On February 2, an Albuquerque Journal Poll published an opinion poll it commissioned with Research & Polling Inc. The poll was conducted from January 31 through February 4. According to the Journal report, the poll was based on a scientific, statewide sample of 515 New Mexico adults representative of the age, gender, race and geographical region of the state’s adult population. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage.

The telephone poll found slim majority of adults in New Mexico support a red flag law that would allow for the temporary removal of firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others with 52% of adults in support of such a the law and 37% opposed with 11% saying they had mixed feelings, said it depends or wouldn’t say.

The question asked was:

“The New Mexico Legislature is considering a bill known as a Red Flag Law. This law will allow enforcement officers to temporarily remove guns from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.

“Supporters say this bill would reduce gun violence including suicides and lessen the risk of shootings, while opponents say it would deny people their due process and their constitutional right to bear arms, without having committed a crime.
“Do you support or oppose this Red Flag Law?”

Quoting the Albuquerque Journal report:

“The poll showed strikingly different support levels among men and women and by party affiliation. Support for the firearms proposal was 63% among women and 64% among Democrats. Just 41% of men and 30% of Republicans supported the bill.
…
The Journal Poll also shows substantial geographic variation – with support highest in the Albuquerque area and north-central New Mexico, including Santa Fe. Attitudes were more divided on the east side of the state and in the northwest, where more adults opposed the bill than supported it.

The Journal Poll found significant differences in support for the bill among men and women. Support was 63% among women, with just 26% opposed. Among men, 47% were opposed and 41% in favor. Registered voters were about as likely as the broader adult population to support the bill.

Support for the bill among Democrats was 64%, and 60% of Republicans opposed it. Independent voters – or those affiliated with a minor party – had support levels roughly in line with the broader adult population, with 50% in favor and 37% opposed.

Adults in the Albuquerque area were more likely to support the law than people in the state overall. Support was 57% in the Albuquerque area, or about twice the level of opposition.
Opposition to the bill ran higher on the east side of the state, near Texas, where 49% of those surveyed opposed the law and 45% supported it. In northwestern New Mexico – including Farmington and parts of the Navajo Nation – opposition was 49%, with support at 43%.”

You can read the entire Albuquerque Journal Report and analyst here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1418012/journal-poll-new-mexicans-back-red-flag-bill.html

SENATE BILL 5

Senate Bill 5, entitled the Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act, sometimes called a “red flag” law was pre -filed on January 8 ahead of the 2020 Legislative session. Under the original Senate Bill 5, a relative, household member or law enforcement officer would file a sworn affidavit and petition in state District Court seeking an extreme-risk protection order to prohibit someone from possessing firearms who pose a serious threat to themselves or others. The affidavit provided by a household member or relative would have to provide “ probable cause” to believe someone “poses a significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to self or others.” In terms of the protection order, “probable cause” is evidence presented showing it is more likely than not that that someone “poses a significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to self or others.”

The petitioner would have to disclose whether there’s any other pending legal action between the two parties. A judge could then issue a 15-day emergency order to seize the weapons and ammunition from that person. There would also an option for a one-year firearm prohibition, based on a “preponderance of evidence” to determine if there was a need for a one-year order. When the court order expires, the guns and ammunition would then be returned to the individual.

Once presented with evidence of probable cause, a judge could then issue a 15-day emergency order to seize the weapons and ammunition from that person and would schedule a hearing to determine if there was a need for a one-year order. When the court order expires, the guns and ammunition would then be returned to the individual. Seventeen states have enacted red flag laws.

SENATE PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ACTION

On January 28, after more than two hours of emotional testimony, Senate Bill 5 entitled the “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act” passed the Senate Public Affairs Committee on a party-line vote of 4 Democrats for and 3 Republicans against. The legislation is sponsored by Senator Joseph Cervantes of Las Cruces, Representative Damon Ely of Corrales and Representative Joy Garratt of Albuquerque. The legislation is backed by Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, who added it to the agenda of the 30-day session.

The Senate Public Affairs Committee hearing was held in the Senate chambers to accommodate the audience. In an extraordinary move of caution, the over 200 people who showed up to attend the hearing were screened for weapons upon entering the Senate Gallery.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/red-flag-law-bill-clears-first-hurdle/5626424/?cat=500

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTION

On February 5, the Senate Judiciary Committee made a major change to the legislation and narrowed downed who can seek the temporary seizure of firearms. Senate Bill 5 was changed to provide that only law enforcement officers, not family members or coworkers, would be able to file the petition in state court for the court of protection.

Democratic Senator Joseph Cervantes, one of the 3 sponsors, said the new version of the legislation is intended to address criticism leveled by sheriffs and other opponents of the bill. The provision requiring a law enforcement officer to petition the court and not allowing someone else to do it such as a family member was aimed at preventing abuse by an ex-spouse seeking retaliation. A Household member could still request the filing of a petition by law enforcement, but it would be up to a law enforcement officer to determine whether there’s “probable cause” to seek the Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order.

Opponents of the bill said that the changes still did not go far don’t go far enough and allow someone a chance to contest an order to surrender their firearms.
The amended proposal narrowly cleared the Senate Judiciary on a 6-5 vote and the amended bill was sent to the Senate for a full vote of the chamber.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1417550/revised-firearms-law-heads-to-senate.html

FINAL SENATE ACTION

On February 7, the Senate passed the Extreme Risk Firearm Protection bill by just two votes with a vote of 22-20 avoiding a tie vote with some Democrats crossing party lines and voting with Republicans. Democrats hold a 26-16 edge in the Senate. The 4 Democrats who joined all 16 Republicans to vote no were Senator’s Gabriel Ramos of Silver City, John Arthur Smith of Deming, Richard Martinez of Ojo Caliente, and Clemente Sanchez of Grants. Had the vote been a tie Lt. Governor Howie Morales, who presides over the Senate, would have likely voted in favor of passage. The final vote was cast after hours of tense debate.

Senator Cervantes in arguing the passage of the amended bill on the Senate floor, reminded lawmakers of the mass shooting in El Paso last year in which a gunmen targeted people of Mexican decent and killed 22 people and had this to say:

“In too many of these mass killings and in suicides, we have noticed and we have acknowledged too many times of these individuals telling friends, schoolmates, principals, family members, of their intentions to do harm to others and yet despite that knowledge, too often times nothing is done.”

Senate Bill 5 now goes to the House further action. If it passes the House, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham says she will sign it whereupon New Mexico will to become the 18th state with a red-flag gun law. The Governor had this to say about the passage of Senate Bill 5 in the Senate:
“We have an obligation to every single New Mexican, every single family, every single child that we do everything in our power that can provide just that additional layer of safety and public support.”

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/red-flag-gun-bill-narrowly-clears-senate/

LAW ENFORCEMENT OPPOSITION

Not at all surprising, and like last year when a Red Flag Law failed, Senate Bill 5 is opposed by many within New Mexico’s law enforcement community. 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs oppose the measure. However, State Police Chief Tim Johnson and members of the Albuquerque Police Department upper command support the legislation with APD Deputy Chief Harold Medina testifying during committee hearings in support of it.

Opponents of the bill argue it is unconstitutional, it violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and due process of law, questioning whether it will prevent future tragedies. Governor Lujan Grisham, Senator Cervantes and other supporters expressed confidence in the bill’s constitutionality pointing out it was based on similar laws passed in other states.

SUICICIDES, SCHOOL SHOOTINGS AND MASS MURDERS

Backers of the red flag law say it could prevent school shootings, suicides and mass murder arguments that are immediately credible given New Mexico and the country’s statistics.

NEW MEXICO’S SUICIDE RATE

Most gun deaths in New Mexico are a result of suicide and therefore the state’s suicide rate is a critical part of the debate. Overall, the state suicide rate is 21.9 deaths per 100,000 people, which is more than 50% higher than the national average. Ten counties in New Mexico that are largely rural areas of the state have suicide rates at least twice the national average, which is 14 suicide deaths per 100,000 people. Studies in states that have “red flag laws” and that have “risk-based firearm seizure laws” were associated with reduced suicide rates.

NEW MEXICO’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RATE

On September 16, 2017, according to an annual study published by the Violence Policy Center, it was reported women are more likely to be killed by men in New Mexico than nearly any other states.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-mexico-s-rate-of-women-killed-by-men-among/article_eb7e4a2c-273d-5eb6-8007-e5936639b64f.html

The study found the state has the 10th-highest rate of women killed by men, marking the third straight year New Mexico had appeared toward the top of the list, while New Mexico’s overall homicide rate ranked lower.

Current statistics are 1 in 3 New Mexico women will experience domestic violence in thier lifetime. 18,000 domestic violence calls were made in 2017 with 8,000 calls made in Albuquerque. 30% of the calls had a child as a witness. Nationwide 3 women are killed daily from domestic violence.

