On October 22, the Albuquerque Journal published its poll in the United States Senate race between incumbent Democrat Martin Heinrich and his Republican challenger Nella Domenici.

According to the poll, Heinrich received the backing of 51% of voters surveyed while 40% said they would vote for Republican Domenici, 7% were undecided and 1% said they would not vote for either of the two. The 11-point lead in the poll for Heinrich is slightly smaller than the poll conducted last month which showed him up 50% to  38% over Domenici.

ABORTION DOMINATE ISSUE

Abortion has become the most dominant issue in the race.  Republican challenger Domenici has withered under blistering attacks about her stance on abortion.  Heinrich has hammered away that Domenici was recruited to run for the Senate by Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch Mc Connell so that Republicans can pass a nationwide abortion ban.

Heinrich went so far during a televised debate between the two  to accuse Domenici that if she were elected she would vote in the U.S. Senate for a nationwide abortion ban. That prompted a sharp retort from Domenici, who described the remark as “the most sexist comment you could ever hear from a United States senator.”

Domenici for her part has said that New Mexico has settled the issue making abortions legal and she would not support a federal abortion ban, saying she believes abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”

CRIME AND THE ECONOMY

Domenici  for her part has been very aggressive challenging Heinrich over border security, New Mexico’s high crime rates and inflation. In her TV commercials she has said Heinrich has done nothing since being elected to curb New Mexico’s high crime rates and that he is out of touch with the financial struggles of average New Mexicans.  Domenici has claimed that Heinrich has insulated himself from the business community as he refuses to meet with business executives.

Domenici has sought to portray Heinrich as a “radical” Democrat who is out of touch with most state residents’ day-to-day struggles. During her debate with Heinrich, Domenici evoked the legacy of her father the late Pete Domenici who served 36 years in the United States Senate and she said this:

“My name still carries a huge amount of bipartisan respect.”

Heinrich in response said he meets frequently with all types of New Mexicans, rebuffing criticism from Domenici. Heinrich also says his family is fully invested in Albuquerque, as he and his wife no longer own a home in Maryland they bought in 2013. Heinrich said during the recent debate between the two:

“I come home almost every weekend, because this is the place that makes me happy.”

Heinrich has attacked Domenici for not living in New Mexico for the last 50 years and only returning to run for the Senate. Domenici  defended her New Mexico roots despite living on the East Coast for years, saying she and her husband have owned a home in Santa Fe for 20 years and helped launch a state charter school program. State voting records show Domenici first voted in New Mexico elections in June 2020.

ANALYSIS OF THE POLL

Brian Sanderoff, the president Research & Polling Inc., which conducted the poll, said Heinrich is facing a tougher reelection campaign than he did in 2018, when he easily defeated two general election opponents. Sanderoff said this:

“Nella Domenici is running a formidable race, but there still is a wide gap between the two candidates. … It’s hard to unseat a two-term Democrat U.S. senator in a blue-leaning state.”

The new Journal  poll found female voters are significantly more likely than male voters to support the Democratic candidate in the U.S. Senate contest. A total of 54% of women voters surveyed said they planned to vote for Heinrich, or already had voted for him, while 37% said they planned to vote for Domenici.

Heinrich also led his opponent among male voters, though the split was much narrower.  Sanderoff said this:

“We definitely have a gender gap, but Heinrich is ahead among both male and female voters.”

The new Journal poll found there  was a sizable difference in voters’ views on the two candidates by education level, with voters who have a college or graduate degree backing Heinrich by a large margin.

Domenici had relatively strong support for a GOP candidate among New Mexico Hispanic voters, a group she has targeted in this year’s campaign.  She also had strong leads over Heinrich in eastern New Mexico and in the state’s northwest corner.

Heinrich held a commanding advantage in the Albuquerque Metro area and in traditionally Democratic north central New Mexico, leading Domenici by wide margins in those regions.

While the new poll found Domenici getting slightly more support from Democratic voters than Heinrich is receiving from GOP voters, the difference was not enough to offset that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in New Mexico.

Sanderoff pointed out that  his poll revealed that there appears to be low levels of ticket-splitting, meaning most voters plan to cast their votes for candidates of the same party in the presidential and U.S. Senate races.

POLL METHODOLOGY

The Journal poll is based on a statewide random sample of 1,024 voters who cast ballots in the 2020 and/or 2022 general election, and a sample of adults who registered to vote since December 2022 and who said they are likely to vote in the upcoming election.

The sample was stratified by race and county and weighted by age, gender, education level, and party affiliation based on traditional voting patterns in New Mexico general elections, to ensure a more representative sample.

The poll was conducted Oct. 10-18 excluding the late afternoon of Oct. 14 (due to the U.S. Senate debate). The voter sample has a margin of error of plus- or minus-3.1 percentage points. The margin of error grows for subsamples.

All interviews were conducted by live, professional interviewers, based in Albuquerque, with multiple callbacks to households that did not initially answer the phone.

Both cellphone numbers (89%) and landlines (11%) of likely general election voters were used.

The link to the Albquerque Journal poll with photos and graphs is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/election/journal-poll-martin-heinrich-keeps-double-digit-lead-over-nella-domenici-in-u-s-senate/article_79d5e26a-8fd3-11ef-8146-975ee8138994.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

New Mexico has long lost its status as a swing state in Presidential elections. Gone are the days for Presidential candidates to visit the state to secure its 5 electoral college votes. However, both the United States Senate and the House of Representative have the slimmest majorities for control.

The U.S. Senate is currently controlled by Democrats by just 2 votes and has 51 Democrats, including three independents, and 49 Republicans. There are 34 seats up in 2024, including a special election in Nebraska, of which 23 are held by Democrats or Independents. Republicans can retake control of the Senate with a net gain of two seats or by winning the 2024 presidential election along with a net gain of one seat.  In other words, the US Senate race between  Martin Heinrich and Nella Domenici will no doubt play a major roll as to which party will control the United States Senate.

On October 20 and 21, the Albuquerque Journal began publishing its final polls taken before the November 5 election. Following are the results of the Presidential and the Second Congressional District race polls:

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION POLL

Vice President Kamala Harris has maintained her advantage over Donald Trump in this year’s presidential race in New Mexico securing 50% of  registered, likely voters surveyed in the poll while 41% said they were voting for Trump.  The  previous Journal poll conducted last month found Harris with a lead over Trump by 10%. The previous poll featured 7% of voters who said they had not yet decided who they would vote for in the November 5 general election.

The number of undecided voters dropped to 4% in the new poll. An additional 3% of voters surveyed said they would still vote for independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who dropped out of the race in August and endorsed Trump but is still on New Mexico’s ballot.

Four years ago, President Joe Biden defeated then-incumbent Trump in New Mexico by 11% points or roughly 100,000 votes.  Neither Trump nor Harris has held a campaign stop in the state in the run-up to Election Day.

In the new Journal poll, Harris’ advantage over Trump in New Mexico was largely driven by strong support among female voters and those with a college or graduate degree.  While male voters were largely split between the two leading presidential candidates, women voters surveyed were far more likely to support Vice President Kamala Harris than former President Donald Trump.

Harris has made reproductive rights a key issue in her campaign following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump for his part has criticized Biden and Harris  for their  handling of the U.S. economy and border security and Trump has seen an increase in popularity among Hispanic voters. The new Journal poll found 41% of Hispanic voters surveyed expressed support for Trump.

