HEADLINES: “114 People Shot In 112 Days”; “Albuquerque Police Deal With A Day Of Mayhem”; “DA Torrez and Mayor Keller Lose Election Bids”

The April 29, 2019 Albuquerque Journal front page headline in red letters read “IN BERNALILLO COUTY” followed by “114 people shot in 112 days” in black letters.


Below the headline was a color photo of two of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) Mobile Crime labs used to investigate homicide scenes and gather evidence. Below the photo of the APD Mobile Crime Labs was a color photo of 47-year-old Jose Hernandez, dressed in his military uniform. Jose Hernandez is the US Mail Carrier who was shot and killed on his postal route allegedly by a 17-year-old in the Southwest Albuquerque when he intervened in a fight between a mother and her teenage son. The 17-year-old suspect has been arrested. Hernandez was one of 4 people shot, with 3 killed, in a 24 hour period.

KOAT TV Channel 7 had the same lead story headline: “… 100 Shooting in 112 days.”


The Journal reported that with the killing of Jose Hernandez, Bernalillo County surpassed 100 shootings for the year. Jose Hernandez was the 114-person shot and killed since January 1, 2019 and a mere 112 days into the year.

The January 17, 2019 front page Albuquerque Journal headline read:

“Albuquerque Police Deal With A Day Of Mayhem”

According to the January 17, 2019 report:

“There were two homicides – one of which sparked an all-day manhunt in the Bosque. An infant died at a county-run substance abuse treatment center. A person was shot in the leg in the northeast area. And officers conducted a search for a stolen vehicle suspect off East Central. … Traffic was snarled for hours at the Central river crossing due to the manhunt in the Bosque. Tingley Beach and other parts of the Albuquerque BioPark were put on lockdown, according to police. The nearby Dolores Gonzales Elementary School canceled all after-school programs and bus services because of the search. … [S]hortly before 8 a.m., officers were called to a shooting in front of Central Grill and Coffee House on Central near Rio Grande Boulevard and the Old Town community police substation. “Upon arrival, they observed rescue attending to a male who had been shot. … Rescue immediately transported the subject to the hospital, where he was subsequently pronounced dead from a gunshot wound.”


The news headlines for April 4, 5, 6 and 7, 2019 included reports of eight dead, including a child of 5 beaten to death by her father with a rubber shoe and an 8-year-old girl was shot and critically injured in a Northeast Albuquerque home from a stray bullet, all in four days.

The news stories for the four days in April were:

Thursday, April 4, 2019, Carlos Armijo, 42, was gunned down outside his South Valley home; Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputies say it was retaliation after a fight outside a taco truck.

Friday, April 5, 2019, morning, first respondents found the battered and unresponsive body of 5-year-old Sarah Dubois-Gilbeau. The child’s father has been charged in her death, allegedly beating her with a rubber water shoe for not doing homework he assigned.

Friday, April 5, 2019, 19-year-old Eric Apisa was pronounced dead, three days after being shot in the head during an apparent drug deal.

Friday, April 5, 2019,, BCSO deputies found a body with signs of trauma in a ditch in the 1700 block of Bridge SW. They identified the man as Manuel Barraza, 49.

Friday night, April 5, 2019, APD officers shot Pedro Escalante, after he fled an “altercation” in a stolen vehicle, crashed into a car and pointed a gun at police during a foot chase.

Saturday April 6, 2019, a woman was found slain in a home in the 1100 block of Via Chamisa, NE.

Saturday April 6, 2019, a couple was found dead in a home in the 600 block of Princeton SE, south of the University of New Mexico.

Sunday, April 7, 2019, a young child was hospitalized after being shot in a Northeast Albuquerque home.

On April 8, 2019, a man was shot and killed on Albuquerque’s West Side.




According to the Bernalillo County District Attorney Office (DA) there were 36% more killings this year than over the same time period last year, despite all other major categories of crime declining.

The DA’s Office Crime Strategies Unit disclosed to the Journal that it has been compiling a database of all instances in which a person was shot since January 1, 2018. The DA’s newly created office of “Crime Strategies Unit” found that throughout all of 2018 there were 232 shootings where someone was struck, 64 or 65 of which resulted in a killing.

Thus far, the youngest victim killed this year was 8-year-old Diamond Williams, no arrests have been made and APD has said they are not looking for any suspects.


APD provided the Journal with statistics in 4 areas:

1. Murders
2. Shootings with injuries
3. Shootings with no injuries and
4. Shootings with property damage.

The data APD provided did not include suicides, accidental shootings, homicides done in self-defense, or shootings by law enforcement. APD’s preliminary numbers show a total of 312 shootings with fatalities, with injuries, without injuries, and property damage so far this year, an increase of 11 percent over the same time last year when there were 281.


The Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office has implemented a data collection program called “Ceasefire”. Ceasefire is a data-driven approach to combat gun violence.

According to the DA’s office a breakdown of data from January 1, 2019, to April 23, 2019 is as follows:

There were 101 shootings in which individuals were injured or killed, several of which had multiple victims

114 people were shot, 17 of whom were killed.

95 incidents happened in the city.

6 incidents happened outside the city but within the county.

2 people were shot by law enforcement.

10 cases were self-inflicted shootings.

The shortest time between shootings was 16 minutes.

The longest time was a five-and-a-half-day stretch in early January.

The average number of shootings was just over one shooting per day.

Suspects have been identified in 42 cases, although it’s unclear how many have resulted in an arrest.

There were 27 more shootings so far in 2019 compared to the same time period in 2018 when there were 74 shootings.

Dr. Steve McLaughlin, the UNM chairman of the department of emergency medicine, said the University of New Mexico Hospital Emergency Room has gunshot victims admitted to the ER almost every day. According to Dr. McLaughlin, national data indicates that about one third of gunshot victims die, the remaining two thirds survive their wounds but the majority of those who do survive are never the same.