New Mexico has ranked among the top 10 states with the highest rates of women killed by men during the last decade. The Violence Policy Center promotes gun control and found that each state at the top of the list of women killed by men have a high rate of firearm ownership which no doubt includes New Mexico’s gun culture.

UNITED STATES HISTORY OF MASS SHOOTINGS

Since 1995, the United States has had 95 mass shootings, including seven of the 11 deadliest. Three of the 11 biggest mass shootings in American history have now taken place in the United States during the last two years.

There is no doubt we have a deadly mass shooting epidemic on our hands.

The mass shooting with guns in the last 10 years include: Orlando, Florida (49 killed, 50 injured), Blacksburg, Va. (32 killed), San Ysidro, Cal (21 killed), San Bernardino, (14 killed), Edmond Oklahoma (14 killed), Fort Hood (13 killed), Binghamton, NY (13 killed) Washington, DC (12 killed), Aurora, Colorado (12 killed), Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn (21 children and 6 adult staff members killed), an ex-employee kills five people when he opened fire at the Miller Coors building in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and then commits suicide, and the largest mass shooting in this country’s history that occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada with at least 59 dead and at least 515 wounded and the Parkland/Stoneridge High School shooting that resulted in 17 children’s deaths. Since 1995, the United States has had 98 mass shootings, including seven of the 11 deadliest. Three of the 11 biggest mass shootings in American history have now taken place in the United States in the last two years. . There is no doubt we have a deadly mass shooting epidemic on our hands.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is more likely than not that the New Mexico House of Representatives will enact Senate 5 and it should without any reservation because lives could be saved.

NATURAL EXTENSION OF Family Protection Act.

Senate Bill 5 is a natural extension of the 2019 New Mexico Legislature passage of Senate Bill 328 which prohibits gun possession by someone who’s subject to an order of protection under the Family Violence Protection Act. Under the enacted legislation domestic abusers must surrender their firearms to law enforcement. The gun possession prohibition also applies to people convicted of other crimes.

What I learned as the Bernalillo County Chief Deputy District Attorney is that Albuquerque’s dirty little secret is that domestic violence is the number-one reason why a woman is admitted to the emergency room of the University of New Mexico Hospital. Statics in Albuquerque showed that after about the 10th or 11th time there is a call out of the Albuquerque Police Department to a home for domestic violence, it is usually to pick a woman up in a body bag. This fact alone makes I very troubling as to why the elected

Sheriff’s oppose red flag law. Further Domestic violence call outs are some of the most dangerous calls for service law enforcement handle.

PROMOTION OF OWN PRO GUN PHILOSOPHY BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

The elected sheriffs who oppose the meaningful gun control legislation that the red flag law represents ignore their duty and responsibilities to serve and protect the general public that elected them preferring to promote their own “pro-gun” political philosophy and their own personal interpretation of the law. New Mexico’s Domestic Violence cases make up a large share of violent crime cases. The public’s safety and enactment of laws for the protection of those that easily become victims of gun violence, even by family members, should be law enforcement’s number one priority, not enforcing only those laws they feel that conform to their own “pro-gun” philosophy. The enactment of laws is the responsibility of the legislature, not law enforcement. The meaning and interpretation of the laws enacted is the responsibility of the court’s, and not of law enforcement.

NEW MEXICO’S GUN CULTURE

The biggest criticisms against “red flag” laws are that they violate a citizen’s United States Constitution Second amendment right to bear arms. Such an argument resonates with the New Mexico gun culture. Another major criticism is that a person’s constitutional right of due process of law is violated when a court can issue a temporary “ex parte” order to seize guns from people without an evidentiary hearing and without any notice.

Given New Mexico’s high suicide rates, domestic violence killings with guns and the threat of mass shootings, it is shameful that elected county sheriffs are far more concerned about “second amendment rights” that allows almost anyone, including those who pose a harm to themselves and others, to have a firearm of their choosing. The elected sheriff’s hide behind the 2nd Amendment so as not to protect or enforce the rights of others who have the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” just as much guaranteed under the constitution as the right to bear arms.

CONCLUSION

Far more needs to be done by the New Mexico legislature to combat gun violence and to keep the public safe from those who pose a risk to themselves and others. New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico State Legislature are wise to do all they can and enact the red flag law, and if one suicide can be prevented and if just one shooting by a mentally ill person can be prevented by it, it is worth it.

An Albuquerque Journal poll revealed that 61% of adults surveyed said they support New Mexico becoming the 12th state in the nation to legalize recreational use of cannabis, while 33% said they oppose the idea. The remaining either had mixed feelings or declined to answer. “The biggest predictor on New Mexicans’ feelings about marijuana legalization was age, as those ages 18 to 49 were far more likely to support the idea than those ages 50 and older.” The poll was conducted from January 31 through February 4 and was a statewide sample of 515 New Mexico adults that is representative of the age, gender, race and geographical region of the state’s adult population and has a margin of error of 4%.

You can review the entire Albuquerque Journal article with analysis detailing the poll results here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1418399/journal-poll-new-mexicans-back-legalizing-cannabis.html

SENATE BILL 115

Senate Bill 115 (SB 115) is the legalization of recreational marijuana bill that is pending in the 2020 New Mexico 30 day legislature that is more than halfway over. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has endorsed the legislation and added it to the 30-day session agenda. The SB 115 passed the Senate Public Affairs Committee along party lines with all Democrats voting yes and all Republicans voting no.

Senate Bill 115 is 173-pages long and the legislation will legalize use and sale of recreational marijuana for anyone age 21 and older. The 2019 New Mexico Legislature decriminalized possession which is now a $50 civil fine with no jail time. The proposed legislation provides for taxes on recreational pot at roughly 17% to 19% and makes medical marijuana tax-free and entirely subsides medical marijuana for low income patients.

The legislation will regulate both commercial and medical marijuana programs. The legislation avoids a traditional licensing system as is created for full-service alcohol licenses. As written, the recreational cannabis legislation contains no limit on the number of recreational cannabis licenses. Under the proposed legislation, the holder of a recreational cannabis license issued will have no vested property right in the license and the license is deemed property of the state. A license issued pursuant to the Cannabis Regulation Act will not be transferable from person to person, corporation to corporation or corporation to person. The licenses shall not be leased and shall not be considered property subject to execution, attachment, a security transaction, liens, receivership or all other incidents of tangible personal property under the laws of this state.

A Cannabis Control Division of the Regulation and Licensing Division will be created and will have very broad and extensive authority to regulate the industry. The division will have powers to promulgate rules and regulations, including many mandates and limitations on license issuance and quality control. The Cannabis Control Division must be up and running by January 1, 2021, which is a very ambitious deadline given the magnitude of creating the industry.

Medical cannabis providers could sell to recreational users beginning January 1, 2021 if the Department of Health determines it won’t harm the supply for people in the medical program. Broader commercial sales would start a year later, in 2022. The plan calls for food-grade testing of marijuana products. The legislation if passed will require all cannabis products sold in New Mexico to be tested and free from contaminants. Packaging must be clearly labeled with the THC dosage. The legislation also includes restrictions on advertisements that target youth. The legislation requires investments in training that would assist law enforcement officers in identifying impaired driving and not just limited to only cannabis-induced impairment.

The legislation does give local governments some authority to determine where cannabis dispensaries can be located. However, the state’s counties will not be given any authority to be able to prohibit cannabis sales nor prohibit the licensing of stores. In other words, local zoning rules will be able to be used to control the number of stores in an area where they the stores can located. This is identical to zoning restrictions placed on retail stores that sell pornography.

The legalization bill calls for generally a 19% tax rate. Each county and city have varying gross receipts tax rates and the cannabis tax would be added to those sales taxes. The tax is much lower than in other states and it is hoped it will prevent buyers from turning to the black market. The legislation will exempt residents in the medical cannabis program from the tax and would require cannabis growers to serve the medical market before the recreational market.

https://www.krqe.com/news/politic

On January 29, the Cannabis Regulation Act won a narrow victory in state Senate’s Public Affairs Committee making it through the committee on a 4-3 vote that was strictly along party lines, with the Democratic members voting “do pass” and the republicans voting “do not pass”. The 2020 New Mexico Legislative 30- day session is now at more than the halfway point and the cannabis legalization bill still needs to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee and, if passed there, move to the Senate Finance Committee. The Senate is the more difficult task because Senate moderate to conservative Democrats are known to vote often with conservative Republicans and vote no on recreational use legislation. If passed by the Senate, it then must be referred to the House for even more committee hearing and a final House Vote.

