Albuquerque City Councilor Renee Grout has introduced for city council enactment 3 city ordinances and amendments to make major changes to how the city is dealing  with the homeless encampments.  She has introduced legislation that will change rules about public camping, abandoned shopping carts, and the use of public parks in general.  Grout says the 3 measures are intended to curb the effects of unhoused encampments, make public spaces safer and improve the quality of life of all residents.

The blog article is an analysis of all 3 measures.

AMENDMENTS TO  THE PARKS ORDINANCE

The first amends the existing ordinance on the use of city parks and prohibits camping, fires, shopping carts, and  deals with  use of playground equipment and vandalism. The public encampment regulations further define the prohibitions on public camping in unauthorized areas such as parks, streets and sidewalks.  The changes are  intended to curb littering, vandalism, drug use,  and illegal camping.

The amendments to the Parks Ordinance contain the following prohibitions:

1. No Camping. No person will be allowed to camp or construct or erect any tent, building or other structure whether permanent or temporary, in a park  for the purpose of staying in the park  overnight or be allowed extension of electrical utilities except by written permission of the Mayor. An exception would be allowed for youth organizations camping with adult supervision for one night only and with written permission or a permit  from the Mayor and the  Director of the Parks & Recreation Department.

 

2. Shopping Carts Prohibited.  Shopping carts would be prohibited in all  City parks,  city open spaces, and the parking areas that serve these facilities. Any shopping  cart, whether empty or containing any merchandise or belongings, may be confiscated and either returned to the cart owner, recycled, or otherwise disposed of.

 

3. Wrongful Use of Playground Equipment. Unless otherwise posted, the  use of playground equipment is reserved for children. Adults would be allowed in playground areas or within 50 feet of playground areas only when  accompanied by a child under the age of 12, unless the 50-foot buffer extends  beyond the Park boundary. This buffer may include gazebos, benches, and  tables,

 

4. Children Park Designations. The Mayor may designate certain parksas “Children’s Parks” and restrict access by adults unless they are  accompanied by a child under the age of 12. Users must follow playground  guidelines and restrictions. During park operating hours, no person shall  engage in any conduct that deprives park visitors of the intended use of the  playground equipment.

 

5. Vandalism of Park Grounds. The existing law provides “No person in a park shall damage, cut, carve, transplant or remove any tree or plant or injure the bark or pick the flowers or  seeds, of any tree or plant.”  The ordinance will be amended to provide (in bold and italicized)  that  “No …  person [shall] attach any rope, wire, hammock, or other contrivance to any tree or plant. No person shall damage grass by leaving personal items in grass areas for extended periods.”

 

6. No Feeding of Wildlife. No person in a park shall give or offer or attempt to give to any animal or bird any food, tobacco, alcohol, or other known noxious or injurious substances to any bird or wild animal. Park users shall clean up and  remove all food scraps and wrappers that could attract wild animals.

 

7. No Fires. Fires would only  be allowed in permanent grills  provided by the City for cooking.

 

8. Vending of Merchandise. Vending would be  allowed only  by  licensed vendors in designated areas only with a valid permit from the Department of Parks & Recreation. Food vendors must carry all other permits required by the Environmental Health Department, the Fire Marshal, and any  other regulatory agencies.

 

9. Advertising signs and 2 banners may be allowed only on outfield fences in baseball and softball parks. The “batter’s eye” portion of all outfield fences, defined as the area directly behind the pitcher from the batter’s perspective, shall be kept clear of all  signs, banners, and other visual distractions.

 

• Dog Exercising. Any person may exercise dogs with or without leash in parks designated by the Mayor with times prescribed.

 

The link to review the entire ordinance is here:

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/o-56-673abd707d89b.pdf

Councilor Grout said this about her proposed changes to city park usage ordinance:

“We should be able to go and play catch with the ball, play soccer, have picnics in the park and not worry. Sometimes, people use them to sleep. You know, you can take a nap in the park, that’s fine. But there’s not supposed to be overnight camping. …  Parents should be able to know that the children can run around and play in … playground[s]. There shouldn’t be a fear of stepping on a needle, that has happened. … There have been children that have stepped on needles in parks. … They see people that are passed out in parks. … Our children should not be subject to seeing this in a public park. … We just want our children and our grandchildren and neighbors to be able to enjoy our beautiful, public spaces.”

“SHOPPING CART ABANDONMENT” PREVENTION ORDINANCE

The second ordinance deals with shopping cart theft and abandonment. Shopping carts are stolen from grocery stores and businesses and often used by the homelessness to transport their personal belongings.  Metal shopping carts range in price from anywhere from $159 to $250.

Abandoned shopping carts can pose safety hazards and contribute to neighborhood blight.  This ordinance would make it illegal to possess shopping carts outside of a retailer’s property. Possession of a cart would result in a petty misdemeanor and could include fines or jail time. However, a judge would be able to give a community service sentence instead. The resolution would place far more responsibility on businesses to prevent shopping cart thefts and would require businesses to submit a plan to the city on steps they’re taking to keep carts secure.  The ordinance would allow the city to collect abandoned shopping carts and hold them for up to 30 days before being considered “forfeited.”  Businesses would have 7 days to pick up their shopping carts for a $25 fee. An extra $5 will be tacked on for every day after. Forfeited carts would be recycled, donated, or repaired and sold.

City Councilor Grout said this about the shopping cart ordinance:

“As a business owner, we are responsible for what makes our business tick, and they just need to be more responsible for the carts. … We see them all over. We see abandoned carts. … We don’t want it to be a burden on businesses, but they should be responsible for, what makes the business go around. Shopping carts are part of that, and so they need to take care of them.”

The link to review the entire shopping cart ordinance is here:

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/o-57-673abd7d003f8.pdf

PUBLIC CAMPING ORDINANCE

The third ordinance makes illegal “public camping” in unauthorized areas such as parks, streets and sidewalks.

The ordinance defines “CAMP”  as “ To occupy an area for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a  permanent or temporary place to live, or to occupy an area with an apparent intent to remain in that location for 24 hours or more.”

CAMP FACILITIES are defined in the act as “Tents, huts and any other temporary structures or shelters.”

An ENCAMPMENT is defined as “An area where an individual or individuals have erected  one or more tent or structures or placed personal items on public property with the apparent intent to remain in that location for 24 hours or more.  An  area will not be deemed an encampment merely because any individuals are  present on public property or because individuals have temporarily placed  personal items on public property.”

The ordinance is straight forward making it unlawful to camp on public property and it states:

“Except as otherwise authorized by ordinance or by rules issued by the Department of Parks and Recreation, it shall be unlawful for any person to camp, or maintain an encampment, in any publicly owned area, including any street, sidewalk, right of way, park, or open space. It shall further be unlawful  for any person to refuse to remove an encampment from public land after  receiving a notice instructing them to remove the encampment, or to set up an  encampment after being ordered to remove one from a particular location.  A  person does not violate this ordinance if the person is merely sitting, sleeping  or lying on public property on a temporary basis.”

The new ordinance will also make it unlawful for any person to maintain personal property, including camp facilities or camp paraphernalia, on public property after that person has received a notice instructing them to remove the items.

Violation of the ordinance is a petty 5 misdemeanor and, upon conviction be subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or both (§ 1-1-99)

The link to review the camping  ordinance is here:

Click to access o-58-673abd810f065.pdf

All 3 ordinances have been referred to the City Council Finance, Government and Operations Committee for hearings. Final action on the measures will likely occur after January 1.

OBJECTIONS RAISED AND RESPONSES

Anami Dass, chair of the city’s Human Rights Board, had harsh words  of the  measures dealing with prohibitions on public camping saying  the measures amount to little more than an “attack on rights.”  Dass said this:

“Life for some of us is hard enough — we don’t need the individuals we elected to represent all of us introducing ordinances designed to take tents away from people who literally have no alternative. … These ordinances are going to be up for final action around Christmas, and the Council will be debating Grout’s proposals to make life even worse for unhoused people … I think it’s time we consider what it is we are becoming, and who we would rather be instead.”

Councilor Grout said this in response to the criticism:

“It is not an attack on the homeless community at all. The taxpayers have been very generous with their money. We have spent millions of dollars on contracts with nonprofit providers to help them with services, getting them into shelters, getting them into housing.”

“We spent $85.9 million from 2020 to 2024 on contracts with social service providers — that doesn’t even include federal funding.  We just budgeted $4 million to operate the Gibson Gateway Center and we’ve spent $100 million rehabbing it. In fiscal year 2024 we spent $13.5 million in housing vouchers. We’re also remodeling the Gateway West — the Westside shelter.”

“We need to help our less fortunate people, but we can’t allow them to just run amok in our community. …  Families often tell [me] they feel unsafe in their neighborhood parks. … We all have to live by rules whether we like it or not.”

“Homelessness is not a crime — but a lot of the behavior is. We need to get them into safe shelter. We need to get them into safe spaces, because they deserve better than just being on the street in my opinion.”

“There’s nothing wrong with having boundaries. … If somebody wants to camp out or live outside, that’s their business — but they have to do it in certain areas. It can’t just be anywhere they want.”

“We’re codifying it because it’s documented in several places, in the traffic code, in the [Integrated Development Ordinance], the criminal code, it’s in the open space [code] — it’s even mentioned in the parks ordinance. … It’s mentioned, but not really defined. This is getting it better defined.”

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/tents-shopping-carts-park-use-proposed-rules-could-change-how-albuquerque-addresses-the-homeless-crisis/

https://www.koat.com/article/city-council-proposals-to-make-public-spaces-safer/62932205

https://citydesk.org/2024/trio-of-ordinances-seeks-to-curb-effects-of-encampments/

Click to access o-58-673abd810f065.pdf

EXISTING STATE STATUTES AND CITY ORDINANCES

The State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque have enacted 8 laws and ordinances enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property. The specific statutes and ordinances are:

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence. The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department have  agreed that only citations will be issued and no arrests will be made for “nonviolent crimes”  as part of a federal  court approved settlement agreement  in  a decades old federal civil rights lawsuit dealing with jail overcrowding.

US SUPREME COURT CASE GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON

 On June 28, the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.

The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter,  criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

The United States Supreme Court considered  whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled  that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. … A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness. … Cities across the West report that the 9th Circuit’s involuntary test has crated intolerable uncertainty for them.”

Gorsuch suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.

A bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling against the bans made it harder to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine Western states. That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.

Homeless advocates argue that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse. Cities had been allowed to regulate encampments but couldn’t bar people from sleeping outdoors.

Progressive Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketangi Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor read from the bench the dissent and said this:

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. … Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment. … It is quite possible, indeed likely, that these and similar ordinances will face more days in court. … It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. … [But the majority instead] focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th Circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.”  Evangelis said this:

“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

The Supreme Courts ruling comes after homelessness in the United States has peaked and grown 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said. In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis.

The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/supreme-court-oregon-homelessness/61453397

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is a fine balance between assisting those experiencing homelessness while also enforcing laws that are designed to protect public health, safety and welfare and the peaceful use and enjoyment of public lands by the public such as parks. The Albuquerque City Council and Mayor Keller are on opposite sides on many issues, with one notable exception and that is how to deal with the unhoused and that unhoused encampments should not be allowed.

The Keller Administration has gone so far as to implement a formal homeless encampment removal policy that establishes the priority of what encampments to target first. The policy provides a timeline for which individuals must be notified of an encampment clearing. It provides for storage of personal belongings by the city free of charge. It authorizes the city to dispose of personal property seized that is abandoned.

The proposed ordinances and amendments to the existing ordinances as proposed by City Councilor Renee Grout represent a good faith effort to deal with problematic encampments. However, her proposals are in fact an overlap or a redundancy to existing state laws and city ordinances calling into question what will be accomplished, if anything, if enacted. As it stands under existing law, unhoused squatters or campers can be charged with criminal trespassing, unlawful use of public property, interference with sidewalk usage and street rights of way and unlawful nighttime camping in public parks. The city also has an aggressive encampment clearance policy.

