Woman faces second DUI charge after allegedly fleeing crash scene
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.1
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A woman previously convicted of DUI in 2020 is back in the court system facing several charges including DUI, hit-and-run, and having a suspended driver’s license and car registration.
Mayisha Marlowe, 29, is accused of causing a hit-and-run crash on Jan. 12 just before 1 a.m. According to the person who reported the rear-end crash, Marlowe got out of her Lexus after the crash and couldn’t stand straight, and then got back into the car and drove off. The driver of the vehicle who was hit followed her and reported her license plate to police, the arrest report said.
Las Vegas Metropolitan police officers in the area saw the damaged vehicle and pulled it over on Spring Mountain Road and Procyon Street, less than a mile from where the crash occured.
Advertisement
Police documents stated Marlowe smelled of alcohol and had red, watery eyes and police saw a half-empty bottle of alcohol in the car. She told police she left the crash scene because she got scared. The report said Marlowe admitted to drinking at a sushi restaurant and agreed to do a field sobriety test. Although the results of the test were redacted in the arrest report, Marlowe was placed under arrest for DUI.
Other charges she is facing include failure to reduce speed, having an open alcohol container in the car, and not being able to show proof of insurance.
The state asked for additional time to file the criminal complaint against Marlowe. The judge scheduled a status check for May 13.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KLAS.View comments(1)
Up next
Calls to invoke 25th Amendment grow as Trump tries to acquire Greenland. How does it work, and has it been used before?
Kate Murphy, Reporter
5 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.6.5k
A growing number of lawmakers are calling for the 25th Amendment to be invoked to remove President Trump from office after Trump told Norway’s prime minister that his position on purchasing Greenland is tied to not winning the Nobel Peace Prize and he no longer feels obligated to “think purely of Peace.”
The text message exchange happened on Jan. 18, when the Norwegian leader, Jonas Gahr Store, sent a text message to Trump on behalf of himself and the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb. The European leaders sent the message in an attempt to “deescalate” the increased conflict over Greenland and the latest tariff threat against the U.S.’s European allies.
In less than half an hour, Trump responded, writing, “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”
Advertisement
The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by the Norwegian government, but rather the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The five members of the committee are appointed by the country’s parliament.
Trump doubled down on his intentions to “purchase” Greenland, writing, “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you!” and signing it “President DJT.”
Democratic Sen. Ed Markey from Massachusetts is one of several members of Congress to call for Trump’s removal from office using the 25th Amendment. “Invoke the 25th Amendment,” Markey posted on X, along with a picture of a news headline of Trump’s unusual text message with Store. Additional Democratic House members, such as Reps. Eric Swalwell, Sydney Kamlager-Dove and Yassamin Ansari, have also called for the removal of Trump by invoking the 25th Amendment.
How did the 25th Amendment originate?
It dates back to 1963, when Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson became president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There was no plan in place to choose Johnson’s replacement, and there was concern about the procedure if he were to become ill or incapacitated before a new vice president could be named. In 1965, Congress formally proposed the 25th Amendment, and it became part of the Constitution in February 1967.
Advertisement
The 25th Amendment has four sections. The first three clarify the presidential order of succession and who can temporarily assume the president’s duties. Section 4 gets the most attention: It’s a multi-step process for the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
How would it work?
Invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and the majority of Trump’s Cabinet to submit a declaration to Congress that Trump isn’t able to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Doing so would mean an immediate transfer of presidential power to Vance, who would serve as acting president. Trump would have the chance to refute the declaration, which could then be challenged by his Cabinet. Congress would have 21 days from the date of receiving the declaration to formally approve any decision to remove Trump from office.
A two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would be needed in order for Trump to be removed from office. Otherwise, he would regain his presidential powers.
Has the 25th Amendment been used before?
The first section of the 25th Amendment was invoked when Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency in 1974 and was replaced by his vice president, Gerald Ford. Section 2 was used when Gerald Ford, as president, nominated Nelson Rockefeller for vice president, and he was confirmed in the House and the Senate.
Advertisement
Section 3 was used in 1985 when Ronald Reagan underwent brief cancer surgery and Vice President George H.W. Bush assumed his responsibilities. In 2002 and 2007, George W. Bush invoked Section 3 when he underwent medical procedures, and then-Vice President Dick Cheney became acting president.
Section 4 has never been used because the process is so challenging. It’s more difficult to remove a president under the 25th Amendment using Section 4 than under the impeachment process.
What’s the difference between impeachment and invoking the 25th Amendment?
The purpose of seeking impeachment to remove a president from office is to address potential “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The House would require a simple majority to vote on Articles of Impeachment, which are formal written charges against a president. After a trial, the Senate would vote on whether to convict and remove the president from office, which requires a two-thirds vote. The Senate can vote in a separate proceeding to ban the president from holding future office, which would require a simple majority vote.