MAJOR CONCERNS IDENTIFIED

There are many problem areas that have identified about the current legislation including the following:

If Senate Bill 115 passes in its current version, existing medical cannabis retailers can begin selling to recreational consumers. The problem is January 1, 2021 is the same day all the rules and regulations on implementation and issuance of licenses and regulating sales must be in place. Simply put, 10 months is not enough time to promulgate such rules and regulations.

Local governments can’t ban any category of license but can limit activity to one business in each category and set zoning requirements which will likely result in a court challenges by competing businesses.

Licenses can’t be denied solely because someone has done time for “possession, use, manufacture, distribution or dispensing or the possession with the intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense a controlled substance.”

Customers have to be 21, but servers can be 18, and that is in conflict with liquor control laws that require both customers and servers to be 21.

Recreational buyers will be able to buy more cannabis than medical patients. Current law limits medical users to 8 ounces every 90 days while recreational users will be able to buy 2 ounces every transaction. Such a system is likely to result in major shortages for medical users.

Under the law, there is no increase in the number of plants growers are allowed and there is a cap of 500 plants that will lead to shortages.

Recreational use will be totally legal. This bill includes automatic expungement of marijuana arrests and convictions, strikes marijuana from the substances banned from drug-free school zones and says use cannot affect parole or custody cases.

Black-market marijuana sales are not addressed in the bill. A Department of Justice report says state-level legalization gives criminal drug trafficking organizations the ability to undertake large grow operations.

Cannabis use, especially in chronic users, has been linked to schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, suicide, significant abnormalities in brain function and structure, and lower IQ. The fact that the State has some of the highest DWI rates and opioid addiction rates in the country clearly complicates the legalization of recreational cannabis and the existing bill does not address completely what or how those problems will be dealt with.

There is absolutely no mention of drug-free workplaces in the legislation, which is something the Governor’s cannabis task force said it was recommending changes.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

At this point in time, it is very likely that Senate Bill 115 will fail or not make it through both the New Mexico Senate and House during the 30-Day session. The poll showing that 61% support the legalization of recreational marijuana makes the strongest case yet why the New Mexico Legislature needs to put the issue of legalization on the November, 2020 ballot. If passed by voters, enabling legislation can be enacted in the 2021 legislative 60- day session that will begin in January, 2021 with Senate Bill 115 to be used as a good start for more refined legislation.

For a related blog articles see:

Recreational Cannabis Bill Introduced; Endorsed By Governor MLG; Commentary By John Strong: Bill Does Not Address One Very Big Problem

Recreational Cannabis Bill Clears 1 Senate Committee; Two More To Go; Time Running Out For House; Place On November Ballot As A Back Up

The criminal justice system in the United States is not perfect. Neither is the Impeachment process provided in the United States Constitution. But like it or not, our founding fathers knew what they were doing and knew the justice system they created and the impeachment process they created are not perfect. The recent impeachment, trial and acquittal of President Trump proves that point, and whether we like the outcome or not the system did work and there was “no military coup” or civil war.

REUTERS-IPSOS POLL

According to a Reuters-Ipsos poll of voters released on February 5 on their opinion over the U.S. Senate’s acquittal of President Donald Trump Americans are evenly split, mostly along party lines, even though more respondents than not think he probably did something wrong. According to the national opinion poll, 43% of U.S. adults supported the Republican-led Senate’s decision to keep Trump in office in a case stemming from his dealings with Ukraine and 41% opposed the acquittal with 17% saying they were undecided.

When asked about Trump’s acquittal, 48% of respondents said Trump “is probably guilty of the charges against him, and the Senate is protecting him,” while 39% said the president “is probably innocent of the charges against him, and the Senate made the right decision to acquit.” In other words, some respondents felt that even if Trump did something wrong, it was not enough to warrant his removal from office.

The survey of 1,006 adults was conducted after the Senate voted to acquit Trump of abuse of power and to acquit him of obstructing Congress.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/02/06/poll-43-percent-of-americans-back-trump-acquittal-41-percent-opposed/23920402/

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN A NUTSHELL

Under the United States Constitution, in criminal jury trials, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” and are entitled to due process of law, no matter how heinous the crime. After a person is charged with a felony, a trial is held before a jury presided over by a judge, and it is at that time prosecutors are entitled to present evidence and witnesses to secure a verdict. A defendant cannot be compelled to testify, has a right to remain silent, and has a right to cross examine the prosecution’s witnesses and present evidence and call witnesses.

To convict in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is the highest standard of evidence in the criminal justice system. The test is one of “reasonable doubt” meaning the facts or evidence presented lead the jury to a unanimous vote and only one logical conclusion: that the defendant is guilty as charged.

A common mistake made is the terms “acquittal” and “not guilty” are equated with “innocence”. Under the criminal law, there is a huge difference between being innocent and a verdict of not guilty or acquittal. Being found “not guilty” of a crime or being “acquitted” does not mean that the jury found or believes are innocent innocent of the crime. It means that the prosecution failed and either did not have enough evidence to support their charges or that they did not present sufficient evidence in a compelling enough way to convince the jury to “acquit” or find a person “not guilty”.

INFAMOUS ACQUITTALS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Throughout history many a guilty person has been acquitted for crimes they no doubt committed. If jurors have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant’s “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. But sadly, jurors all too often do not have the courage to vote for convictions, do not believe the evidence or who prefer to ignore the evidence presented. Once acquitted of the crimes charged, the prosecution cannot file the charges again and there is no right of appeal.

Some of the more infamous acquittals in recent memory have included many celebrities, mothers, singers and athletes. OJ Simpson was accused of murdering his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman and was acquitted by a jury. Casey Anthony killed her two-year-old and was acquitted. R&B singer R. Kelly was charged with having sex with a minor and producing child pornography and was acquitted by a jury. Actor Robert Blake who was charged with conspiracy to murder his wife and was acquitted. George Zimmerman fatally shot 17-year-old high school student Trayvon Martin on the night of February 26, 2012 and on July 13, 2013, a jury acquitted Zimmerman of second-degree murder and of manslaughter charges. In 2003 singer Michael Jackson was arrested on charges of molesting a 13 boy and the jury found the singer not guilty of all charges with many more victims coming forward over the years. None of those listed admitted to doing the crime and demanded a jury trial. OJ Simpson said he was going to find the murderer of his wife after he was acquitted.

IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT

In the Trump Impeachment Trial, he was acquitted by the Senate, but that does not mean he was found “not guilty” as many of his supporters want to believe. The sure volume of evidence presented was more than sufficient to convict Trump “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and some would say it was “clear and convincing evidence”, but the impeachment trial was not a criminal trial, but a political process outlined in the US Constitution. It was the Republican controlled Senate who declined to convict and remove Trump from office.

There are 4 major provisions in the United States Constitution relating to impeachment of a President. Those provisions are as follows:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

“The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides:

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside and no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Article II, Section 2 provides:

“[The President] … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

Article II, Section 4 provides:

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

The United States Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, but there is no precise meaning or definition of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” contained in constitution. Further, the constitution does not mandate that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment. A “high crimes or misdemeanor” in practice is whatever the House of Representatives chooses to define it and to charge it.

“Articles of Impeachment” passed in the US House of Representatives are analogous to a grand jury felony indictment where a grand jury finds evidence of “probable cause” to charge a Defendant. “Evidence of probable cause” is evidence presented showing it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed and the evidence provides enough grounds to charge but not to convict the accused.

“Articles of Impeachment” are passed by a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives after which the articles are forwarded to the United States Senate for a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. There is no level of proof of “preponderance of the evidence” required to convict on Articles Impeachment. However, the constitution is very clear that no person can be convicted of the articles and removed from office without a two-thirds vote of the Unites States Senate.

TRUMP’S ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND ACQUITTAL

On December 13, 2019, President Trump was charged with two Articles of Impeachment by the United State House of Representative with the required majority vote. The first article charged Trump with abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign by damaging Democratic rivals and passed by a vote of 230-197-1, with one senator voting “present.” The second article charges Trump with obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and refusing to provide documents in response to House subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry and passed by a margin of 229-198-1.

You can read both articles of impeachment here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/10/us/politics/articles-impeachment-document-pdf.html

On January 15, 2020, the House delivered the Article of Impeachment to the Senate. The impeachment trial of Donald Trump began in the U.S. Senate on January 16, and concluded on February 5.

“The Constitution requires Senators sitting as an impeachment tribunal to take a special oath distinct from the oath of office that all Members of Congress must take.  This requirement underscores the unique nature of the role the Senate plays in impeachment trials, at least in comparison to its normal deliberative functions.  The Senate practice … requires each Senator to swear or affirm that he will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. ”

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S3_C6_1_3_2/#ALDF_00013795

On January 16, 2020 when Trump’s Impeachment trial began, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath to senators, who were standing at their desks on the Senate floor with their right hands raised and Justice Roberts asked them:

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?” and each Senator responded “I do!” After the oath, Senators walked down to the front of the Senate chamber as their names were called to sign the oath book.