That support level among Hispanic voters was higher than it was in the previous poll, and above what most Republican candidates have received in recent New Mexico statewide elections.

REGIONAL VIEWS 

In the new poll, Vice President Harris held a significant edge over Trump in the Albuquerque metro area and in north central New Mexico, with voters in the two regions preferring her over Trump by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

Not surprisingly, Trump had a big advantage in the traditionally conservative eastern part of New Mexico and in the northwest corner of the state, with voters more evenly split in the southern part of the state that includes Las Cruces.

PARTY AFFILIATIONS

The poll found  there were about 10% of Democrats surveyed who expressed support for Trump than Republicans who said they would vote for Harris.  The difference was not enough to offset the fact there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in New Mexico.

Among independent voters, or those who declined to state a party affiliation, Harris held a 19-point advantage. And self-described moderate voters from all political affiliations were far more likely to back Harris than Trump, with 60% of moderates saying they would vote for Harris and 28% saying they planned to back Trump.

The link to the quoted and relied upon October 20 Albuquerque Journal article with photos, graphs and charts is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/election/journal-poll-kamala-harris-maintains-advantage-over-donald-trump-in-new-mexico/article_b8ca94e0-8da6-11ef-8a26-67722784e9ab.html

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT POLL

In 2021, Congressional District 2 was redrawn. Redistricting broke up the conservative stronghold of Eddy, Lea and Chaves counties. The new boundary lines withstood a GOP court challenge.  The congressional district is now more geographically diverse. It encompasses most of southern New Mexico, including parts of the oil patch in Lea and Eddy counties and all of Las Cruces, then reaching north all the way into Albuquerque’s South Valley and West Side.

According to a new Journal Poll, Democratic incumbent Gabe Vasquez  leads by 4% points with support from 49% of likely voters surveyed while Republican challenger Yvette Herrell is close behind with 45% of voter support. The lead is within the margin of error of plus or minus 4.8% points. The poll found 5% of voters surveyed were undecided.

The Journal poll found that Vasquez had a 14-point lead among women voters, with 53% of support among women compared to 39% support for Herrell. Meanwhile, Herrell had a slight edge with male voters, with 50% support among that group compared to 46% support among men for Vasquez.

A former Las Cruces city councilor, Democrat Gabe Vasquez won his seat in Congress by approximately 1,300 votes in 2022, unseating Yvette Herrell, a former state legislator from Alamogordo. Two years later, Herrell is trying to reclaim it.

Abortion has been the most common theme in campaign ads.  Vasquez has repeatedly hammered Herrell over her record on abortion in campaign ads and at rallies. In response, Herrell released a television ad to clarify her stance on abortion.

The Vasquez-Harrell race is the most expensive of the three U.S. House races in New Mexico. Herrell has raised $3.7 million and has $1.1 million cash on hand, while Vasquez has raised $6.1 million and has $1.8 million cash on hand, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Both campaigns have attracted major  support of congressional leaders. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy helped Herrell launch her campaign last year. Speaker Mike Johnson went to Las Cruces for Herrell in August and is scheduled to visit Carlsbad for a Herrell campaign event on October 23.  House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries came to Albuquerque in early October at Vasquez’s invitation, where he attended events to promote all three Democratic congressional representatives in their reelection campaigns.

UNDECIDED INDEPENDENTS INCREASES

In the final  Journal poll, party affiliation was the biggest predictor of candidate preference. While Vasquez had strong support among Democratic voters, with 84% support among that group, Herrell had support among nearly all Republican voters surveyed, with 91% support.

However, more independent or decline to state voters supported Vasquez as well. He had 51% of support among those voters, while Herrell had 32%.

Unlike the Republican and Democratic voters surveyed, the independent voters had more people still on the fence, with 15% of independent voters undecided.

EDUCATION AND ETHNICITY BREAKDOWN

In a pattern similar to that found in other New Mexico and national races, the Democrat Gabe Vasquez had more support among voters with higher educational.

Among voters with some college or with a high school diploma or less education, the race is nearly deadlocked. But Vasquez has a clear lead among voters with a four-year college degree or graduate degree. Herrell has a 3-point lead among voters with a high school diploma or less education, with 50% of support among this group. Vasquez has a 29-point lead among voters with a graduate degree with 64% support.

In the 2022 Journal polling during the pair’s first matchup, Vasquez had a large lead among Hispanic voters in the district, with support of 61% of voters in that demographic. Support among that demographic group is not as strong for Vasquez this election cycle, according to the new poll. Vasquez  support dropped to  51% of Hispanic voters surveyed, while Herrell had 40% support among that group.

The link to the quoted and relied upon October 20 Albuquerque Journal article with photos, graphs and charts is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/journal-poll-vasquez-has-slim-lead-over-herrell-in-congressional-race/article_9625d99c-8dd1-11ef-b780-5b30483deec9.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

POLL METHODOLOGY

“The Journal poll is based on a statewide random sample of 1,024 voters who cast ballots in the 2020 and/or 2022 general election, and a sample of adults who registered to vote since December 2022 and who said they are likely to vote in the upcoming election.

The sample was stratified by race and county and weighted by age, gender, education level, and party affiliation based on traditional voting patterns in New Mexico general elections, to ensure a more representative sample.

The poll was conducted Oct. 10-18. The voter sample has a margin of error of plus- or minus-3.1 percentage points. The margin of error grows for subsamples.

All interviews were conducted by live, professional interviewers, based in Albuquerque, with multiple callbacks to households that did not initially answer the phone.

Both cellphone numbers (89%) and landlines (11%) of likely general election voters were used.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

New Mexico has long lost its status as a swing state in Presidential elections. Gone are the days for Presidential candidates to visit the state to secure its 5 electoral college votes. However, both the United States Senate and the House of Representative have the slimmest majorities for control.

The U.S. Senate is currently controlled by Democrats by just 2 votes and has 51 Democrats, including three independents, and 49 Republicans. There are 34 seats up in 2024,  including a special election in Nebraska, of which 23 are held by Democrats or Independents. Republicans can retake control of the Senate with a net gain of two seats or by winning the 2024 presidential election along with a net gain of one seat.

The United States House total membership 435 Representatives with 220 Republicans,  212 Democrats, 0 Independents and 3 Vacancies . All 435 house seats are up for re-election and given the closeness of the Presidential race, its uncertain who will control the United States House  of Representatives.

On  October 16, APD Deputy Commander Gustavo Gomez, with APD’s Internal Affairs Force Division was placed on paid administrative leave in relation to the DWI dismissal and bribery scandal. It is alleged DWI officers took kickbacks from local attorney Thomas Clear, III and his  paralegal in exchange for not filing the DWI citations in court or for failing to appear in court on drunken driving cases.

Gomez was named deputy commander of the Internal Affairs Force Division in January and has been with APD since 2008. Gomez, like the majority of APD personnel targeted in the investigation, was a DWI officer, from 2010 to 2013.

APD is conducting a separate  internal affairs investigation  as the FBI does a criminal investigation into the allegations.  Gomez is the 11^th  APD  officers, including supervisors and a former APD spokesman, who have been placed on paid administrative leave in APD’s probe.  Seven officers have resigned, two have retired and one was fired by the department.

