to describe the congressional Republicans right now‚ a stunning series of mind-boggling defeats and self-owns. And minutes from now‚ Senate Republicans will almost certainly torpedo the most conservative border bill before them in decades. Plus‚ a win for quote‚ “none of these candidates.” Nikki Haley loses Nevada's non-binding primary even though she was the only candidate on the ballot. Her campaign insists its full steam ahead. And the Trump campaigns own existential moment. All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court preparing to hear arguments on whether Donald Trump can be disqualified under the Constitution’s insurrection ban. A sign of just how serious the former President takes this. He's staying out of Washington‚ uncharacteristically trying to avoid a political spectacle. I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at inside politics. We start right here in our nation's capital where Senate Republicans are about to kill the border deal. The very kind of tough-on-immigration policy that they themselves demanded. The reason? It's simple. It's what Donald Trump wants. He'd rather rant on the campaign trail about the unprecedented surge of migrants‚ than let his party rewrite antiquated laws in the hopes of starting to solve the border crisis. If it were only today's vote‚ it would be tough enough‚ but it's not. The collapse of this immigration deal is only piling on to a terrible‚ horrible‚ no good‚ very bad day for congressional Republicans. There was the hyped vote to impeach the Homeland Security secretary. It failed. And it's later a standalone package for Israel also failed. Speaker Johnson is new to the job and maybe didn't learn one of the cardinal rules of the House: don't put anything on the floor unless you definitely have the votes. (…)

This White Chocolate Raspberry Cake is super easy and delicious. It’s the perfect cake for any gathering! We love it for Easter or Valentine’s Day! If you love the way this cake is made you will also love this Blackberry Coffee Cake. It’s one of our most popular so we recreated this one using different...

Rowan Atkinson‚ the beloved actor from the "Mr. Bean" series‚ was blamed during a climate change committee meeting for slow electric car sales.During the environment and climate change committee meeting in the House of Lords in the United Kingdom‚ Atkinson was blamed by a long-standing green think tank called Green Alliance.The group pointed to a 2023 op-ed by Atkinson in the Guardian‚ in which he pointed out logical inconsistencies with the U.K.'s phase-out of gas-powered cars by 2030."One of the most damaging articles was a comment piece written by Rowan Atkinson in the Guardian which has been roundly debunked‚" the think tank said‚ according to Sky News. "Unfortunately‚ fact checks never reach the same breadth of audience as the original false claim‚ emphasising the need to ensure high editorial standards around the net zero transition‚" they added.In his piece‚ Atkinson revealed that he felt "duped" by electric cars‚ despite being an "early adopter" of the vehicles. He also said they felt "a bit soulless."Regarding a proposed ban on new petrol or diesel cars‚ Atkinson said that the problem seemed to be "drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe.""Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are nearly 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one. How so? The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles‚" the actor continued."They’re absurdly heavy‚ huge amounts of energy are required to make them‚ and they are estimated to last only upwards of 10 years. It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis‚" Atkinson added.The U.K.'s committee admitted in its report that "progress" with electric vehicle sales is "not happening fast enough."The committee noted that only 3% of cars on U.K. roads are EVs and that they are "still more expensive than their petrol and diesel counterparts."Solutions included tackling upfront costs‚ improving charging infrastructure‚ and ensuring proper recycling of batteries."The evidence we received shows the Government must do more – and quickly – to get people to adopt EVs‚" said the chair of the inquiry‚ Baroness Parminter.The complainant‚ Green Alliance‚ has itself pushed for "inclusive policy making" and argued that "power and privilege" often correlate with emissions outputs‚ making it an important factor to consider for those involved with "environmental policy making."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Democrat governor of Massachusetts has just nominated an ex-girlfriend to fill a vacancy in the highest court in the commonwealth.Earlier this month‚ Justice David Lowy announced he was retiring from the Supreme Judicial Court to accept a position at the University of Massachusetts. On Wednesday‚ Gov. Maura Healey‚ 52‚ announced that she had nominated state Appeals Court Associate Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian‚ 63‚ to fill the seat."There is no one more qualified or better prepared to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court than Justice Wolohojian‚" Healey said in a statement. Healey further claimed that Wolohojian "has an exceptional understanding of the law" and that "her work is widely respected by members of the bench and bar."The announcement from Healey's