The yearly numbers of homicides, aggravated assaults, which are defined as assaults with a deadly weapon, non-fatal shootings, robberies and rape for the last two years and the first quarter of 2019 brings into focus the picture of the city’s violent crime problems with guns.

Following are the sobering statistics:

2017: 72 (First 6 months: 33)
2018: 65 (First 6 months:39)
Change: -10% (First 6 months -18.2%)

2017: 4,213 (First 6 months: 1,957)
2018: 3,885 (First 6 months: 1,851)
Change: -8 (First 6 months: -5.4)

2017: 470 (First 6 months: 60)
2018: 491 (First 6 months: 63)
Change: +4 (First 6 months: +5.0%)

2017: 2,930 (First 6 months: 1,467)
2018: 1,887 (First 6 months: 1,012)
Change: -36% (First 6 months: -31%)

2017: 473 (First 6 months: 236)
2018: 461 (First 6 months: 226)
Change: -3% (First six months -4.2)

On March 30, 2019, the Albuquerque Police Department released the City’s crime statistics for the first quarter of 2019 which runs from January to March of 2019.


The specific highlights in violent crime categories for the first quarter of 2019 were:

Homicide: down 24% with 14 homicides reported (Spiked to 21 by April 16)
Rape: down 7%
Robbery: down 22%
Aggravated Assault: down 4%

In the first quarter 2019 report, the city saw an increase in nonfatal shootings. According to the statistics, non-fatal shootings went up 12% and there have been 131 nonfatal shootings the first quarter of the year compared to last year’s number of 114.


On April 8, 2019, APD Officials announced several proactive and reactive initiatives designed to combat gun violence in the City and declaring gun violence a public health risk.

The specific initiatives announced include:

1. Using data from APD’s Real Time Crime Center to focus on areas with a heavy concentration of gun violence and identify any patterns and putting more officers in those areas.
2. Forming units of officers called Problem Response Teams in each area command. The Problem Response Teams will be made up of officers who don’t take calls for service but will be available to help community members as they need it. After a violent crime, the teams, along with Albuquerque Fire Rescue, will visit the neighborhood and provide resources or information.
3. Identifying those who are selling firearms illegally to felons or juveniles.
4. Working with agencies and universities to conduct research on gun violence as a public health issue.
5. Implementing a standardized shooting response protocol that police must follow within the first 72 hours of a reported crime. APD intends to collect and test all casings at shooting scenes and intends to purchase new equipment and technology that can assist detectives in investigating gun crimes.
6. APD is in the process of hiring additional personnel for the crime lab and securing technology that will increase efficiency around DNA testing including automating the entire unit. The unit that tests DNA and the unit that tests latent fingerprints will be split in an attempt to reduce a backlog of evidence that needs to be tested.
7. Increasing the use of the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network and the Problem Response Teams. The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network program is used to identify which guns have been used in multiple crimes by analyzing all casings they can find at violent crime scenes where a firearm has been discharged.
8. Use of a placard police officers can hang on doors to encourage residents to call with information about a crime.


Mayor Tim Keller had this to say in commenting on the APD initiatives to combat and reduce gun violence:

“[The initiatives are] just not going to happen overnight so we’re trying to push them as fast as we can and encourage our partners to do the same.”


On March 30, 2019, the Albuquerque Police Department released the City’s crime statistics for the first quarter of 2019 which runs from January to March of 2019. For the second time, APD reported that crime is continuing to drop from 10 years of historic highs in all major categories but nonfatal shootings are up.

Property crimes, robberies, auto thefts and auto burglaries all dropped.

Auto burglary decreased by 28%, auto theft decreased by 29%, and residential burglary decreased by 32% compared to last year’s numbers during the same time period.

Property crimes, like theft and burglaries, have had a 17% drop from 2017 to 2018 for the same time period last year.

The decline represents a dramatic decrease to the numbers reported last year.

The bad news in the report was that the city saw an increase in nonfatal shootings.

According to the statistics, non-fatal shootings went up 12% and there have been 131 nonfatal shootings the first quarter of the year compared to last year’s number of 114.

You can review the news stories here:





“114 People Shot In 112 Days” and “Albuquerque Police Deal With A Day Of Mayhem” are the very type of headlines, color photos and TV news lead stories that likely cause many sleepless nights for the Bernalillo County Sheriff Manny Gonzales, APD Chief Michael Geier, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez and Mayor Tim Keller.

Bringing down violent crime involving guns, such as murders and domestic violence, is always more difficult because of entwined issues such as substance abuse, the disintegration of families and many times the failure of law enforcement to respond and social services to respond to warning signs. A murder is usually committed when another crime is being committed such as armed robbery or domestic violence or it’s a crime committed in the heat of anger and a gun is readily available. Most victims who are murdered know their killer. It’s difficult at best to bring down homicide rates, but it can be done when you bring down other violent crime such as armed robbery, aggravated assaults, illicit drug offenses and domestic violence.

The increase in nonfatal shootings is a reflection that Albuquerque is a violent city with a culture of violence that will be extremely difficult at best to eliminate. Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez and Mayor Tim Keller probably understand the impact headlines like “114 People Shot In 112 Days” and “Albuquerque Police Deal With A Day Of Mayhem” can have on their political careers, more so on Torrez because he is running out of time given he is up for election to a second term in 2020 while Keller is up in 2021.

Both Torrez and Keller campaigned to get elected DA and Mayor on a platform that they could and would bring down our skyrocketing crime rates. No at all surprising, Mayor Tim Keller and Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez have tried to take credit for crime rates being on the decline in all other categories other than gun violence offenses for the first time in nine years.

In 2016, Raul Torrez campaigned on a platform of reducing crime arguing that crime rates were too high, our criminal justice system was broken and that he was the guy to fix it. Torrez during his first year in office blamed judges for our high crime rates because of reduced sentences given to violent criminals and dismissal of cases until it was revealed that his office voluntarily dismissed cases at much higher rates than the courts. After more than two years in office, blaming judges for high crime rates and constant complaining about lack of resources without filling over 41 vacancies in his office, DA Torrez only now realizes that has not worked and finally reached out to other cities to find better strategies, such as his “Ceasefire Program” and his “Crime Strategies Unit” .