Republican Senator’s Mitch McConnell, the Senate Floor Leader, and South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham both took the oath do to “impartial justice” even though they both announced they would vote to acquit Trump days and weeks before Trump’s trial began. Had the impeach been a criminal trial, both McConnell and Graham would have been disqualified by a judge for their biasness.

On January 5, 2020 after a 3-week Senate trial, where absolutely no witnesses were allowed to be called, Trump was acquitted of both articles of impeachment. Democrats fell far short of the two thirds majority vote required to remove Trump from Office. Senators voted 52 to 48 to acquit Trump of the abuse of power charge and voted 53-47 to acquit him on the obstruction of Congress charge. Utah Republican US Senator Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote to convict Trump on the abuse of power charge.

STUNNING DEFENSE BY REPUBLICAN SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

On January 31, 2020 Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander became the first Republican lawmaker to say President Donald Trump had committed misdeeds with respect to his actions with Ukraine, but that Trump should not be removed for it. The following Sunday on Meet the Press, Alexander said “I think he shouldn’t have done it. I think it was wrong. Inappropriate was the way I’d say — improper, crossing the line. … And then the only question left is who decides what to do about that.”

Alexander further refined his argument saying that Trump’s misconduct may have stemmed from a desire to do the right thing that was marred by his inexperience. Alexander suggested that the fact Trump has been so successful in accomplishing Republican priorities, it outweighs any wrongs Trump has committed. In other words, whatever ends, justify the means, even if it’s illegal.

STUNNING REMARKS BY REPUBLICAN SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

After voting to acquit Republican President Donald Trump of both Articles of Impeachment, Florida Senator Marco Rubio issued a statement explaining why he voted to acquit. The key lines from Rubio’s statement are as follows:

“New witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true. … Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. … I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation.”

What is astonishing is that Rubio did not feel that keeping Trump in office will likely “inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage” to our Democracy if he is once again elected with outside interference from the Russians or any other country.

You can read the full statement here:

https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43

The jaw dropping take away from Marco Rubio’s statement is that Rubio was convinced Trump did the things in regard to Ukraine that were alleged in the Articles of Impeachment, but he still declined to convict Trump proclaiming we have a divided nation.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

We can now add the name of President Donald Trump to the list of shameful acquittals of guilty persons who have committed serious crimes and offenses. Hell, Trump even had one of OJ Simpson’s attorneys Alan Dershowitz represent him in the impeachment trial before the Senate to make embarrassing constitutional argument.

Trump defense Attorney Alan Dershowitz said:

“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Dershowits no doubt put a smile on Richard Nixon’s face, wherever he is now. Nixon was asked by David Frost: “Would you say that there are certain situations where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal? Nixon responded: “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

In the Senate Impeachment Trial, Trump was acquitted, but that does NOT mean he was “not guilty.” The evidence presented by the House Mangers was more than sufficient to convict Trump but the Republican Senators declined. Both Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Marco Rubio admitted Trump was guilty of what he was charged with, but said Trump’s actions did not justify removal from office.

Trump is a man who did the crime but will not do the time. The big difference with Trump, he will always be known as the first impeached President who was acquitted along party lines while he was running for another term with his own party refusing to allow any witnesses. History will be the final judge of his innocence while in office. Another big difference is that voters have the right of an appeal to vote him out of office come November 6, and to convict him of high crimes and abuse of power.

One major consolation is that New York state prosecutors are still investigating whether the Trump Organization violated state law connected to hush-money payments made to two women who alleged affairs with President Donald Trump. The investigation began after federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York formally closed their criminal probe into the payments in July. Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, pleaded guilty in the federal investigation to several counts of bank fraud, tax evasion, and campaign-finance violations and is now serving a 5-year sentence.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-prosecutors-investigating-trump-organization-falsified-business-records-2019-9

There is an old saying that the wheels of Justice turn slowly. In Trumps case, the wheels of Justice are still turning. Trump’s luck of “not doing the time for doing the crime” is sure to run out, either sooner in 10 months if he is voted out of office or later in 5 years when he leaves office and is charged in New York State for crimes. Then again, Trump is 72 and nature and the Almighty will render the ultimate sentence of justice unto him and he will begin his sentence of eternity where he really belongs and be able to have conversations with people he likes and emulates such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and so many other dictators in history.

For a related blog article see:

Trump’s Lies, Obstruction And Shakedown Support At Least 5 Articles Of Impeachment

Senate Bill 115 (SB 115) that would legalize recreational marijuana in New Mexico passed the Senate Public Affairs Committee along party lines with all Democrats voting yes and all Republicans voting no. The Senate Bill is sponsored by State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino and Representative Javier Martínez, both Albuquerque Democrats. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has endorsed the legislation and added it to the 30-day session agenda.

On January 29, the Cannabis Regulation Act won a narrow victory in state Senate’s Public Affairs Committee making it through the committee on a 4-3 vote that was strictly along party lines, with the Democratic members voting “do pass” and the republicans voting “do not pass”.

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2020/01/29/cannabis-legalization-bill-passes-first-committee-on-party-lines/

The bill still has a long way to go and it will have to be passed by two more state Senate committees, the Judiciary Committee and the Finance Committee, before the full legislative body takes it up for a vote. Although the New Mexico Senate is overwhelmingly Democratic with 26 members out of a total of 42, several prominent senators from that party have indicated that they are resistant to legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

Last year, it was the House that started the process of enacting legalization of recreational cannabis with a bill that narrowly passed the state House but stalled in the Senate in the final days. That proposal called for state-run cannabis stores. Senate Bill 115 does not. The approach this year is to have the Senate start the process in that it is the more conservative Senate that rejected last year’s efforts by the house.

https://www.koat.com/article/bill-to-legalize-pot-clears-key-committee/30695403

https://www.abqjournal.com/1414396/capitol-launches-into-marijuana-debate.html

In interviews, the Governor has acknowledged that winning approval of the marijuana legalization plan will be difficult. She believes the Senate will be the biggest hurdle and she had this to say:

“I think cannabis [recreational legalization] is going to be really hard [and] it should be. That is not something to run into without being really clear. … If I have it on the call, I’m serious about getting it passed”

https://www.koat.com/article/will-recreational-pot-be-legal-in-new-mexico-in-2020/30301730

https://www.abqjournal.com/1402676/governor-finishing-legislative-agenda.html

WHAT SENATE BILL 115 WILL DO

Senate Bill 115 is 173-pages long and THE legislation will legalize use and sale of recreational marijuana for anyone age 21 and older. The 2019 New Mexico Legislature decriminalized possession which is now a $50 civil fine with no jail time. The proposed legislation provides for taxes on recreational pot at roughly 17% to 19% and makes medical marijuana tax-free and entirely subsides medical marijuana for low income patients.

The legislation will regulate both commercial and medical marijuana programs. The legislation avoids a traditional licensing system as is created for full-service alcohol licenses. As written, the recreational cannabis legislation contains no limit on the number of recreational cannabis licenses. Under the proposed legislation, the holder of a recreational cannabis license issued will have no vested property right in the license and the license is deemed property of the state. A license issued pursuant to the Cannabis Regulation Act will not be transferable from person to person, corporation to corporation or corporation to person. The licenses shall not be leased and shall not be considered property subject to execution, attachment, a security transaction, liens, receivership or all other incidents of tangible personal property under the laws of this state.

A Cannabis Control Division of the Regulation and Licensing Division will be created and will have very broad and extensive authority to regulate the industry. The division will have powers to promulgate rules and regulations, including many mandates and limitations on license issuance and quality control. The Cannabis Control Division must be up and running by January 1, 2021, which is a very ambitious deadline given the magnitude of creating the industry.

Medical cannabis providers could sell to recreational users beginning January 1, 2021 if the Department of Health determines it won’t harm the supply for people in the medical program. Broader commercial sales would start a year later, in 2022. The plan calls for food-grade testing of marijuana products. The legislation if passed will require all cannabis products sold in New Mexico to be tested and free from contaminants. Packaging must be clearly labeled with the THC dosage. The legislation also includes restrictions on advertisements that target youth. The legislation requires investments in training that would assist law enforcement officers in identifying impaired driving and not just limited to only cannabis-induced impairment.

The legislation does give local governments some authority to determine where cannabis dispensaries can be located. However, the state’s counties will not be given any authority to be able to prohibit cannabis sales nor prohibit the licensing of stores. In other words, local zoning rules will be able to be used to control the number of stores in an area where they the stores can located. This is identical to zoning restrictions placed on retail stores that sell pornography.