Advertisement
Trump was impeached twice during his first term in office. The first time was on Dec. 18, 2019, for initiating foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election, and the second was on Jan. 13, 2021, following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In each case, he was acquitted on all counts by the Senate and remained in office.
Should the movement grow to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump due to incapacity or inability to perform presidential duties, invoking it would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. The president would not be barred from holding future office.View comments(6.5k)
Up next
‘Your Lover’s Not Gonna Be Killed Anymore’: Trump Reveals the Thing That ‘A Lot of People in the Media’ Thanked Him For
Ahmad Austin Jr.
1 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.622
https://s.yimg.com/rx/ev/builds/1.14.53/pframe.htmlYahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Generate Key Takeaways
President Donald Trump claimed in all seriousness on Tuesday that lovers would no longer be killed in the streets of Washington, D.C., thanks to his efforts in the nation’s capital.
The president opened the White House briefing to recap the first year of his second term in office. After dedicating the beginning of his speech to holding up numerous mugshots of alleged criminals to praise the efforts of ICE in Minnesota, Trump went on to rattle off the various achievements of his administration so far.
One such achievement, he declared, was the reduction of crime in the nation’s capital. Months earlier, he deployed thousands of National Guard troops into the city in an effort to clean up the streets.
Advertisement
As a result, the president continued, people no longer have to fear that their “lover” won’t be killed:
D.C. was a very, very dangerous place, and I think you probably know better than I do. I have a lot of people in the media thanked me for that, but some of them found it hard to thank me… D.C. is now — look how beautiful — D.C. is now, you can walk right from here to a restaurant to right through the center of town. You can be with your child, with your loved one, with your lover. Your lover’s not going to be killed anymore, so you can act like a real lover.
Watch above via Fox News
The post ‘Your Lover’s Not Gonna Be Killed Anymore’: Trump Reveals the Thing That ‘A Lot of People in the Media’ Thanked Him For first appeared on Mediaite.View comments(622)
Up next
Lindsey Halligan departs Justice Department hours after Trump-appointed federal judge calls her leadership a ‘charade’
Devan Cole, Kristen Holmes
6 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.204
Lindsey Halligan, President Donald Trump’s handpicked interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, left her position at the Justice Department Tuesday, marking an end to her turbulent tenure bringing cases against the president’s political enemies.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Halligan’s exit in a post on X Tuesday evening, writing that it “is a significant loss” for the department and noting that she “will continue to serve her country in other ways.”
News of Halligan’s departure came hours after a federal judge issued a withering ruling calling out Halligan’s decision to use unusually sharp language earlier this month as she pushed back on the judge’s questioning of her authority, saying the “unnecessary rhetoric” had “a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show.”
Advertisement
The assessment from US District Judge David Novak, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, was the latest dramatic development in a months-long legal saga surrounding Halligan, an insurance lawyer turned prosecutor whose tenure as interim US attorney appeared to be cut short after a judge determined in November that she was unlawfully serving in the role.
That decision, which effectively killed criminal cases Halligan brought at the president’s urging against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James, should have also meant that Halligan no longer represented herself as the US attorney leading the office, according to judges in the district. But she continued to use the title on court documents, drawing the ire of Novak and other judges who thought she was openly flouting the ruling.
“Ms. Halligan has continued to identify herself as the United States Attorney for this District in pleadings, including on the indictment and other pleadings in this case,” Novak wrote in an 18-page ruling in a criminal case brought by Halligan’s office. “I elected to give Ms. Halligan an opportunity to explain her position … After reviewing Ms. Halligan’s filing and piercing through the unnecessary rhetoric, I find her position to be unavailing.”
“Ms. Halligan’s response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice,” the judge wrote. “The Court will not engage in a similar tit-for-tat.”
Advertisement
Novak said Halligan could not continue to ignore the ruling issued last year by US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, which found that her appointment was invalid, and warned that Halligan “and anyone who joins her on a pleading containing the improper moniker” could be subjected to potential disciplinary action.
But he spared Halligan from facing such consequences for now. He pointed out she had no prosecutorial experience when she took the helm of the US Attorney’s office in September and said he was giving her the benefit of the doubt.
“In light of her inexperience, the court grants Ms. Halligan the benefit of the doubt and refrains from referring her for further investigation and disciplinary action regarding her misrepresentations to this Court at this time,” Novak wrote.
Help wanted: Judges advertise for a replacement to Halligan
Novak’s ruling landed shortly after EDVA’s chief judge began publicly seeking applicants to serve on an interim basis as the US attorney for the district.
Advertisement
In a brief order that made no mention of the decision issued last year by Currie, which has been appealed, Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck pointed to the fact that when Halligan was first appointed in September to serve as interim US attorney her stint was supposed to last 120 days – which is Tuesday.