In 2017, then State Auditor Tim Keller campaigned for Mayor proclaiming he had the right plan for reducing crime, police reform and community-based policing. To his credit, Mayor Tim Keller is spending $88 million dollars, over a four-year period, with 32 million dollars of recurring expenditures to hire 350 officers and expand APD from 878 sworn police officers to 1,200 officers by implementing a hiring and recruitment program to offer incentives, pay raises and bonuses to join or return to APD in order to return to community-based policing. By July, 2019, APD should have up to 950 sworn police. Despite Mayor Keller’s increases APD budget and personnel, he has not shaken the stark reality that the city is way too violent and he is relegated to issuing uninspiring and idealistic statements to the Albuquerque Journal like:

“This is the number one problem facing our city and it has been for some time. … It’s something that’s going to take all of us coming together to deal with.”

As the shootings, assaults and killings continue to rise, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez and Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller are increasingly focused on the gun violence and the city’s murder rates, but time may be running out for both of them despite their efforts. Both DA Torrez and Mayor Keller have initiated programs in an effort to bring down violent crime rates and gun violence. What is becoming increasingly concerning for the City is that all the increases in APD budget and personnel and increases and new programs at the DA’s Office may not have any effect on be bringing down the violent crime and murder rates. Only time will tell if APD’s and the DA’s new initiatives are successful, and we all must hope they are for the safety of our families and ourselves.

Notwithstanding, voters are very fickle and unforgiving when politicians make promises they do not or cannot keep. The Bernalillo County District Attorney’ s Office is now Torrez’s full responsibility and he cannot blame his predecessor for continuing increases in our crime rates and bungled prosecutions. APD is now fully in the hands of Mayor Tim Keller and his appointed command staff, and he cannot blame his predecessor for continuing increases in our crime rates.

No doubt DA Raul Torrez and Mayor Tim Keller have high hopes that their efforts will bring down gun violence and the murder rates.

Otherwise, both District Attorney Raul Torrez and Mayor Tim Keller may wake up the day after their next election bids to read media headlines that they have lost their election for a second term.

To Impeach Or Not To Impeach, That Is The Question!

After over two years, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” was released. It is 448 pages long and in two volumes.

Succinctly put, it found that there was Russian interference with the election but “no collusion” between the Russians and the Trump campaign to interfere with the 2016 election.

The Mueller report identifies at least 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice and gives details how President Trump sought to use top White House staffers, aides and the Justice Department to impede the Russia investigation.

You can read the entire redacted Mueller Report Here:


This article is a deep dive into the Mueller Report and the 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump and his campaign.

Much of the special counsel’s findings were linked to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether the Trump campaign actually colluded with Russia.

Mueller wrote that his investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign … but did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

In other words, there was no “collusion” when it came to interfering with the election process.

Although there was no collusion, Trump personally and very publicly solicited help from the Russians and they accommodated him.

The Trump campaign had numerous contacts and communications with Russians during the campaign and after the election but “contact” is not collusion.

What would have been criminal is if Trump and his campaign actually solicited the Russians to interfere with the election vote and then the help was accepted but based on the report, no such evidence was found.

What was found is that Russia did interfere with the election, but not at the Trump campaign’s request.

After the Mueller report was released, Trump proclaimed he was having a “good day” boasting “It’s called no collusion, no obstruction.”

The problem is, no collusion may have been found by Mueller but Trump lied when he said he was cleared of “Obstruction of Justice” when he boasted “no obstruction”

The Mueller Report states:

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

The Mueller report makes it clear that it did not take a position on any potential obstruction of justice because Mueller was strictly limited by a Department of Justice rule that a sitting president cannot be indicted, at least not by the federal government.

There are approximately 12 pending criminal investigations in state jurisdictions relating to the Trump organizations and finances.

What is ironic in reading the report is that the only thing that ended up protecting Trump was many of those who are now gone, who have resigned or been fired by Trump, did not follow through on his direct orders. In other words, Trump’s own employees saved him from himself.


Despite the fact that the special counsel’s report on Russian interference did not come to a conclusion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, the Mueller Report did examine and disclose at least 10 “discrete acts” in which Trump may have “obstructed justice”.

Mueller left it up to congress to decide for themselves if there was obstruction of justice.

Any one of the 10 acts could form the basis of impeachment by the Democratic Controlled US House of Representatives, but not necessarily result in a conviction by the Republican US Senate.

The Mueller Report says the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice can be divided into “two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the president’s motives.”

The first phase of obstruction of justice took place before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey after Trump had been reassured by Comey he was not personally under investigation.

After Comey was fired by Trump and after Mueller’s appointment as special counsel, the report states Trump realized or knew he was under investigation for possibly obstructing justice and he changed course and became more aggressive to discredit the investigation.

The Mueller report states:

“At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts both in public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

CBS News did an exceptional summary of the 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice.

Following are the 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice quoting a CBS News article with the link below:


“The first instance of possible obstruction detailed in the report occurred during the 2016 campaign, when questions first “arose about the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump. The report states that while Mr. Trump was publicly skeptical Russia had released emails from Democratic officials, he and his aides were also trying to get information about “any further Wikileaks releases.”The report also notes that despite Mr. Trump’s insistence he had no business connections to Russia, his namesake company was trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. And once the election was over, Mr. Trump “expressed concerns to advisers that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.”


“The second instance involves Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who left the administration just weeks into Mr. Trump’s presidency after he misled FBI agents and top administration officials — including Vice President Mike Pence — about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had said he had not discussed sanctions on Russia with Kislyak, a lie that Pence and others then repeated. The day that Mr. Trump found out Flynn had lied to Pence and the FBI, he had dinner with Comey, whom he asked for “loyalty.” Mr. Trump then secured Flynn’s resignation on Feb. 13, 2017. “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over,” he told an outside adviser, who disagreed with the president’s assessment. That same day, Mr. Trump had another meeting with Comey and encouraged him to stop investigating Flynn. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” Mr. Trump said. The president then asked Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo “stating that the president had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel’s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.”


