On July 15, Donald Trump announced he had picked Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, age 39, as his running mate, placing a “Mini Trump”  ideologue  alongside him on the Republican 2024 ticket.  Trump announced Vance would be his running mate writing on Truth Social that the Ohio Republican is “the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States” even though Vance has only 2 years of service as an elected official.  Senator J.D, Vance was a “never Trump” Republican in 2016 and he called Trump “dangerous” and “unfit” for office. Vance had also criticized Trump’s racist rhetoric, saying he could be “America’s Hitler.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-picks-jd-vance-2024-running-mate/story?id=110909250

On July 9,  2024, the CBS national news agency published  on line the following report written by its staff reporters Melissa Quinn and Jacob Rosen entitled “What Is Project 2025; What To Know About The Conservative Blue Print For A Second Trump Administration”. The article outlines what the voting public needs to understand and what Project 2025 means if Trump is elected to a second term.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A  highly condensed summation of  Project 2025 and what it proposes is contained in the Postscript to  this blog article.  The link to review the entire 920 page Project 2025 is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise

Following is the edited article “What Is Project 2025; What To Know About The Conservative Blue Print For A Second Trump Administration” with deletions and  additions and deleting photos and adding caption highlights followed by the link to the article:

“Voters in recent weeks have begun to hear the name “Project 2025” invoked more and more by President Biden and Democrats, as they seek to sound the alarm about what could be in store if former President Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House.

Overseen by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the multi-pronged initiative includes a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch.

Trump and his campaign have worked to distance themselves from Project 2025, with the former president going so far as to call some of the proposals “abysmal.” But Democrats have continued to tie the transition project to Trump   …  . ” 

WHAT IS PROJECT 2025?

“Project 2025 is a proposed presidential transition project that is composed of four pillars: a policy guide for the next presidential administration; a LinkedIn-style database of personnel who could serve in the next administration; training for that pool of candidates dubbed the “Presidential Administration Academy;” and a playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office.

It is led by two former Trump administration officials: Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management and serves as director of the project, and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to Trump and now the project’s associate director.

Project 2025 is spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, but includes an advisory board consisting of more than 100 conservative groups.

Much of the focus on — and criticism of — Project 2025 involves its first pillar, the nearly 900-page policy book that lays out an overhaul of the federal government. Called “Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise,” the book builds on a “Mandate for Leadership” first published in January 1981, which sought to serve as a roadmap for Ronald Reagan’s incoming administration.

The recommendations outlined in the sprawling plan reach every corner of the executive branch, from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of Homeland Security to the little-known Export-Import Bank. 

The Heritage Foundation also created a “Mandate for Leadership” in 2015 ahead of Trump’s first term. Two years into his presidency, it touted that Trump had instituted 64% of its policy recommendations, ranging from leaving the Paris Climate Accords, increasing military spending, and increasing off-shore drilling and developing federal lands. In July 2020, the Heritage Foundation gave its updated version of the book to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. 

The authors of many chapters are familiar names from the Trump administration, such as Russ Vought, who led the Office of Management and Budget; former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller; and Roger Severino, who was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Vought is the policy director for the 2024 Republican National Committee’s platform committee, which released its proposed platform on Monday. 

John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, is a senior advisor to the Heritage Foundation, and said that the group will “integrate a lot of our work” with the Trump campaign when the official transition efforts are announced in the next few months.

Candidates interested in applying for the Heritage Foundation’s “Presidential Personnel Database” are vetted on a number of political stances, such as whether they agree or disagree with statements like “life has a right to legal protection from conception to natural death,” and “the President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hindrance from unelected federal officials.”

The contributions from ex-Trump administration officials have led its critics to tie Project 2025 to his reelection campaign, though the former president has attempted to distance himself from the initiative.”

WHAT ARE THE PROJECT 2025 PLANS?

“Some of the policies in the Project 2025 agenda have been discussed by Republicans for years or pushed by Trump himself. [Among those policies are]:

• Less federal intervention in education and more support for school choice work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults on food stamps;
• A secure border with increased enforcement of immigration laws
• Mass deportations and construction of a border wall. 

But others have come under scrutiny in part because of the current political landscape. “

ABORTION AND SOCIAL ISSUES

“In recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services, the agenda calls for the Food and Drug Administration to reverse its 24-year-old approval of the widely used abortion pill mifepristone. Other proposed actions targeting medication abortion include reinstating more stringent rules for mifepristone’s use, which would permit it to be taken up to seven weeks into a pregnancy, instead of the current 10 weeks, and requiring it to be dispensed in-person instead of through the mail.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that is on the Project 2025 advisory board, was involved in a legal challenge to mifepristone’s 2000 approval and more recent actions from the FDA that made it easier to obtain. But the Supreme Court rejected the case brought by a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations on procedural grounds.

The policy book also recommends the Justice Department enforce the Comstock Act against providers and distributors of abortion pills. That 1873 law prohibits drugs, medicines or instruments used in abortions from being sent through the mail.

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, the volume states that the Justice Department “in the next conservative administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills.”

The guide recommends the next secretary of Health and Human Services get rid of the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force established by the Biden administration before Roe’s reversal and create a “pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”

In a section titled “The Family Agenda,” the proposal recommends the Health and Human Services chief “proudly state that men and women are biological realities,” and that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them.”

Further, a program within the Health and Human Services Department should “maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.”

During his first four years in office, Trump banned transgender people from serving in the military. Mr. Biden reversed that policy, but the Project 2025 policy book calls for the ban to be reinstated.”

TARGETING FEDERAL AGENCIES, EMPLOYEES AND POLICIES

“The agenda takes aim at longstanding federal agencies, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The agency is a component of the Commerce Department and the policy guide calls for it to be downsized. 

NOAA’s six offices, including the National Weather Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, “form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity,” the guide states. 

The Department of Homeland Security, established in 2002, should be dismantled and its agencies either combined with others, or moved under the purview of other departments altogether, the policy book states. For example, immigration-related entities from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Health and Human Services should form a standalone, Cabinet-level border and immigration agency staffed by more than 100,000 employees, according to the agenda.

If the policy recommendations are implemented, another federal agency that could come under the knife by the next administration, with action from Congress, is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The agenda seeks to bring a push by conservatives to target diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in higher education to the executive branch by wiping away a slew of DEI-related positions, policies and programs and calling for the elimination of funding for partners that promote DEI practices.

It states that U.S. Agency for International Development staff and grantees that “engage in ideological agitation on behalf of the DEI agenda” should be terminated. At the Treasury Department, the guide says the next administration should “treat the participation in any critical race theory or DEI initiative without objecting on constitutional or moral grounds, as per se grounds for termination of employment.”

The Project 2025 policy book also takes aim at more innocuous functions of government. It calls for the next presidential administration to eliminate or reform the dietary guidelines that have been published by the Department of Agriculture for more than 40 years, which the authors claim have been “infiltrated” by issues like climate change and sustainability.”

IMMIGRATION

“Trump made immigration a cornerstone of his last two presidential runs and has continued to hammer the issue during his 2024 campaign. Project 2025’s agenda not only recommends finishing the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but urges the next administration to “take a creative and aggressive approach” to responding to drug cartels at the border. This approach includes using active-duty military personnel and the National Guard to help with arrest operations along the southern border.

A memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that prohibits enforcement actions from taking place at “sensitive” places like schools, playgrounds and churches should be rolled back, the policy guide states. 

When the Homeland Security secretary determines there is an “actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens” that presents “urgent circumstances” warranting a federal response, the agenda says the secretary can make rules and regulations, including through their expulsion, for as long as necessary. These rules, the guide states, aren’t subject to the Administration Procedure Act, which governs the agency rule-making process.”

WHAT DO TRUMP AND HIS ADVISERS SAY ABOUT PROJECT 2025?

“In a [July 5] post to his social media platform Trump wrote, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

Trump’s pushback to the initiative came after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a podcast interview that the nation is “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

But even before Roberts’ comments during “The War Room” podcast,  typically hosted by conservative commentator Steve Bannon, who reported to federal prison to begin serving a four-month sentence … , Trump’s top campaign advisers have stressed that Project 2025 has no official ties to his reelection bid.

Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, senior advisers to the Trump campaign, said in a November statement that 2024 policy announcements will be made by Trump or his campaign team.

“Any personnel lists, policy agendas, or government plans published anywhere are merely suggestions,” they said.

While the efforts by outside organizations are “appreciated,” Wiles and LaCivita said, “none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign.”

In response to Trump’s post last week, Project 2025 reiterated that it was separate from the Trump campaign.

“As we’ve been saying for more than two years now, Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy & personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. But it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement,” a statement on the project’s X account said.”

WHAT DO DEMOCRATS SAY?

“Despite their attempts to keep some distance from Project 2025, Democrats continue to connect Trump with the transition effort. The Biden-Harris campaign frequently posts about the project on X, tying it to a second Trump term.

President  Biden himself accused his Republican opponent of lying about his connections to the Project 2025 agenda, saying in a statement that the agenda was written for Trump and “should scare every single American.”

Congressional Democrats have also begun pivoting to Project 2025 when asked in interviews about Mr. Biden’s fitness for a second term following his lackluster showing at the June 27 debate, the first in which he went head-to-head with Trump.

“Trump is all about Project 2025,” Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman told CNN on Monday. “I mean, that’s what we really should be voting on right now. It’s like, do we want the kind of president that is all about Project ’25?”

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, one of Mr. Biden’s closest allies on Capitol Hill, told reporters Monday that the agenda for the next Republican president was the sole topic he would talk about.

“Project 2025, that’s my only concern,” he said. “I don’t want you or my granddaughter to live under that government.”

In a statement reiterating her support for Mr. Biden, Rep. Frederica Wilson of Florida called Project 2025 “MAGA Republicans’ draconian 920-page plan to end U.S. democracy, give handouts to the wealthy and strip Americans of their freedoms.”

WHAT ARE REPUBLICANS SAYING ABOUT PROJECT 2025?

[Republican Florida Senator  Marco Rubio, Florida and Ohio Senator JD Vance] …. sought to put space between Trump …  and Project 2025, casting it as merely the product of a think tank that puts forth ideas.

“It’s the work of a think tank, of a center-right think tank, and that’s what think tanks do,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told CNN’s “State of the Union” … .

He said Trump’s message to voters focuses on “restoring common sense, working-class values, and making our decisions on the basis of that.”

Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance [whom Trump has selected as his Vice Presidential candidate] raised a similar sentiment in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying organizations will have good ideas and bad ideas. Vance said this:

“It’s a 900-page document. … I guarantee there are things that Trump likes and dislikes about that 900-page document. But he is the person who will determine the agenda of the next administration.”

The link to the full, unedited CBS news report with photos and captions is here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-project-2025-trump-conservative-blueprint-heritage-foundation/

THE BBC TAKE ON PROJECT 2025

On July 7, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) had its own take on Project 2025 and published on line the following news article entitled “Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency” written by BBC staff reporter Mike Wendling. Much of the BBC report is a repetition of major points in the CBS news reports but with the following noteworthy additions:

GOVERNMENT

“Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control – a controversial idea known as “unitary executive theory”.

In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.

The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government-employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees.

The document labels the FBI a “bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization” and calls for drastic overhauls of this and other federal agencies, including eliminating the Department of Education.”

IMMIGRATION

“Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border – one of Trump’s signature proposals in 2016 – is proposed in the document. However, more prominent are the consolidation of various US immigration agencies and a large expansion in their powers. Other proposals include increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium.”

CLIMATE AND ECONOMY

“The document proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next president to “stop the war on oil and natural gas”. Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to increase energy production and security.

The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is divided on whether the next president should try to boost free trade or raise barriers to exports.

But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to gold-backed currency.”

ABORTION

“Project 2025 does not call for a nationwide abortion ban. However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market.”

TECH AND EDUCATION

“Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech and telecoms companies that facilitate access to such content would be shut down.

The document calls for school choice and parental control over schools, and takes aim at what it calls “woke propaganda”.

It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including “sexual orientation”, “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, “gender equality”, “abortion” and “reproductive rights”.”

The link to the full unedited BBC article with photos and captions is here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do

DRACONIAN CUTS TO MEDICARE

On June 17, 2024, the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy reported that Project 2025 blueprint also includes draconian cuts to Medicare. The report states in part as follows:

The Project 2025 plan would convert federal Medicaid funding to block grants or per capita caps. Under the current federal-state financial partnership, the federal government pays a fixed percentage of states’ Medicaid costs, whatever those costs are. In contrast, under block grants and per capita caps, federal funding would be capped, with states receiving only a fixed amount of federal Medicaid funding either in the aggregate or on a per-beneficiary basis, irrespective of states’ actual costs.

The Project 2025 plan would eliminate many existing federal Medicaid beneficiary protections and requirements. For example, it would set time limits on Medicaid coverage and impose lifetime caps on benefits, which are now prohibited. It would also allow states to increase premiums and cost-sharing above current limits and to also presumably impose premiums and cost-sharing on beneficiaries like children and pregnant people who are now exempt. The plan would also eliminate mandatory benefits in Medicaid, which would allow states, for example, to drop coverage of nursing home care and the Early Periodic Diagnostic Screening and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit for children.

The Project 2025 plan would encourage the federal government and states to impose more red tape and make it harder for eligible individuals and families to apply for, enroll in, and renew their Medicaid coverage. It would allow states to impose onerous work reporting requirements. In addition, while there is no detail, the plan would require “more robust eligibility determinations” which would have the effect of reducing participation among people eligible for Medicaid. It also would “strengthen asset test determinations within Medicaid.” It is unclear if this entails not just more burdensome paperwork and verification associated with counting assets but also reimposing asset tests for populations such as children, parents and other adults who are not currently subject to such asset eligibility requirements.

The Project 2025 plan would establish an option for individuals to convert their Medicaid coverage into a voucher, presumably for the purchase of coverage in the private insurance market, even though such coverage would likely be far less affordable and provide a much less generous benefits package than what Medicaid provides today. 

Private insurance does not offer comparable, comprehensive benefits that Medicaid does, including EPSDT, LTSS and a prescription drug benefit that guarantees an open formulary. States would also be given the option to finance coverage through a high-deductible private insurance plan tied to a Health Savings Account instead of providing Medicaid benefits, under which individuals would have to pay for health care items and services themselves. There would be no guarantee that the funds deposited in their accounts would be sufficient to pay for deductibles and needed care, especially because individuals would likely have to pay for items and services at the highest self-pay prices.

The Project 2025 plan would appear to largely sweep away existing federal oversight of state Medicaid programs. For example, payment reforms could be made without state plan amendments or waivers. The only standards would be some broad federal indicators like “cost effectiveness and health measures like quality, health improvement and wellness.” However, in the case of reproductive health, the plan would instead impose new stringent federal requirements, including prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving federal Medicaid funding, prohibiting Medicaid waiver coverage of travel to obtain an abortion and cutting Medicaid funding for states that require abortion coverage in their private insurance plans (outside of Medicaid).”

https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/06/17/project-2025-blueprint-also-includes-draconian-cuts-to-medicaid/#:~:text=The%20Project%202025%20plan%20would%20eliminate%20many%20existing%20federal%20Medicaid,benefits%2C%20which%20are%20now%20prohibited

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

You always know when Der Führer Donald Trump is lying.  It’s  when you see him open his big mouth and hear the words he speaks. When Trump said “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them” there is little to no doubt Trump is again lying.

It stretches what little credibility Trump has left when he says “I have no idea who is behind it.”  The truth is Project 2025 was drafted, created and was enabled by former Trump administration officials. Those former Trump Administration officials  include Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management; John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office; Rick Dearborn, former White House deputy chief of staff for legislative, intergovernmental affairs and implementation; Ben Carson, former Housing and Urban Development secretary; Ken Cuccinelli, former deputy secretary of homeland security; Peter Navarro, former director of the White House National Trade Council and director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy; Christopher Miller, former acting secretary of defense; Stephen Moore, an adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign; Russell Vought, former director of the Office of Management and Budget; William Pendley, former acting director of the Bureau of Land Management; Paul Winfree, former director of budget policy; Brooks Tucker, former chief of staff for the Department of Veterans Affairs; Roger Severino, former director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services; Kiron Skinner, former director of policy planning at the State Department; and Bernard McNamee, former commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The link to the quoted news source is  here:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-project-2025-truth-social-rcna160774

On one hand Trump says “some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal” and he then turns around and says “Anything they do, I wish them luck.”  He does not condemn Project 2025 in no uncertain terms when he knows full it was influenced and prepared by his own supporters and former Trump Administration officials.  