The shopping cart abandonment ordinance is somewhat unique and clever at the same time, but it essentially places burdens on businesses who are victims of crime and stolen property when it’s the thief that needs to be charged. Victims of stolen shopping carts should not be required to pay the city $25 for the return of their stolen property and an extra $5 a day thereafter when they are told to pick up their property.  Metal Shopping carts cost anywhere from $150 to $250  and unhoused who pilfer them could be charged with theft or possession of stolen property, but that in fact never happens.

https://shopcarriage-trade.com/shopping-carts/metal-shopping-carts?srsltid=AfmBOooTNUlOWTnmaowgzlgrL2YLx5ZHAamn23Sx0ACJo-QUq9euP_VJ

The United States Supreme Court has given cities the green light to enforce vagrancy laws when it comes to the unhoused. Unhoused who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers or alternatives to living on the street force the city to make it totally inconvenient for them to “squat” anywhere they want and must force them to move on. After repeated attempts to reason with them to move on, citations and arrests are in order. Until the problem is solved, the public perception will be that very little to no progress has been made despite millions spent to deal with what Mayor Tim Keller proclaims as the “challenge of our lifetime.”

Links to related blog articles are here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/10/11/mayor-tim-keller-creates-5-separate-gateway-shelters-to-deal-with-challenge-of-our-lifetime-citys-200-million-financial-commitment-to-unhoused-keller-embellishes-by-doubling-unho/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/11/13/city-revising-removal-of-homeless-encampment-policy-south-central-and-international-district-area-new-target-for-clean-ups-action-long-overdue-to-enforce-existing-city-ordinances/

City Creates “Shelter Connect Dashboard” Identifying Unhoused Shelter During Winter Months; City’s Unsheltered Data Breakdown; City’s Financial Commitment To The Unhoused; Given City’s Commitment To Homeless, Crisis Should Be Manageable But Has Only Gotten Worse Under Mayor Tim Keller

 

 

On November 1  President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden for federal felony gun and tax convictions reversing his pledge not to pardon his son or commute his son’s sentence after convictions in  two cases one in Delaware and the other in California. The pardon itself is sweeping in scope and goes way beyond the two recent federal felony convictions and covers the time frame of January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.

The pardon comes weeks before Hunter Biden’s sentencing was to happen after his trial conviction in the gun case and guilty plea on tax charges. The pardon also comes less than two months before  Donald Trump is set to return to the White House. The pardon ends a long running saga that began in December 2020 when Hunter Biden publicly disclosed he was under federal investigation.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/01/politics/hunter-biden-joe-biden-pardon/index.html

Following is the full statement released by President Biden on the pardon of his son Hunter Biden:

“Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.

The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”

The link to the news source is here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/

The pardon reads in full as follows:

Executive Grant of Clemency
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States of America

To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greetings:

Be It Known, That This Day, I, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, Pursuant to My Powers Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, Have Granted Unto

ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN

A Full and Unconditional Pardon

For those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have hereunto signed my name and caused the Pardon to be recorded with the Department of Justice.

Done at the City of Washington this 1st day of December in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-four and of the Independence of the United States the Two Hundred and Forty-ninth.

The link to the news source is here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/

In June, Biden categorically ruled out a pardon or commutation for his son, telling reporters as his son faced trial in the Delaware gun case, “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.” As recently as Nov. 8, days after Trump’s victory, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre ruled out a pardon or clemency for the younger Biden, saying, “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is no.”

President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden have repeatedly and publicly stood by  Hunter Biden as he descended into serious drug addiction and as he  threw the Biden family life into turmoil. First Lady Jill Biden attended the first trial while the President maintained his distance. The president’s political rivals have long used Hunter Biden’s myriad mistakes as a political weapon against his father.  One Republican law maker in a congressional  hearing, displayed photos of the drug-addled Hunter Biden  half-naked in a seedy hotel.

House Republicans sought to use Hunter Biden’s years of questionable overseas business ventures in a since-abandoned attempt to impeach President Biden, who strenuously denied involvement in his son’s dealings or benefiting from them in any way.

HUNTER BIDEN REACTS

Hunter Biden has signed his name on a legal acknowledgment of the pardon and he issued the following statement:

“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction — mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” Hunter Biden said in a statement to Fox News. “Despite all of this, I have maintained my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith and the unwavering love and support of my family and friends.”

“In the throes of addiction, I squandered many opportunities and advantages,” he continued. “In recovery we can be given the opportunity to make amends where possible and rebuild our lives if we never take for granted the mercy that we have been afforded. I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”

On November 1 Hunter Biden’s legal team filed “Motions to Dismiss” the federal cases in Los Angeles and Delaware asking the judges handling his gun and tax cases to immediately dismiss them, citing the pardon.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-says-he-never-take-his-clemency-granted-after-receiving-pardon-from-his-father

REPUBLICANS REACT

Not at all surprising, many Republicans were down right hostile and  quick to condemn the pardon on social media, calling it an effort to “avoid accountability” and casting President Joe Biden  as a “hypocrite.”

“His FBI and DOJ raided Barron’s bedroom and Melania’s closet at Mar-a-Lago,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said on X, referring to the federal search of Trump’s home in Florida in connection with the now-dismissed classified documents case against him. “Joe Biden is a liar and a hypocrite, all the way to the end.”

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said on X that Biden “will go down as one of the most corrupt presidents in American history.”

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chair of the House Oversight Committee, said on X, “It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability.” Comer’s committee has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department recommending charges against Hunter Biden.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the decision “shocked” him.

“I’m shocked Pres Biden pardoned his son Hunter  whe said many, many times he wouldn’t & I believed him.  Shame on me,” he said on X.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/congressional-reaction-president-joe-biden-pardons-hunter-rcna182375

DEMOCRATS REACT

Some Democrats weighed in on the pardon. Governor Jared Polis, D-Colo., criticized Biden’s decision and said this on X:

“While as a father I certainly understand President @JoeBiden’s natural desire to help his son by pardoning him, I am disappointed that he put his family ahead of the country. …  This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later Presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation.”

Similarly, Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton of Arizona said he thought Biden “got this one wrong” and  said on X.:

“This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution. … Hunter committed felonies, and was convicted by a jury of his peers.”

Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland spoke about the possibility of a pardon and offered  a possible explanation of what a pardon’s basis could be. Raskin  said this to CNN:

“There is a defense called selective prosecution. …  If you can show that the government has a set of cases that all look alike, but they pick one person out to prosecute based on, say, a political animus towards the person, which essentially is the claim that Donald Trump has been making about why he was targeted, the power exists for the president to show mercy for people who have committed crimes and either suffered some kind of injustice in the process or the punishment is disproportionate.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/congressional-reaction-president-joe-biden-pardons-hunter-rcna182375

TRUMPS REACTION TO PARDON AND HIS OWN RECORD OF PARDON ABUSE

Biden is not the first president to deploy his pardon powers to benefit those close to him.  He learned that lesson from none other than Donald Trump. In his final weeks in office, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in law, Jared Kushner, as well as multiple allies convicted by  special counsel Robert Mueller’s in the Russia investigation. Trump over the weekend announced plans to nominate the elder Kushner to be the U.S. envoy to France in his next administration.

Trump said in a social media post on December 1  that Hunter Biden’s pardon was “such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice. …  Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” Trump asked, referring to those convicted in the violent Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

People need to be reminded of what Trump’s record on pardons really is as outlined in this MSNBC report by Steve Benen:

“First, Jan. 6 criminals are not “hostages.”

Second, if we’re going to talk about pardons, abuses, and miscarriages of justice, Trump might not like where the conversation ends up.

… Trump’s record on pardons is arguably the worst in American history. During his first term, he effectively wielded his pardon power as a corrupt weapon, rewarding loyalists, completing cover-ups, undermining federal law enforcement, and doling out perverse favors to the politically connected.

Trump’s list of scandalous pardon abuses is so long, it could be a lengthy book. The names should be familiar: Paul Manafort. Michael Flynn. Steve Bannon. Roger Stone. Seven different Republican members of Congress who were locked up for corruption crimes.

Trump saw presidential pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for his friends and associates, engaging in the kind of brazen corruption that would’ve defined his term were it not eclipsed by other breathtaking scandals.

If prominent GOP voices want Biden to pay a political price for pardoning his son, fine. He said he wouldn’t do this, then he did it anyway, and in the process, he invited political attacks that are rooted in fact for a change.”

But if Trump thinks he has the moral high ground on the issue, that’s bonkers.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problem-trumps-reaction-hunter-biden-pardon-rcna182413

THE HUNTER BIDEN CHARGES REVIEWED

Hunter Biden was convicted in June in Delaware federal court of 3 felonies for purchasing a gun in 2018 when, prosecutors said, he lied on a federal form by claiming he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.  He had been set to stand trial in September in the California case accusing him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. Hunter Biden agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges in a surprise move hours after jury selection was set to begin.

David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware who negotiated the plea deal, was subsequently named a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to have more autonomy over the prosecution of the president’s son. Hunter Biden said he was pleading guilty in that case to spare his family more pain and embarrassment after the gun trial aired salacious details about his struggles with a crack cocaine addiction. The tax charges carry up to 17 years behind bars and the gun charges are punishable by up to 25 years in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines were expected to call for far less time and it was possible he would have avoided prison time entirely.

Hunter Biden was supposed to be sentenced this month in the two federal cases, which the special counsel brought after a plea deal with prosecutors that likely would have spared him prison time fell apart under scrutiny by a judge. Under the original deal, Hunter was supposed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses and and would have avoided prosecution in the gun case as long as he stayed out of trouble for two years. But the plea hearing quickly unraveled last year when the judge raised concerns about unusual aspects of the deal. The younger Biden was subsequently indicted in the two cases.

Hunter Biden’s legal team this weekend released a 52-page white paper titled “The political prosecutions of Hunter Biden,” describing the president’s son as a “surrogate to attack and injure his father, both as a candidate in 2020 and later as president.”

The younger Biden’s lawyers have long argued that prosecutors bowed to political pressure to indict the president’s son amid heavy criticism by Trump and other Republicans of what they called the “sweetheart” plea deal.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Many are condemning President Joe Biden for issuing a pardon of his son and some going so far as saying that it will taint his entire legacy as President. That is highly doubtful and ridiculous at best. In all likelihood the pardon will be nothing more than a footnote in history.  No one should be surprised by President Joe Biden’s pardon given Trumps repeated threats to go after his political enemies as he rewards his loyalists. Trump has vowed to pardon what he calls the J-6 Hostages who stormed the capitol at his urging to overthrow the 2020 election and where as many as 5 people were killed. When Trump pardons his J-6 convicted felons, it will be a clear gross misuse of power and a miscarriage of justice by Trump.  Congressional Republicans will no doubt applaud his actions as the compassionate thing to do, even though people got killed as members of congress coward in fear as the the doors of the Senate Chamber were being breached and Vice President Mike Pence was swept to safety.

On November 25, the following news story was posted by the national news agency CNN:

HEADLINE: Special Counsel Jack Smith Drops Election Subversion And Classified Documents Cases Against DonaldTrump By Paula Reid, Tierney Sneed and Devan Cole, CNN Staff Reporters

“Special counsel Jack Smith is dropping the federal election subversion and the mishandling of classified documents cases against President-elect Donald Trump, seeking the cases’ dismissal in court filings Monday.

Trump has said he would fire Smith once he retook the office, shattering previous norms around special counsel investigations.

“The [Justice] Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote of the election subversion case in a six-page filing with US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

Chutkan formally dismissed the case without prejudice Monday afternoon.

Smith’s criminal pursuit of Trump over the last two years for trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election and his mishandling of classified documents represented a unique chapter in American history: Never before has a former occupant of the White House faced federal criminal charges.