“The third instance involves then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was debating whether to recuse himself from the Russia investigation in February 2017, as well as Comey. Mr. Trump asked White House Counsel Don McGahn to talk Sessions out of recusal, and became angry when Sessions announced he would recuse himself on March 2. The president then asked Sessions to “unrecuse” himself. After Comey testified to Congress that there was an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump reached out to his CIA and NSA directors to help “dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort.” Comey had told Mr. Trump he wasn’t under investigation and, against Mc Gahn’s advice, the president twice called the FBI director to ask him to say that publicly.”


“The fourth instance stems from Mr. Trump’s decision to fire Comey, which directly led to Mueller’s appointment. Mr. Trump decided to fire Comey in May 2017 — days after the FBI director declined to tell Congress that Mr. Trump wasn’t under investigation. After Mr. Trump dismissed Comey, the White House insisted he had done so at the recommendation of the Department of Justice. In reality, Mr. Trump had not consulted with the Justice Department before deciding to fire Comey. In conversations that followed, Mr. Trump indicated the Russia investigation was the real reason he had let Comey go: “The day after firing Comey, the president told Russian officials that he had ‘faced great pressure because of Russia,’ which had been ‘taken off’ by Comey’s firing. The next day, the president acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he ‘decided to just do it,’ he was thinking that ‘this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.'”


“The fifth instance revolves around Mr. Trump’s reaction to Mueller’s appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was “the end of his presidency.” Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions’ resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel. It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told Mc Gahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed. Mc Gahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.”


“The sixth instance stems from the June 2016 meeting between top campaign aides and “a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as ‘part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.'” Mr. Trump told his aides “not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the email would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited.” Donald Trump Jr., who had been present at the Trump Tower meeting, wrote a press release saying “the meeting was with ‘an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign'” — a line that was edited out about the president. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer then denied to reporters the president had “played any role” in Trump Jr.’s statement.


“The seventh instance has to do with Mr. Trump’s repeated attempts to have Sessions “reverse his recusal.” Mr. Trump asked Sessions to do this in the summer of 2017. The following December, Mr. Trump told Sessions he would be a “hero” if he took control of the investigation. Additionally, in October 2017, the president asked Sessions to “take [a] look” at investigating Hillary Clinton.”


“The eighth instance concerns Mr. Trump’s efforts to get Mc Gahn to dispute press accounts that the president had instructed him to try and get rid of Mueller. In early 2018, Mr. Trump told White House officials to tell Mc Gahn to rebut the stories, but Mc Gahn told the officials the stories were true. Mr. Trump then personally appealed to Mc Gahn, telling him in an Oval Office meeting to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president’s efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president,” the report states. “McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle.”


“The ninth instance stems from Mr. Trump’s response to the prosecutions of Flynn and Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, as well as an individual whose identity was redacted.
“After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the president and began cooperating with the government, the president’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn ‘s attorneys reminding them of the president’s warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said ‘still remains,’ and asking for a ‘heads up’ if Flynn knew ‘information that implicates the president,'” the report states. When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the president’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the president knew that Flynn’s actions reflected ‘hostility’ towards the president. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump praised Manafort during his “prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating. At one point, he praised Manafort as “a brave man” who refused to “break.”


“The tenth and final instance of potential obstruction concerns Mr. Trump’s behavior toward Michael Cohen, his onetime personal lawyer. Mr. Trump profusely praised Cohen when he remained loyal to the administration, at one point personally calling to encourage him to “stay strong,” only to criticize him viciously when he began cooperating with the government. After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the president publicly asserted that Cohen would not ‘flip,’ contacted him directly to tell him to ‘stay strong,’ and privately passed messages of support to him,” the report states. Cohen also discussed pardons with the president’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the president publicly criticized him, called him a ‘rat,’ and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.”

You can review the full CBS News report here:



Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The power and authority to bring Articles of Impeachment rests solely with the United States House of Representatives and a trial is then conducted by the United State Senate for removal from office.

A “high crimes and misdemeanor” can be whatever the House of Representatives say it is in Articles of Impeachment and “obstruction of justice” is clearly a high crime and misdemeanor.

Under federal law, “obstruction of justice” is defined as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” (18 U.S.C. § 1503)

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding, such as the firing of an FBI Director during an ongoing FBI investigation which is what the Russian probe investigation is all about.

For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know:

(1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and
(2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.


On July 27, 2016, while running for office, Donald Trump encouraged Russian hackers to find emails that had been deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private server that she used while serving as secretary of state when he said:

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing … “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump said at a press conference in Florida.


On July 27, 2016, Vladimir Putin and Russia were listening and heeded Trump’s call for help.

According to the federal indictment of the 12 Russian intelligence officers for their involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, the Russian hacking occurred on July 27, 2016 hours after Trump gave his press conference and encouraged Russian hackers to find Clinton’s emails.

The indictment states that on July 27, 2016, the same day as Trump’s press conference, Russian hackers, “for the first time,” attempted to break into email accounts, including those used by Clinton’s personal office.

Notably, the indictment is very specific that the hack happened in the evening, meaning the Russian officials could have done it after Trump’s press conference.



Donald Trump has maintained that neither he nor his businesses have any ties to Russia whatsoever and he has not done business in Russia.

On January 11, 2017, Donald Trump tweeted:

“Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!”

During a February 2O17, news conference, President Trump said:

“I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia … I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia” a statement that has proven to be a complete lie.

On May 8, 2017, Vanity Fair reported that the Trump Organization received substantial financing from Russia when the business was struggling in the mid-1990s and again during the Great Recession, since major U.S. banks had refuse to make any loans.


On March 17, 2017, Reuters reported that a group of 63 Russia billionaires have invested nearly $100 million in several Trump properties in Florida.