Simply put, Project 2025 is Der Führer Trump’s extreme and dangerous blueprint for a second term. Project 2025 was written for Trump and by some of his closest advisors who themselves want to return to power. Project 2025 if implemented fully would give Trump limitless power over American’s daily life’s and let him use the presidency to enact “revenge” on anyone who has opposed him or whoever has gotten in his way. The recent Supreme Court decision giving Presidents absolute immunity ensures that Trump will believe he is above the law and all that he does are official acts ensuring he will never be prosecuted for crimes he commits.

Project 2025 was written for Trump by some of his closest advisors to promote an extreme conservative agenda during a second term. Major goals and highlights of Project 2025 include the following:

• Allow Trump to use the presidency for revenge and retribution and be a “dictator” on day one.
• Allow Trump to ban abortion nationwide with or without Congress.
• Allow Trump to repeal Obamacare, ripping health care away from tens of millions of Americans.
• Allow Trump to slash Social Security and Medicare.
• Allow Trump to raise costs for workers to line the pockets of his billionaire donors.
• Allow Trump to abandon our NATO allies and encourage Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
• “The Family Agenda” proposal proclaiming “that men and women are biological realities,” and that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them” is a clear attack on the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. The proclamation that the Health and Human Services Department should “maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family” is evidence that every effort will be made to reverse court decisions that allow for gay rights and marriage.
• Continue the vilification of immigrants and place roadblocks to any and all comprehensive immigration reform.

The words of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts should be taken both as a real threat and as the darkest warning there is when he said that the nation is “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” The message is loud and clear that unless Trump is reelected, the country can expect another January 6 capital riot which was brought on by the words and actions of Der Führer Donald Trump himself.

POSTSCRIPT

A condensed version of Project 2025 and what it proposes is as follows:

“Project 2025 envisions widespread changes to the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production. The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism. Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies or terminated. Funding for climate research would be cut and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed according to conservative principles. The project seeks to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care. The project seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception under the Affordable Care Act^] and enforce the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills nationwide. It proposes criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and affirmative action by having the DOJ prosecute “anti-white racism. The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. It proposes deploying the military for domestic law enforcement. It promotes capital punishment and the speedy “finality” of those sentences.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

The link to a related blog article is here:

Der Führer Trump’s Radical Second-Term Agenda; Promises To Wield Executive Power In Unprecedented Ways; An Imperial Presidency Reflecting American Fascism  

On July 15, the national news outlet CBS news posted on the internet the following news report entitled “Trumps Document Case Dismissed by Federal Judge” written by CBS news reporters Mellissa Quinn and Robert Leguere. Following is the report which has been edited for brevity by deleting sections, photos with captions added or highlighted:

“The federal judge overseeing the case alleging former President Donald Trump mishandled sensitive government documents after leaving the White House has dismissed the charges against him and his two codefendants.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon,  who was appointed to the bench by Trump, said in a 93-page order that she has granted Trump’s bid to dismiss the indictment based on the unlawful funding and appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against the former president.

Judge Aileen Cannon wrote:

“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers. … The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”

The former president faced 40 charges stemming from his handling of documents marked classified after leaving office and allegedly obstructing the Justice Department’s investigation. The former president and his aides Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira were charged in an alleged scheme to impede the federal probe, and all three pleaded not guilty.

Smith’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. CBS News has also reached out to attorneys for the former president and Nauta.

Trump said in a statement on social media that all civil and criminal cases brought against him should also be dismissed, and he accused the Justice Department of coordinating the indictments in an effort to harm his presidential campaign. There is no evidence that the prosecutions are politically motivated, and the president has repeatedly stressed that the Justice Department operates independently.  Trump wrote:

Continue watchingRep. Jason Smith shares his thoughts on Trump assassination attempt, RNCafter the ad

“Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again!”.

An attorney for De Oliveira, the Mar-a-Lago property manager, said  this in a statement:

“We certainly agree with the court’s decision. But this case has been absurd from the start and Carlos should never have been but in this situation by the government.” 

The Justice Department [has already annpunced it intends to] appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and the dispute could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

…  .

CANNON’S RULING

In her order, Cannon said Smith’s appointment violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and his use of a “permanent indefinite appropriation” violates the Appropriations Clause. Dismissal of the indictment is the “only appropriate solution” for the violation of the Appointments Clause, the judge said, and she ordered the case to be closed. Cannon did not address the remedy for the funding violation given her finding that the indictment should be dismissed on the grounds that Smith was improperly appointed.

The judge wrote that if the political branches want to grant the attorney general the power to appoint Smith to investigate and prosecute Trump, with the powers of a U.S. attorney, there is a valid means to do so: he can be appointed and confirmed through the method laid out in the Appointments Clause, or Congress can authorize his appointment through legislation consistent with the Constitution. Cannon wrote:

“Both the Appointments and Appropriations challenges as framed in the Motion raise the following threshold question: is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution?. … After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no.”

Judge Cannon said that none of the statutes cited as legal authority for Smith’s appointment give the attorney general the right to appoint a federal officer with the prosecutorial power wielded by the special counsel. Cannon wrote:

“The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers. … That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere — whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL APPOINMENTS

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith in 2022 to oversee the two federal investigations into the former president. He said at the time, and Smith’s team of prosecutors have argued, that legal and historical precedent allowed for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to handle the probes. Attorneys general from administrations of both parties have appointed special counsels in recent years to oversee sensitive investigations, and several federal courts have rejected similar constitutional challenges to special counsel appointments. Among those was the selection of Robert Mueller to investigate possible ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

Trump’s bid to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Smith was not authorized to prosecute him was considered a long-shot.

In addition to Smith, Garland appointed David Weiss to lead an investigation into Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s son. But unlike Smith, who was top war crimes prosecutor at The Hague before he was tapped to investigate Trump, Weiss is a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney in Delaware. Weiss brought charges against Hunter Biden in two cases: one in Delaware, where he was convicted of gun charges, and the second in California, where is charged with tax crimes.

Smith also charged Trump with four counts stemming from his alleged attempts to subvert the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election. Cannon wrote in her ruling that the dismissal only applies to the classified documents case and has no bearing on any cases outside of her control.

The judge rejected comparisons of Smith’s role as special counsel to that of “special attorneys,” and said the appointment of a private citizen like Smith, rather than an already-retained federal employee, “appears much closer to the exception than the rule.”  Cannon wrote:

“In the end, there does appear to be a ‘tradition’ of appointing special-attorney-like figures in moments of political scandal throughout the country’s history. … But very few, if any, of these figures actually resemble the position of Special Counsel Smith. Mr. Smith is a private citizen exercising the full power of a United States Attorney, and with very little oversight or supervision.”

Cannon’s dismissal on the appointments clause violation comes after the Supreme Court ruled two weeks ago that Trump is entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official acts taken while in office, a decision that stemmed from the 2020 election-related case. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a solo concurring opinion that called into question the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment.

Trump and his lawyers had highlighted Thomas’ opinion, which is not binding, in recent filings to Cannon and argued that it bolstered their bid to toss out the indictment based on Smith’s allegedly unlawful appointment.

DELAY, DELAY, DELAY

The former president was indicted in South Florida last year, and the case proceeded slowly. A trial was set to begin in late May, but Cannon indefinitely postponed its start. The judge held several days of hearings in June to explore whether Smith’s appointment was within constitutional bounds and took the unusual step of allowing outside attorneys to participate in arguments before her.

In addition to the two sets of charges brought by Smith, Trump was also indicted on state charges in New York and Fulton County, Georgia.