The legalization bill calls for generally a 19% tax rate. Each county and city have varying gross receipts tax rates and the cannabis tax would be added to those sales taxes. The tax is much lower than in other states and it is hoped it will prevent buyers from turning to the black market. The legislation will exempt residents in the medical cannabis program from the tax and would require cannabis growers to serve the medical market before the recreational market.

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/gov-lujan-grisham-unveils-recreational-marijuana-legalization-proposal/

PROS AND CONS ARGUED

Supporters of the bill said legalization will help address uneven law enforcement. According to Senator Jacob Candelaria, D-Albuquerque, who presented the legislation to the committee:

“The criminalization of cannabis disproportionately harms young people and people of color”.

Candelaria, an attorney, also argued the lack of an accepted cannabis breath test such as that to what’s available for alcohol is not a barrier to law enforcement. Police officers already are trained to detect impairment, and drivers can be convicted, for example, without a specific breath alcohol test.

Opponents argued it is not said the right time for the bill. They said one major problem is the lack of technology available to quickly determine intoxication levels similar to a breath test for alcohol. Opponents also argue it would erode employers’ right to maintain a drug-free workplace, make it more difficult to keep impaired drivers off the road and increase crime.

AREAS OF CONCERN AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

In a February 5, 2020 Editorial, Albuquerque Journal pointed out a number of areas of concern and unanswered questions with Senate Bill 115. In a nutshell, and edited, those can be summarized as follows:

On January 1, 2021, if the law passes, existing medical cannabis retailers can begin selling to recreational consumers. The problem is January 1, 2021 is the same day all the rules and regulations on implementation and issuance of licenses and regulating sales must be in place. Simply put, 10 months is not enough time to promulgate such rules and regulations.

Local governments can’t ban any category of license but can limit activity to one business in each category and set zoning requirements which will likely result in a court challenges by competing businesses.

Licenses can’t be denied solely because someone has done time for “possession, use, manufacture, distribution or dispensing or the possession with the intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense a controlled substance.”

Customers have to be 21, but servers can be 18, and that is in conflict with liquor control laws that require both customers and servers to be 21.

Recreational buyers will be able to buy more cannabis than medical patients. Current law limits medical users to 8 ounces every 90 days while recreational users will be able to buy 2 ounces every transaction. Such a system is likely to result in major shortages for medical users.

Under the law, there is no increase in the number of plants growers are allowed and there is a cap of 500 plants that will lead to shortages.

Recreational use will be totally legal. This bill includes automatic expungement of marijuana arrests and convictions, strikes marijuana from the substances banned from drug-free school zones and says use cannot affect parole or custody cases.

Black-market marijuana sales won’t go away. A new Department of Justice report says state-level legalization actually gives criminal drug trafficking organizations cover for large grow operations.

The fact that the State has some of the highest DWI rates and opioid addiction rates in the country clearly complicates the legalization of recreational cannabis and the statistics will no doubt be used again by opponents of the legislation. Impaired driving is still a major concern. AAA says the number of traffic fatalities in which drivers tested positive for marijuana doubled in Washington state after legalization.

There is absolutely no mention of drug-free workplaces in the legislation, which is something the Governor’s canibus task force said it was recommending changes.

There are mentions of health risks in the law as written, but only for minors and in the medical section. Cannabis use, especially in chronic users, has been linked to schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, suicide, significant abnormalities in brain function and structure, and lower IQ.

Legalization of recreational cannabis will not raise that much tax money, and it’s already taken. “The bill’s Fiscal Impact Report says the 9% excise tax on recreational pot is expected to raise $24.5 million for the state in fiscal 2024 – all earmarked to seven funds directed at community grants, patient subsidies, substance abuse treatment, law enforcement, cannabis startups, workforce training and DWI education. Gross receipts taxes are projected to bring in $9.37 million to the general fund that year. Municipalities and counties are allowed to impose up to a 4% excise tax. Medical pot will be exempt from state excise tax and GRT.”

For the full, unedited Journal Editorial see:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1417076/haze-of-unknowns-clouds-legislation-on-recreational-cannabis.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The 2020 New Mexico Legislative session is now at the halfway point and the cannabis legalization bill still needs to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee and, if passed there, move to the Senate Finance Committee. The Senate is the more difficult task because Senate moderate to conservative Democrats are known to vote often with conservative Republicans and vote no on recreational use legislation. If passed by the Senate, it then must be referred to the House for even more committee hearing an a final House Vote.

At this point in time, and with so many areas of concern, it is more likely than not that Senate Bill 115 will fail or not make it through both the Senate and House during the 30-Day session. As an alternative plan, the New Mexico Legislature needs to put the issue of legalization of recreational marijuana on the November, 2020 ballot. If passed by voters, enabling legislation can be enacted in the 2021 legislative 60 day session that will begin in January, 2021.

For a related blog article see:

Recreational Cannabis Bill Introduced; Endorsed By Governor MLG; Commentary By John Strong: Bill Does Not Address One Very Big Problem

President Trump’s speech was not a State of the Union Address but more of a campaign stump speech for reelection. Upon taking the podium, Trump declined to shake Speaker Pelosi’s hand, which shows just how arrogant the orange buffoon really is. Trump’s speech was a check list of push button conservative issues offered as “red meat” to his cult like supporters who belief all of his lies.

Trump talked about appointing conservative federal judges, many unqualified an not approved by the American Bar Association and bragged about having many more where they came from. He praised his appointments of Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, two justices who are Republican, right wing ideologs that are hell bent on interfering with a woman’s right to choose, setting aside hard fought battles for equal rights, equal pay, and embrace the concept that corporations are people entitled to contribute millions to political elections, and making sure that any one and every one can buy guns of their choosing.

Trump touched on and bragged about building his wall along the border of Mexico proclaiming 500 miles of the wall will be completed by next year, the same wall Trump said Mexico would pay for and that he is using to divide families and stopping those who are seeking asylum. Trump went on the offensive against socialism and left-wing policies, an obvious slap to Bernie Sanders, drawing groans from Democrats in attendance and prompting a furious Pelosi to make dramatic gesture.

The speech took on the feel of a “game show” or talk show when he made awards of scholarships and recognizing people in the Gallery. The most offensive recognition was when he gave conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh the “Medal of Freedom”, the highest medal of honor awarded to a private citizen, thereby degrading the honor as never before. Trump went out of his way to note Limbaugh’s diagnosis of stage 4 lung cancer as if that qualified him to receive the honor, while ignoring the thousands of those with Stage 4 cancer dying every year in this country. Trump’s “Price Is Right” looking model First Lady draped the medal around Limbaugh’s neck as the Congress watched on as if being awarded the metal was not enough.

There is no doubt that the highlight and best part of the speech and that what will be remembered more than anything Trump said was when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi while standing behind Trump tore up page after page of Trump’s speech to the shock of all the newscasters. Vice President Mike Pence admitted on FOX NEWS AND FRIENDS that he did not see her tearing up the speech, no doubt fixated on Trump’s back at the time and using his tongue to take Trump’s pulse. Vice President Pence did react to house speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ripping up her copy of the speech by saying “I think it was a new low.”

Not surprising, Trump and his cult supporters went on a “twitter rampage” to blast Speaker Pelosi for tearing up his speech. T rump called it a “rampage”, yet the Speaker did not utter one single word. It is obvious Trump was deeply affected by the Speaker’s actions knowing full well that her one act of defiance overshadowed all that he said and he was upstaged beyond his comprehension, and by a woman.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-trump-pelosi-20200205-cwetwlghwbafxm23nl3pi4q4py-story.html

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-goes-on-twitter-tear-over-pelosi-ripping-up-his-speech

Asked about the moment by Fox News afterward, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she tore up Trump’s speech “because it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives” and she was “trying to find one page with truth on it” but “couldn’t.” It is Nancy Pelosi that should be awarded the Medal Of Freedom by the Democratic President elected on November 3, 2020.

WASHINGTON POST FACT CHECK’S TRUMP’S 2020 STATE OF THE UNION

On February 5, 2020, within hours after President Trump gave his State of the Union address before the United States Congress and the American People, the Washington Post published a “Fact Check” of many of the statements he made.

Below is the article followed by the link:

“President Trump’s State of the Union speech once again was chock-full of stretched facts and dubious figures. Many of these claims have been fact-checked repeatedly, yet the president persists in using them. Here, in the order in which he made them, are 31 statements by the president.
…
“I am thrilled to report to you tonight that our economy is the best it has ever been.”