The investigation became public in January after FBI agents searched 3 APD officers’ homes and the law office of prominent defense attorney Thomas Clear, III  and his paralegal Ricardo “Rick” Mendez.  The  search warrants remain sealed and no one  has been charged in the investigation. The Federal investigation is ongoing

Parallel to the FBI criminal investigation, APD created an internal affairs task force to conduct all administrative investigations into alleged misconduct by current or past members of the DWI Unit. The findings of the investigation  will be submitted to the Superintendent of Police Reform to determine whether APD policies were followed.

In the fallout of the investigation and because the officers’ credibility potentially could be questioned, 2nd Judicial District Attorney Sam Bregman’s office dismissed nearly 200 DWI cases that had been filed and were pending at the time of the FBI searches.

Link to the quoted and relied upon news sources are  here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-deputy-commander-on-leave-amid-probe-into-dwi-corruption/article_90c9d90c-8cdd-11ef-b2b1-3f0433dff69c.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-commander-leave-dwi/62642588

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/albuquerque-police-department-dwi-investigation/10th-apd-officer-placed-on-administrative-leave-in-dwi-unit-investigation/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-metro/apd-deputy-commander-placed-on-administrative-leave-following-dwi-unit-investigation/

CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT FILED

On September 30,  the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and the law firms Smith & Marjanovic Law, LLC (Taylor E. Smith), The Soto Law Office, LLC (Ramón A. Soto), filed a 6 count civil complaint in State District Court on behalf of  Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith, a man who was wrongfully arrested, charged and jailed for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and forced to pay bribes to get the criminal charges dismissed by APD. Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith is alleged to be one of dozens of people who were “victimized” as part of an APD scheme with private criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear III to wrongfully charge and arrest people and then solicit bribes to get the charges dismissed.

Named as Defendants are the City of Albuquerque, APD Chief Harold Medina, Former APD Officers Joshua Montaño, Honorio Alba, Harvey Johnson, Nelson Ortiz, Justin Hunt, Daren Deaguero, Neill Elsman, Matthew Trahan, and Mark Landavazo. Also named as Defendants are criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear, III  and  Clear’s paralegal  Ricardo “Rick” Mendez.

The Civil Complaint is a 6 count, 17-page lawsuit filed in the Second Judicial District Court alleging the 9 former APD officers exploited DWI arrests they had made to solicit bribes in exchange for dismissal of the charges. The 6 counts allege:

1. Unlawful Detention and Arrest charged against the city.
2. Malicious Abuse of Process (2 Counts) charged against the city.
3. Deprivation of Due Process of Law charged against the city.
4. Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention charged against the city.
5. Racketeering charged against the 9 former APD Police Officers named and attorney Thomas Clear III  and  Clear’s paralegal  Ricardo “Rick” Mendez.

The lawsuit alleged the defendants, including APD Chief Harold Medina, each conspired with and amongst each other to violate New Mexico State law.

APD BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION SCANDAL IN A NUTSHELL

It was on Friday January 19, 2024 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executed search warrants and raided the homes of 3 Albuquerque Police officers and the home and law office of prominent DWI criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear, III.  All 6 of those targeted with a search warrant are allegedly involved in a bribery and conspiracy scheme spanning a decade to dismiss DWI cases. Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman ordered the dismissed 196 DWI cases because of the scandal due to the main witnesses’ credibility being called into question which in all the cases are APD officers.

The FBI searched the homes of APD Officers  Honorio Alba and Harvey  Johnson and the law offices of Thomas Clear III and the home of Clear’s paralegal Ricardo “Rick” Mendez.  The US Department of Justice and US Attorney’s office have confirmed the APD police officers and the criminal defense attorney are at the center of the federal investigation involving the dismissal of hundreds of pending DWI criminal cases by the APD Officers for remuneration to have the cases dismissed by the officers failing to appear for hearings. No one has yet to be charged as the federal investigation is ongoing.

The Albuquerque Police Department opened its own Internal Affairs investigation. APD Chief Harold Medina appointed Commander  Kyle Hartsock of the Criminal Investigations Division to lead the internal investigation into officers’ conduct as well as into whether anyone else at the department knew about wrongdoing but did not report it.

A total of 9 APD Police officers have been implicated in the scandal and 7  have resigned during the Internal Affairs investigation, one is on paid leave  and one has been terminated. One by one, the accused Albuquerque police officers have been turning in their badges and resigning  rather than talking to Internal Affairs investigators about an alleged public corruption scheme involving DWI cases.  The names and dates of those officers who have resigned, placed on leave or who have been terminated are:

• On February 7, 2024  Justin Hunt,who started at APD in 2000, resigned.
• On February 29, 2024, Honorio Alba, who started at APD in 2014, resigned.
• On March 13, 2024, Harvey Johnson, who started at APD in 2014, resigned
• On March 15, 2024, Nelson Ortiz,who started at APD in 2016, resigned.
• On March 20, 2024 Joshua Montaño, who started at APD January 2005, resigned.
• On May 2, 2024 Daren DeAguero, who started with APD in 2009, resigned.
• On May 9, 2024, Matthew Trahanwas placed on paid leave as the investigation playsout. Trahan has been with APD since 2006, was with the DWI unit from 2014-16 and recently worked as a detective.
• On July 30, 2024 APD Officer Neill Elsman, who had worked in the DWI unit within the past several years, resigned before returning to work from military leave.
• On August 1, APD announced that it fired Mark Landavazo,the APD Commander of Internal Affairs for Professional Standards, who started with APD in  2007 and was with the DWI unit from 2008 through 2013.
• October 16, Deputy Commander Gustavo Gomez placed on paid administrative leave. Gomez was with the DWI unit from 2010 to 2013

No one has been charged in the case. The FBI is investigating the allegations as a criminal matter. U.S. Attorney Alex Uballez has said the probe focuses on alleged wrongdoing by “certain” APD officers and others.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is very disappointing but not at all surprising that federal charges for government corruption have yet to be brought against APD and all the identified APD Police officers. The Feds tend to be very cautious in bringing criminal charges, especially against law enforcement. The delay may also signal the likelihood that the FBI is doing a deep drill into APD and many more of APD’s finest will be charged and may even include present members of APD’s high command. It will likely be over a year before charges are filed. One thing is for certain, the civil lawsuit file by the ACLU has the greatest potential to expose to the public sooner rather than later the extent of the corruption within APD.

There is absolutely no doubt that APD’s reputation has been trashed to a major extent because of this scandal. It’s downright disgusting that the APD Commander for Internal Affairs for Professional Standards was fired who was the very commander who should have caught and perhaps prevented the corruption.  APD will likely be viewed by many as again having just another bastion of “dirty and corrupt cops” who have brought dishonor to their department and to the department’s professed values of “Pride, Integrity, Fairness and Respect”.  

This is so even before any criminal charges have been filed against anyone, before anyone else is fired from APD and before any action is brought against the police officers involved for government corruption and criminal conspiracy to dismiss cases working with a prominent criminal defense attorney.  Should the criminal defense attorney be charged and convicted of the crimes, he is likely facing jail time in prison as well as disbarment from the practice of law.

There is little doubt that this whole DWI dismissal bribery scandal has shaken the public’s faith in our criminal justice system and APD to its core. The only way that any semblance of faith can be restored and for people to begin trusting APD again is if all the police officers involved in this scandal are held accountable and the lawyers involved are held accountable.  That will only happen when there is aggressive prosecutions and convictions, the police officers are terminated, and they lose their law enforcement certification and disbarment occurs with the attorney.