In the New York case, a jury found Trump guilty in May on 34 counts of falsification of business records stemming from a $130,000 “hush money” payment his attorney made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 election. The verdict made Trump the first former president to be convicted of a crime, and he is set to be sentenced in September. But the former president is seeking to have the conviction tossed out, citing the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

The Fulton County case stems from what prosecutors claim was a multi-pronged scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. Trump is facing 10 counts there and has pleaded not guilty. A trial date has not been set, as a state appeals court is weighing whether to allow Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the case. How that case proceeds will also be impacted by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

Cannon’s ruling will not impact the Fulton County and New York cases, since they were brought by local prosecutors. But Trump and his team are likely to use the decision as the basis for tossing out Smith’s case in Washington, D.C., involving an alleged scheme to subvert the transfer of presidential power.

THE DOCUMENTS CASE

Smith’s case against Trump alleging he unlawfully held onto the nation’s secrets after leaving office was considered to be the strongest and potentially greatest legal threat to the former president.

His indictment last June, followed by new charges brought weeks later, were the culmination of a 15-month-long effort by the federal government to retrieve records Trump had at his South Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago, after his presidency ended in January 2021.

Wrangling between the National Archives and Records Administration and Trump’s representatives went on for months behind the scenes before the fight over the materials burst into public view on Aug. 8, 2022, when the FBI conducted a court-authorized search of Mar-a-Lago and found 100 documents marked classified. Cannon had agreed to appoint an independent arbiter to sift through the documents, but her decision to do so was overturned by a federal appeals court.

Before then, the Archives had retrieved 15 boxes of presidential records from Mar-a-Lago in January 2022, which contained 184 documents bearing classification markings. The Justice Department also obtained a grand jury subpoena in May 2022 for all documents with classification markings that were in Trump’s possession at Mar-a-Lago, and his lawyers turned over 38 records.

All told, investigators recovered roughly 300 sensitive documents from the South Florida property. Thirty-two of those records underlie counts of willful retention of national defense information that Trump was charged with.

Photos taken by the FBI or obtained by investigators during the probe showed boxes of documents and other material stacked in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago, on a stage in the estate’s ballroom and in a bathroom and shower.

Additional information had continued to trickle out into the public’s view as Cannon unsealed documents related to the federal investigation into Trump, including court records showing that federal agents suspected the former president might have tried to hinder the investigation in ways not previously known.

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

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-documents-case-dismissed-by-federal-judge/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/florida-judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-case-rcna161878

ADDITIONAL KEY TAKEAWAYS

On July 15, CNN published on line a news article  entitled “Takeaways from the dismissal of the mishandling classified documents case against Donald Trump” written by CNN staff reporters Devan Cole, Marshall Cohen and Hannah Rabinowitz. Following are key takeaways reported and edited for brevity with highlights:

CANNON SAYS SMITH’S FUNDING WAS ALSO UNLAWFUL

Cannon sided with Trump in his other major contention against Smith’s appointment as well – that the special counsel should not be receiving indefinite financing to support his prosecution.

Trump’s assertion was rooted in the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. He argued that Smith’s funding cannot come from the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.  Cannon wrote:

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. … The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed.”

The appropriation reserved for independent prosecutors doesn’t apply to Smith because he is not sufficiently independent from the Justice Department, she said.

She noted that as of September 2023, Smith’s direct expenditures exceeded $12.8 million. He would have access to additional funds until the end of his investigation.

Cannon left open a potential pathway in her ruling for the classified documents case to be revived.

The Justice Department “could reallocate funds to finance the continued operation of Special Counsel Smith’s office,” she wrote, but said it’s not yet clear whether a newly-brought case would pass legal muster.

Prosecutors told Cannon in a hearing last month that the Justice Department was “prepared” to fund Smith’s cases through trial if necessary.

Smith’s team could also appeal the ruling, though any appellate challenges would make a pre-inauguration trial almost certainly out of reach.

LEANING ON CLARENCE THOMAS

The ruling comes exactly two weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas publicly aired similar doubts about the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment in a concurrence the conservative jurist penned in the blockbuster case granting the former president partial immunity.

Cannon leaned on Thomas’ concurrence in her ruling Monday, repeatedly quoting from part of it as she explained her decision to throw out the documents case.

In that matter, Thomas sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s other conservatives in giving Trump some presidential immunity. But Thomas wrote separately to raise questions about whether Garland violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith as special counsel, an argument that wasn’t made by Trump’s attorneys before the trial-level judge overseeing that criminal case.

Justice Thomas wrote in his concurrence in the election case:

“There are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. … The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center said this:

“It’s hard to imagine that Justice Thomas wrote his concurrence, which addressed an issue that was not before the Supreme Court, with no awareness that it would be used this way.”

RULING IS AN OUTLIER THAT EMBRACED A LONGSHOT THEORY

The ruling from Cannon is an outlier that embraced a longshot legal theory that plenty of other judges have already rejected during previous special counsel investigations.

President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, attempted earlier this year to throw out his criminal cases based on the same theory that Trump brought before Cannon. (He is being prosecuted by a separate special counsel, David Weiss.) Federal judges in California and Delaware rebuffed his arguments, and federal appeals courts in both jurisdictions refused to get involved.

And during the Trump-Russia investigation, multiple Trump allies similarly attempted to derail special counsel Robert Mueller’s work. But multiple federal judges in Virginia and Washington, DC, upheld Mueller’s appointment.

Still, with all this history, Cannon held a hearing on the issue several weeks ago, pushing attorneys to explain exactly how Smith’s investigation into Trump was being funded.

The judge’s questions were so pointed that special counsel attorney James Pearce argued that even if Cannon were to throw out the case due to an appointments clause issue that the Justice Department was “prepared” to fund Smith’s cases through trial if necessary.

SMITH HAS DOJ OVERSIGHT, DESPITE CANNON’S CLAIMS

In the ruling, Cannon claimed Smith was operating “with very little oversight or supervision.”

She noted that, during last month’s hearing, “the Special Counsel refused to answer the Court’s questions regarding whether the Attorney General had played any actual role in seeking or approving the indictment in this case.”

The federal regulations that govern the special counsel’s office require Smith to coordinate some of his activities with Justice Department leadership. At the hearing, Smith’s team “appeared to acknowledge some degree of actual oversight consistent with the Regulations,” Cannon said. But their tight-lipped answers were clearly not enough to satisfy the judge – and she pointed out that they “resisted” to offer details.

Months before Smith was appointed, the investigation escalated in tremendous fashion in August 2022, when FBI agents raided Mar-a-Lago. The court-approved search turned up troves of documents with classification markings, as prosecutors suspected. Garland later said he “personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant,” indicating his hands-on involvement in at least one critical decision in this long-running investigation.

At a congressional hearing last month, Garland said he didn’t regret appointing Smith. Under questioning from GOP lawmakers, Garland noted that past judges upheld the legality of Mueller’s appointment during his investigation and that the question “has been adjudicated.”

MAJOR LEGAL QUESTIONS LEFT UNANSWERED

Cannon suggested in her ruling that she was leaving some of Trump’s major points in his appropriations clause challenge for review by an appeals court.

One of the arguments that Trump raised was that Smith’s appointment gave him a significant amount of power without the oversight of Congress. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and Citizens United argued the same, writing that Smith’s appointment “severely undermines” the constitutional order.

Cannon wrote in her ruling that the issue was “a point worthy of consideration given the virtually unchecked power given to Special Counsel Smith under the Special Counsel Regulations.” She wrote:

“Ultimately, however, after examining the broad language in Supreme Court cases on the subject—and seeing a mixed picture, even if a compelling one in favor of a principal designation—the Court elects, with reservations, to reject the principal-officer submission and to leave the matter for review by higher courts,”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/takeaways-dismissal-classified-documents-trump-cannon/index.html

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The dismissal of the case was very predictable from the get go seeing as that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon was appointed by Trump and she has constantly shown biasness against the Department of Justice with her rulings as it prosecuted Trump.  She had no business being assigned the case and Special Prosecutor Jack Smith made the mistake not arguing she had the ethical obligation to recuse herself from the case because Trump appointed her.  Smith made the mistake likely believing that Cannon could be fair and impartial.