Though the election subversion case culminated this summer in a landmark Supreme Court ruling that said Trump enjoyed some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, Trump’s strategy of delay in the case ensured that a trial never got underway before the November election.

In the election case Trump faced in Washington, DC, Smith charged the former president over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, a plot that culminated in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

“The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed,” Smith said in the filing.

Chutkan had been deciding how much of Trump’s conduct at the center of the case was shielded by immunity after prosecutors last month laid out their arguments for why the Supreme Court’s ruling should have no impact on the case. After Trump won reelection this month, prosecutors asked Chutkan to pause a series of postelection deadlines in the case as they weighed their next steps.

In the documents case brought in Florida, Trump was indicted for allegedly taking classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases.

Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung in a statement called the move “a major victory for the rule of law. … The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country. ” 

TRUMP EMPLOYEES STILL FACE APPEAL

Smith, in a filing with a federal appeals court, said that prosecutors were keeping their case on mishandling classified documents alive against two of Trump’s employees.

The case is before the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing Judge Aileen Cannon’s order dismissing all charges.

The co-defendants are Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, who work for Trump and are accused of helping the former president obstruct a federal investigation into sensitive government documents taken from his first administration. Both have pleaded not guilty.

“The special counsel’s decision to proceed in this case, even after dismissing it against President Trump, is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place,” John Irving, a defense attorney for De Oliveira, said. “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that’s fine with us.”

A lawyer for Nauta, Stanley Woodward, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Smith said he was seeking to drop the charges against the president-elect “without prejudice,” which would keep the door open for charges to be brought again in the future, calling the presidential immunity Trump will have as “temporary.”

Smith said he consulted with Justice Department lawyers on the question and that they also weighed the possibility of pausing the case until Trump no longer had the immunity of the presidency protecting him.

Ultimately, however, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the bar on prosecuting sitting presidents is “categorial,” including for indictments handed up before a defendant enters office.

“Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. And although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice,” Smith wrote.

In her ruling on Monday, Chutkan noted the unusual circumstances.

“Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office,” the judge wrote.

STATE CASES WILL CONTINUE AGAINST TRUMP

As president, Trump will not have the power to interfere with the prosecutions brought against him by state authorities in Georgia and New York. However, the courts in those cases will still have to work out immunity questions and issues raised by his return to the White House.

Last week, the judge overseeing Trump’s criminal hush money case in New York postponed his sentencing indefinitely. A jury in the state convicted Trump earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made during the 2016 campaign to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who alleged a prior affair with the president-elect. (Trump denies the affair.)

And Trump is still working to stave off prosecution in Georgia, where he is a defendant in a sprawling case that accuses him and several allies of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in the Peach State.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/politics/trump-special-counsel-jack-smith/index.html

Links to other news stories are here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jack-smith-files-drop-jan-6-charges-donald-trump-rcna181667

https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-jack-smith-moves-dismiss-election-interference/story?id=116207758

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It was inevitable with the landmark Supreme Court Case giving Trump immunity from prosecution that Special Council Jack Smith would dismiss both federal cases against Trump.  The Trump 6 Supreme Court disciples of John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett  succeeded in undermining  our federal criminal justice system and ensured that Trump returned to the White House with unfettered power. The 6 did so at the expense of our democracy and history will not be too kind to them laying  much blame on the damage they have done to our democracy.

All six Supreme Court Justices know full well that no one is above the law, yet they carved out a special  exception to benefit Donald Trump claiming the decision is for the benefit of all  future Presidents. They knew if the two federal criminal cases against Trump proceeded to trial after the election he would simply  order the Justice Department to dismiss the cases or simply pardon himself. They also knew if Trump was not elected, he would have likely be tried, convicted and do jail time on the Federal charges.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2024 presidential election was in fact  one of the most consequential elections in our history. Control of the Presidency and congress is now Republican as is the United States Supreme Court.  It was the economy and inflation that swept Trump to a decisive victory. Exit polls showed that the voting public were extremely disgruntled if not downright hostile with the direction the country is going, with inflation out of control. Voters were far more were concerned about making a decent living, angered over grocery and gas prices, as opposed to any threat Trump posed to democracy. Voters simply believed they were better off when Trump was President the first time believing all his lies. Voters chose to forget the 4 years of total chaos Trump brought upon the county and his failure to deal with the pandemic that killed millions worldwide and in the United States and that had a strangle hold on the country and that destroyed the economy.

In the end, voters simply ignored Trump’s flawed character, the multimillion dollar civil judgements against him for sexual assault and slander, his criminal conduct in the private sector and while in office, his fraud in securing millions in loans in New York, the  multiple state criminal convictions and pending federal criminal charges, his two impeachments, his misogyny and racism, his threat to democracy, his attempt to overthrow the government with all his lies that the election was rigged and stolen from him, his attacks on woman’s rights and civil rights, his partiality to racists groups such as the Proud Boys, his promotion of racist policies and his cult following of Christian fundamentalist who totally ignored his immorality, multiple marriages and affairs and praised him as the second coming.

Trump and his Republican Party will overreach declaring they have a mandate to do whatever they damn well want with no guard rails. There will be no intervention from the Trump appointed Supreme Court of right-wing conservative disciples who have given him immunity from prosecution making him above the law. As the saying goes elections have consequences. But that includes unintended consequences. Trumps agenda will go way beyond what people thought they were voting for. It’s not at all likely voters will be any better off financially than they are now in two years under a Trump second presidency let alone the 4 years to come.

It’s only a matter of time before the general public turns on Trump as they did 4 years ago once they realize they have been had once again. Stupid is as stupid does. The public turned on Republican President George W. Bush after he was elected by a popular vote and the Republicans lost congress. It will happen again. Voters have now voted for the return of chaos. Based on Trump’s agenda, and his cabinet appointments, chaos is exactly what we will get with millions getting hurt in the process. This is what happens when the big lie replaces reality and personal finances outweigh preservation of our democracy.

President elect Donald Trump has completed assembling his Cabinet and senior staff for his second term in the White House before taking office on January 20, 2025. Trump must nominate Cabinet Secretaries for government agencies and other top administration jobs that require United States Senate Advise and Consent confirmation mandated by the US Constitution.

Trump has announced the appointment of at least 9 individuals that are extremists who are clearly some of the most unqualified individuals whose only qualification is blind loyalty to Trump and who will have the ultimate goal to carry out Trumps political MAGA  agenda. Their goal is to undercut our  country’s military hierarchy, destroy the  Department of Justice and US law enforcement agencies, reveal  to our enemies the country’s security secrets, destroy our  national health care structure and  dismantle and destroy government agencies.

This article is an in-depth review of the 9 most troubling individuals Trump has selected to serve in his second term. The POSTSCRIPT to this article contains a listing of Trump’s other appointments.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: PAM BONDI

The most controversial announced appointment was Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. On November 21, Gaetz withdrew from consideration as Attorney General under a  scandal involving a House investigation into whether he engaged in drug use, sex trafficking and sexual misconduct with underage children for money. Trump immediately announced that former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi will be his next nominee for U.S. attorney general.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-picks-pam-bondi-attorney-general-1989893

Bondi has spent the last decade defending Trump, including being defense council in one of Trump’s impeachment trials.  A central question is whether Bondi will follow through on threats she has made in television interviews to investigate what she called out-of-control federal prosecutors and FBI agents. Bondi said this:

“The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” Bondi said on Fox News last year after Trump was indicted in Georgia on charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. “The investigators will be investigated.”  Bondi called the prosecutors who charged Trump with crimes members of “the deep state” as she spread a false conspiracy theory that DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents were part of a secret cabal trying to undermine Trump. Bondi, without citing evidence, said that since they were no longer “hiding in the shadows … they can all be investigated.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/pam-bondi-attorney-general-justice-department-rcna181493

On November 22, The Washington Post reported that  Trump plans to fire the entire team that worked with special counsel Jack Smith to pursue two federal prosecutions against him, including career attorneys typically protected from political retribution. Trump is also said to be planning to assemble investigative teams within the Justice Department to hunt for evidence in battle ground states that fraud tainted the 2020 election. The proposals offer new evidence that Trump’s intention is to dramatically shake up the status quo in Washington and  to focus heavily on the Department of Justice and that at least some of his agenda is fueled not by ideology or policy goals but personal grievance and vendetta.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/22/trump-jack-smith-prosecutors-firing-justice-department-investigation/

One of the first order of business for Trump will be to demand the resignations of all United States Attorney’s which he did when he was first elected 8 years ago and no doubt appoint private attorneys who will do his bidding, including prosecute his opposition and anyone who got in his way.

DEFENSE SECRETARY NOMINEE: PETE HEGSETH

Hegseth served as an officer in the Army National Guard and did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, earning two Bronze Stars. He is currently a co-host for “Fox & Friends Weekend.” Trump has pledged to fire generals involved in the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal and to eliminate “woke” initiatives that focus on diversity and equity in the military.

Secretary of Defense designate Pete Hegseth has railed against women in the military saying women  should not be in combat, voiced support for troops accused of and in some instances, convicted of war crimes, and advocated for the firing of the military’s most senior officers accused of supporting so-called “woke” policies. Trump’s decision to place Hegseth into the top Pentagon job means he is set to put his ideas into action and clash directly with most current Pentagon leadership.

CREATING COMMISSION TO TARGET MILITARY FIRINGS

In various podcasts and interviews one of Hegseth’s biggest claims has been that senior military leadership has allowed the “politicization” of an apolitical military force. Hegseth told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in June that he believes, without offering any proof or names, roughly a third of the military’s most senior officers are “actively complicit” in the politicization of the US military. Speaking out in his book, Hegseth railed against what he described as “woke, CRT, DEI things, gender stuff” that has “seeped into” the military. Hegseth said this:

“I would say over a third [of the military] are actively complicit, and then you have a lot of grumblers who are sort of going along, trying to resist the nonsense as much as they can, but they’re not fundamentally changing it.”

As of 2023, there were roughly 800 general and flag officers in the US military. Among the generals that Hegseth has suggested should be fired is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. CQ Brown. Brown became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2023 after serving as the Air Force Chief.  He was nominated by then-President Trump. Brown, the first Black man to serve as the Air Force chief, has been a target of conservatives before due to perceptions that he is “woke” or political. Barring Trump taking any action against him, Brown is set to serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 2027.

Hegseth has embraced the concept of  creating “a commision” of former military that would “know who to go after.” Hegseth said this:

“You have to start with people who can say, ‘OK, I know who the political animals were in those places,’ because that’s the challenge of a new administration. … Everyone’s going to jump up and down and say, ‘I was this, or I was never really for that,’ because they want to preserve their careers. And you have to have somebody that’s able to call balls and strikes.”

It has been reported that the Trump transition team is compiling a list of senior current and former U.S. military officers who were directly involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and exploring whether they could be court-martialed for their involvement. Officials working on the transition are considering creating a commission to investigate and gathering information about who was directly involved in the decision-making for the military, how it was carried out, and whether the military leaders could be eligible for charges as serious as treason.

Fox News personality Pete Hegseth, has criticized the Afghanistan withdrawal, saying the U.S. lost the war and wasted billions of dollars. In his book “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth wrote, “The next president of the United States needs to radically overhaul Pentagon senior leadership to make us ready to defend our nation and defeat our enemies. Lots of people need to be fired. The debacle in Afghanistan, of course, is the most glaring example.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-transition-team-compiling-list-current-former-us-military-office-rcna180489

NO WOMAN IN COMBAT

Hegseth has severely criticized the Obama-era decision to open up all combat jobs in the military to women, saying it has lowered the military’s standards, made units less effective, and overall made the military less lethal. Hegseth said this  in  an interview with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro in June:

“Women shouldn’t be in combat at all. They’re life-givers, not life-takers. I know a lot of wonderful soldiers, female soldiers, who have served, who are great. But they shouldn’t be in my infantry battalion,”

Asked if he doesn’t “like women in combat,” Hegseth responded, “No … because everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties or worse.”