The president can certainly brag about the state of the economy, but he runs into trouble when he repeatedly makes a play for the history books. Our database of Trump claims shows he has made a variation of this claim some 260 times. There are several metrics one could look at, but the current economy falls short, according to experts we consulted. The unemployment rate reached a low of 3.5 percent under Trump, but it was as low as 2.5 percent in 1953. Trump has never achieved an annual growth rate above 3 percent, but in 1997, 1998 and 1999, the gross domestic product grew 4.5 percent, 4.5 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively. But even that period paled against the 1950s and 1960s. Growth between 1962 and 1966 ranged from 4.4 percent to 6.6 percent. In 1950 and 1951, it was 8.7 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

“From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the U.S. economy … enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts.”

Trump constantly claims he passed the biggest tax cut in U.S. history, but [that’s] false. The best way to compare tax cuts (or spending plans) over time is to measure them as a percentage of the national economy. The Trump tax cut, according to Treasury Department data, is nearly 0.9 percent of GDP — compared with 2.89 percent of GDP for Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, the actual largest tax cut. When measured as a share of the U.S. economy, Trump’s tax cut is the eighth-largest in the past century.

“Since my election, we have created 7 million new jobs.”

Trump often inflates the number of jobs created under his presidency by counting from Election Day, rather than when he took the oath of office. There have been almost 6.7 million jobs created since February 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
AD

Job creation under President Barack Obama’s last three years, 227,000 a month, still exceeds the monthly average of 191,000 a month under Trump.

“Incredibly, the average unemployment rate under my administration is lower than any administration in the history of our country.”

This is ingenious and worth fact-checking because the average over three years is hardly comparable to a four- or eight-year average for other presidents. For example, the unemployment rate average was lower in Lyndon B. Johnson’s second term than it has been under Trump. But when Johnson’s first term is factored in, Trump gains the edge.

“The unemployment rate for disabled Americans has reached an all-time low.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported this rate since 2008, so it’s a big stretch to call it an “all-time low.” The rate was 7 percent in December.

“Under my administration, 7 million Americans have come off of food stamps.”

About 6 million people (not 7 million) have stopped receiving food stamps since February 2017, according to the latest data. (An earlier version of this article offered an out of date number.) But experts say the improvement in the economy may not be the only reason for the decline. Several states have rolled back recession-era waivers that allowed some adults to keep their benefits for longer periods of time without employment. Reports have also suggested immigrant families with citizen children have dropped out of the program, fearing the administration’s immigration policies. Moreover, the number of people collecting benefits has been declining since fiscal year 2014.

“In eight years under the last administration, over 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce. In just three years of my administration, 3.5 million people, working-age people, have joined the workforce.”

Trump never seems to remember — or prefers to forget — that Obama took office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, when 800,000 jobs a month were being shed. The labor force participation rate fell, sharply, as millions of jobs were eliminated and people had trouble finding work. In January 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7 percent, and it fell to 62.8 percent by the time Obama left office. It has since inched up a bit, to 63.2 percent, under Trump, but it is still not back to pre-recession levels of 66 percent.

As for Trump’s math here, we’re not able to replicate it. Over the course of Obama’s two terms, labor force participation times the working-age population gets you a gain of about 5.5 million under Obama and nearly 5 million under Trump.

“This is a blue-collar boom.”

In the past year, things have gotten grimmer for many blue-collar workers. The manufacturing sector is in a technical recession, and only 9,000 manufacturing jobs have been gained since June, compared with the 460,000 in the first 2½ years of Trump’s presidency. Job growth has slowed in many “blue-collar” sectors such as transportation, construction and mining.

“Since my election, the net worth of the bottom half of wage earners has increased by 47 percent — three times faster than the increase for the top 1 percent.”

Trump is just spinning here. Net worth for the bottom half has gone up, but it was from such a low base that it’s pretty silly to call it a boom. People in the bottom half have essentially no wealth — just 1.6 percent of the nation’s wealth — as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. The top 5 percent hold more than 70 percent of all net worth in the United States.

“Everybody said that criminal justice reform couldn’t be done, but I got it done and the people in this room got it done.”

Trump signed the First Step Act in 2018. One of the biggest pieces of the First Step Act — a provision that reduced sentences for crack cocaine offenses — was an extension of Obama’s efforts in 2010.

We gave Three Pinocchios to Trump for claiming that he accomplished what Obama could not. In his speech …, Trump didn’t mention Obama when discussing the criminal justice law.

“All of those millions of people with 401(k)s and pensions are doing far better than they have ever done before with increases of 60, 70, 80, 90 and even 100 percent.”

Trump often boasts that the value of 401(k) retirement accounts has skyrocketed during his presidency, even though there’s no evidence of such huge gains and even though the Census Bureau reports only 32 percent of Americans are saving for retirement with such plans. An analysis by Fidelity Investments showed the average 401(k) balance increased less than 1 percent when comparing the first quarters of 2018 and 2019.

“Thanks to our bold regulatory reduction campaign, the United States has become the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world, by far.”

The notion that a revolution in energy began under the Trump administration is wrong. The United States has led the world in natural gas production since 2009. Crude oil production has been increasing rapidly since 2010. The United States was the top producer in 2013. In September 2018, the United States once again passed both Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the largest global crude oil producer. But the energy revolution he takes credit for began under Obama.

“With the tremendous progress we have made over the past three years, America is now energy independent.”

This is false. The United States continues to import energy. “In 2018, the United States imported about 9.94 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from nearly 90 countries,” according to an Energy Information Agency report, with 43 percent coming from Canada and 16 percent from Persian Gulf countries.

“After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration, with thousands upon thousands of plants and factories being planned or built.”

“Factories” conjures up images of smokestacks and production lines, but the data set Trump cited is not really about factories.

Trump is using a Bureau of Labor Statistics database set known as the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The data show that United States gained nearly 12,000 additional “manufacturing establishments” between the first quarter of 2017 through the second quarter of 2019. There was also a gain of 10,000 in Obama’s second term.

But more than 80 percent of these “manufacturing establishments” employ five or fewer people. If those sound like pretty small factories, that’s because many are not “factories.” The BLS counts any establishment “engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products,” so that also includes businesses “that transform materials or substances into new products by hand or in the worker’s home and those engaged in selling to the general public products made on the same premises from which they are sold, such as bakeries, candy stores, and custom tailors.”

“Following NAFTA’s adoption, our nation lost one in four manufacturing jobs.”

This is misleading, as Trump attributes all manufacturing lost to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) when many other factors were responsible, such as automation and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.

“Many politicians came and went, pledging to change or replace NAFTA — only to do so and then absolutely nothing happened. But unlike so many who came before me, I keep my promises. We did our job. Six days ago, I replaced NAFTA and signed the brand new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) into law.”

The USMCA is a modest reworking of NAFTA launched in 1994, with about 85 to 90 percent the same as the deal Trump repeatedly trashed as terrible.
The U.S. International Trade Commission, which is tasked with evaluating the impact of trade agreements, calculated the new deal would have a relatively minor impact: The USMCA would raise U.S. real gross domestic product by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent).

“The USMCA will create nearly 100,000 new high-paying American auto jobs.”

This is an invented figure. The USITC report said the agreement would create about 28,000 jobs in the auto sector.

“To safeguard American liberty, we have invested a record-breaking $2.2 trillion in the United States military.”

Trump is just talking about three years of defense funding added up together. On an inflation-adjusted basis, not one year of Trump’s defense budgets has exceeded the high point in 2010 under Obama.

“I have raised contributions from the other NATO members by more than $400 billion, and the number of allies meeting their minimum obligations has more than doubled.”

Trump gives himself too much credit. Since 2006, each NATO member has had a guideline of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense spending. Defense expenditures for NATO countries other than the United States have been going up — in a consistent slope — since 2014. That’s when NATO decided to boost spending in response to Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea region. NATO estimates that its European members and Canada will add $130 billion in cumulative defense spending through 2020, in 2015 dollars, as an increase over 2016 spending. NATO also estimates the cumulative figure will rise to $400 billion through 2024.

“Before I took office, health insurance premiums had more than doubled in just five years. I moved quickly to provide affordable alternatives. Our new plans are up to 60 percent less expensive.”

Trump often makes this claim, but we have not been able to verify the claim of a 60 percent reduction in costs. The new short-term health plans authorized by the Trump administration are less expensive for a reason: They offer skimpier coverage and thus provide less protection. As for the doubling in health insurance premiums, that claim is based on a White House report that made some questionable methodological choices.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions.”

In an ongoing court case, the Trump administration is supporting a total repeal of the Affordable Care Act — including its guarantee that patients can’t be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. Republicans in Congress tried for years to repeal the whole law. Trump has not presented a plan to cover the gaps in case the court challenge is successful. Moreover, he has promoted short-term plans (which he touted in his speech) that are not required to cover preexisting conditions.

“Through our Pledge to American Workers, over 400 companies will also provide new jobs and education opportunities to almost 15 million Americans.”