office also includes a statement from retired Associate Justice Geraldine Hines. Hines claimed that Wolohojian is "uniquely qualified" for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and that she has demonstrated "the ability to accept and coax consensus from the inevitable debates that arise" among its seven justices.Healey's announcement about Wolohojian does not‚ however‚ include any mention of the romantic relationship the two women shared in the past. According to the New York Post‚ Healey and Wolohojian met at the Hale &; Dorr‚ aka WilmerHale‚ law firm and began dating in 2007.The two eventually moved in together and shared a home in the Charlestown area of Boston. As recently as 2015‚ when Healey was state attorney general‚ the two were still romantically involved.They have since broken up‚ and Healey‚ who was elected governor in 2022‚ now shares a residence in Arlington with current partner Joanna Lydgate.Democrat Deval Patrick‚ who served as governor of Massachusetts from 2007 until 2015‚ appointed Wolohojian to the Appeals Court during his first year in office. In her 15 years on the bench‚ Wolohojian has reportedly heard 2‚700 appeals and authored more than 900 decisions.Wolohojian's nomination to the Supreme Judicial Court will first go to the nine members of the Governor's Council for consideration and then a confirmation vote.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats are hemorrhaging support from black and Hispanic Americans.The newest Gallup data‚ published on Wednesday‚ found the Democratic Party has lost the support of nearly 20% of black Americans in just three years. In 2020‚ Democrats held a 66-point advantage over Republicans among black adults‚ 77% to 11%. Today‚ that lead has shrunk to just 47%‚ with Democrats losing 11% and Republicans gaining 8%.The gap is the smallest Gallup has ever recorded Among Hispanic adults‚ Democrats have lost nearly 20% since 2021‚ the Gallup analysis found‚ when Democrats held a 31-point advantage over Republicans. Today‚ that gap stands at just 12 points‚ 47% to 35%.Surprisingly‚ the poll found that Democrats hold only a moderate 8-point lead over young Americans (ages 18–29)‚ while Republicans lead Democrats among Americans 30 years old and older. Democrats' only big leads‚ according to Gallup‚ are among women (nine points over Republicans)‚ Americans with postgraduate education‚ and urban Americans.The findings are "especially concerning" for Democrats‚ Gallup said‚ because it confirms what numerous other polls are showing: the Democratic Party is losing support from key demographics that compromise its voter coalition.The reason black and Hispanic voters are leaving the Democratic Party is simple: they believe life was better when Donald Trump was president."I didn't see something really change. I didn't see changes and so I was expecting something‚" voter Gabriela Martinez‚ who voted for Biden in 2020‚ told CNN last November. "Right now‚ I work in three jobs because I have to pay more [for] things. Like‚ my house is more expensive.""A lot of my friends we've only voted once‚ and Trump is kind of all we know — Trump and Biden. And they’re like‚ ‘Well‚ we were broke with Biden. We weren’t with Trump.' And that’s kind of the only thing that I’m hearing over and over again is that 'with Trump‚ we had money‚'" voter Kinard Givens told MSNBC last week.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A rifle-toting intruder forced his way into home in Midland‚ Texas‚ early Saturday morning — but the homeowner put the intruder in chokehold‚ and police said they found the intruder dead.What are the details?Midland police said George Samuel Butler‚ 37‚ entered a home in the 1400 block of Daventry Place “by force with a rifle‚" MRT.com reported‚ after which the homeowner placed the suspect in a chokehold "in an apparent case of self-defense."Police said they responded to the scene just after 4 a.m. after a report of a disturbance with weapons and found Butler dead‚ the outlet added.MRT.com noted that the police department's Crimes Against Persons Unit and Crime Scene Unit also responded to the scene‚ next of kin were notified‚ and the investigation into the fatality continued.Not the first instanceMRT.com added that Butler was previously arrested for burglarizing a home in Midland.The outlet‚ citing police‚ said a woman stated in July 2022 that "Butler had kicked in her front door."Arriving police said officers saw Butler through windows of a residence searching a room and looking under beds — and cops also saw pieces of the front door frame hanging‚ MRT.com reported.More from the outlet: Officers made several announcements for Butler to exit the residence‚ but he refused and shut the door‚ preventing officers from conducting their duties. When officers entered the residence and attempted to place him in handcuffs‚ Butler started fighting an officer and placed him in a headlock. The officer was able to take Butler to the ground before placing him‚ with the help of other officers‚ in handcuffs. The officer also sustained a bloody nose. MRT.com said Butler was arrested for assault on a peace officer/judge‚ a second-degree felony; burglary of habitations‚ a second-degree felony; and two misdemeanor charges. The outlet reported that he was held on a $57‚000 bond.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!