Women serve in combat jobs across the military services and have successfully completed some of the military’s most grueling training courses. More than 140 women have finished Army Ranger School, and in 2020, a woman joined the ranks of Army Special Forces for the first time after completing the Army’s Special Forces Qualification Course. In 2021, a woman qualified to join Naval Special Warfare Command for the first time.

CAMPAIGN TO PARDON SERVICEMEN ACCUSED OF WARCRIMES

CNN reported in 2019 that Hegseth, while working at Fox News, privately encouraged Trump to pardon some United States servicemen accused of war crimes. Trump went on to pardon two service members, Army Maj. Matthew Golsteyn and 1st Lt. Clint Lorance,  and restore the rank of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who had been demoted.

Before Trump’s pardons, Golsteyn was charged with the 2010 murder of an Afghan civilian, to which he pleaded not guilty, and Lorance was found guilty of second-degree murder for ordering his troops to fire on three men on a motorcycle in Afghanistan.

The Trump pardons went against the advice of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and other senior military leaders, who had told Trump that a presidential pardon could potentially damage the integrity of the military judicial system. But defenders of Gallagher and other service members accused or convicted of war crimes have defended Trump’s move as having the backs of military warfighters who are simply doing the dirty work others won’t do.

Hegseth said this in an interview regarding the cases of Gallagher, Golsteyn, and Lorance:

“We sent them to do these really dangerous, dirty, difficult things that no one else would do, and then sort of like the line from A Few Good Men, and then we challenge the manner in which they do it.”

CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Allison Jaslow, an Iraq War veteran, harshly criticized Hegseth’s position, saying such advocacy on behalf of service members convicted of war crimes should be disqualifying. Jaslow said this:

“The active lobbying to pardon convicted war criminals can and should disqualify Pete Hegseth from being Secretary of Defense over any other criticism that may be brought against him, and I hope the United States Senate understands that as they consider his nomination.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/14/politics/trumps-pentagon-pick-hegseth-clash-military-leadership/index.html

SEXAUL ASSAULT SETTLEMENT

Pete Hegseth’s attorney confirmed to NBC News that Hegseth paid a woman an undisclosed amount after she accused him of sexual assault. Timothy Parlatore, Hegseth’s attorney, said this in a statement:

“In 2023, Hegseth paid the complainant as part of a civil confidential settlement agreement and maintains his innocence. This is a situation where a consensual encounter occurred and, unfortunately, the woman had to come up with a lie to explain why the woman had not come back to her husband’s room that night. …  It wasn’t reported until days later until there was pressure from her husband. It was fully investigated by police and video surveillance as well as multiple eyewitness statements show that she was the aggressor.”

Authorities in Monterey investigated the allegation in 2017 and did not file charges against Hegseth.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-defense-pick-pete-hegseth-denies-sexual-assault-allegation-rcna180535

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

President-elect Donald Trump announced he will nominate anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, putting a man whose views public health officials have decried as dangerous in charge of a massive agency that oversees everything from drug, vaccine and food safety to medical research, Medicare and Medicaid. Kennedy founded one of the most prominent anti-vaccine groups in the country and has promoted the debunked claim that childhood vaccines cause autism. Kennedy vowed to purge entire departments at the Food and Drug Administration to root out corruption.

Kennedy is best known for his criticism of childhood vaccines. Again and again, Kennedy has made his opposition to vaccines clear. In July, he said in a podcast interview that “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective” and told FOX News that he still believes in the long-ago debunked idea that vaccines can cause autism.

In a 2021 podcast he urged people to “resist” CDC guidelines that advise when kids should receive routine vaccinations. Kennedy said this:

“I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, ‘Better not get them vaccinated.”

Repeated scientific studies in the U.S. and abroad have found no link between vaccines and autism. Vaccines have been proven safe and effective in laboratory testing and in real world use in hundreds of millions of people over decades. The World Health Organization credits childhood vaccines with preventing as many as 5 million deaths a year.

Kennedy also has said he would make a controversial recommendation to remove fluoride from drinking water, although fluoride levels are mandated by state and local governments. The addition of the mineral has been cited as leading to improved dental health and is considered safe at low levels.

During the campaign, Kennedy said Trump had asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the CDC, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Kennedy has pushed against processed foods and the use of herbicides like Roundup weed killer. He has long criticized the large commercial farms and animal feeding operations that dominate the industry.

Trump said Kennedy would target drugs, food additives and chemicals. Trump said this  in a post on his Truth Social site announcing the appointment:

“For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health.  [Kennedy will] end the Chronic Disease epidemic” and “Make America Great and Healthy Again!”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rfk-hhs-health-kennedy-f40ee2398e3a280c1586eecdd80bdf7c

MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS): DR. MEHMET OZ

Trump has nominated Dr. Mehmet Oz, a physician, TV personality and former Republican candidate for Senate, who Trump endorsed, to run Medicare and Medicaid as administrator for the CMS. Oz has espoused conflicting visions for healthcare. Prior to running for office, Oz supported health insurance mandates and proposed a Medicare Advantage for All program. However, by 2022, Oz said he would back repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Trump said this in his announcement on social media platform Truth Social :

“America is facing a Healthcare Crisis, and there may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again.”

Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., said this:

“Even putting aside the raft of alarming pseudoscience Dr. Oz has previously endorsed, it is deeply disappointing to see someone with zero qualifications being announced to head up such a critical agency. … I am also profoundly concerned by the extreme anti-abortion views Dr. Oz holds.  CMS has oversight over a wide range of reproductive health care issues and the last thing women in America need is more extremist Republicans getting involved in their personal health care decisions.”

EDUCATION SECRETARY: LINDA MCMAHON 

On November 20, Trump  named his transition co-chair Linda McMahon as his pick to serve as the next Secretary of the Department of Education. McMahon, a major Republican donor and a former pro-wrestling executive, served as the administrator of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term. She was appointed in 2017 and resigned in 2019 to become the chair of America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC.  McMahon is also the former CEO of the WWE, which she co-founded with her husband, Vince McMahon. Linda McMahon has ZERO background in education.

It’s likely Trump will task McMahon with overseeing the department’s demise after Trump  repeatedly called for abolishing the agency on the campaign trail. It  will  be difficult to get rid of the entire department, which delivers federal funding to nearly every public K-12 school in the country and manages the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Shutting down and abolishing the department will require an act of Congress. Under the new education secretary, the department may use the formal regulatory process to undo changes the Biden administration made to Title IX that sought to expand protections for LGBTQ+ students. A new rule could potentially say that Title IX prevents trans students from playing on girls’ sports teams, something Trump campaigned on.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/19/politics/linda-mcmahon-education-secretary-trump/index.html

On November 22, South Dakota Republican Senator Mike Rounds  introduced a bill in the Senate to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. Rounds said this in a news release

“We all know local control is best when it comes to education. … Local school boards and state Departments of Education know best what their students need, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”

Rounds’ Returning Education to Our States Act proposes redistributing the work of the Education Department to other federal departments.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressional-republicans-continue-introduce-bills-eliminating-department-education/story?id=116115168

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN LAWSUITE FILED

A lawsuit filed in October alleges Linda McMahon knowingly enabled the sexual exploitation of children by a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) employee as early as the 1980s. She denies the allegations. The suit alleges McMahon, her husband, the WWE and TKO Group Holdings, the league’s parent company, knowingly allowed employee Melvin Phillips Jr. to use his position as ringside announcer to sexually exploit children.

The lawsuit  alleges Phillips would recruit children to work as “Ring Boys,” helping him set up and take down wrestling rings at WWE events. However, the job was a guise for sexually exploiting the children, which Phillips would do even in front of wrestlers and executives in the locker area, the lawsuit alleges. He also would often film his sexual abuse, according to the filing.

The suit was filed in October in Baltimore County, Maryland, on behalf of 5 John Does, who say they were ages 13 to 15 when Phillips met and recruited them to work as “Ring Boys.” Each of them say they suffered mental and emotional abuse as a result of the alleged abuse. “Phillips lured and manipulated the young boys with promises of meeting famous wrestlers and attending the highly popular wrestling shows, experiences that were otherwise unattainable for these kids,” the lawsuit alleges. “[The McMahons, WWE and TKO Holdings] allowed Phillips and others to engage in, and foster, the WWE’s rampant culture of sexual abuse.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/21/business/linda-mcmahon-abuse-wwe-trump-education/index.html

DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE NOMINEE: TULSI GABBARD

Gabbard, a four-term Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who ran against President Biden in the 2020 primaries, left the Democratic party in 2022 but did not officially become a Republican until earlier this year. She is a National Guard veteran who served two tours of duty in the Middle East and has long been critical of the Democratic establishment, especially of the country’s engagement in wars in that region.

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is a position that was created in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in order to make sure America’s national security apparatus was working together and sharing information about the most critical threats. The job typically requires confirmation by the Senate Intelligence Committee which in the past has reviewed the nominee’s financial disclosures and an FBI background check. Those reviews are conducted to ensure a DNI nominee doesn’t have any large outstanding debts or connections to foreign governments that might compromise them in coordinating the work of thousands of intelligence officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Gabbard has no experience and no background in intelligence nor law enforcement, yet she will be in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Administration (NSA) and other agencies. Gabbard will be tasked with overseeing the country’s 16 other intelligence agencies, and some of the country’s most secret national security programs. Intelligence analysts are most concerned that Gabbard, in the role of director of national intelligence, might be motivated to censor intelligence conclusions critical of Russia and shut down funding for potentially fruitful investigations.

Gabbard has a history of making statements about countries like Russia and Syria that have raised more than a few concerns about her allegiance to American interests and questions about her judgment. Some people, including Hillary Clinton,  Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz  and Senator Tammy Duckworth have gone so far as to label her a Russian Asset.

Gabbard has frequently appeared to take positions more favorable to foreign leaders widely considered not just American adversaries but, in some cases, brutal dictators, including the presidents of Syria and Russia, raising questions from allies and critics alike. Gabbard notably met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria in 2017, and said in 2019 that he was “not an enemy of the United States.”

In early 2022, she echoed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rationale for the country’s invasion of Ukraine, pinning the blame not on Moscow but on the Biden administration’s failure to acknowledge “Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO”,  a popular strain of thought in right-wing circles.

HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY NOMNEE: KRISTI NOEM

Kristi Noem, a Republican who has served as South Dakota governor since 2019, is a staunch Trump loyalist  and will  help oversee Trump’s immigration crackdown in a second term. Noem, 52, is a former state legislator and four-term congresswoman who was elected governor of South Dakota in 2018 and reelected in 2022. Her profile grew during the Covid-19 pandemic, when she rejected mask mandates and social distancing.

Noem is best-known nationally for the controversy that followed the publication of an excerpt of her memoir in which she revealed she’d shot and killed a family dog, a 14-month-old wirehair pointer named Cricket, in a gravel pit because the dog was “untrainable” and “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with.” Facing backlash, Noem defended her actions, writing on X that her book had “more real, honest, and politically INcorrect stories that’ll have the media gasping.” She also retracted a story in the book about a meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. It turned out that such a meeting never happened.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s ascension to Homeland Security (DHS) secretary-in-waiting came as a shock. The former member of Congress hasn’t worked in the department and does not have any  law enforcement background. DHS is complex, and only the Defense Department has more employees. It also includes the federal agency tasked with cybersecurity and election security, and an in-house intelligence office.