Ultimately, it is Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina who need to be held accountable with what has happened. Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina must ultimately be held accountable and take full responsibility for failed leadership of APD and this most egregious APD scandal.  Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina instead have been in full fledge “politcal spin cycle” of “pivot, deflect and blame” since the news broke and since the Albuquerque City Council accused them of failed leadership in dealing with the scandal as they attempted to get ahead of this most recent scandal involving APD. They both have attempted to take credit for the federal investigation and for taking action to hold bad cops accountable for the corruption when it was in fact the federal investigation that forced their hand and after they both allowed the problem to fester for 6 years under their watch.

Mayor Tim Keller has already made it known that he is seeking a third four year term as Mayor in 2025. There is no doubt this APD scandal of corruption calls into question Keller’s  management of APD, who he has appointed Chief of Police and if he should be elected to a third term.

The link to a related blog article is here:

ACLU Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against City, APD Chief Medina, 9 Police Officers, Attorney Clear And Para Legal Over DWI Dismissal-Bribery Scandal; Victim Of APD Crime Alleges Racketeering By APD; Federal Criminal Charges Still Pending; Keller And Medina Need To Be Held Accountable For Scandal

On November 16, 2024, Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith said in a new brief  filed that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump bears responsibility for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. He made the allegation in a 9 page filing responding to Trump’s attempt to dismiss the case.

Smith’s team wrote that  it “is incorrect” for Trump’s defense lawyers  to assert that the superseding indictment returned against Trump in August does not show that Trump bears responsibility for the events of January 6 when thousands of angry Trump supporters stormed the United States Capital after Trump’s speech where he inflamed his supporters to march to the US capitol to stop the certification vote of President Joe Biden.

The link to read the 9 page  “GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO HIS MOTION TO DISMISS ON STATUTORY GROUNDS” is here:

Click to access gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.262.0.pdf

Smith’s team alleges in the new brief that Trump “willfully caused others” to obstruct the certification of President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory by repeating his false claims of election fraud and giving “false hope” to his supporters who believed that then-Vice President Mike Pence could  overturn the election, and by “pressuring” Pence and congress to accept fraudulent certificates as part of the fake electors scheme.

Smith’s team wrote in part:

“Those allegations link the defendant’s actions on January 6 directly to his efforts to corruptly obstruct the certification proceeding.  Contrary to the defendant’s claim … that he bears no factual or legal responsibility for the ‘events on January 6,’ the superseding indictment plainly alleges that the defendant willfully caused his supporters to obstruct and attempt to obstruct the proceeding by summoning them to Washington, D.C., and then directing them to march to the Capitol to pressure the Vice President and legislators to reject the legitimate certificates and instead rely on the fraudulent electoral certificates.”

Trump’s lawyers previously argued the indictment “stretches generally applicable statutes beyond their breaking point based on false claims that President Trump is somehow responsible for events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021,” and sought to “assign blame for events President Trump did not control and took action to protect against.”

Smith’s latest brief says  Trump’s dismissal filing “fails to identify any pleading flaw in the superseding indictment warranting its dismissal” and that Trumps pleading “ignores entirely that the case against him includes allegations that he and his co-conspirators sought to create and use false evidence — fraudulent electoral certificates — as a means of obstructing the certification proceeding.”

The indictment alleged that Trump exploited the violence and chaos at the Capitol, and in the  recent pleading  Smith’s team said that Trump, when he heard that Pence had to be rushed to a secure location shortly after Trump attacked him on Twitter, responded by saying, “So what?”

Smith and Trump’s lawyers have continued to exchange legal filings in the case with less than three weeks left until Election Day, when Trump  hopes to return to power after his 2020 loss. He has denied wrongdoing in the case and asserts the indictment was politically fueled.

The latest filing comes after the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity completely gutted a large  part of Smith’s case against Trump. The superseding indictment returned by a federal grand jury alleges that Trump knowingly spread lies about the 2020 election that were “unsupported, objectively unreasonable, and ever-changing“ in his bid to overturn his loss and remain in power.

Smith’s team said in a filing earlier this month that Trump “resorted to crimes“ to stay in office after his loss and that he was fundamentally acting as a private candidate for office, not as president, when he engaged in much of the conduct at the heart of their case.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, gave Trump’s team an extension that moved the due date of a filing a response until after the election. Trump’s Motion to Dismiss based on his claims of presidential immunity is now due Nov. 7, while the government’s reply is due on Nov. 21. Whether the case ultimately goes to trial depends on the outcome of the election.

The links to the quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/donald-trump-bears-responsibility-jan-6-attack-jack-smith-argues-new-f-rcna175707

https://www.msnbc.com/jose-diaz-balart/watch/new-jack-smith-filing-asserts-trump-is-responsible-for-jan-6-capitol-riots-221887557527

TRUMP CALLS JANUARY  6  “A DAY OF LOVE”

On October 16, a former Trump supporter confronted him during at a televised town hall and  said he would not vote for Trump because of his conduct on January 6, 2021.  Trump simply shrugged off the criticism but distanced himself from the attack on the Capitol while minimizing the damage done by the  mob of his supporters. In his response, Trump said “Nothing done wrong at all. ”

The voter also questioned why he should support Trump when so many people who held high positions in his administration, including former Vice President Mike Pence, weren’t backing him. Trump said only “a very small portion” don’t support him. “But because it’s me, somebody doesn’t support they get a little publicity. … The vice president, I disagree with him on what he did. I totally disagreed with him on what he did [by not certifying the election.]”

Trump argued that the thousands of supporters who went to Washington for January 6 were not there because of him, even though he tweeted on December 19, 2020: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild.” Trump said this:

“They didn’t come because of me. …They came because of the election. They thought the election was a rigged election, and that’s why they came.”

In 2020, and in the years since then, Trump has falsely claimed that the election was stolen. Many of those charged in the Janyary 6 riot have cited his election lies.  On October 16 during his townhall, Trump described how some of the people who went to hear him speak outside the White House on January 6 and then “went down to the Capitol.” Trump did not mention that he had asked them to do so and that he would join them. Trump said this in his speech:

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. … We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. …  I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump repeatedly  leaned   into his reference “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” at the town hall.  “I said ‘peacefully and patriotically.’ Nothing done wrong at all,” he told the town hall audience.

Trump’s attorneys have highlighted the “peacefully and patriotically” line from Trunp’s fiery speech in federal court filings in Washington, where he is defending himself against charges that he tried to illegally overturn the election results, including by provoking the assault on the Capitol. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him in Washington and in the Georgia election interference case.

At the town hall, Trump also called January  6, when rioters who delayed the electoral vote count for hours injured over 140 police officers, as “a day of love”.   Trump told the audience this:

“There were no guns down there. We didn’t have guns. The others had guns, but we didn’t have guns. And when I say we, these are people that walked down’, this was a tiny percentage of the overall which nobody sees and nobody, nobody shows. But that was a day of love.”