On September 12, 2018, BuzzFeed News Reported that federal investigators looked into a pair of suspicious money transfers from some of the planners and participants in a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Kremlin-connected lawyer who promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.


They involve money from Russia and Switzerland being moved to places such as the British Virgin Islands, Bangkok and New Jersey, according to the BuzzFeed report.

The documents evaluated show a complex web of financial transactions between Trump organizations and the Russians.

The documents show Aras Agalarov, a billionaire real estate developer close to both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, at the center of this vast network and how he used accounts overseas to filter money to himself, his son, and at least two people who attended the Trump Tower meeting.


On December 19, 2018 CNN reported that in 2016, as the Trump Organization was in negotiations to build Trump Tower Moscow, Donald Trump signed a “letter of intent” to move forward with the project.

The letter of intent to build the Moscow Trump Tower was also signed by the head of the Russian firm that Trump’s company was working with, corroborates the argument Trump was lying when he said he did not do business with Russian interests.


The letter of intent with Trump’s signature to build a Trump Tower in Moscow shows he lied when he said “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!” and “I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. … . I don’t have any deals in Russia.”


Articles of Impeachment in the US House of Representatives are passed by a simple majority vote, but conviction and removal is a long shot at best.

It is clear that the Democratic controlled House of Representatives has more than enough grounds from the Mueller Report and more than a majority of votes to impeachment Trump for obstruction of justice.

What is as equally clear is that the Republican controlled United State Senate would never vote to convict and remove Trump from office.

After Articles of Impeachment are passed by the House, the charges are forwarded to the United States Senate for a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court which today is John Roberts.

Two-thirds of the Republican controlled Senate, or 67 votes, are needed to convict and remove Trump.

If all 48 Senate Democrats would vote yes to convict, 19 Republican Senators would have to vote with all the Democrats to convict and remove.

Nineteen Republican Senators voting to convict is not at all likely given Trumps strangle hold over the Republican Senators and the Republican Party.

When you review the entire 466 page Mueller Report, the one conclusion that any reasonable person can come to is that the Russian probe uncovered evidence of a President “giving aid and comfort” to Russia to influence his election to become President and to hide or stop the Russia investigation to disrupt the 2016 election by firing FBI James Comey or both.

Trump has spent a lifetime being loyal to only two things: himself and his money.

Given the millions and millions of dollars involved with Russian financing of Trump enterprises, Trump’s love of money and his love for Russia probably outweighs his love for his own country if he really ever had love for the country in the first place.

When Richard Nixon resigned from the Presidency, it was a different day and age when it came to many elected officials.

Nixon resigned from office after a delegation of United States Republican Senators headed up by then Republican United States Senator Barry Goldwater met with Nixon in the White House and told him there were two thirds of the Senate willing to vote to convict him and remove him from office.

The Republican Senators told Nixon his resignation was necessary and he needed to resign for the good of the country.

Goldwater and his Republican colleagues put our countries interest over their own and their parties’ best interest for the sake of the country and its people.

Today, the Republican Majority in the Senate is led by the 3 Republican Stooges Mitch McConnel, Lindsay Graham and John Cornyn who publicly help or gives credibility to the “Fool In Chief” because they are desperate to hold onto power and running for reelection with Trump in 2020.

Any one of the 20 Democrats and even the one Republican running to replace Trump would be a better President than Trump could ever hope to be.

No doubt impeaching Trump will take upwards of a year and into the 2020 election cycle with no sure outcome while beating Trump at the polls is the only guaranteed way to end the moral and political disaster he has been.

The only sure way to remove Trump as President once and for all and to end the nightmare and insanity that is Trump is to beat him both at the polls and in the electoral college.


For related articles see:

Extent Of Trump’s Treason And Obstruction Of Justice Coming Into Focus

“One Albuquerque” Should Be “Only In Albuquerque”

Mayor Tim Keller has taken photo ops to an all new level by attending protest rallies to speak at, attending marches, attending heavy metal concerts to introduce the band, running in track meets and participating in exhibition football games as the quarterback and enjoying reliving his high school glory days, and posting pictures and videos on his FACEBOOK page.

Mayor Keller has found one height and one event he should cancel and not attend.

Mayor Tim Keller and the City have announced that on Sunday, April 28, 2019 the city of Albuquerque is hosting a release party in honor of their new Albuquerque Police Department One Albuquerque t-shirts.

The T-Shirt release party is being at the Canteen Brewhouse on Aztec.

Carlos Contreras, CABQ Director of Innovation and Marketing, said:

“We’re just trying to bring the community together with some of the departments that work here at the city and go home every day as city residents.”



This event location sends the wrong message to the public that its OK to pick up a T-Shirt, have a few brews and then drive home.

New Mexico and Albuquerque have some of the highest DWI rates in the country.

Things got so bad a number of years ago that the state outlawed “drive up” package liquor sales.

The T-Shirt event release is being held on a Sunday no less when liquor sales are not allowed until 11:00 am.

Mayor Tim Keller should change the logo from “One Albuquerque” to “Only in Albuquerque”.

Distributing the APD T-Shirts by Mayor Keller at DWI check points when a driver is released from custody so they will have something to wear would be a lot more appropriate.

Hell, you could even have both Mayor Keller and Chief Michael Geier autograph the T-Shirts in black Magic Marker Sharpie before they are given out.

The Keller Administration also wants to “bill” for services rendered when the Albuquerque Fire & Rescue Department (AFRD) responds to a car crash or vehicle fire.

The proposal is for the AFRD to send a bill to the insurance companies.

So, if there is a DWI crash after the event, and someone is wearing the T-Shirt. no doubt the City can send the bill to the driver presuming they are still alive.

Did I go too far?

“So Very Sorry For Your loss. Please Give This Bill To Your Relative’s Insurance Carrier.”

“So Very Sorry For Your loss. Please Give This Bill To Your Relative’s Insurance Carrier.”