Noem’s elevation is an indication that Trumps immigration policy will be run out of the White House by his two immigration hardliners and extremists, incoming Deputy Chief of Staff for policy Stephen Miller and Trump’s “Border Czar” Tom Homan, both early choices that signaled Trump is serious about his pledge to conduct mass deportations. Noem, with her limited experience in the policy area, will likely focus her attention on the numerous other agencies within DHS, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration and Secret Service.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/13/kristi-noem-dhs-trump-policy-00189513

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/politics/who-is-kristi-noem-homeland-security/index.html

DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: OLIGARCKS ELON MUSK AND VIVEK RAMASWAMY

Trump announced that Elon Musk, a billionaire backer, and Ramaswamy, another billionaire and a  former primary rival who endorsed Trump, would lead an effort to slash government spending and regulations. They are expected to conclude their work by July 4, 2026, just a few months before the midterm elections. Trump said the effort would partner with the Office of Management and Budget, but would provide guidance from “outside of Government.” Musk in particular has extensive financial holdings with government contractors that could complicate an official government job.

Since Trump announced his plans for a “Department of Government Efficiency,” or “DOGE”,  both Musk and Ramaswamy have talked up their big plans to slash government regulations and spending while downsizing the federal workforce.  Despite its name, it won’t actually be a government “department,” like the Department of Education or the Department of Homeland Security. Creating a government agency would require approval from Congress. The effort won’t even be inside the government.

Both Musk and Ramaswamy have put forth some of their ideas for government reform. Musk has pledged to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, though he has offered few specifics about what he would look to cut. The total amount of discretionary spending in the federal budget is about $1.7 trillion, and Trump has pledged not to cut Social Security and Medicare, two of the government’s largest expenses. During a late-October town hall on X, Musk suggested his ideal spending cuts could trigger economic pain for people.

“We have to reduce spending to live within our means. … And, you know, that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity.”

On November 21, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy outlined a plan  for Trump to oversee a massive reduction in the federal workforce, arguing the employees won’t be needed after Trump eliminates “thousands of regulations” in his next administration.

Musk and Ramaswamy, singled out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed federal employees “who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.” The duo pointed to recent Supreme Court decisions to argue the incoming president has the executive power to nullify many regulations unilaterally without Congress, pursue “large-scale firings” of federal workers and relocate some agencies outside of Washington. They said “a drastic reduction in federal regulations” would require vastly fewer federal employees.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/20/musk-ramaswamy-federal-workforce-trump-admin/76458753007/

One area Musk targeted after the panel was announced was spending on medical research.

Ramaswamy, meanwhile, said on X that the government shouldn’t appropriate money for programs that have expired. Ramaswamy said this:

“There are 1,200+ programs that are no longer authorized but still receive appropriations,” he wrote. “This is totally nuts. We can & should save hundreds of billions each year by defunding government programs that Congress no longer authorizes. We’ll challenge any politician who disagrees to defend the other side.”

Ramswamy’s post prompted some users to note that among those expired programs is veterans’ health care, one of the largest expenses in that bucket.

Ramaswamy, the founder of the biotech company Roivant Sciences, had a laser focus on slashing the federal bureaucracy during his time as a GOP presidential primary candidate. Speaking with NBC News as a candidate, he outlined his desire to use what’s known as “reduction in force” regulations to trim the federal workforce while also shuttering a number of federal agencies.  Ramaswamy predicted he would overcome any legal challenges because he wasn’t proposing to fire individual career officials, who are covered by civil service protections, but to institute widespread layoffs, eliminating jobs altogether.

Ramaswamy also sought to eliminate the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Education Department; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and the Food and Nutrition Service within the Agriculture Department.

Speaking recently with conservative media personality Tucker Carlson on X, Ramaswamy predicted Republicans could trigger a mass exodus from the federal workforce by simply mandating a five-day, in-office workweek across the government, estimating that “25%” of civil servants would hit the exits soon after.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamys-new-department-government-efficiency-rcna179906

Links to other relied upon and quoted news sources are here:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4985802-trump-cabinet-nominees-second-term/

https://www.livenowfox.com/news/trumps-cabinet-picks-those-still-in-running

https://www.koat.com/article/donald-trump-key-position-picks-second-administration/62872388

https://www.koat.com/article/donald-trump-top-cabinet-administration-picks/62951888?utm_source=koat&utm_medium=recirc&utm_campaign=top-picks-koat

RECESS APPOINTMENTS

Now that Republicans control both the Senate and House, Trump wants Republicans to help him use a special procedure called “recess appointments” that would allow him to install Cabinet appointees and even a Supreme Court justice without confirmation hearings nor a single vote on confirmation. In theory, Trump’s push for broad recess appointment power could allow him to disregard the Senate confirmation process entirely.  This would mean that as many as 1,200 positions requiring Senate confirmation could be filled without even an FBI background check or a confirmation hearing.

Trump could get his choices confirmed with just 50 votes because of Vice President-elect JD Vance’s tie-breaking power. With Republicans projected to hold 53 seats, Democrats can’t stop a nomination on their own. But they can force Republicans to grind it out. The Senate would need to vote on adjournment. The Constitution also requires the House to approve the Senate breaking for over three days. A 2014 Supreme Court decision held that the Senate would need to recess for at least 10 days.

There’s a way for Trump to avoid the House’s need to sign off on a lengthy break. Under Article II of the Constitution, Trump has the power to force an adjournment if the House and Senate are divided on what to do. Time is the only true limit on recess appointments.

Officials installed as a “recess appointment” can only serve until Congress’ next session. If Trump uses this power immediately upon taking office, officials or judges could only stay through the next Senate session, in January 2027.  Otherwise, there is virtually nothing Senate Democrats could do to stop the process. Adjournment votes can’t be meaningfully filibustered.

In his push for recess appointment power, Trump is arguing  it is about ensuring he could staff up in a timely manner.  According to the Center for Presidential Transition, it took President Trump twice as long on average to get his nominees approved during his first three years in office (115 days) than it did Ronald Reagan’s presidency (56.4) days. Through late November 2023, it took President Biden roughly 109.6 days on average. The center also found that while the Senate filibuster is part of the reason for delays, even complete control of Congress hasn’t sped things up.

Not everyone is convinced that ensuring he could staff up in a timely manner is Trump’s sole motivation, particularly when many of his early selections illustrate how much he will elevate controversial choices like Gaetz, Gabbard, Hegseth  and Kennedy.

Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at Brookings,  said this:

“From the president’s perspective, I suppose he would see this as a shortcut to take his favorite list of appointees and put them in for temporary appointments.”

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, who won the race to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as Senate Majority Leader,  said this:

“All options are on the table, including recess appointments.  [However] you have to have all Republican [Senators]  vote to recess as well. The same Republicans … that might have a problem voting for somebody under regular order might be the same Republicans that have a problem voting to put the Senate into recess.”

Casey Burgat, the director of the Legislative Affairs Program at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management told Business Insider had this to say:

“It’s just been made so explicit and used as a strategy in and of itself that even though former presidents made recess appointments, they didn’t say this part, and there wasn’t widespread fear about what it means and why they are using it now.”

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-are-recess-appointments-musk-trump-cabinet-senate-explainer-2024-11

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

When it comes to all of Trump’s cabinet appointments, the single most important  qualification to him is absolute loyalty to him and qualifications do not matter. His clown car appointments are a clear message that he intends to dismantle government and rebuild it in his own image. What is also clear is that Project 2025 is indeed the conservative blue print do centralize more power than ever in the Presidency with no checks and balances by congress and the courts.

It was the economy and inflation that swept Trump to a decisive victory. Exit polls showed that the voting public were extremely disgruntled if not downright hostile with the direction the country is going, with inflation out of control. Voters were far more were concerned about making a decent living, angered over grocery and gas prices, as opposed to any threat Trump posed to democracy. Voters simply believed they were better off when Trump was President the first time believing all his lies. Voters chose to forget the 4 years of total chaos Trump brought upon the county and his failure to deal with the pandemic that killed millions worldwide and in the United States and that had a strangle hold on the country and that destroyed the economy.

In the end, voters simply ignored Trumps flawed character, the multimillion dollar civil judgements against him for sexual assault and slander, his criminal conduct in the private sector and while in office, his fraud in securing millions in loans in New York, the  multiple state criminal convictions and pending federal criminal charges, his two impeachments, his misogyny and racism, his threat to democracy, his attempt to overthrow the government with all his lies that the election was rigged and stolen from him, his attacks on woman’s rights and civil rights, his partiality to racists groups such as the Proud Boys, his promotion of racist policies and his cult following of Christian fundamentalist who totally ignored his immorality, multiple marriages and affairs and praised him as the second coming.

Trump will be our President come January 20 and there will be a peaceful transfer of power, unlike 4 years ago when Trump promoted an insurrection. The country will get the President it has elected. Voters will get a clown car of a cabinet filled with people who have no business being appointed and whose goal is to destroy the very agencies they will head. The reality is that with his appointments he is following the Project 2025 agenda (see postscript below on Project 2025).

There may be a peaceful transition of power, but come January 20, four years of total chaos will commence. Trump has already said he can only serve another term but hinted that may change if people really want to change that.  With Trumps announced appointments, it his clear he intends to gut the Department of Justice, the military leadership, our health care system and dismantle government to carry out his personal vendetta.

Trump and his Republican Party will overreach declaring they have a mandate to do whatever they damn well want with no guard rails. Trumps selections for cabinet positions also indicate there will be no checks and balances from congress in that some Senate Republicans are already indicating a willingness to forego their “advise and consent” of appointments an allow for “recess appointments”.  There will be no intervention from the Trump appointed Supreme Court of right-wing conservative disciples who have given him immunity from prosecution making him above the law.

As the saying goes elections have consequences. But that includes unintended consequences. Trumps agenda will go way beyond what people thought they were voting for. It’s not at all likely voters will be any better off financially than they are now in two years under a Trump second presidency let alone the 4 years to come. His imposition of tariffs and the effects of mass deportation on the agricultural work force will have an impact as will corporate greed and refusal to reduce consumer prices. It may be the “economy stupid” but in reality a President can do little to bring down the cost of goods and services which is subject to the laws of supply and demand, and corporate profits and sure greed.

It’s only a matter of time before the general public turns on Trump as they did 4 years ago once they realize they have been had once again. Stupid is as stupid does. The public turned on  Republican President George W. Bush after he was elected by a popular vote and the Republicans lost congress. It will happen again. Voters have now voted for the return of chaos. Based on Trump’s agenda, and his cabinet appointments, chaos is exactly what we will get with millions getting hurt in the process. This is what happens when the big lie replaces reality and personal finances outweigh preservation of our democracy.

__________________________________________

POSCRIPT

The full list of Trump’s Cabinet picks and other top staff appointments with links  are as follows:

• White House Chief of Staff: Susie Wiles who served as co-chair of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, previously worked on his 2016 campaign, as well as Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign. She is longtime strategist and registered lobbyist for business interests and political campaign.

• Secretary of State: Marco Rubio, Florida US Senator
• Attorney General: Pam Bondi (See above article)
• Deputy Attorney General: Todd Blanche.  He  is best known for representing Trump  in the 2024 criminal trial in New York
• HHS Secretary: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (See above article)

• Office of Management and Budget Director: Russ Vought, a  co-author of Project 2025 who served as a platform policy director for the Republican National Committee. Vought argued  for conservative blueprint Project 2025 that  the OMB director “should present a fiscal goal to the President early in the budget development process to address the federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

• U.N. Ambassador: Elise Stefanik. She is the U.S. representative for New York’s 21st congressional district. As chair of the House Republican Conference since 2021, she is the fourth-ranking House Republican.