Trump usually describes this as jobs already created, but apparently his language was tamed by a teleprompter. These are not new jobs but training opportunities. Moreover, the numbers reflect pledges over a five-year period, not something already achieved. Many companies signed up by offering training programs that already existed.

“I was pleased to announce last year that, for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

The consumer price index for prescription drugs in 2018 fell for the first time in 46 years. But that’s only when measuring calendar years from January to December, which is somewhat arbitrary. The president’s record shrinks to 5½ years when measuring non-calendar years. (The CPI had last declined in the 12-month period ended July 2013.)
Experts say the CPI for prescription drugs fails to account for rebates, which can be substantial, and may be giving a skewed picture because of recent market shifts toward generics and electronic payments by third parties. Studies we found show drug prices have not declined, especially when it comes to branded drugs.

“As we speak, a long, tall, and very powerful wall is being built. We have now completed over 100 miles and have over 500 miles fully completed in a very short period of time. Early next year, we will have substantially more than 500 miles completed.”

Trump doubled down on a promise for 500 miles of new border fencing by “early next year,” which would require the current pace of construction to more than double. Department of Homeland Security officials have been trying to lower expectations lately, saying they will have that much built or “under construction.”

He also exaggerates the barrier’s sturdiness. The Washington Post has reported that the steel-and-concrete bollard fence can be cut through with a souped-up power saw and that a series of large floodgates “must be left open for months every summer during ‘monsoon season’ in the desert.”

“With unyielding commitment, we are curbing the opioid epidemic. Drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in nearly 30 years.”

Overall, drug overdose deaths fell in 2018 for the first time in 28 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But fentanyl overdose deaths increased 10 percent.

“Last year, our brave ICE officers arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults and 2,000 murders.”

Many of the “criminal aliens” Trump is describing are immigrants who were convicted of immigration or nonviolent offenses. He quickly switched from the total for ICE arrests (120,000) to a different number that includes all the different charges. It’s a misleading, apples-and-oranges comparison because one individual may face multiple charges — and not all arrests result in convictions.

“Before I came into office, if you showed up illegally on our southern border and were arrested, you were simply released and allowed into our country, never to be seen again. My administration has ended catch-and-release. If you come illegally, you will now be promptly removed from our country. Very importantly, we entered into historic cooperation agreements with the governments of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. As a result of our unprecedented efforts, illegal crossings are down 75 percent since May — dropping eight straight months in a row. And as the wall rapidly goes up, drug seizures rise, and border crossings are going down.”

The Trump administration has tried but has not ended catch-and-release, the policy of releasing asylum seekers and refugees — many of them women and children — into the country while they await a hearing in the clogged U.S. immigration court system. Immigrants continue to be released.

Southwest border apprehensions dropped 75 percent when measuring from May to December, but when looking at all of Trump’s presidency, the gains are almost negligible: 42,359 apprehensions in January 2017, and 40,620 in December 2019.

“In the Senate, we have confirmed a record number of 187 new federal judges.”

It’s not a record. Trump has a long way to go to have appointed the most federal judges. Reagan has the record, with 383, followed by Bill Clinton with 378 and then Obama with 329. Through Jan. 18, 187 judges nominated by Trump have been confirmed by the Senate.

“Forty million American families have an average $2,200 extra thanks to our child tax credit.”

This is an example of Trump using correct numbers, but he gives too much credit to himself and his Republican colleagues. The child tax credit has existed since 1997, and it has been expanded since then, including in the recent tax law. In 2016, under Obama, 35 million American families took the tax credit, with an average benefit of over $1,500 a year, according to the Treasury Department. So there’s only been a modest increase (in part because of inflation).

“Three years ago, the barbarians of ISIS held over 20,000 square miles of territory in Iraq and Syria. Today, the ISIS territorial caliphate has been 100 percent destroyed, and the founder and leader of ISIS — the bloodthirsty killer known as Al Baghdadi — is dead!”

The U.S. military warned, in a report issued the day Trump spoke, that the Islamic State remained a dangerous threat and that the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not degrade the group’s capabilities. “USCENTCOM told the DoD OIG [Office of the Inspector General] that following the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group’s capabilities in Syria remained the same,” the report said. “USCENTCOM said that ISIS remained cohesive, with an intact command and control structure, urban clandestine networks, and an insurgent presence in much of rural Syria.”

“Qasem Soleimani … directed the December assault and went on to assault U.S. forces in Iraq, and was actively planning new attacks.”

Other than Trump’s assertion, there is no publicly available evidence that Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani directed the December attacks or that any possible attack was imminent.

You can read the Washington Post column at the below link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/fact-checking-president-trumps-2020-state-union-address/

On November 5, 2018, New Mexico voters, with a 75% majority, voted for a constitutional amendment to establish an independent statewide ethics commission with subpoena power. New Mexico was one of only 6 states without an independent ethics commission.

On March 15, 2019, state lawmakers reached a compromise on creating a new, independent ethics commission. The enacted legislation signed into law by the Governor creates an ethics commission that is empowered to oversee state public officials, including state lawmakers, state employees and constitutionally elected officials, including the governor, the lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, public land commissioner and state auditor, or candidates for those offices, to those prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions from January 1 through the end of each year’s legislative session. However, the ethics commission has no authority over school board members and local officials such elected Mayors or City Councilors.

A seven-member commission was created and is empowered to fine public officials if they are found by the commission to have violated civil provisions of state laws. There is no authority to suspend or remove from office elected officials. The Ethics Commission has been empowered to issue advisory opinions to officials as well as to educate officials regarding what is and is not permitted conduct.

AGENCY UP AND RUNNING

On January 4, 2020, a little more than 10 months since the NM Legislature enacted the creation of the Ethics Commission, it was reported that the Ethics Commission is fully operational and accepting complaints to investigate.

The state agency is led by a seven-member board and State law authorized the commission to begin accepting ethics complaints on January 1, 2020. It needs to add staff for that work after hiring an executive director in September.

The Commission plans to meet every other month, although it can meet as often as it wants depending on the volume of complaints and related work, including issuing rules and regulations.

The Commission has established a website and according to news reports, it may issue its first advisory opinion next month. The commission has office and meeting space in Albuquerque, although it has held meetings in other parts of the state.

The New Mexico Legislature funded the ethics commission with $500,000 in the state budget for the fiscal year that began on July 1, 2019. The commission is seeking a supplemental appropriation of $385,000 to $400,000. For the 2020-2021 fiscal year, the agency is requesting a little over $1.1 million.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1406564/new-state-watchdog-ready-to-investigate-ethics-complaints.html

FEARS OF INADEQUATE FUNDING

Fears are beginning to mount that the 2020 New Mexico Legislature now under way will not be getting enough funding to carry out its work. The ethics commission is in the awkward position of having to ask lawmakers, elected officials it has jurisdiction to investigate individually, for more funding to operate.

Democrat State Representative Daymon Ely from Corrales helped craft 2019 legislation outlining the commission’s procedures and power. He said he is “hopeful” the agency will get the necessary money this year but that he is “nervous” about the funding . House Appropriations and Finance Committee is still crafting a final budget for the commission that will have to be approved by both the State House and Senate.

Ely expressed concerns about the funding by saying:

“I do think going forward, this poses a problem. … You don’t want the ethics commission that’s going to oversee the Legislature having to get out the tin cup every year – that’s a potential conflict in the system.”

The current House budget for the Ethics Commission concentrates on spending for this year and next year. The commission received $500,000 in this year’s budget to begin operations. A problem is that legislative analysts projected it would require close to $1 million to operate the commission for a full year.

The State Ethics Commission requested a $385,000 “supplemental appropriation” to help carry out its work this year and the request is backed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. The budget proposal under consideration by the House Appropriations Committee does not provide for any of the “supplemental appropriation” for this fiscal year that ends June 30.

Next year’s budget is also under consideration this session. For the fiscal year starting July 1, the State Ethics Commission is requesting a little over $1.1 million in funding. The governor is recommending slightly more at $1.2 million. The budget under consideration in the House provides for about $986,000 based on a recommendation by the Legislative Finance Committee.

According to State Ethics Commission Executive Director Jeremy Farris, the agency will have a very difficult time handling ethics complaints through the end of the fiscal year which ends on June 30, with the new budget starting July 1, if it is not given the $385,000 “supplemental appropriation” . According to Farris, denying the supplemental appropriation will delay the launch and creation of the agency. The agency has startup costs, such as purchase of furniture and has work to do including developing training materials and issuing advisory opinions.

