By Brandon Barger
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS—Attorney General Curtis Hill firmly denied charges Thursday that he groped and grabbed a lawmaker and three legislative staff members at a March 2018 party marking the end of the legislative session.

In calm, measured tones Hill testified that while he had a few drinks, he wasn’t inebriated at the gathering at AJ’s Lounge in Downtown Indianapolis and that his actions, while friendly, were not “rude, insolent or angry.”

“I touched no one in a rude manner,” Hill said.

Hill was the sole witness Thursday, the fourth and final day of his disciplinary hearing before retired Supreme Court Justice Myra Selby. Since Monday, she has presided in the paneled and ornate courtroom of the state Supreme Court over testimony – sometimes graphic, sometimes emotional – about what happened at that party.

The disciplinary commission has accused Hill of touching the women in a rude, insolent or angry manner. For three of the women, the touching constitutes misdemeanor battery for unwanted contact. He is accused of grabbing the hand of the fourth woman when she tried to push his hand away and then forcing it toward buttocks, which amounts to a Level 6 felony.

Thursday was the first time that Hill publicly gave his account of night. He was briefly called to testify on Wednesday morning by the disciplinary commissions legal team to spell out the duties of the attorney general, but did not return to the witness table that afternoon.

So when the sun filtered through the Supreme Court’s stained glass windows the next day, Hill strolled into the chamber and took his seat, ready to testify in his own defense.

Under questioning by Donald Lundberg, one of his three attorneys, Hill calmly denied each of the charges leveled against him.

No, he said, he didn’t grab the buttocks of Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, D- Munster. Yes, he might have touched her bare back—she was wearing a backless dress—but he touched a lot of backs that night as he moved through the crowd.

No, he didn’t touch the rear end of Republican legislative aide Niki DaSilva but believes she was one of the women he attempted to guide through the crowd to the bar.

No, he didn’t tell Democrat legislative aide Samantha Lozano that “yes, you’re hot,” but instead agreed with her that it was hot in the bar, which was packed with more than 100 people.

And no, he didn’t rub Democrat Senate staffer Gabrielle McLemore Brock’s back and doesn’t even remember meeting her.

During the questioning by Lundberg, Hill sat in the chair with his legs crossed, glasses in one hand, his voice never changing pitch or wavering.

Hill said he hadn’t planned to go to the party until he met a friend, lobbyist and GOP political activist Tony Samuel, at the Capital Grille. He went with Samuel to a bar at St. Elmo’s and then to the party at AJ’s Lounge.

Through the night, Hill said, he had a glass of wine at the restaurant and bar, and at the party had a vodka martini that he “nursed” through the night plus a shot of Fireball whisky that he “sipped on.”

However, Hill maintained that at no point during the night was he impaired.

Disciplinary commission attorney Seth Pruden focused much of his attention on email chains that included Hill, Samuel and others as they talked about how to rebut the allegations as they became public.

Hill said that just because he was on the email chain, doesn’t mean that he read them.

However, he did respond “thank you, very enlightening” to one email chain with the subject line “Re: Background on disciplinary committee members.”

In that email, Danny Diaz, a political consultant wrote: “Any objection to pitching story to conservative media that (Gov. Eric) Holcomb cronies and liberals are driving this?”

Though the hearing is concluded, a lengthy process ensues before Hill knows his fate. First, the court reporter will prepare a record of the hearing. Then both sides will prepare their own findings, a last chance to argue their sides to Selby. Selby will reach her conclusion but the final decision is made by the Indiana Supreme Court.

If they decide Hill was at fault, the justices could issue a punishment ranging from a public reprimand to stripping him of his license to practice law – a step that would preclude Hill from remaining as attorney general.

FOOTNOTE:  Brandon Barger is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalists.

By John Krull
TheStatehouseFile.com 

INDIANAPOLIS – The Democratic presidential candidates switched from touch football to tackle in their Tuesday night debate.

They took some hard shots at U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, who now is perceived to be the front runner. They hit each other and they took hits. At different points, feelings on the stage were high and things grew heated.

It was about time.

While it is always important for political parties to come together in general elections, primaries and nominating processes aren’t supposed to be Gilded Age tea parties – affairs in which everyone keeps their pinkies out and observes all the rules of propriety. No, they’re like training camps – testing grounds to determine who will be the best candidate to face a determined adversary in the fall election.

That’s why U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, drew precisely the wrong lesson from the 2016 presidential election. At one point during the debate, Booker complained about the rough give-and-take and said that similar conduct had cost Democrats the White House last time around.

He’s wrong.

The fact that the party’s 2016 standard-bearer, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had difficulty dispatching U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, whose very standing in the party was up for debate and whose funding trailed well behind hers, should have been a warning sign. It should have told Democrats she wasn’t the candidate to carry the flag for them if they wanted to maintain a residence in the White House.

If anything, what was true then is even truer now.

Both the kindest and the smartest thing Democrats can do for the person who becomes the party’s candidate for president is prepared him or her to take punch after punch after punch – both high blows and low blows.

The 2016 election was a brawl.

This one will be a riot.

In part, this is because of traditional political calculations. Because President Donald Trump never has gotten within shouting distance of a 50 percent public approval rating, he will have no choice but to tear his opponent down in the fall campaign. His only path to holding on to the White House is to make the Democratic challenger an even less appealing option than he is.

But some of it also is specific to this president.

If the events of the past weeks – the House Democrats’ inexorable march toward impeachment and Trump’s desperate flailing to find an exit as the walls close in – demonstrate anything, it is that this president thinks laws and standards of decency are for sissies. There is no rule he will not break and no tactic he considers too low or mean to use.

The biggest mistake Democrats made last time around was thinking that there was a referee somewhere who was going to call foul on Trump and declare them the winner.

But Donald Trump isn’t a boxer. He’s a street fighter.

This time around, if anything, he will be more desperate and therefore more determined to grab any bottle in the alley to break over his opponent’s head.

Contrary to the vigorous spin the president and his allies have put on Robert Mueller’s report, it didn’t exonerate him. It made clear that the only reason Trump didn’t face prosecution was that the Department of Justice rules prohibit indicting a sitting president. Once he’s out of office, Mueller also made clear, that rule will not apply.

And Trump could be subject to criminal prosecution.

.It is hard to know what motivated Donald Trump to run for president in 2016. Maybe he really thought he could “make America great again.” Maybe he just wanted to build his brand.

Who knows?

What we can know, though, is that, as hard as he fought four years ago, he will fight even harder this time around because he feels he’s battling to save himself.

That’s at least part of the reason he’s fighting and flailing with such wild fury. Cornered and wounded animals are desperate.

And dangerous.

That’s why Democrats do need to take the gloves off.

Whoever emerges as their presidential candidate will have to be ready to go toe-to-toe with perhaps the best street fighter in American political history.

The candidate who can’t take a hit won’t win.

It’s just that simple.

FOOTNOTE: John Krull is a director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

The City-County Observer posted this article without opinion, bias or editing.