• “BORDER CZAR”: Tom Homan served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Trumps’s last administration and will be in charge of the nation’s borders.  Homan argued that “families could be deported together”, including America born children, when asked about Trump’s pledge to carry about mass deportations  immediately upon entering office.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/10/politics/tom-homan-border-czar-ice-donald-trump/index.html

• Defense Secretary: Pete Hegseth (See above article)
• Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Doug Collins

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/14/politics/doug-collins-department-of-veterans-affairs-secretary/index.html

• National Security Adviser: Michael Waltz. Waltz represents Florida’s 6th congressional district.  Waltz is a combat-decorated Green Beret still serving as a colonel in the U.S. Army National Guard, and a former White House and Pentagon policy advisor. He is the first Green Beret to be elected to Congress.
• Interior Secretary: Doug Burgum, Governor of North Dakota, was on Trump’s list for Vice President.
• Secretary of Energy: Chris Wright, the CEO of Liberty Energy, North America’s second largest hydraulic fracturing company.
• Secretary of Transportation: Sean Duffy is a former reality TV star who was one of Trump’s most visible defenders on cable news, Duffy served in the House for nearly nine years, was a member of the Financial Services Committee and chairman of the subcommittee on insurance and housing.
• Secretary of Commerce: Howard Lutnick, an American businessman, who succeeded Bernard Gerald Cantor as the head of Cantor Fitzgerald. Lutnick is the chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald and BGC Group.
• Secretary of Education: Linda McMahon (See above article)
• Secretary of the Treasury: Scott Bessen, 62, is the founder of Connecticut-based hedge fund Key Square Group

• Secretary of Labor: Lori Chavez-DeRemer is a first-term Republican representative from Oregon who narrowly lost her House seat.  She was one of only a few House Republicans to support major pro-union legislation, and she split her district’s union endorsements with her Democratic opponent, Janelle Bynum, earning nods from ironworkers, firefighters and local Teamsters.

• White House Counsel: William McGinley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McGinley

• U.S. Ambassador to NATO: MatthewWhitaker who served as acting attorney general during Trump’s first term. Whitaker will lead the US mission to NATO during a period where the defensive alliance may still be facing one of its toughest challenges ,  how to continue to support Ukraine in its war against Russia. He is also likely to be tasked with increasing pressure on countries in the alliance to increase their defense spending – renewing an effort that Trump undertook in his first term.
• Secretary of Homeland Security: Kristi Noem (See above article)
• HUD Secretary: Scott Turner

https://apnews.com/article/housing-secretary-trump-scott-turner-nfl-727417b56d0e1f85a40eaf5f7d13d42f

• CIA Director: John Ratcliffe is an attorney who served as the director of national intelligence from 2020 to 2021. He previously served as the U.S. representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. During his time in Congress, Ratcliffe was regarded as one of the most conservative members.
• Director of National Intelligence: Tulsi Gabbard (See above article)
• EPA Administrator: Lee Zeldin

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/11/politics/lee-zeldin-epa-administrator/index.html

• Solicitor General: Dean John Sauer who argued Trumps immunity claim before United States Supreme Court

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/14/congress/solicitor-general-pick-00189754

• FDA Commissioner: Marty Makary

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-picks-dr-marty-makary-johns-hopkins-surgeon-fda-chief-rcna180883

• Secretary of Agriculture: Brooke Rollins

(https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/23/politics/brooke-rollins-trump-agriculture/index.html)

• CDC Director: David Weldon
• FCC Chairman: Brendan Carr.  Carr wrote the FCC chapter in ‘Project 2025” and now he will be running the agency

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/media/brendan-carr-trump-fcc-nominee-project-2025/inde

• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator: Dr. Mehmet Oz (See above article)
• Surgeon General: Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, a Fox news contributor

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/22/trump-fox-news-surgeon-general/76510351007/

• U.S. Ambassador to Israel: Mike Huckabee,

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/12/politics/mike-huckabee-israel/index.html

• U.S. Ambassador to Canada: Pete Hoekstra

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/trump-nominates-pete-hoekstra-ambassador-to-canada/

• U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York: Jay Clayton who  is an American attorney who was the chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from May 4, 2017, until December 23, 2020
• Department of Government Efficiency: Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (See above article)
• Deputy Chief of Staff: Dan Scavino

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Scavino

• Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Adviser: Stephen Miller

https://apnews.com/article/trump-stephen-miller-policy-immigration-9cc6ad3118779b23bff88022ca5e2260

• Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislative, Political and Public Affairs: James Blair

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-white-house-senior-staff-1985212

• Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Personnel: Taylor Budowich

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-white-house-senior-staff-1985212

• Presidential Personnel Office head: Sergio Gor

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/11/15/donald-trump-steven-cheung-communications-director-sergio-gor-personnel-director

• White House Communications Director: Steven Cheung

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/11/15/donald-trump-steven-cheung-communications-director-sergio-gor-personnel-director

• White House Press Secretary: Karoline Leavitt, Campaign Press Secretary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karoline-leavitt-youngest-ever-white-house-press-secretary/

The link to relied upon news source is here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-might-be-in-donald-trump-cabinet/

Links to related blog articles are here:

 

Project 2025 Is Der Führer Trump’s Conservative Blue Print For A Second Term Reflecting An American Fascist Agenda To Give Trump Unfettered Presidential Power

Trump’s 1st Day And 100 Day Agenda; Chaos And Dismantling Of Government; Voter’s Personal Financial Well Being Outweighed Desire For Democracy

 

 

 

On Tuesday, November 12, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman appeared for the third time before the New Mexico Legislature’s Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee. The Committee is one of the most influential committees of the legislature and consists of 36 House and Senate members.  It meets year-round and vets proposed legislation.

District Attorney Bregman appeared before the committee to once again update the committee and promote his ambitious plan to rewrite New Mexico’s juvenile justice law and in particular the Children’s Code and the Delinquency Act within the Children’s Code.  Bregman told the committee fixing the juvenile justice system needs to be front and center during the 2025 legislative session that begins January 21 and ends on March 22, 2025

PROPOSED CHANGES OUTLINED

Bregman’s office has developed a list of 36 amendments to the Children’s Code and the Delinquency Act.  These changes include expanding the types of crimes where juveniles can be charged as adults, extending the jurisdiction of juvenile services to 25 years old and expanding youth gun restrictions. Bregman presented the committee with a 64-page bill with proposed amendments to the children’s code to crack down on youth crime.  The proposed changes are all aimed at making sure there’s proper guardrails for juvenile criminals.

The proposed changes to the Children’s Code and Delinquency Act Bregman has listed are the most important are:

• Expanding the definition of “Serious Youthful Offender” to include second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, criminal sexual penetration (rape), armed robbery with the use of a firearm, shooting at or from a motor vehicle causing great bodily harm or death, and shooting at dwelling or occupied building causing great bodily harm or death.

 

• Extending the age of possible imprisonment for “Youthful Offenders” from 21 to 25 years old. As the law is currently written, once a juvenile offender turns 21, in most cases, the criminal justice system automatically loses jurisdiction. Extending jurisdiction to age 25 would provide more time to get youthful offenders to get the treatment and supervision they need, while also monitoring the progress they are making.

 

• Making it a felony for unlawful possession of a firearm for people under 19 to have any guns, including rifles, and not just handguns. Right now, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 19 to be in possession of a handgun. However, it is not illegal for anyone under the age of 19 to possess an assault rifle. The law would be updating language from “handgun”to “firearm,” which will include assault rifles. Bregman is also proposing to increase the penalty for this crime from a misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony.

 

• Moving a person to an adult facility once they reach the age of 18.  Bregman believes that when a juvenile convicted of a violent crime turns 18, they should go to an adult facility because he does not want an 18-year-old in custody with a 13-year-old.

 

• Remove the use of the “Risk Assessment Tool” to determine if a child is to be detained and allow prosecutors to file charges without having to first consult the juvenile probation office. Bregman said detention risk assessments also often stand in the way of holding young people who have been arrested, adding the assessments fail to give judges enough discretion and law enforcement officers enough credit as people with firsthand knowledge of a crime.  Bregman said this:  “I say that if a police officer determines that that person needs to be arrested at the time, they need to be booked into the [detention center], and within 24 hours or so, a judge needs to hear and determine whether or not that person should be detained pending adjudication of the charges”.

 

• Unsealing juvenile records during certain court hearings proceedings. This would consist of removing the secrecy laws that seal juvenile records from public review for the most serious offenders. This would allow juvenile records to be used during any adult conditions of release or sentencing hearing without having to obtain a court order to unseal the records. Every judge has the right to know and consider if the person in front of them has a violent past when determining conditions of release or sentencing. This change would allow for additional information to be heard and considered and will ultimately promote public safety.

 

• Requiring judges to preside over juvenile detention hearings.

 

• Grant judge’s discretion on the length of probation or commitment terms based on  a juvenile’s history.

Bregman said from January of last year to November of this year there have been 1,448 juvenile cases. This includes 24 homicides, 386 cases involving firearms, 49 armed robberies, and 44 rapes. He said from 2022 to 2023, there’s been a 57% increase in cases that involved kids with guns. However, in the first ten months of 2024, there was a 37.5% decrease in juvenile felony gun crimes compared to the same time in 2023. Bregman said this:

“2022 was still at the tail end of the pandemic… I think we had a lot of kids that weren’t even in school at the time. … I can’t attribute [the decrease] to a single thing, but I know it’s still far too much going on. … It is real, it is escalating, it is unacceptable at every level.”

Bregman told the Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee this:

“Too many people, too many victims are killed by juveniles in our community. My office, after seeing … clear trends of escalating violence involving youth, determined that we needed to take a thorough review of the Children’s Code. … The last time the Children’s Code was updated in any meaningful way, as far as the Delinquency Act, was in the previous century. It was before the iPhone was even invented, and we all know things have changed dramatically, especially when it comes to juveniles and iPhones.  … It’s just so there’s some consequences to understand that there’s certain laws and norms in our society that people need to follow. … Because at the end of the day, if you commit these kind of heinous, awful kind of adult crimes, you should be charged as an adult. … At the end of the day, it’s to have consequences for young people so that we’re not sentencing them for murder. I want them to know that the first time they get in trouble, there’s some consequences.”

STUDENT EDUCATION CAMPAIGN

Because of  juvenile gun violence, Bregman has engaged in  an education campaign speaking to students in schools across Albuquerque. November 14 was the most recent time Bregman spoke to high school students. Bregman spoke to over 1,100 high school students during a student assembly at Valley High School.

Bregman was very clear to the point of being blunt telling the students that his office as well as the Albuquerque Public Schools system have a ZERO tolerance for guns on school campuses. Bregman made it very clear to the assembly that no matter the age, no matter the circumstance, anyone caught with gun on any school  campus will be fully prosecuted by his office and will serve time behind bars.

He said school safety must be preserved to protect all. He told the students they have the responsibility to tell school officials of anyone who they see bringing a gun to school. Bregman also warned the students of fentanyl use, telling them of the dangers of the drug that kills.

HESITANT LAWMAKERS

During the November 12 hearing, lawmakers expressed concerns and hesitancy about the changes to the Children’s Code.

State Rep. Christine Chandler and state Sen. Joseph Cervantes chair the Legislature’s two powerful judiciary committees. They are considered the “gatekeepers” of all public safety bills. Both suggested to Bregman there are other issues to address.

Representative Chander told Bregman this:

“We continue to be committed to looking at the competency law that’s currently in place and making appropriate changes that make sense to us. … We also are looking at gun violence, juvenile crime issues, and we will, of course, give due consideration [to your] proposals.” 

State Senator Joeseph Cervantes said this:

“We’re not interested in things that optically look good. Increasing penalties and sentences always is an emotional reaction to crime, but we know we’ve got to have resources all the way through the system”. 

Bregman told the committee he would like to see those who turn 18 years old whilst in juvenile detention to be transferred straight to county jail with other adults which current law prohibits. It’s an amendment one lawmaker questioned. Rep. Andrea Reeb, a Republican representing Chaves, Curry, and Roosevelt Counties, said this about the amendment:

“I understand not having 18-year-olds in with 13-year-olds, absolutely. But, I’m troubled by the solution to that putting 18-year-olds with 40-year-olds who, I suspect that 18-year-old will come out even more likely to be engaged with criminal behavior.”