It has been reported that the Keller Administration wants to “bill” for services rendered when the Albuquerque Fire & Rescue Department (AFRD) responds to a car crash or vehicle fire.

The proposal is for the AFRD to send a bill to the insurance companies.

According to the Keller Administration, the City feels it is paying too much overtime to AFRD and the plan will generate $1 million in revenue.

The $1 million in revenue will go towards hiring four additional firefighters for each shift, to reduce overtime costs.

You can review the news report here:



On April 1, 2019, the Keller Administration submitted its 2019-2020 fiscal year operating city budget to the Albuquerque City Council for review and budget hearings.

The Keller Administration wanting to charge for AFRD responses for car crashes and fires is contained in the 2019-2020 proposed budget.

You can review the entire proposed budget for AFRD here at page 110 of the budget:


The operating budget submitted by the Keller Administration is for $1.1 billion for the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2019.

Last year, the operating budget was $997 million.

The Albuquerque City Council raised the gross receipts tax last year by three-eighths of 1% before the budget was even submitted.

Last year’s tax increase was implemented in order to deal with a projected deficit of $40 million, a deficit that never materialized.

Last year’s gross receipts tax increase generates $58 million per year.

Mayor Tim Keller signed off on the tax increase breaking his campaign promise to get elected Mayor not to raise taxes without a public vote.

The 2019-2020 budget represents an overall 11% increase in spending over the current year.

The proposed 2019-2020 budget is the first time in city history that the city operating budget will exceed the $1 Billion figure.

A whopping 47% of the General Fund budget expenditures is dedicated to fund the Police and Fire departments.

The Albuquerque Police Departments (APD) proposed budget is for $209,852,000.

The AFRD proposed budget is for $97,894,000.

Under the proposed budget, the AFRD will go from 731 full time positions to 766 positions.

(Page 110 of Proposed 2019-2020 Budget)

In the proposed budget, it states that a new “emergency incident cost” recovery fee for AFRD will be billed to a taxpayer’s auto insurance company when it is dispatched to a call for service to the scene of a car crash or vehicle fire.

If approved by the City Council, this will be the first time AFRD will be billing for services to the scene of a car crash or vehicle fire.

The billing is projected to yield $1 million to fund 12 new firefighting positions out of a department total budget of close to $98 million dollars.

When the Keller Administration announced the proposed budget it also revealed that the city is covering some of the budget increases with gross receipts and property tax revenue created by an accounting policy change.

The accounting policy shift extends the window in which the city can recognize the revenue and the accounting reset results in an extra $34.3 million in revenues.


Police and Fire protection are basic essential services that virtually every citizen in the city pays for with their taxes.

The providing of an essential service, when it comes to police and fire protection, should be free of charge and such services should not be for profit.

Both the police department and the fire department are not “enterprise funds” such as the aviation department that runs the airport, that operates very much like a private business when it charges “user fees” to airlines to operate and maintain the airport facilities but without a profit and with the goal of breaking even.

Taxpayers have the right to demand that they not be forced to pay for basic essential services twice.

The Albuquerque Fire and Rescue Department (AFRD) billing a taxpayer’s auto insurance company when it is dispatched to the scene of a car crash or vehicle fires to raise $1 million to fund 12 firefighter positions borders on the grotesque on so many levels.

It is difficult to understand how $1 million in a $1.1 Billion-dollar budget after last year’s tax increase cannot be found to deliver a basic essential service for the fire department to be dispatched to a car crash or vehicle fire to assist.

Car insurance coverage contracts, other than the premiums and coverage amounts, are basically not negotiable and if the city bills an insurance company it will probably claim it’s not covered and just forward it on to the insured or the party who was at fault.

A very large percentage of people do not carry car insurance, and those who do, the insurance carrier will likely deduct the city charge for AFRD accident scene clean up from any insurance claim paid.

Another foreseeable problem is when the accident is the result of the city’s negligence in highway maintenance or caused by a city vehicle, say a cop running a light and t-boning someone, which has happened more than once over the past few years.

If multiple cars are involved, and liability not determined, it will be difficult for the city to send the bill to the party who is truly liable.

The city maintains a contract with numerous private wrecking companies that are on a rotating schedule, when the city could easily purchase “tow-trucks” and do the job to clean up crash scenes.

And if there is a fatality, and no insurance, the City will probably want to charge the decedent’s family for the call for service which can easily be in the thousands of dollars.

Next thing you know, the Keller Administration will want APD to charge for their calls for service because it is consistently going over its overtime budget by the millions of dollars.

It is not at all difficult to imagine the AFRD or APD generating a bill for a call for service at a scene of a fatality, give it to a decedent’s relatives and telling them “Sorry for your loss. Please give this bill to your insurance carrier”

Over the next few weeks, the Albuquerque City Council “Committee of the Whole”, consisting of all 9 city councilors, will hold budget hearings on each department budget and alter or amend the budget as they see fit, vote to approve and the budget will take effect July 1, 2019.

The City Council needs to put the brakes on this grotesque idea to have AFRD to charge for car crash or vehicle fire calls for service and find the $1 million in the $1.1 Billion budget, especially after Mayor Tim Keller agreed with them to raise taxes last year without a public vote.


A related article on the proposed budget can be viewed here:

Keller submitted a $29 million dollar lodger’s tax request and the City Council approved on a unanimous vote a $30.5 million “Sports -Tourism” lodger tax package to upgrade and build sports facilities throughout the city.

NM Gets Ready For 2020 Census; 10 Years Of Slowest Growth In State History; History of ABQ’s Growth

On Monday, April 22, 2019, political blogger and reporter Joe Monahan posted on his blog “New Mexico Politcs With Joe Monahan” an article on New Mexico’s growth during the last 10 years.

The article is very insightful and revealing regarding New Mexico’s population growth and its overall impact and what it reveals does not bode well for the 2020 United States Census..

Below is the Monahan article followed by the link to “New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan” followed by further comment and analysis and two blog articles:


“The decade of 2010-20 is poised to become the slowest for population growth in 107 years of state history, and the impact of that dubious milestone is felt in a broad swath of economic, social and political outcomes.