The Department of Justice announced that the decision by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will be appealed.  It  may eventually be overturned by the appellate  court, but that will take months. The ruling guarantees that there will be no trial before the November 5 election, which in all likely was Cannon’s game plan all along.   Though the case had long been stalled, and the prospect of a trial before the November election was already nonexistent.

Simply put, Judge Cannons’ dismissal of the case against Trump is a disgrace.  It does a disservice to our federal criminal justice system that places Trump above the law. The decision is a genuine miscarriage of justice by Federal Judge Cannon who went out of her way and who engaged in judicial activism to create grounds for a dismissal that are dubious at best and rejected by other federal courts.

The ruling from Cannon is an outlier that embraced a longshot legal theory that over many decades other federal judges rejected during previous special counsel investigations. A federal statute enacted by congress gives the Attorney General the authority to make appointments of special councils.  Rather than follow judicial precedent, Cannon chose to follow the guidance of extremist right wing Justice Clarence Thomas that he gave in the presidential immunity case.

What we have now is a right wing political Judicial Branch of government consisting of hundreds of Trump appointed disciples like Judge Aileen Cannon Cannon and the 6 conservative  US Supreme Court Republican Trump disciples of John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett who will continue do whatever they can to find Trump is above the law and willing to please and to carry out the Trump political agenda.

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

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

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

On July 13, former President Donald Trump became the target of an assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania rally, days before he is to accept the Republican nomination for a third time. The video images showed Trump speaking as he turned his head to the right and then him reacting to being shot in the right ear that he grabbed and then ducking down behind the podium.

Someone could be heard saying near the microphone at Trump’s lectern, “Get down, get down, get down, get down!” as secret service agents tackled Trump. They piled atop him to shield him with their bodies as other agents took up positions on stage to search for the threat. Secret Service helped him up to his feet and hurried him to his SUV. Visibly shaken with a wound to his right ear and blood streaming down one side of his face he yelled out “fight, fight” and pumped his fist numerous times in a show of anger and defiance.

Authorities said one attendee was killed and two spectators were critically injured and all were identified as men. The Secret Service said it killed the suspected shooter who it said attacked from an elevated position outside the rally venue, a farm show in Butler, Pennsylvania and said Trump was safe. The FBI named Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, “as the subject involved in the assassination attempt.” He is a registered Republican. The agency said the investigation remains active and ongoing. There was no immediate information on the shooter’s motivations.

The attack was the most serious attempt to assassinate a president or presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981. It will likely alter the tenor and security posture at the Republican National Convention, which begins on July 15 in Milwaukee. Trump’s campaign said the convention would proceed as planned.

TRUMP REACTS TO SHOOTING

In a post on Truth Social on July 13, Trump elaborated on what happened and described his injuries:

“I want to thank The United States Secret Service, and all of Law Enforcement, for their rapid response on the shooting that just took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Most importantly, I want to extend my condolences to the family of the person at the Rally who was killed, and also to the family of another person that was badly injured.

It is incredible that such an act can take place in our Country. Nothing is known at this time about the shooter, who is now dead. I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place, so I realized then what was happening. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN REACTS TO SHOOTING, MAKES PRIME TIME ADDRESS

President Joe Biden cut short a weekend at his beach home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware to addressed the nation and he said this:

I have been briefed on the shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania.  I’m grateful to hear that he’s safe and doing well. I’m praying for him and his family and for all those who were at the rally, as we await further information.  Jill and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety. There’s no place for this kind of violence in America. … It’s sick. It’s sick. … We must unite as one nation to condemn it.”

On July 14 in a prime-time national address from the Oval Office, Biden said political passions can run high but “we must never descend into violence.” The president said his party and the Republicans can compete forcefully over different policy visions but must do it in a civil fashion.

President Biden said this:

“All of us now face a time of testing as the election approaches. … There is no place in America for this kind of violence — for any violence. Ever. Period. No exception. We can’t allow this violence to be normalized.”

Since the shooting, President Biden and his team have been grappling with how to deal with the political path forward after the weekend attack targeting the very person Biden is trying to defeat in the November election.  Biden sharply condemned the attack, but indicated he plans to continue to press his campaign agenda and has “no doubt” Republicans will do the same during  their convention.

President Biden emphasized that disagreements must remain peaceful.  “We can do this,” Biden pleaded, saying the nation was founded on a democracy that gave reason and balance a chance to prevail over brute force. Biden also warned that political tensions were being inflamed because of  the  media coverage  and exploited by American enemies. Biden said  this:

“Here in America we need to get out of our silos, where we only listen to those with whom we agree, where misinformation is rampant, where foreign actors fan the flames of our division to shape the outcomes consistent with their interests, not ours.”

President Biden condemned the attempted assassination of  Trump  as “contrary to everything we stand for as a nation.” He ordered  an independent security review of how such an attack could have happened.   Biden  said he  also directed the U.S. Secret Service to review all security measures for the RNC. Biden promised a “thorough and swift” review and asked the public not to “make assumptions” about the shooter’s motives or affiliations.

The president said he and first lady Jill Biden were praying for the family of Corey Comperator a former fire chief who was shot and killed during the Trump rally Saturday night in Butler, Pennsylvania.  Biden said this:

“He was protecting his family from the bullets. … God love him.”

President Biden also said he’d had a “short but good conversation” with Trump in the hours after the shootings and said he was “sincerely grateful” that the former president is “doing well and recovering.”  Trump for his part  has called for national resilience since the shooting and posted on his social media account after Biden’s remarks “UNITE AMERICA!”

https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-shooting-election-2024-704592d02c3421a767112f0bf6d25eb9

REPUBLICANS BLAME BIDEN FOR ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

Many Republican elected officials are pointing fingers and quickly blaming the assassination attempt on President Joe Biden and his allies. They argue that sustained attacks on Trump as a threat to democracy have created a toxic environment. They pointed in particular to a comment President Biden made to donors on July 8, saying:

 “I have one job, and that’s to beat Donald Trump. I’m absolutely certain I’m the best person to be able to do that. So, we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.” 

Even as there has been a growing chorus condemning the reference, there is currently no evidence tying those comments to the shooter’s actions or motivations.

Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., shared the quote on X, along with the unfounded claim that “Joe Biden sent the orders.”

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Sen. Marsha Blackburn, and the X account for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee shared the quote on X as well.

Republican Ohio United States Senator JD Vance tweeted this:

“Today is not just some isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

Senator JD Vance was a “never Trump” Republican in 2016. He called Trump “dangerous” and “unfit” for office. Vance also criticized Trump’s racist rhetoric, saying he could be “America’s Hitler.”  Vance conveniently ignores the fact the Trump himself told right wing FOX commentator Sean Hannity he wanted to be a dictator on day one if he is elected again.

NEWS UPDATE:  On July 15,  Former President Donald Trump announced he has picked Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, age 39, as his running mate, placing a young, ideological ally alongside him on the Republican 2024 ticket.  Trump announced Vance would be his running mate writing on Truth Social that the Ohio Republican is “the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-picks-jd-vance-2024-running-mate/story?id=110909250

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene alleged that the Democrats want Trump and his supporters dead and she tweeted this:

“Joe Biden told donors it’s “time to put Trump in a bull’s eye,” and that is EXACTLY what happened. House Democrats, led by Bennie Thompson, introduced a bill to strip USSS protection from President Trump. The weaponized DOJ has done everything they can to make sure President Trump spends the rest of his life in PRISON while sending non-violent J6ers to jail for years. They want President Trump and his supporters dead. We won’t forget.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/biden-trump-bullseye-quote/74397121007/

TRUMP’S EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF INCITING VIOLENCE

It is so very disgusting that Republican elected officials are blaming President Joe Biden for the assassination attempt of Former President Donald Trump. For that reason, Trumps extensive history of inciting violence merits review.

As recently as March 28, Former President Donald Trump shared a video on social media that included an image of President Joe Biden bound and restrained in the back of a pickup truck.  The 20-second video, which Trump indicated was taken in Long Island, New York, shows a truck emblazoned with “Trump 2024” and a large picture depicting Biden tied up and lying on his side.