A February 3, update from the State Ethics Commission revealed that the House Appropriations and Finance Committee (HAFC) has increased the amount of supplemental funds the Commission is set to receive for FY 20 to $200,000 which is up from the Legislative Finance Committees (LFC’s) recommendation of a $0 allocation. Currently, House Bill 2 still has the Commission set to receive the Legislative Finance recommended amount of $985,000 for FY 21 which is approximately $155,000 less than the Commission’s request.

COALITION SUPPORTS FULL FUNDING

A coalition of civic groups and activists, many that worked for the last 40 years and pushed for establishment of the commission, including Common Cause New Mexico, New Mexico Ethics Watch, the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government and the League of Women Voters announced their support for fully funding the State Ethics Commission. According to Executive Director of Common Cause:

“It is an investment in good government which will pay off in many ways – increased public trust and even economic development. ”

SOURCE OF THE CONFLICT IN FUNDING

Governor Lujan Grisham wants to give the state’s independent Ethics Commission significantly more operating money than lawmakers. She is recommending the full $385,000 supplemental appropriation request to help the commission get up and running in its first few months of operation. The Legislature’s is proposing giving only half the amount. The Governor is also recommending a quarter million more for the agency in its first-full year of operation than is the Legislature, $1.24 million compared to the Legislatures $985,000 recommendation.
(Sources:

Executive Budget Summary at https://www.governor.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FY21-Executive-Budget-Recommendation-1.pdf , pages 18 and 49 and

House budget bill at https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/20%20Regular/bills/house/HB0189.pdf pages at 43-44.)

Heather Ferguson, director of Common Cause New Mexico, had this to say about the funding conflict:

“The Legislature doesn’t want to come up with the funds to ensure that [the Ethics Commission] can fully do its job.”

Political observers and commentators believe that the major source of friction between the Ethics Commission, the Governor and the Legislature is the mission of the commission itself. Simply put, the commission’s mission it to investigate ethics complaints against elected and government officials. Many of today’s state lawmakers over the years have repeatedly opposed the creation of the commission for fear of attacks prior to elections. A critical part of ethics complaint investigations are staff hearing officers that must be hired be hired with the requested funding. The hearing offices will assume investigations in in the first months prior to the June primary election.

The competing budget proposals between the Commission, the Governor and the Legislature should not come as any surprise. Such conflicts have been problematic in other states that already have ethics commissions. Some state legislatures with ethics commissions have underfunded the agencies in order to hamper their mission or to even shut the agencies down completely with lack of funding.

According to the on line news agency “New Mexico In Depth”, a coalition of organizations that support a strong ethics commission is exploring the creation of a funding source divorced from the Legislature’s budget making authority. Such a funding source would prevent budget cuts that could easily come on a whim initiated any legislator upset with the commission and severely undermine the commission’s effectiveness.

http://nmindepth.com/2020/01/31/governor-lawmakers-tussle-over-funding-for-ethics-commission/

AUTHORITY TO SET SALARY FOR LEGISLATORS PROPOSED FOR ETHICS COMMISSION

Senate Joint Resolution 7 would make the State Ethics Commission the sole authority to set the salaries of hundreds of state and county elected officials. It is proposed constitutional amendment if approved by lawmakers would go before voters on the November 5, 2020 general election ballot. Senate Joint Resolution 7 cleared the Senate Rules Committee on a 6-4 vote and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Albuquerque Democrat State Senator Daniel Ivey-Soto, a co-sponsor of the proposal, said it would be a way to “de-politicize” the setting of salaries and said:

“The only way for salaries to not be political is for us to be out of the salary business altogether. ”

Democrat State Senator Clemente Sanchez, Grants, objects to the proposal describing it as a “backdoor” way to create salaries for legislators, and questions whether the State Ethics Commission is the right agency for the work by saying:

“I have a problem with an outside group that’s not elected by anyone making a decision on appropriations. ”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1415310/lawmakers-debate-funding-for-ethics-commission.html

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

There is clearly a major conflict of interest or a built-in threat to the continuing functioning of a viable Ethics Commission when it is forced every year to ask for funding to continue with its existence and its work. A major guarantee for the continuation of the Ethics Commission is that it was created by a constitutional amendment with a 75% majority vote by taxpayers. Legislators cannot unilaterally repeal the amendment and as such legislators have no choice to fund it to allow it to carry out its mission.

AGENCY FORMULA FUNDING SOURCE PROPOSED

There is an urgent need for a funding source separate or independent from the Legislature’s budget making authority to prevent commission budget cuts. Given the legislature’s duties and authority over all appropriations for agencies, it will be difficult to set up such a funding source without conflict, at least not without a court challenge, but it can be done.

One option would be enacting funding legislation that would provide for ongoing and pre-approved budgets with a formula mandating a small fraction of 1% of each state approved agency budget. As each agency’s budget is approved by the legislature it would automatically approve the funding of the ethics commission without decreases or increases The financing amounts from each agency would be dedicated strictly for the Ethics Commission and would not be subject to annual review or appropriation modifications by the legislature.

Any funding not spent or in excess of what is needed would revert back to the states general fund. Such a funding formula would be similar to the principal used in development programs that mandate a certain percentage of a developments and financing be dedicated for projects that are to be used by the general populace. An amendment to this year’s budget could be added to provide the funding formula for the Ethics Commission.

LEGISLATURE SHOULD REJECT GIVING ETHICS COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO SET SALARIES

The New Mexico Legislature is one of 14 State Legislatures in the Country that is considered “part time” and with low pay. New Mexico is one of only a few states that do not pay lawmakers an annual salary. New Mexico legislators receive a $161 stipend each day they are at the Capitol or attending committee meetings. Many legislators are retired or work in careers or are self-employed that allow them to serve in Santa each year for the session.

Every year during a session almost like clock work, an attempt is made to establish salaries for the legislature. Senate Joint Resolution 7 is this years version and it calls for a voter approved constitutional amendment that would make the State Ethics Commission the sole authority to set the salaries of hundreds of state and county elected officials. The bill is shortsighted and would be a major mistake. Such authority will create conflict with virtually all legislators and elected officials who could easily harbor grudges if they feel they are not being paid enough.

What will also be problematic is that not only salaries would have to be paid, but funding for the legislators retirement fund. The truth be know, New Mexico has out grown a citizens legislature and is in need of a full time legislature, but trying to establish a pay system on the backs of newly created agency is ill advised and will be considered sneaky by the general public.

CREATION OF ETHICS COMMISSION LONG OVERDUE

When it comes to the creation of Ethics Commission, it was long overdue for decades. New Mexico has had more than its fair share of public corruption scandals over the years.

A rogue’s gallery of unethical conduct, fraud, theft and abuse of power and influence in New Mexico politics includes Former Democrat State Senator Manny Aragon, two former Democrat State Treasurers, Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil, former Republican Secretary of State Dianna Duran, former Democrat State Senator Phil Griego, former Republican State Senator Monica Youngblood, former Republican New Mexico Taxation, and Revenue Secretary Demesia Padilla. Most recently, on December 7, New Mexico State Senator Richard Martinez, after a two-day bench trial, was found guilty of aggravated drunken driving and reckless driving. He was sentenced on January 7, 2020 to 5 days in jail, which he served and was released in time for the 2020 session. Senator Martinez refused to resign from the Senate, voluntarily resigned as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and he is seeking reelection.

Unproven allegations of “pay to play” plagued the 8-year tenure of Democrat Governor Bill Richardson with a federal grand jury investigation resulting in no indictments and no finding of “pay to play”. Then Republican United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico Gregg Forate, with an obvious strong Republican partisan bias, released a scathing letter of condemnation that accused the Richardson administration of “corrupting” the government contract award process. Former Governor Richardson withdrew his nomination to serve in President Obama’s Cabinet because of the federal investigation.

During the 8-year tenure of former Republican Governor “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”, allegations of unethical conduct and undue influence with the award of the billion-dollar, 20-year Downs Race Track Lease, dubbed the “Dirty Downs Deal”, occurred. What also occurred was a federal grand jury investigation of the Republican Governor’s number one political consultant and campaign manager relating to misuse of her inauguration funding.

EMPOWER COMMISSION WITH AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR REMOVE

One area that merits serious consideration by the New Mexico Legislature is to empower the Ethics Commission with the authority to suspend or remove a public official or give the Commission the authority to seek from a District Court or Supreme Court the suspension or removal from office elected officials who have been found to have engaged in nefarious or unethical conduct. Further, the Ethics Commission should be given authority over local elected officials such as Mayors and City Councilors.

The statewide Ethics Commission should eventually help rebuild trust in a state government that has experienced way too much corruption throughout the decades. However, it will be able to do so only if it is empowered with real authority to suspend or remove someone for nefarious or unethical conduct. Otherwise, the Commission will be an exercise in futility to hold nefarious and unethical officials actually accountable for their actions short of criminal prosecution, forced resignations or hoping that they will be voted out of office.