The latest stats from the US Census Bureau show that from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 the Land of Enchantment has grown its population a mere 1.8 percent, from 2.059 million to 2.095 million.

According to Wikipedia, only the decade of the 60’s has seen slower state population growth. Back then it was still much higher at 6.9 percent and that was seen as a crash.

No one wants to Californicate New Mexico. Part of its charm is its uncrowded conditions but the state is not growing for the many menacing reasons your blog has outlined during the course of this decade–the lack of good-paying jobs; a slowing of federal funding for the national security and defense apparatus; an under educated work force; educated students fleeing the state for greener pastures and a horrific crime wave featuring record murder rates and rampant child abuse caused in large part by a drug epidemic spurred by growing poverty.

While the state grapples with a social conditions crisis that was mostly its own making but also attributable to global economic changes, one state official tried to spin the historic stagnation:

“I would say the state of New Mexico growing at a slower rate than other Western states is not necessarily a bad thing,” said Ryan Eustice, an economist at the New Mexico Economic Development Department. “This allows cities, counties and states to better plan for infrastructure, housing, job creation and education.”

Well, this trend is nearly a decade old so we’ve already had plenty of time to “better plan.”


Big BernCo County did not live up to that nickname in the latest Census numbers. Only 15 more people–that’s right 15–lived in the county in July of ’18 than July of ’17. Maybe they should all be honored at one of those Chamber of Commerce dinners.

The state’s fastest growing county in the Census year measured was Sandoval which is attracting neighboring ABQ residents to Rio Rancho where housing prices are more friendly.


The state’s lost decade coincides with a rise in progressive/liberal politics in the muscular cities of ABQ, Santa Fe and Las Cruces where more growth has taken place than the rural counties which have been hit hardest economically.

The state went from a swing state in federal elections in 2008 to nearly a “Safe Blue” state with Dems in 2018 taking all five slots in the NM congressional delegation.

The economy of the state this decade has been downsized as seen in the ABQ metro where payday loan stores have sprouted like dandelions after a good rain and where the low-paying service sector is becoming more economically dominant.

Some smaller impacts of the Great Stagnation are interesting to note. The restaurant scene has changed dramatically with white table cloth places nearly extinct (except in tourist heavy Santa Fe) and an explosion in pizza and hamburger joints has occurred and dot nearly every street corner in ABQ and elsewhere.

Upscale men’s and women’s clothing stores have mostly gone the way of the Dodo bird. Sure, folks dress up less than in the past but it is also a sure fire sign of the decimation of the well-paid professional classes here.

On the upside of the stagnation, traffic remains tame compared to most other western cities; the ABQ airport is almost never crowded; reservations are easy to get at restaurants that take them; visiting the great outdoors, including the national parks, is still a way to escape the masses, not join them and with the rise of Amazon the lack of retail growth and availability of products in a small city or state is no big deal. Anything can be shipped anywhere.

But the rub is that so much of the population that has stuck around is disenfranchised economically and educationally. The powers-that-be started to tackle that in the recent legislative session, but it will take years for any significant strides to register. Meantime, the state has grown more polarized, with the small wealthy population occupying shrinking patches of gated communities and utilizing private schools to avoid the hazards of public schools. New Mexicans don’t mix as much as they once did.

After the Great Recession started to take hold here, we often wrote that “you were going to see things that you never thought could happen.” Together we have and now we have seen another–a once booming Sunbelt state experiencing an historic decade of going nowhere fast. With apologies to the state’s official slogan, “It goes, but it does not grow.”

Below is the link to New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan:



The United States Population Count, or US Census, is taken every 10 years and is used to determine congressional representation, federal funding levels and much more. The census is extremely important when is comes to a poor state like New Mexico.

According to a recent Tax Foundation study, New Mexico is the third-most reliant state in the nation on federal funding, in terms of percentages of total state revenue. The federal government allocates approximately $7.8 billion annually in federal dollars for 16 programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, early childhood education.

According to Robert Rhatigan, the associate director of UNM’s, Geospatial and Population Studies program, every household that is not counted in the census represents a loss of about $100,000 in federal funding for the state. A major problem identified is that during the last 2010 census New Mexico had the nation’s second-lowest participation rate at 69%.

On April 24, 2019, Governor Michell Lujan Grisham announce the creation of the “Complete Count Commission” that will work with immigrant rights groups and tribal representatives in an attempt to increase the federal census participation rates in hard-to-count areas, especially rural and very hard to reach areas of the state.

The appointed “Complete Count Commission” will have up to 40 members and consist of cabinet secretaries, legislators, business leaders, tribal representatives and members of community-based organizations. The commission has been allocated $3.5 million for operation costs by the 2019 New Mexico legislature. The money allocated is for a census-targeted marketing campaign but the Governor had requested even more money from lawmakers, and she said that she might ask for more.


Given New Mexico’s pathetic participation rate of 69% in the 2010 census and New Mexico’s reliance on federal funding tied to our population, the Legislature needs to ensure that all New Mexico residents are counted and it should not hesitate for a split second to allocate sufficient funding for the Complete Count Commission.

What does not bode well for the state is the fact that the latest statistic from the US Census Bureau show that from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 New Mexico’s population has grown a mere 1.8 percent, from 2.059 million to 2.095 million.

New Mexico needs to brace itself for bad news when it comes to the 2020 census that will affect federal funding. Way too much is at stake and the State needs to make sure that every person is in fact counted, especially in the rural areas of the state.


Below are links examining Albuquerque’s growth and development:

A Brief History of Downtown Albuquerque: 1952 to 2019

A Brief History of ABQ Uptown: 1952 to 2019

Expect 5-4 US Supreme Court Ruling On 2020 Census “Citizenship Question”

The United States Population Count, also known as the US Census, is taken every 10 years and is used to determine congressional representation, federal funding levels and much more.

With the 2020 census approaching, the State of New Mexico is taking steps to increase New Mexicans’ participation in the once-per-decade census and for good reasons on many levels.