Trump was in Long Island  for the wake of fallen NYPD officer Jonathan Diller.

When reached for comment on the image in the video, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said, “That picture was on the back of a pick up truck that was traveling down the highway.” Cheung also accused “Democrats and crazed lunatics” of calling for violence against Trump and his family, arguing that “they are actually weaponizing the justice system against him.”

Cheung pointed to comments by Biden in 2018, before he declared his candidacy, when he said that if he and Trump were in high school he’d “take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him” if he heard him demeaning women.

Biden campaign spokesman Michael Tyler slammed Trump for posting the video.

“This image from Donald Trump is the type of crap you post when you’re calling for a bloodbath or when you tell the Proud Boys to ‘stand back and stand by.  Trump is regularly inciting political violence and it’s time people take him seriously — just ask the Capitol Police officers who were attacked protecting our democracy on January 6.”

Trump has previously used violent imagery and rhetoric, both in his 2024 presidential campaign and before.  On March 16, he vowed that there would be a “bloodbath” if he was not re-elected, while speaking about the economy. Last year, before his numerous indictments, Trump warned about “potential death and destruction” if he were to be charged in the Manhattan district attorney’s hush money case against him.

Trump  also shared an article on Truth Social that had an image of him with a baseball bat near Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s head. The post was deleted. Trump also  used his Truth Social platform to go after Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the hush money case, as well as the judge’s daughter after being hit with a partial gag order.

The link to the quoted news story with photos is here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-shares-image-depicting-biden-tied-back-pickup-truck-rcna145712

On January 23, 2016, Donald Trump said at a rally in Sioux Center that his supporters are so loyal that he would not lose backers even if he were to shoot someone in the middle of downtown Manhattan, New York City and said this:

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? … It’s, like, incredible.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-still-maintain-support-n502911

On February 21, 2016, Trump told a crowd of his supporters in Cedar Rapids that he would pay their legal fees if they engaged in violence against protesters and said this:

“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell out of them … I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.”

http://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/

On March 9, 2016, as a protester was being escorted out of a Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, the protester was sucker-punched by another attendee and Trump said nothing when it was brought to his attention.

At a Las Vegas campaign rally in March, 2016 Trump said security guards were too gentle with a protester and said “He’s walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing. … I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”

In yet another campaign rally in March, 2016 in Warren, Michigan, Trump said of a protester “Get him out. …Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it.”

In July 2017 during a speech to police officials, Trump encourage law enforcement officials to be more violent in handling arrested offenders when he said:

“When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just seen them thrown in, rough. I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice … When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head you know, the way you put their hand over [their head],” Trump continued, mimicking the motion. “Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head. … You can take the hand away, OK?’”

During a rally in Montana ahead of the 2018 midterms, Trump praised Republican Greg Gianforte for body slamming a reporter while running for his congressional seat in 2017 and said “any guy who can do a body slam, he is my type!”

PIPE BOMBS SENT TO TRUMP CRITICS BY TRUMP SUPPORTER

In October, 2018, 14 pipe bombs were sent to Democrats who were outspoken critics of president Trump and people who he has vilified at his political rallies and on TWITTER.

The New York Times reported that on October 26, 2018 Federal authorities made an arrest in connection with the nationwide bombing campaign against outspoken Democratic critics of President Trump. The suspect was identified as Cesar Sayoc Jr., 56, of Aventura, Florida. Sayoc is a registered Republican.  He has a lengthy criminal history in Florida dating back to 1991. Sayoc’s criminal record includes felony theft, drug and fraud charges, as well as being arrested and accused of threatening to use a bomb.

Pipe bombs were sent to the home addresses of:

Former President Barack Obama
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Former United States Attorney General Eric Holder
Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John O. Brennan
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Billionaire philanthropist George Soros
Actor Robert Di Nero

A pipe bomb was also delivered to the offices of CNN in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.

During his arrest, Sayvoc’s white van was also seized as evidence. The van’s windows were plastered with a thick collage of pro-Trump stickers. Photos of the van showed that one of the stickers depicted President Trump standing in front of flames and the American flag. Another was of Hillary Clinton’s face in the crosshairs of a rifle scope. A third said: “CNN SUCKS.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/nyregion/cnn-cory-booker-pipe-bombs-sent.html

Photos and video emerged of Sayvoc attending a February, 2017 Trump Rally in Melbourne, Florida. He was holding a placard reading “CNN SUCKS”. Social media posts maintained by Cesar Sayoc Jr., contain conspiratorial memes promoting President Trump and mocking, criticizing and threatening virtually every prominent Democrat he sent a pipe bomb.

One post involving former Attorney General Eric Holder appointed by President Obama said “See you real soon. Tick Tock”.

In a September TWEET to former Vice President Joe Biden he wrote: “Hug your beloved son, Niece, wife family real close every time U walk out your home.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/mail-bomb-suspect-sayoc-shared-social-media-posts-about-targets

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018, after a briefing with FBI, DOJ, Homeland Security and Secret Service and during a subsequent White House function, President Trump had this to say about the “pipe bomber”:

“The safety of the American people is my highest and absolute priority. … The full weight of our government is being deployed to conduct and bring those responsible for these despicable acts to justice. We will spare no resources or expense in this effort. And I wanted to tell you that, in these times, we have to unify, we have to come together, and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message, that that acts or threats of political violence have no place in the United States of America.”

https://deadline.com/2018/10/donald-trump-suspected-bombs-sent-to-his-favorite-targets-no-place-in-united-states-1202488702/

On Thursday, October 25, 2018, despite his lofty proclamations that “the safety of the American people is my highest and absolute priority’” and the very a day after CNN and Democrats were the targets of the pipe bombs, Trump in a TWEET blamed the media for much of the “anger” in society by saying:

“A very big part of the anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST!”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/politics/trump-blames-media-for-anger-after-attacks/index.html

JANUARY 6, 2020 CAPITAL RIOT

the Morning of January 6, a defeated Donald Trump for reelection spoke to thousands of his upset and angry supporters in Washington, DC in front of the White House before the Congress was to schedule to accept the electoral college vote as mandated by the United States Constitution and electing Joe Biden President.  As usual, Trump’s speech was inflammatory and full of lies. Trump told the crowd that the election had been “rigged” by “radical democrats” and the “fake news media” and he said in part:

“We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. … Our country has had enough. We’re not going to take it anymore.”

Not at all surprising, Trump stoked his followers to take action and head to capitol hill to protest and said:

“And after this, we’re going to walk down there, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. … And we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. You’re the real people. You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down this nation.”

Soon after Trump spoke, his supporters believing all Trumps lies that the election was rigged, when it was not, went to the United States Capitol to protest. The Congress had already begun the process of counting and certifying the electoral college vote. A mob was able to breach security and successfully enter the building, where one person was shot and later died.

Hundreds of pro-Trump protesters pushed through barriers set up along the perimeter of the Capitol, where they engaged with officers in full riot gear, some calling police officers “traitors” for doing their jobs. About 90 minutes later the domestic terrorists got into the building and the doors to the House and Senate were locked. Shortly after, the House floor was evacuated by police. Vice President Mike Pence was also evacuated from the chamber, he was to perform his role in the counting of electoral votes. Some of the terrorists had even started to chant “HANG MIKE PENCE, HANG MIKE PENCE”.

The protesters first breached exterior security barriers, and video footage showed the domestic terrorists gathering and some clashing with police near the Capitol building. A number of Trump terrorists climbed up the side of the Capitol building to gain access. Windows were broken to gain access. Protesters roamed the interior of the building and went to the House Chamber and congressional offices and did property damage. In the end, 6 people died, one domestic terrorist shot and killed by capitol police with one capitol police officer succumbing to his injuries.