Testimony before the House January 6 committee alleged Trump was aware that many in the crowd were armed with an array of hand guns and rifles  before they made their assault on the Capitol. Among rioters who were proven to have carried firearms are Christopher Alberts, who was sentenced to seven years in prison; Mark Mazza, who carried two guns and was sentenced to five years in federal prison; and Guy Reffitt, who was sentenced to seven years behind bars. Another defendant awaiting trial fired his weapon into the air twice at the start of the assault, according to prosecutors.

In an October 15 interview with Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait, Trump said the number of people who went to the Capitol was “very, very small,” putting the total number at 500 to 700. “Not one of those people had a gun” Trump boldly proclaimed which is simply a lie. He also described the scene at his speech that day as “love and peace, and some people went to the Capitol, and a lot of strange things happened there.”

According to the Justice Department more than 1,500 people have been charged in connection with the storming of the US Capitol.  About 1,100 have been convicted, with sentences ranging from a few days of incarceration to 22 years in federal prison.

Trump has referred to the January 6 rioters as “political prisoners,” “hostages,” and “unbelievable patriots” and said he would pardon at least “Sen of them as one of his first acts in office if he is elected on  November 5.

RECALLING WHAT SENATOR MITCH MCCONNEL SAID ABOUT JANUARY 6

Anyone that has even a scintilla of a doubt that it was Donald Trump that organized and encouraged the January 6, 2021 capitol riot and the bloody insurrection that day need to be reminded of what his staunch ally and Republican United State Senator Mitch McConnel said of the events of that day. Following are portions of  the speech Senator Mitch McConnell gave on February 13, 2021, after Trump left office,  on the US Senate Floor:

“January 6th was a disgrace.

“American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like.”

“Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President.”

“They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he’d lost an election.”

“Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.”

“The House accused the former President of, quote, ‘incitement.’ That is a specific term from the criminal law.”

“Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.”

“The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President.”

“And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.”

“The issue is not only the President’s intemperate language on January 6th.”

“It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged ‘trial by combat.’ ”

“It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President.”

“I defended the President’s right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke. The Electoral College spoke. As I stood up and said clearly at the time, the election was settled.”

“But that reality just opened a new chapter of even wilder and more unfounded claims.”

“The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.”

“Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.”

“This was different.”

“This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.”

“The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.”

“Whatever our ex-President claims he thought might happen that day… whatever reaction he says he meant to produce… by that afternoon, he was watching the same live television as the rest of the world.”

“A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.”

“It was obvious that only President Trump could end this.”

“Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the Administration.”

“But the President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn’t take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed, and order restored.”

“Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election!”

“Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in danger… even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters… the President sent a further tweet attacking his Vice President.”

“Predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as further inspiration to lawlessness and violence.”

“Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he did not call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later.”

“And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals.”

“In recent weeks, our ex-President’s associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to re-elect him as a kind of human shield against criticism.”

“Anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters.”

“That is an absurd deflection.”

“74 million Americans did not invade the Capitol. Several hundred rioters did.”

“And 74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it.”

“One person did.”

“I have made my view of this episode very plain.”

…  . “

At this point in his speech, Senator McConnell goes to great lengths to explain the process of impeachment and conviction and how it is a narrow tool for a narrow purpose. McConnell concludes that Trump could not be impeached and convicted for his actions on January 6 because the mandatory sentence of removal from office cannot be applied to somebody who has already left office. McConnell goes on to say “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” Little did McConnel  realize that the US Supreme Court would rule that Trump has immunity for“official acts.”

Senator McConnell concludes his remarks by saying this:

“This has been a dispiriting time. But the Senate has done our duty. The framers’ firewall held up again.”

“On January 6th, we returned to our posts and certified the election, uncowed.”

“And since then, we resisted the clamor to defy our own constitutional guardrails in hot pursuit of a particular outcome.”

“We refused to continue a cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in response.”

“The Senate’s decision does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day.”

“It simply shows that Senators did what the former President failed to do:

We put our constitutional duty first.”

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mcconnell-remarks-trump-acquittal/index.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

With the landmark presidential immunity decision by the United States Supreme Court, 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,  the United State Supreme Court have done whatever they could do to undermine our federal criminal justice system and attempt to ensure that former President Trump returns to power. The 6 do so at the expense of 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 know if the two federal criminal cases against Trump proceed to trial after the election, and he is elected, he will order the Justice Department to simply dismiss the cases or simply pardon himself. They also know if Trump is not elected, he will likely be tried, convicted and do jail time on the Federal charges.

The 6 appointed Republican Justices have already made a profound difference with their right wing Republican Judicial Activism. The 6 Republican United State Supreme Court Justices have issued 6 major decisions that confirm it has become a far right wing activist court. The 1st was the court’s  considering an attempt to empower legislatures with exclusive authority to redraw congressional districts without court intervention. The 2nd  struct down decades of affirmative action in college admissions. The 3rd ruled that a Christian business owners can discriminate and withhold services to the LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds.  The 4th  invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan. The 5^th strips federal government agencies of all regulatory power and mandates court approval of rules and regulations. The 6^th and most controversial  is the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade and 50 years of precedent and denying a woman’s right to choose an abortion and leaving it up to the state’s.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2024 presidential election is again shaping up to be one of the most consequential elections in our history where Supreme Court decisions will be on the ballot as well as the control of congress, not to mention our basic right to vote in an election and the Presidency.

A story has been told and retold about founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin supposedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

It’s truly amazing that the 2024 Presidential election appears to be on track to be the closest election in United States history. Polls indicate that the economy and boarder security are dominating upper most in voters minds when it is our very democracy that is at stake in this election.

Time Magazine published an exhaustive and very alarming report where former President Donald Trump outlined his second term agenda should he win.  The article was written by TIME’s staff reporter Eric Cortellessa with contributing  reporting from TIME reporters Leslie Dickstein, Simmone Shah, and Julia Zorthian.

What emerges from review of Trump’s second term agenda is an imperial presidency, some would say an American version of fascism, “where the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.”  Trump was very specific what he will do if he again elected President:

• Trump would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.
• Trump would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland to carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country,
• Trump would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.
• Trump said he might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense.
• Trump said he would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit to combat crime, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.
• Trump is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury.
• Trump would enter a second term bringing with loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable.
• Trump would not commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election and even went to far as to suggest the possibility of political violence around the election if he is not elected.

Highlights of the TIME report, editing out reporter subjective observations for brevity, and emphasizing Trump’s second term agenda are as follows:

ABORTION RIGHTS

As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, he has sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. … [Trump] declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk.

 More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says.  When … ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he said this “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”

Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to “the moment of fertilization.”  TIME  asked  Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. Trump said “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes because we now have it back in the states.”

 ELECTION NEWS UPDATE

 On September 25, Trump cast himself as a “protector” of women at a Pennsylvania rally  and claimed that American women won’t be “thinking about abortion” if he’s elected.

The plea to ignore Trump’s own role in undoing national abortion rights protections is a clear signal that the former president is keenly aware of what polls show: His Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, has a clear advantage among women voters, nationally and in key swing states. Trump has kept the race close by countering with a lead among men.

The Supreme Court’s overturning Roe v. Wade by the conservative majority, with three members appointed by Trump, has led  to a patchwork of state-level abortion regulations, including restrictive laws in several of the battleground states that could decide the 2024 election. Democrats have performed strongly in elections where abortion has taken center stage since that 2022 Supreme Court decision, and abortion rights supporters have won a series of statewide referendums on the issue, even in deep-red states.