Bregman said he doesn’t want to lock kids up and throw away the key but does want to show kids there are consequences to their actions. Long time serving  Rep. Gail Chasey, a Democrat from Albuquerque, who did not seek reelection and is leaving the legislature January 1, said this:.

“I urge you to seek evidence of effectiveness as you try to implement these things.”

State Sen. Katy Duhigg said this:

“It seems like that’s not being applied, that that consideration of their not fully developed frontal cortex is not being applied consistently.”

Republican State Rep. Bill Rehm, who will be leaving the legislature January 1, said this:

“You want to extend the definition of the handgun now to a firearm, and that’s going to be problematic.” 

House Minority Whip, Republican state Rep. Alan Martinez, says he’s feeling optimistic after this round of committee meetings. Martinez said this:

“We’ve realized that crime doesn’t only affect one political party or the other, it affects all New Mexicans, and it’s our responsibility to keep New Mexicans safe. And come up here and come up with some very common-sense policy, it’s going to keep our streets safe.”

NEW MEXICO CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER RESPONDS

Juvenile crime stats, provided by the Law Office of the Public Defender, show most juvenile crime is decreasing. Armed robbery, criminal sexual penetration, shooting at or from a motor vehicle, or at a dwelling, and aggravated battery have all trended down recently.  However, the Public Defender Office statistics also show juvenile murder has trended up since 2019. In that same time, juvenile auto theft has also increased dramatically.

New Mexico Chief Public Defender Bennet Baur wants the same thing as Bregman when it comes to diverting young people away from committing serious crimes later. However, Baur has a dramatically different perspective on how to achieve that goal.  The public defender’s office has said that charging kids as adults causes them to lose certain protections. Baur also said they’d like to see more money funneled to services for kids to address the root causes that lead them to commit crimes. Baur said this:

“We have to let them know the dangers. I think that’s very important. But it’s not necessarily through incarceration. … My concern is that we make decisions based upon numbers that only look at what happened during COVID. … As those numbers go down, and as crime goes down naturally, that’s going to leave a lot of kids in detention and a lot of people in prison.”

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/da-sam-bregman-lays-out-plan-to-rewrite-new-mexico-childrens-code/

https://www.krqe.com/news/bernalillo-county-da-proposes-changes-to-childrens-code-to-legislative-committee/

https://www.kob.com/news/missing-pieces-juvenile-crime-trends-4-investigates/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Simply put, New Mexico’s children are committing more and more violent crimes where guns are involved. The state’s Children Code and our Juvenile Criminal Justice System has not been able to keep up with changing times to deal with what now can only be considered a major crisis.  Part of the problem is just how complicated the children’s code really is and its application.  The ultimate question that must be addressed is what is in the “best interest of the child” and keeping a family together versus punishment, incarceration and making sure justice is served and the public is protected.

It is very clear that the primary emphasis and purpose of the Children’s Code is not punishment in the form of confinement of child for crimes committed but on rehabilitation, services, counseling and social services.  The primary goal of the Children’s Code and the Juvenile Justice System is to keep the family unit intact and what is in the best interest of the child. Such an approach is wise whenever you are dealing with delinquency types of cases and children of tender age. It is teenage juveniles, ages 13 to 15,  that pose the biggest problem of what approach is in order.   

Under the children’s code there is no mandatory sentencing and confinement when delinquency is found.  When incarceration  does happen it can only be up and until the child reaches 18.  However, things do get very complicated when gun violence is involved and protecting the general public from gun violence and when it comes to sentencing a child as an adult when charges are brought against the child as a “youthful offender” or “serious youthful offender.”

All of the major proposals and changes to the Children’s Code as outlined and proposed by District Attorney Sam Bregman are reasonable, should be considered necessary given the violent crimes being committed by juveniles and should be adopted by the legislature. No doubt many will argue that they run afoul of the purpose and intent of the Children’s Code which is to do what is in the best interest of a child.

DA Bregman’s proposals to expand the definition of “serious youthful offender” so more types of crimes could lead to children being tried as adults is reasonable and necessary given the extent and types of violent crime that is being committed. The challenge for the legislature is to decide what types of offenses for which a juvenile  can be charged as an adult. Right now, that can only happen for first-degree murder. 

 What should be included are all violent crimes involving a weapon and should include the crimes of aggravated assault, aggravated battery armed robbery with a firearm, and child abuse resulting in death.  The legislature should also fix the law that currently allows a teenager to wield an assault rifle, though handguns are still illegal.

The link to a related blog article is here:

DA Sam Bregman Seeks Major Updating Of Children’s Code To Deal With Juvenile Crime Crisis; The Challenge Is “What Is In Best Interest Of Child And Family” Versus “Punishment And Rehabilitation”; Legislature Should Follow Bregman’s Lead And Update Children’ Code

The Albuquerque City Council voted 8-1 to pass a resolution that directs the “City Administration to develop a comprehensive social media policy that outlines clear guidelines for appropriate use, accountability, and consequences for misuse.”  The sole vote NO on the resolution was City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn as she essentially backhanded the City Council for trying to do something and Gilbert Gallegos for his conduct.

The resolution is aimed at improving the use of official City social media accounts. The resolution delineates what is the appropriate use of city social media accounts. It requires the city to post all social media policies.

The passage of the resolution was the direct result  of  controversial and insulting social media posts made by the Albuquerque Police Department’s Director of Communication Gilbert Gallegos against private citizens critical of APD.  APD Chief Harold Medina and Mayor Tim Keller said the tweets were justifiable.  The City Attorney told councilors  it’s a personnel matter and she would not  discuss it on  the record with them.

EXISTING CITY SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY

It was on August 22, 2022 that then Chief Administrative Officer Lawence Rael signed off on the City’s social media usage policy.

The purpose of the policy “is to establish rules and responsibilities around the use of social media for City of Albuquerque departments. It is intended to guide City departments and employees as they create and publish content and maintain user standards on social media sites on behalf of the City of Albuquerque.”

Under the policy, City of Albuquerque social media sites are required to comply with the City of Albuquerque’s Code of Ethics and all administrative rules created under that code. City of Albuquerque social media sites are also subject to the State of New Mexico’s public records laws.

The rules outlined in the policy make it clear that  departmental staff are responsible for the contents of any social media. Department directors must authorize employees to post.

City of Albuquerque social media site posts or comments made by the public, constituents, or followers containing any of the following content are prohibited, and may be removed without notice by the Communications Director or their designee:

1. Posts not topically related to the particular social media site, or comments not topically related to the post or article being commented upon;
2. Posts or comments in support of or opposition to political campaigns or ballot measures;
3. Profane language or content;
4. Posts or comments intended to spread false information or threaten, harass or defame others;
5. Content that promotes, fosters, or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation;
6. Sexual content or links to sexual content;
7. Solicitations of commerce not directly related to City business;
8. Conduct or encouragement of illegal activity;
9. Information that is intentionally factually incorrect and which may tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems;
10. Content that violates any federal, state or local law or a legal ownership interest of any other party;
11. Information about actual or potential claims and litigation involving the City, unless such claims have been resolved;
12. Any protected or confidential information regarding any City employee, resident, or elected official.

City of Albuquerque social media accounts may respond to comments or posts relevant to the department, division, or program in order to provide information. When responding or posting to social media on behalf of the City, the city responder must:

1.  Keep it professional – avoid confrontation.
2. Correct errors, and if modifying an earlier post, identify the change.
3. Any department may delete, merge, or unpublish a social media post only with prior approval from a supervisor.

City of Albuquerque accounts may respond to comments or posts relevant to the department, division, or program in order to provide information.

The  rules include one barring “posts or comments intended to spread false information or threaten, harass or defame others.” The policy also says “violations of this policy may be grounds for discipline up to and including termination.”

The link to review the full unedited social media policy is here:

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/albuquerque/latest/albuquerque_nm_admin/0-0-0-35520

RESOLUTION CONTENTS

City Council resolution R-24-89  sponsored by District 9 City Councilor Renée Grout and enacted by the city council  directs the Keller Administration to develop a comprehensive social media policy that outlines clear guidelines for appropriate use, accountability, and consequences for misuse.

The resolution emphasizes the role of City government is to promote the public’s health, safety and growth. It directs the City Administration to create, implement, and enforce a comprehensive social media policy to be applied to all City public media accounts that includes:

• Behavioral expectations: Establishing clear guidelines for respectful and professional online conduct.
• Content specifications: Defining appropriate and inappropriate content for City social media accounts.
• Response guidelines: Providing guidance on how to respond to comments and messages, including those that may be negative or inflammatory.
• Monitoring and review: Implementing a system for regularly monitoring and reviewing social media accounts for compliance.
• Disciplinary actions:  Outlining consequences for misuse of official social media accounts.

The resolution also requires the City Administration to make the social media policy easily accessible to the public and to establish a mechanism for reporting potential violations.

The link to the quoted source material on the Grout sponsored city council resolution is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/district-9/news/city-councilor-renee-grout-introduces-resolution-to-improve-social-media-accountability

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_67d3ec9a-a39e-11ef-9660-4b6f3ebef708.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

A HISTORY OF MEAN TWEETS

It was in February and March of 2022 that the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was first taken to task for its social media posts by APD Communications Director Gilbert Gallegos.  Many considered the posts inappropriate and constituted intimidation and harassment of members of the public.

It was reported that the Albuquerque Police Department’s Twitter account had been used by Gilbert Gallegos to poke fun at former APD Chief Michael Geier falsely accusing Geier of  having  dementia, attacked property owners who have complained about crime and made fun of crime in an affluent neighborhood. APD for its part made no apologies for the tweets on its TWITTER and FACEBOOK page with Chief Harold Medina and Mayor Tim Keller defending the conduct.

The most egregious tweets by APD Public Information Officer Gilbert Gallegos worth noting are as follows:

VILIFYING A PRIVATE CITIZEN

Last year, Doug Peterson, a prominent commercial real estate owner,  took to Twitter to complain about crime and homelessness in Downtown Albuquerque. He spoke to the media about his frustrations over how the homeless are affecting property values and destroying businesses.  Doug Peterson said this about his tweets:

“I was vehemently complaining about the lack of response that my company has been getting from APD, mostly about property crime.  The information that I put out there is straight from our properties and what we’re experiencing.”

APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos responded to the tweets by Peterson on APDs  Twitter account and posted the following:

“Calling out your b.s. [bull shit] is public service.”  (May 24, 2022 at 9:25 AM,)

“You only complain and never offer solutions.”  (October 13, 2022 at 3:52 PM)

“Your racism aside, we have charged 99 murder suspects this year.”  (October 6, 2022 at 9:33 pm)

APD Police Chief Harold Medina was asked at the time to respond to the propriety of the APDs tweets against Peterson. The policy states when replying to posts on city accounts, city employees are supposed to “keep it professional and avoid confrontation.”   Medina admitted that some of the tweets violated the city’s social media policy.

Medina referred to the Peterson tweets as “cyberbullying” and said this:

“At times, yes, we push back and sometimes people don’t like the way we push back.  I think [the tweets] were appropriate for the individuals that they were meant for. … They bluntly point out differences [and] I’m OK with that. … There are some individuals who, politically, for political reasons or a variety of reasons, are resort to cyberbullying, which is something real. And I don’t think that it’s necessarily fair.”

Another APD tweet that generated controversy came in July 2022 after the death of a 15-year-old boy caught in a SWAT standoff in a home that later caught fire. Some used Twitter to blame the police for the boy’s “murder.” In response, APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos tweeted to all:

“Didn’t know a fire could murder someone.”

In that case, APD Chief Medina said he told department spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos to tone it down.  Notwithstanding, Medina stood behind Gallegos proclaiming that APD was responding to what he deemed “inaccuracies.”