Within 7 hours after protestors took over the Capitol building and after they were evacuated from the building, the Congress returned to work and about 4:30 am in the morning on January 7, President Joe Biden was elected the new President of the United Sates. The final electoral college vote was Joe Biden 306 electoral votes, Donald Trump 232 electoral votes.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The assassination attempt was nothing more than a reflection of just how seriously low and divided this country has become. The assassin was killed but not before wounding Trump as well as killing one and critically injuring two spectators.  There is no place for violence, political or otherwise, in this country.  We are in dangerous times and we must appeal to our better angels.  The political rhetoric and acts of violence in this country must stop and it should be condemned in no uncertain terms by all.  Although Trump himself expressed condolences to innocent man killed and the two injured he still did not condemn the violence in no uncertain terms as was done by President Biden.

For the last 8 years, there is little doubt that Trump promoted hostility, mistrust and violence towards the press as well as his critics with his words and conduct. Trump promoted violence, hostility and mistrust when he first ran for President and he is doing it again as he runs in 2024 for a second term.  Now that Trump is a victim of gun violence himself, the biggest unanswered question is if he will finally tone down his rhetoric of violence or will he play the martyr and escalate things even further and continue with his lying ways.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Trump Shares Video With Image Depicting Biden Tied Up In The Back Of A Pickup Truck; Trump Incites Violence Despite Gag Orders; Trump’s Extensive History Of Promoting Violence; Jail Trump Pending Criminal Trials Before Someone Gets Killed And Before Violent Assault On Court Houses

On Sunday, July 14, the Albuquerque Journal published a 600 word guest opinion column  written by Pete Dinelli. Many thanks to the Albuquerque Journal for publishing the article.  Following is the unedited opinion column followed by the link to the article with photos:

JOURNAL EDITORIAL PAGE HEADLINE: City should seek dismissal of ACLU lawsuit in wake of SCOTUS ruling

By PETE DINELLI

ALBUQUERQUE RESIDENT

“On Aug. 18, 2022, the city of Albuquerque closed Coronado Park that had become a de facto city-sanctioned homeless encampment that Mayor Tim Keller sanctioned.

The city evicted upwards of 100 unhoused who camped at the park nightly. The city cited numerous reasons for closure of the park, including overall damage to the park, lack of sanitation causing severe health risks, extensive drug trafficking and violent crimes including rapes and murders. Crime at the park reached crisis proportions and closure was a necessity.

On Dec. 19, 2022, the American Civil Liberties Union along with others filed a class-action lawsuit against the city of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park. They alleged the city unlawfully seized personal property, denied due process of law, violated constitutional rights and forced all the unhoused out at Coronado Park with nowhere for them to go and the city not providing sufficient shelter for them.

The lawsuit sought court orders against the city to cease and desist city wide enforcement actions to stop the homeless from camping in public open spaces including streets, rights-of-ways, alleyways, under bridges and city parks unless the city has shelter or housing for them.

On Sept. 21, 2023, a state District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction against the city from “enforcing or threatening to enforce” statutes and city ordinances to displace the homeless from public spaces. The court said given a shortage of shelter beds, the city of Albuquerque cannot punish the homeless for their “mere presence” on public property citing the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson. The case challenged the municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The Supreme Court held that local laws that effectively criminalize homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision found that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets. The Supreme Court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors.

The city has spent or is spending upwards of $100 million a year on homeless services, including for two emergency shelters, subsidized housing, food and medical care and drug counseling. The vast majority of the chronically unhoused decline city shelter, housing, services and financial help offered or simply say they are not satisfied with what is being offered by the city.

The unhoused cannot be allowed to just ignore the law, illegally camp wherever they want for as long as they want, and as they totally reject any and all government housing or government services.

The city has every right to enforce its laws on behalf of its citizens to preserve and protect the public health, safety and welfare of all its citizens. Squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers or alternatives to living on the street really give the city no choice but to make it totally inconvenient for them to “squat” anywhere they want and force them to move on.

After repeated attempts to force them to move on and citations, arrests are in order.

The city of Albuquerque should seek the immediate dismissal of the ACLU lawsuit based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson.”

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

The link the Albuquerque Journal Guest column with photos is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/opinion-city-should-seek-immediate-dismissal-of-aclu-lawsuit-in-wake-of-scotus-ruling/article_ddd23c26-3f1c-11ef-b8ad-3b6d9c2901c5.html

The link to a related Dinelli blog article with in depth reporting is here:

US Supreme Court Rules Laws Prohibiting Camping By Unhoused In Public Spaces Are Not Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Albuquerque Should Seek Immediate Dismissal Of ACLU Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Closure Of Coronado Park

There are a total of 5 measures Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has put  forward for the July 18 Special Session she called on April 17. With just a few days remaining before the session, no consensus had been reached on any of the 5 measures the Governor wants passed.  The ACLU of New Mexico and numerous advocates for the homeless and mental health experts are asking the Governor to call off the special legislative session.  On July 10, the governor said that she doesn’t want to wait until next January’s 60-day legislative session to tackle the issues.

The Governor and her administration are now engaged in an aggressive public relations efforts to try and convince lawmakers, local public officials, judges and the public that her recommended legislative changes are vital, will work and can be approved during the July 18 special session on public safety.

SUMMATION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

On June 6, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s Office outlined to the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee five public-safety measures she wants legislators to address during the July 18 special session of the New Mexico legislature. The 5 measures can be summarized as follows:

The first measure would make changes to the state’s criminal competency law. This bill involves involuntary civil commitment for defendants charged with a serious violent offense, a felony involving the use of a firearm, or those defendants who have been found incompetent two or more times in the prior 12 months. Judges would be required to order district attorneys to consider filing for involuntary commitment, giving judges the ability to detain a defendant for up to seven days for the petition to be initiated. The intent is to prevent mentally incapacitated individuals from harming themselves or the public.

Supporters say there are far too many suspects who are arrested, deemed incompetent to stand trial, and then released back on the streets only to commit more crimes. It’s a bill designed to address in part the so-called “revolving door” where defendants are arrested only to be found incompetent to stand trial and then released. The  legislation is intended to strengthen a 2016 law and a program originally signed into law by former Governor Susana Martinez that allows district judges to order involuntary treatment for people with severe mental illness who have frequent brushes with law enforcement. It involves a program called the “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” (AOT).

The second measure would broaden the definitions of danger to oneself and danger to others in New Mexico’s involuntary commitment statute   that mandates involuntary treatment for people with mental illness. The bill would allow a judge to mandate out-patient treatment,. It would allow individuals, whether first responders, family members or community members who work with mentally ill individuals on the streets to request involuntary out-patient treatment.

The third measure would increase the crime of felon in possession of a firearm from a fourth-degree felony to a second-degree, and would set a new mandatory minimum term of nine years for the offense. Current law provides for a sentence of “up to three years for an offender.” Serious violent felons in possession would face a mandatory 12 years in prison, an increase from the current nine-year term.

The fourth measure would prohibit pedestrians from occupying highway medians, on-ramps, and is ostensibly directed at prohibiting panhandling and the homeless from occupying medians and off ramps.

The fifth measure  would require law enforcement agencies to report certain monthly crime incident reports and ballistic information to the state Department of Public Safety on crime incidents and ballistics information.

SUBSTITUTE BILL ANNOUNCED

On June 26 a substitute proposal was presented to the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee interim legislative committee that would broaden eligibility for someone who could be ordered by a judge into involuntary mental health treatment. Representative Andrea Reeb, R-Clovis, responded that a shortage of behavioral health treatment options is an underlying problem that makes any changes in law difficult to enforce.

Reeb is a prosecutor in the 9th Judicial District.  She recently had difficulty finding in-patient treatment for a serial arsonist in her district. Reeb said this after hearing the new proposal:

“We don’t really have any facilities in our area to treat anybody except as an outpatient. … You can divert people all you want to different things, but you don’t have places to send them”.

On June 27, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office announced she has scrapped the proposal to expand court-supervised outpatient treatment for people with mental illness for debate during the July 18 Special Session.  The bill the governor withdrew was intended to strengthen a 2016 law that allows district judges to order involuntary treatment for people with severe mental illness who have frequent brushes with law enforcement. It would have required each of the state’s 13 judicial districts to create a program called Assisted Outpatient Treatment overseen by a civil court judge.