Trump claimed  in  Indiana, Pennsylvania that  women are “less safe,” “much poorer” and are “less healthy” now compared to when he was president and vowed to end what he described as their “national nightmare.” Trump said this:

“I always thought women liked me. I never thought I had a problem. But the fake news keeps saying women don’t like me. … I don’t believe it. … Because I am your protector. I want to be your protector. As president, I have to be your protector. I hope you don’t make too much of it. I hope the fake news doesn’t go, ‘Oh he wants to be their protector.’ Well, I am. As president, I have to be your protector.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/politics/donald-trump-women-voters-protector-abortion/index.html

THE SOUTHERN BORDER

Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the “Remain in Mexico Program” which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum.

Advisers say he plans to cite record border crossings and fentanyl- and child-trafficking as justification for reimposing the emergency measures.

Trump would direct federal funding to resume construction of the border wall, likely by allocating money from the military budget without congressional approval. The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. “People need to be deported,” says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “No one should be off the table.”

For an operation of that scale, Trump says he would rely mostly on the National Guard to round up and remove undocumented migrants throughout the country. “If they weren’t able to, then I’d use [other parts of] the military,” he says. When I ask if that means he would override the Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 law that prohibits the use of military force on civilians—Trump seems unmoved by the weight of the statute. Trump says this  “Well, these aren’t civilians. … These are people that aren’t legally in our country.” He would also seek help from local police and says he would deny funding for jurisdictions that decline to adopt his policies. Trump says, “There’s a possibility that some won’t want to participate and they won’t partake in the riches.”

ELECTION NEWS UPDATE

 Trump’s plan for mass deportations invokes 226-year-old law used to detain Japanese Americans. On November 11, Trump  speaking from Aurora, Colorado during a campaign rally, told supporters that he plans to revive the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which would give him as president unprecedented ability to target foreigners for removal, without a hearing or due process, based solely on their place of birth or citizenship.  Trump said he wants to immediately invoke a more than 200-year-old wartime law that grants the president unilateral authority to deploy federal law enforcement for rounding up and deporting immigrants as soon as he enters office.

His “Operation Aurora” which is  named after the Colorado city he has denigrated as a “war zone” from “migrant crime” would also dispatch “elite squads of ICE, border patrol, and federal law enforcement officers to hunt down, arrest, and deport every last illegal alien gang member until there is not a single one left in this country,” he said.

Trump made Colorado’s third largest city the face of his staunch anti-illegal immigration stance. He has referred to the Denver suburb as a “war zone” during campaign rallies and amplified false claims that gang members had “taken over” buildings in the city. Trumps claims that  gang members have taken control of a set of apartment buildings have been debunked.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-rally-harris-elections-live-updates-b2628050.html

https://www.denver7.com/news/politics/operation-aurora-trump-promises-nationwide-deportation-effort-during-colorado-rally

FOREIGN POLICY

“… Since its founding, the U.S. has sought to build and sustain alliances based on the shared values of political and economic freedom. Trump takes a much more transactional approach to international relations than his predecessors, expressing disdain for what he views as   “free-riding friends”  and appreciation for authoritarian leaders like President Xi Jinping of China, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, or former President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil.

That’s one reason America’s traditional allies were horrified when Trump recently said at a campaign rally that Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO country he believes doesn’t spend enough on collective defense. That wasn’t idle bluster.  [Trump said this] “If you’re not going to pay, then you’re on your own.” Trump has long said the alliance is ripping the U.S. off. Former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg credited Trump’s first-term threat to pull out of the alliance with spurring other members to add more than $100 billion to their defense budgets.

But an insecure NATO is as likely to accrue to Russia’s benefit as it is to America’s. President Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine looks to many in Europe and the U.S. like a test of his broader vision to reconstruct the Soviet empire. Under Biden and a bipartisan Congress, the U.S. has sent more than $100 billion to Ukraine to defend itself. It’s unlikely Trump would extend the same support to Kyiv.  [Trump said]  in March he “wouldn’t give a penny” to Ukraine [and said]  “I wouldn’t give unless Europe starts equalizing. … If Europe is not going to pay, why should we pay? They’re much more greatly affected. We have an ocean in between us. They don’t.””

Trump has historically been reluctant to criticize or confront Putin. He sided with the Russian autocrat over his own intelligence community when it asserted that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Even now, Trump uses Putin as a foil for his own political purposes. When …  Trump [was asked]  why he has not called for the release of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been unjustly held on spurious charges in a Moscow prison for a year, Trump said, “I guess because I have so many other things I’m working on.” Gershkovich should be freed, he adds, but he doubts it will happen before the election. “The reporter should be released and he will be released. … I don’t know if he’s going to be released under Biden. I would get him released.”

America’s Asian allies, like its European ones, may be on their own under Trump. Taiwan’s Foreign Minister recently said aid to Ukraine was critical in deterring Xi from invading the island. Communist China’s leaders “have to understand that things like that can’t come easy,” Trump says, but he declines to say whether he would come to Taiwan’s defense. 

 Trump is less cryptic on current U.S. troop deployments in Asia. If South Korea doesn’t pay more to support U.S. troops there to deter Kim Jong Un’s increasingly belligerent regime to the north, Trump suggests the U.S. could withdraw its forces. “We have 40,000 troops that are in a precarious position,” he tells TIME. (The number is actually 28,500.) “Which doesn’t make any sense. Why would we defend somebody? And we’re talking about a very wealthy country.”

“Transactional isolationism”  may be the main strain of Trump’s foreign policy, but there are limits. Trump says he would join Israel’s side in a confrontation with Iran. “If they attack Israel, yes, we would be there.”  He says he has come around to the now widespread belief in Israel that a Palestinian state existing side by side in peace is increasingly unlikely. “There was a time when I thought two-state could work,” he says. “Now I think two-state is going to be very, very tough.”

Yet even his support for Israel is not absolute. He’s criticized Israel’s handling of its war against Hamas, which has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza, and has called for the nation to “get it over with.” When I ask whether he would consider withholding U.S. military aid to Israel to push it toward winding down the war, he doesn’t say yes, but he doesn’t rule it out, either. Trump  is sharply critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once a close ally. “I had a bad experience with Bibi,” Trump says. In his telling, a January 2020 U.S. operation to assassinate a top Iranian general was supposed to be a joint attack until Netanyahu backed out at the last moment. “That was something I never forgot,” he says. He blames Netanyahu for failing to prevent the Oct. 7 attack, when Hamas militants infiltrated southern Israel and killed nearly 1,200 people amid acts of brutality including burning entire families alive and raping women and girls. “It happened on his watch,” Trump says.

ELECTION NEWS UPDATE

 Donald Trump sidestepped a direct question during the September  presidential debate  with Vice President Kamal Harris on whether he wanted Ukraine to win in its war against Russia, underlining concerns that a second Trump administration could suspend military support for Kyiv.

Asked directly by ABC’s David Muir on whether or not he wants Ukraine to win the war, he did not answer the question and said simply: “I want the war to stop.” He focused on the war’s human toll by saying that people were being killed “by the millions,” a number that hasn’t been confirmed by any country or international organization.

He went on to say that if elected he would negotiate a deal even before becoming president and suggested the United States was “playing with World War three.” Harris said that Trump’s plan to end the Ukraine war was for Ukraine to simply surrender.