During the last 2010 census, New Mexico had the nation’s second-lowest participation rate at 69%.

According to a recent Tax Foundation study, New Mexico is the third-most reliant state in the nation on federal funding, in terms of percentages of total state revenue.

New Mexico relies heavily on federal spending the federal government allocates approximately $7.8 billion annually in federal dollars from 16 programs, including money for Medicaid, food stamps, early childhood education and road repairs.

The University of New Mexico Geospatial and Population Studies program is the state’s designated demographer for the coming census.

According to Robert Rhatigan, the associate director of UNM’s, Geospatial and Population Studies program every household that is not counted in the census represents a loss of about $100,000 in federal funding for the state.

A major problem with the United States Census for New Mexico is that an estimated 43% of the state’s nearly 2.1 million residents live in “hard to count” areas.

On April 24, 2019, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announce the creation of the “Complete Count Commission” that will work with immigrant rights groups and tribal representatives in an attempt to increase the federal census participation rates in hard-to-count areas, especially rural and very hard to reach areas of the state.

The appointed “Complete Count Commission” will have up to 40 members and consist of cabinet secretaries, legislators, business leaders, tribal representatives and members of community-based organizations.

The commission has already been allocated $3.5 million for operation costs by the 2019 New Mexico legislature.

The money allocated is for a census-targeted marketing campaign but the Governor had requested even more money from lawmakers, and she said that she might ask for more.

To complicate matters, President Donald Trump’s Administration is seeking to add a “citizenship question” to the 2020 census forms where people questioned will be asked if they are a citizen of the United States or a citizen of another country.

On April 23, 2019 the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments after multiple lawsuits were filed in an attempt to block the administration’s plans to include a citizenship question.

During the press conference announcing the census commission, Governor Lujan Grisham, who is also and attorney, said “I think it’s unconstitutional to add that question.”

Notwithstanding, the Governor said state officials will work to build confidence in participating in the census regardless of how the Supreme Court’s rules.



On April 24, 2019, the Associated Press Reported that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed ready to uphold the Trump administration’s plan to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census, despite evidence that millions of Hispanics and immigrants could go uncounted.

Relevant portions of the Associated Press report followed by a link are as follows:

“There appeared to be a clear divide between the court’s liberal and conservative justices in arguments in a case that could affect how many seats states have in the House of Representatives and their share of federal dollars over the next 10 years. States with a large number of immigrants tend to vote Democratic.”

“Three lower courts have so far blocked the plan to ask every U.S. resident about citizenship in the census, finding that the question would discourage many immigrants from being counted. Two of the three judges also ruled that asking if people are citizens would violate the provision of the Constitution that calls for a count of the population, regardless of citizenship status, every 10 years. The last time the question was included on the census form sent to every American household was 1950.”

“But over 80 minutes in a packed courtroom, the conservative justices did not appear to share the concern of the lower court judges.”

“Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court’s newest member and an appointee of President Donald Trump, suggested Congress could change the law if it so concerned that the accuracy of the once-a-decade population count will suffer. “Why doesn’t Congress prohibit the asking of the citizenship question?” Kavanaugh asked near the end of the morning session.”

“Kavanaugh and the other conservatives were mostly silent when Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, defended Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add the citizenship question. Ross has said the Justice Department wanted the citizenship data, the detailed information it would produce on where eligible voters live, to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.”

“Lower courts found that Ross’ explanation was a pretext for adding the question, noting that he had consulted early in his tenure with Stephen Bannon, Trump’s former top political adviser and immigration hardliner Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state.”

“The liberal justices peppered Francisco with questions about the administration plan, but they would lack the votes to stop it without support from at least one conservative justice.”

“This is a solution in search of a problem,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s lone Hispanic member, said of Ross’ decision.

“Justice Elena Kagan chimed in that “you can’t read this record without sensing that this need was a contrived one.”

“Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to have a different view of the information the citizenship question would produce.”

“You think it wouldn’t help voting rights enforcement?” Roberts asked New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, who was representing states and cities that sued over Ross’ decision.”

“Underwood said the evidence Ross had before him was “that it would not give better citizenship information.”

“And, Underwood said, the record is clear that a census that asks people if they are citizens will be less accurate.”

“Census Bureau experts have concluded that the census would produce a more accurate picture of the U.S. population without a citizenship question because people might be reluctant to say if they or others in their households are not citizens. Federal law requires people to complete the census accurately and fully.”

“Justice Neil Gorsuch, also a Trump appointee, also noted that many other countries include citizenship questions on their censuses.”

“Douglas Letter, a lawyer representing the House of Representatives, said the census is critically important to the House, which apportions its seats among the states based on the results.

“Anything that undermines the accuracy of the actual enumeration is immediately a problem,” Letter said, quoting from the provision of the Constitution that mandates a decennial census.”

Following is the link to the full article:



The 10-year United States Census is something that the New Mexico Legislature needs to ensure that all New Mexico residents are counted and it should not hesitate for a split second to allocate sufficient funding for the Complete Count Commission. Way too much is at stake.

There is no doubt the “citizenship question” has a sinister intent directed at undocumented immigrants who have been in the United State for any length of time, whether it be a day, days, months or even years.

The Trump administration wants to have a “chilling effect” on the census count and cause both citizens and non-citizens living in New Mexico to believe the census data might be misused to target minorities.

No doubt Trump wants to make sure that States like New Mexico do not get critical funding that will go to assist undocumented immigrants and probably the “minority-majority” state of New Mexico.

Many national Supreme Court observers and analysts are predicting that the United States Supreme Court will not go along with the “citizenship question”.

The United States Supreme Court is now in total and complete control by the hard right as a result of Trump’s appointments.

No one should be surprised if the Supreme Court ruling will be 5 to 4 to include the question with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts once again being the swing vote.

New Mexico, place your bets and hope for the best but do not be surprised if we get the worst in the age of the Trump Administration and from his Supreme Court.