Mayor Tim Keller voiced no problem with the confrontational tweets and said this:

“APD has its own social media policy. … We support their efforts to push back on misinformation on social media.”

City Councilor Louie Sanchez is a retired APD Officer. He demanded that APD tone down their tweets.  Councilor Louie Sanchez said this:

“The department thinks that harassing and intimidating people is community policing; they’re on the wrong path.” 

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/albuquerque-city-council-passes-bill-on-social-media-policy/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2570384/albuquerque-police-tweets-slammed-by-some-as-intimidation.html

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-twitter-tweets/42748358

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-mean-tweets/43387226

https://www.abqraw.com/post/city-council-looking-to-defund-apd-s-twitter-and-the-troll-who-runs-it

MALIGNING A FORMER APD CHIEF

On March 22, 2022,  a  KOAT TV Target 7 Investigation reported that APD Public Information Officer Gilbert Gallegos posts had reached a new low.  This time the tweets poked fun at former APD Chief Michael Geier and rumored dementia as well as crime in affluent Tanoan.

Former APD Chief Geier was forced to retire on September 10, 2020, some would say terminated, by Mayor Tim Keller and replaced him with APD Chief Harold Medina.  It was Geier who recruited Medina to return to APD as a Deputy Chief of Field Services. A few days after Geier “retired” it was revealed that Geier was indeed forced out by Mayor Tim Keller.  Chief Geier was summoned to a city park by Mayor Tim Keller during the Labor Day Holiday weekend where Geier was told that his services were no longer needed. It was also revealed then First Deputy Chief Harold Medina helped orchestrate Geier’s removal. He did so with the help of then CAO Sarita Nair.

Medina became insubordinate to Geier and learning Geier was going to take disciplinary action against him and demote and transfer him, Medina struck back.  Geier also hired Gilbert Gallegos as an APD Spokesman and Gallegos was a Medina loyalist.  As soon as Geier left, Gallegos and Medina both unleashed a torrent of social media criticism towards Chief Geier blaming him for all of APD’s mismanagement.  Medina himself refused to take any responsibility for any of his mismanagement as Deputy Chief of the Field Services.

On March 16, 2023, a TWITTER exchange began when APD held a press conference to release the city’s 2022 crime statistics and announced that property crime had dropped 40%.  Private attorney Tom Grover who represents former APD Chief Michael Geier  posted a response on TWITTER to APD’s statistics and said this:

“Or another way to look at this is under Chief Geier there was a 23% drop in property crime while under @abqpolicechief there was only 12%”

APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallego’s responded to Grover’s post on TWITTER, now X,  saying this:

“Ask your client who is responsible for lower property crime? Oh wait, he probably isn’t aware.”

In an interview with Target 7, Grover said this about Gallego’s APD TWEET:

“There’s been this really disgusting theory that somehow Chief Geier has dementia or pre-onset Alzheimer’s and that he was forgetful on certain occasions. … They’re just these grotesque aspersions towards the chief. He [Gilbert Gallegos]  was making fun and he was acting in a manner totally inconsistent with what we would expect from the largest law enforcement agency in the state.”

On the same day APD released the city’s crime statistics, downtown property owner Doug Peterson tweeted that the crime stats released by Gilbert an “absolute joke.”

APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallego’s responded to Peterson’s TWEET by posting “how’s crime in Tanoan” referring to the affluent gated community where Peterson ostensibly lives.

KOAT Target 7 contacted former Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White and asked him about the APD Tanoan TWEET and APDs policy of “pushing back” on social media.  After seeing the APD TWEET, White said this:

“I don’t think the family of James Hogan who was murdered in a home invasion in Tanoan would think this tweet is funny. … Which I felt was completely insensitive. …  Pointing out the failures of the mayor and the chief is not misinformation. It’s just criticism.  You’re going to be criticized no matter what you do, good or bad. There are always going to be people that criticize you. And that’s just part of the game.”

Target 7 reached out and specifically asked if Mayor Keller condoned tweets that were reportedly making light of someone’s alleged medical condition and crime in an affluent neighborhood. A spokeswoman for Mayor Keller said in an email:

“As stated previously, we support the department in their efforts to push back against misinformation on social media.”

 https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-city-council-police-mean-tweets/43511199#

 MAYOR KELLER AND CHIEF MEDINA DEFEND TWEETS

Notwithstanding the City Council’s objections to the tweets and conduct of Gilbert Gallegos, APD Police Chief Harold Medina and Mayor Tim Keller refused to put a stop to the “mean tweets” by Gallegos.  Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina proclaimed the “mean tweets” were legitimate push back against APD critics. They both expressed no problem with “mean tweets” even acknowledging the tweets violate city policy which states when replying to posts on city accounts, city employees are supposed to, “keep it professional and avoid confrontation.”

APD Chief Harold Medina said this:

“These are not random people. We are pushing back against the same individuals who use their positions to pursue a political agenda against APD. … .”

When asked if the tweets followed city policy, Medina said “some of them may not, but some of them bluntly point out differences. And I’m okay with that.” 

Mayor Keller for his part said he and his office “supports the department in their efforts to push back against misinformation on social media.”

The council resolution was introduced by City Councilor  Grout  after she received feedback from frustrated residents, particularly regarding crime in the city. Grout said this:

“People are frustrated with what’s going on in the city. Crime and crime is affecting all of us. And so, they (APD) have every right to air their grievances and so forth.  … But it doesn’t mean that I need to be replying in a negative way. We need to be respectful and take the higher road always.”

COUNCILORS AND KELLER ADMINISTRATION CLASH

The November 18 City Council meeting resulted in a clash between City Councilors and the Mayor Tim Keller Administration.

Though the city adopted a social media policy, Grout believes it lacks clarity regarding what is acceptable online behavior. Grout’s ordinance aims to provide a clearer framework for how city employees interact with the public online. City Councilor Renee Grout had this to say about her resolution:

“It’s important that when we post on the city’s behalf that we remember that we have to take our personal attacks out of it and remember that we are representing the city, and it needs to be respectful. Our comments need to be helpful, they need to be factual, and they need to be thoughtful. And just because somebody says something that is negative or not kind, it doesn’t mean that we have to go back with the same kind of insults. If those guidelines are not adhered to, then there needs to be disciplinary action, which may include, may or may not, include termination.”

“So the city does have a policy that they created in 2022 for social media, but it doesn’t have it doesn’t address what’s appropriate and not appropriate to post. … So it’s directing the administration to develop a policy that sets expectations for appropriate behavior, specifies what is appropriate content, and prohibits personal attacks. It sets guidelines for appropriate responses to negative comments. “I would like it to define disciplinary actions that need to be taken. … And then also, I would like it to be posted on the city’s transparency on the website.”

During the council meeting, Westside City Councilor Louie Sanchez, who is a retired APD police officer, took to task and directly blamed APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos for the need to enact the resolution. Sanchez also took an opportunity to criticize APD Chief Harold Medina and Mayor  Keller and his administration. Sanchez went so far as to call for is position to be defunded and eliminated. Councilor Sanchez said this:

“We already know this is the Gilbert Gallegos bill. He’s attacked [victim’s family members] on X, attorneys, citizens and business owners, and those things have been made public. …  This falls on the lap of the police chief for letting this go on and on; this falls on the lap of the CAO for her failure to properly manage the police chief, and it also goes straight back to the mayor for ignoring a major problem that’s been made public. … I definitely support this bill, and I think it’s very important that each one of us here on the dais support this bill as well.”

Both City Councilors Louis  Sanchez and Councilor Nichole Rogers asked for Gilbert Gallegos’s position to be defunded.

KELLER ADMINISTRATION LASHES OUT

Keller’s Chief Administrative Officer Samantha Sengel said in response to city councilors said this:

“I have said before here on this microphone that I would not be discussing personnel and discipline matters publicly on the record. … So the assumption by this council that there has been nothing done related to the matters that have been discussed is presumptuous.”

Staci Drangmeister, a spokesperson for Mayor Tim Keller, has said that the city already has a social media policy and  there is no need for a new policy.

Tammy Fiebelkorn, the only City Councilor who voted against the resolution, parroted the Keller Administration’s position and essentially backhanded the City Council for trying to do something and Gilbert Gallegos and said this: .

“The City already has a social media policy, so a second one isn’t going to make a difference.  … City employees follow that existing policy and treat the public with the respect they deserve, with the exception of just one employee. It seems to me that rather than passing additional policies, the administration should enforce the existing policy.”

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/city-councilors-to-address-proposed-social-media-policy-legislative-priorities/

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-councilor-proposes-new-social-media-policy-for-city-employees/62937107

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/albuquerque-city-council-passes-bill-on-social-media-policy/

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-councilor-proposes-new-social-media-policy-for-city-employees/62937107

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_f593bea0-a607-11ef-b7cc-fb1eb634ee99.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It’s a damn shame that Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina have very little or no respect for the Albuquerque City Council and the general public they disagree with as they condoned and supported the conduct of Gilbert Gallegos and his abuse of APD social media.  Twice the Albuquerque City Council condemned “mean tweets” and demanded they cease, to no avail. The Citizens Police Oversight Agency went so far as to sustain a complaint against APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos finding misconduct with his use of  APD’s social media accounts, yet Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina proclaim the “mean tweets” to be legitimate push back against APD critics.

A citizen who has what they believe are legitimate complaints about APD does not mean APD has the right to vilify them or take issue with them and just presume that what they say is inaccurate or requiring  a public push back. It does not mean APD has the right to engage in slander and violate people’s first amendment rights of free speech.

Chief Medina enabling a public relations flack to attack a private citizen because they are critical of APD is not appropriate. It is not cyberbullying as Chief Medina proclaimed. Calling a businessman, who is exercising his right of free speech, a racist as Gallegos did is not keeping it professional nor is it avoiding confrontation but libelous. Making fun of a former Police Chief implying mental infirmity is offensive.

The function of PIO’s is to interreact with the press and the public and distribute accurate information to the public and the press and give interviews where necessary. APD Spokespersons historically have been sworn police officers. Gilbert Gallegos is a civilian at will employee, he is a former newspaper reporter and former spokesperson for elected officials and is essentially a political appointee and some would say a political hack.

Chief Medina and Mayor Keller refused to put a stop to the “mean tweets” by Gallegos leaving the city council with few options. Apparently, Keller and Medina have no problem with “mean tweets,” by not acknowledging they violate city policy which states when replying to posts on city accounts, city employees are supposed to “keep it professional and avoid confrontation.” When asked if the tweets followed city policy, Chief Medina said “some of them may not, but some of them bluntly point out differences. And I’m okay with that.” Mayor Keller for his part said his office “supports the department in their efforts to push back against misinformation on social media.”

Chief Medina and APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos have a warped misunderstanding of their role when it comes to dealing with the public, processing citizen complaints and talking to the public in general. Their attitude as reflected by “mean tweets” is that unless you agree with APD and all of its actions, you are “anti-cop”, or you are a “cop hater.” Gilbert and Chief Medina have a warped understanding of the concept of to protect and serve. They know the “mean tweets” generate extreme hostility and mistrust towards private citizens they target. We have a mayor who allows them to do it.

It is likely that now that the council has passed the resolution, Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Medina  and the Keller  administration will simply ignore the resolution  and do absolutely nothing to change or upgrade the existing social media policy. What the City Council should have done is to be far more aggressive and take a vote of no confidence and demand the termination of Gilbert Gallegos and defund the position.

Links to related blog articles are here:

City Councilor Renée Grout Introduces Resolution To Prohibit “Mean Tweets” By City Officials; Legislation In Response To APD’s Misuse Of Social Media To Attack Private Citizens; Council Needs To Vote No Confidence And Demand Removal Of Public Relations Political Hack Gilbert Gallegos

APD Press Flack Gilbert Gallegos Back At It Again Using  Social Media To Attack APD Critics; City Council Needs To Vote No Confidence, Demand Termination And Defund Position