Kamala Harris quickly pounced on his remarks, saying that if Trump had been president during the invasion, then “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe”, and that in such a scenario the Russian president would move on to Poland.

“Why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favour and what you think is a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you.”

Trump’s remarks will renew concerns in Kyiv that he will cut off military and economic aid toward the country if he is reelected at a crucial moment in the war, when Kyiv is desperate for troops, financial support and for military hardware, much of it supplied by the United States and its NATO allies

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/11/us-presidential-debate-donald-trump-ukraine-war

CRIME AND DEALING WITH “ANTIWHITE FEELING”

“On the campaign trail, Trump uses crime as a cudgel, painting urban America as a savage hell-scape even though violent crime has declined in recent years, with homicides sinking 6% in 2022 and 13% in 2023, according to the FBI.  [When the declines are pointed out, Trump said]  he thinks the data, which is collected by state and local police departments, is rigged. “It’s a lie” he says. He has pledged to send the National Guard into cities struggling with crime in a second term, possibly without the request of governors, and plans to approve Justice Department grants only to cities that adopt his preferred policing methods like stop-and-frisk.

To critics, Trump’s preoccupation with crime is a racial dog whistle. In polls, large numbers of his supporters have expressed the view that “antiwhite racism” now represents a greater problem in the U.S. than the systemic racism that has long afflicted Black Americans. When asked if he agrees, Trump does not dispute this position. “There is a definite antiwhite feeling in the country … and that can’t be allowed either.” In a second term, advisers say, a Trump Administration would rescind Biden’s Executive Orders designed to boost diversity and racial equity.

UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY

In a second term, Trump’s influence on American democracy would extend far beyond pardoning powers. Allies are laying the groundwork to restructure the presidency in line with a doctrine called the “UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY”, which holds that many of the constraints imposed on the White House by legislators and the courts should be swept away in favor of a more powerful Commander in Chief.

Nowhere would that power be more momentous than at the Department of Justice. Since the nation’s earliest days, Presidents have generally kept a respectful distance from Senate-confirmed law-enforcement officials to avoid exploiting for personal ends their enormous ability to curtail Americans’ freedoms. But Trump, burned in his first term by multiple investigations directed by his own appointees, is ever more vocal about imposing his will directly on the department and its far-flung investigators and prosecutors.

 Trump said he might fire U.S. Attorneys who refuse his orders to prosecute someone: “It would depend on the situation.” He’s told supporters he would seek retribution against his enemies in a second term. Would that include Fani Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney who charged him with election interference, or Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA in the Stormy Daniels case, who Trump has previously said should be prosecuted? Trump demurs but offers no promises. “No, I don’t want to do that,” he says, before adding, “We’re gonna look at a lot of things. What they’ve done is a terrible thing.”

“Trump has also vowed to appoint a “real special prosecutor” to go after Biden. [Trump says] “I wouldn’t want to hurt Biden. … I have too much respect for the office.” Seconds later, though, he suggests Biden’s fate may be tied to an upcoming Supreme Court ruling on whether Presidents can face criminal prosecution for acts committed in office. “If they said that a President doesn’t get immunity, then Biden, I am sure, will be prosecuted for all of his crimes.” Biden has not been charged with any crimes, and a House Republican effort to impeach him has failed to unearth evidence of any crimes or misdemeanors.”

THE COURTS, CONGRESS AND THE PRESS

“The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered Trump  in the past remain present.

If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he told TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families.”

“Trump has sought to recast [the January 6]  insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. “I call them the J-6 patriots,” he says. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, ‘Yes, absolutely.’ “

GOVERNMENT IN WAITING

Policy groups are creating a government-in-waiting full of true believers. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has drawn up plans for legislation and Executive Orders as it trains prospective personnel for a second Trump term. The Center for Renewing America, led by Russell Vought, Trump’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, is dedicated to disempowering the so-called administrative state, the collection of bureaucrats with the power to control everything from drug-safety determinations to the contents of school lunches. The America First Policy Institute is a research haven of pro-Trump right-wing populists. America First Legal, led by Trump’s immigration adviser Stephen Miller, is mounting court battles against the Biden Administration.

The goal of these groups is to put Trump’s vision into action on day one. “The President never had a policy process that was designed to give him what he actually wanted and campaigned on,” says Vought. “[We are] sorting through the legal authorities, the mechanics, and providing the momentum for a future Administration.” That includes a litany of boundary-pushing right-wing policies, including slashing Department of Justice funding and cutting climate and environmental regulations.

Trump’s campaign says he would be the final decision-maker on which policies suggested by these organizations would get implemented. But at the least, these advisers could form the front lines of a planned march against what Trump dubs the Deep State, marrying bureaucratic savvy to their leader’s anti-bureaucratic zeal.

ACCEPTING RESULTS OF ELECTION ONLY IF HE WINS

Trump does not dismiss the possibility of political violence around the election [nor if he will accept the election results.]   Trump said this: “If we don’t win, you know, it depends. … It always depends on the fairness of the election.” When asked what he meant when he baselessly claimed on Truth Social that a stolen election “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” Trump responded by denying he had said it. He then complained about the “Biden-inspired” court case he faces in New York and suggested that the “fascists” in America’s government were its greatest threat. “I think the enemy from within, in many cases, is much more dangerous for our country than the outside enemies of China, Russia, and various others.”

Trump was asked to explain another troubling comment he made: that he wants to be dictator for a day. It came during a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity, who gave Trump an opportunity to allay concerns that he would abuse power in office or seek retribution against political opponents. Trump said he would not be a dictator—“except for day one” and  added. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”

Trump says that the remark “was said in fun, in jest, sarcastically.” He compares it to an infamous moment from the 2016 campaign, when he encouraged the Russians to hack and leak Hillary Clinton’s emails. In Trump’s mind, the media sensationalized those remarks too. But the Russians weren’t joking: among many other efforts to influence the core exercise of American democracy that year, they hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers and disseminated its emails through WikiLeaks.

 Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, Trump was asked if he did not  see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. “I think a lot of people like it.”

The link to the full, unedited TIME news article with photos is here:

https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/

 ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT

The  Associated Press National Political Reporter JILL COLVIN reported on Trump’s second term agenda giving  insight on what Trump intends to do in areas not reported on in the TIME article. Following are excerpts from the Associated Press Article “Trump’s Radical Second-term Agenda Would Wield Executive Power In Unprecedented Ways”:

TRADE

“Trump says he will institute a system of tariffs of perhaps 10% on most foreign goods. Penalties would increase if trade partners manipulate their currencies or engage in other unfair trading practices.

He will urge that Congress pass a “Trump Reciprocal Trade Act,” giving the president authority to impose a reciprocal tariff on any country that imposes one on the U.S.

Much of the agenda focuses on China. Trump has proposed a four-year plan to phase out Chinese imports of essential goods, including electronics, steel and pharmaceuticals. He wants to ban Chinese companies from owning vital U.S. infrastructure in sectors such as energy, technology and agriculture, and says he will force Chinese owners to sell any holdings “that jeopardize America’s national security.”

FOREIGN POLICY

“Trump claims that even before he is inaugurated, he will have settled the war between Russia and Ukraine. That includes, he says, ending the “endless flow of American treasure to Ukraine” and asking European allies to reimburse the U.S. for the cost of rebuilding stockpiles.

It is unclear whether he would insist that Russia withdraw from territory in Ukraine it seized in the war that it launched in February 2022.

Trump has said he will stand with Israel in its war with Hamas and support Israel’s efforts to “destroy” the militant group. He says he will continue to “fundamentally reevaluate” NATO’s purpose and mission.”

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

“Trump says he will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that “only two genders,” as determined at birth, are recognized by the United States.

As part of his crackdown on gender-affirming care, he will declare that hospitals and health care providers that offer transitional hormones or surgery no longer meet federal health and safety standards and will be blocked from receiving federal funds, including Medicaid and Medicare dollars.

He would push Congress to prohibit hormonal or surgical intervention for transgender minors in all 50 states.

Doctors typically guide kids toward therapy before medical intervention. At that point, hormone treatments such as puberty blockers are far more common than surgery. They have been available in the U.S. for more than a decade and are standard treatments backed by major doctors’ organizations, including the American Medical Association.”

ENERGY

“Trump’s goal, he says, is for the U.S. to have the lowest-cost energy and electricity of any nation in the world, including China.

Under the mantra “DRILL, BABY, DRILL,” he says he would ramp up oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers. He would roll back Biden administration efforts to encourage the adoption of electric cars and reverse proposed new pollution limits that would require at least 54% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030.

And again, he says, he will exit the Paris Climate Accords, end wind subsidies and eliminate regulations imposed and proposed by the Biden admiration targeting incandescent lightbulbs, gas stoves, dishwashers and shower heads.”

EDUCATION

“Trump has pledged to terminate the Department of Education, but he also wants to exert enormous influence over local school districts and colleges.

He would push the federal government to give funding preference to states and school districts that abolish teacher tenure, adopt merit pay to reward good teachers and allow the direct election of school principals by parents.

He has said he would cut funding for any school that has a vaccine or mask mandate and will promote prayer in public schools.

Trump also wants a say in school curricula, vowing to fight for “patriotic education.” He says that under his administration, schools will “teach students to love their country, not to hate their country like they’re taught right now” and will promote “the nuclear family” including “the roles of mothers and fathers” and the “things that make men and women different and unique.”

To protect students, he says he will support school districts that allow trained teachers to carry concealed weapons. He would provide federal funding so schools can hire veterans, retired police officers, and other trained gun owners as armed school guards.”

HOMELESSNESS

“Trump wants to force the homeless off city streets by building tent cities on large open parcels of inexpensive land. At the same time, he says he will work with states to ban urban camping, giving violators the choice between being arrested or receiving treatment.

He also wants to bring back large mental institutions to reinstitutionalize those who are “severely mentally ill” or “dangerously deranged.”

PUBLIC SAFETY

“Trump would again push to send the National Guard to cities such as Chicago that are struggling with violence. He would use the federal government’s funding and prosecution authorities to strong-arm local governments.

He says he will require local law enforcement agencies that receive Justice Department grants to use controversial policing measures such as stop-and-frisk. As a deterrent, he says local police should be empowered to shoot suspected shoplifters in the act. “Very simply, if you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store,” he said in one recent speech.

Trump has called for the death penalty for drug smugglers and those who traffic women and children. He has also pledged a federal takeover of the nation’s capital, calling Washington a “dirty, crime-ridden death trap” unbefitting of the country.”

The link to the full unedited AP News report is here:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-policies-agenda-election-2024-second-term-d656d8f08629a8da14a65c4075545e0f

The link to a related CNN report on  Trumps Second Term Agenda is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/politics/trump-agenda-second-term/index.html

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

One remarkable paragraph in the TIME article captured succinctly what is at stake in the 2025 election:

“Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise.  To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”

On October 13, 2024 the Albuquerque Journal published the following Pete Dinelli guest opinion column:

HEADLINE: “New Mexico needs a statewide mental health Court”

BY PETE DINELLI, ALBUQUERQUE RESIDENT

“The New Mexico court system is launching four pilot programs in four separate counties in the state to divert people with serious mental illness into treatment who otherwise would face prosecution for minor crimes.

Far more needs to be done. Warehousing the mentally ill, drug addicted or the unhoused who are mentally ill or drug addicted in jails for crimes committed is simply not the answer. It does not address treatment, nor is it much of a solution.

According to one study, more than 3,200 people charged with crimes since 2017 in New Mexico have been released back into the community after being found incompetent to stand trial. More than 5,350 of the 16,045 dismissed charges were felonies. The dismissals include those charged with first-degree murder, trafficking controlled substances, kidnapping and abuse of a child.

Defendants charged with lesser crimes have been repeat offenders caught in a cycle of being charged, released, arrested again, charged again, and let go after court-ordered evaluations showed they cannot participate in their own defense and ruled they were mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and the Legislature must strengthen and expand New Mexico’s mental health commitment laws, coupled with full funding for mental health facilities and the courts.

District attorneys and public defenders must be made a part of the solution by expanding the state mental health commitment laws and allowing the filing of civil mental health commitments that go beyond existing 3-day, 7-day and 30-day evaluation commitments and mandate prolonged mental health treatment.

District judges should be required to order district attorneys to file “involuntary commitment” proceedings against criminal defendants who are found incompetent to stand trial and who would be released without further criminal prosecution for crimes committed.

The 2025 Legislature should enact the governor’s proposal for the involuntary civil commitment of criminal defendants charged with a serious violent offense, a felony involving the use of a firearm, and those defendants who have also been found incompetent to stand trial two or more times in the past 12 months.

The Legislature should also enact the governor’s proposed bill that will broaden the definitions of danger to oneself and danger to others in New Mexico’s involuntary commitment statute that mandates involuntary treatment for people with mental illness. The law should mandate district attorneys to initiate involuntary civil commitments and allow a judge to mandate outpatient treatment.

It should allow individuals, whether first responders, family members or community members who work with mentally ill individuals on the streets, to request involuntary outpatient treatment.

During the 2025 session, the Legislature should seek to create a “mental health treatment court” to function as outreach and a treatment court for the drug addicted and the mentally ill, in a mandatory hospital or counseling settings, and not involving jail incarceration.

There is a major need for the construction and staffing of mental health facilities or hospitals to provide the services needed for the mentally ill and drug addicted.

New Mexico has historical surplus revenues with an astonishing $3.6 billion in reported surplus revenue. Now is the time to create a statewide a mental health court and dedicate funding for the construction of behavioral health hospitals and drug rehabilitation treatment facilities.

Funding for district attorneys and public defenders with dedicated personnel resources for the filing and defending of civil mental health commitments must be included.

A statewide mental health court with mandatory civil commitments will get treatment to those who need it the most, help get the unhoused off the streets and help families with loved ones who resist any mental health treatment.”

Pete Dinelli is a former Albuquerque city councilor, former chief public safety officer and former chief deputy district attorney. You can read his daily news and commentary blog at www.PeteDinelli.com.

The link to the Albuquerque Journal guest opinion column with photos is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/opinion-nm-needs-a-statewide-mental-health-court-to-get-treatment-to-those-who-need/article_51cb4eda-8764-11ef-a8a8-2bdacb626ed7.html

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/09/12/new-mexico-courts-launch-4-pilot-programs-to-divert-mentally-ill-into-treatment-and-not-jail-governor-promotes-major-reforms-to-criminal-competency-laws/