Holly Agajanian, the governor’s chief general counsel, told lawmakers that the governor was responding to concerns from legislators that the AOT bill was a “big lift” for a special session.  Agajanian told members of the interim Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee this:

“What we’ve decided instead to do is condense the goals here. [The substitute measure will take] small, necessary steps to help those people who are either a true danger to themselves or an extreme danger to others”

The Governor’s Office is proposing to broaden eligibility for involuntary commitment by tweaking definitions in existing law. The existing involuntary commitment law essentially limits commitment to people who are suicidal. The proposed change would broaden the definition of “harm to self” and “harm to others” to cover more people eligible for involuntary treatment.

Under the new definition, “harm to self” would include a person unable “to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of the person’s daily responsibilities and social relations” or “to satisfy the person’s need for nourishment, personal or medical care,” housing and personal safety.

The proposed definition of “harm to others” would cover a person who “has inflicted, attempted to inflict or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm on another” or has taken actions that create “a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to another.” Harm to others could also apply to someone who has engaged in “extreme destruction of property” in the recent past.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/governor-pulls-bill-to-expand-involuntary-treatment/article_bc1fa51a-34df-11ef-ae36-4f7a022267af.html

ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCY BILL

On June 26, an analysis of the number of people released back into the community after being found incompetent to stand trial was provided to the  Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee which held all day hearings for 4 days to consider all 5 measures. The analysis was not completed and was unavailable yet when the competency bill legislation failed in the 2024 legislative session.  Major findings of the analysis are as follows:

• More than 3,200 people charged with crimes since 2017 in New Mexico have been released back to the community after being found incompetent to stand trial, according to an analysis fueling Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s call for a special session.
• More than 5,350 of the 16,045 dismissed charges were felonies, according to the analysis. The dismissals included those charged with first-degree murder, trafficking controlled substances, kidnapping, and abuse of a child, according to data of the state Administrative Office of the Courts.
• Other defendants charged with lesser crimes have been repeat offenders caught in a cycle of being charged and released only to be arrested again, charged, and let go after court-ordered evaluations showed they cannot participate in their defense and a judge ruled they were mentally incompetent to stand trial.

After seeing the analysis, Lujan Grisham called the number of criminal case dismissals “frankly, shocking.” The Governor said this to the Albuquerque Journal:

“Some of these have been in court up to 40 times in a year. If we don’t interrupt that, the status quo that you see playing out in our communities every day will stay. … I’m trying to break that cycle [and] focus on the criminal competency loophole. … The notion that we would have 3,200-plus individuals reoffending for another year is more than I think any New Mexican should have to bear”.

NEED FOR CHANGES IN MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENT LAWS

The Governor argues her proposed changes to the mental health commitment laws are needed immediately. She said her proposed changes benefit those who need support, whether it’s a drug user kicked out of his house by his family who turns to the streets and sells drugs for a living or a mentally ill person who ends up without a home and no after-care plan for treatment after being released from jail.

The Governor said this:

“We seem to have an underlying public safety or criminal aspect, in addition to some affordability issues, in addition to a significant mental health population. … [The current statute for commitment] is too narrow. Most people don’t qualify. That’s what the commitment changes will do.”

The Governor said the state is now better equipped to deal with those who need help. Since 2019, the behavioral health provider network in New Mexico has grown by 73% from nearly 3,200 providers to more than 5,500, according to her office. The Governor said this:

“We have 100-plus beds today [around the state] to serve people right now.”

The link to the quoted and relied upon news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/courts/governor-to-legislature-fix-needed-now-for-mentally-incompetent-defendants/article_23d5c0e0-3ef4-11ef-98e5-bb2b70b79702.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is extremely disappointing that since April 17 when Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called for a special session, and with just a few days before the July 18 Special Session, that the Governor and the New Mexico legislature leadership have failed to come to any consensus whatsoever on substantive public safety legislation for quick enactment by the legislature on July 18. The failure is a reflection of failed leadership on both sides.

The Governor’s proposed changes to the state’s mental health laws have some merit. However, to be perfectly blunt, the measures fall very short on actually accomplishing much when it comes to public safety given the fact the state is seriously deficient when it comes to mental health care facilities and mental health professionals. The Governor’s  mental health care proposals contain nothing with respect to funding. The mental health measures should be withdrawn and taken up during the 2025 regular 60 day session.

WITHDRAW OTHER 3 MEASURES ON SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA

There are 3 other measures that the Governor wants the Specials Session to enact apart from the mental health proposals.  All three of those measures are leftovers from the 2024 legislative session.  The 3 additional measures proposed by the Governor are ones that cannot be consider as a having a real sense of urgency and for that reason alone  she should withdraw those measures.  All 3 should be handled in the regular session for the following reasons:

The bill that would strengthen penalties for a felon convicted of possessing a firearm, making the crime a second-degree felony, punishable by a minimum of nine years in prison is one that standing alone will not make that much of a difference.  During the Governors tenure, the legislature has in fact increased felony criminal penalties  upwards of 6 times.

The bill to prohibit pedestrians from occupying highway medians, on-ramps and exit ramps is directed at the unhoused and panhandling in general and  is an exercise in futility. Such laws are difficult to enforce and law enforcement needs to concentrate on far more serious crime. Albuquerque has enacted such an ordinance, as has other communities, and it goes unenforced as panhandlers and the unhoused continue to occupy medians and on ramps and as the ACLU is successfully challenge  the laws in court as being unconstitutional.

The bill that would require law enforcement agencies to report certain monthly crime incident reports and ballistic information could likely be accomplished by executive orders and does not necessarily need legislation. Better cooperation between law enforcement is what is needed.

Without any consensus on any legislation, the July 18 Special Session will be a waste of time and taxpayer funding and for that matter somewhat of an embarrassment for both the Governor and the New Mexico Legislature. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham should concede to reality that the legislature is not at all interested in cooperating with her and cancel the July 18 Special Session.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Gov. MLG Withdraws Involuntary Commitment Bill for July 18 Special Session; No Consensus On Any Legislation For Special Session Reflects Failed Leadership; Cancel Special Session; Governor and Legislature Should Regroup And Push For Enactment Of “Omnibus Violent Crime Sentencing Act And Gun Control Act” In 2025 Regular Session

On  December 19, 2022  the American Civil Liberties Union and others filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 8 plaintiffs against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park and alleging civil rights violations. On June 28, 2024 the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This article is an in depth analysis and commentary on the Supreme Court’s ruling and its impact on the class action lawsuit filed against the City of Albuquerque.

CLOSURE OF CORONADO PARK

On August 18, 2022, the City of Albuquerque closed Coronado Park that had become a de facto city sanctioned homeless encampment that Mayor Tim Keller allowed and where the city evicted up to 100 unhoused who camped there nightly.  The city cited numerous reasons for closure of the park including lack of sanitation posing a severe health risks, overall damage to the park and extensive drug trafficking and violent crime, including rapes and murders at the park having reached crisis proportions. The city was spending upwards of $50,000 a month to clean up Coronado  Park.

The biggest factor and justification for closing Coronado Park was crime. The city park had an extensive history lawlessness including drug use, violence, murder, rape and mental health issues. In 2020, there were 3 homicides at Coronado Park. In 2019, a disabled woman was raped, and in 2018 there was a murder. APD reported that it was dispatched to the park 651 times in 2021 and 312 times  in 2022. There had been 16 stabbings at the park in 2 years.  In 2023, APD had seized from the park 4,500 fentanyl pills, more than 5 pounds of methamphetamine, 24 grams of heroin and 29 grams of cocaine. APD also found $10,000 in cash. All the seized drugs were tied to a single bust that occurred at a nearby motel, not the park, though an APD spokeswoman said the suspect was “mainly doing all their distributions [at the park].”

CLASS ACTION LAWSUITE FILED AGAINST CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE

On December 19, 2022 the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, the NM Center on Law & Poverty, and the law firms of Ives & Flores, PA and Davis Law New Mexico filed a “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” against the City of Albuquerque on behalf 4 men and 4 women identified to be homeless.  All 8 who were evicted by the city from Coronado Park.  Not one of the 8 plaintiffs allege they were charged or arrested for refusing to leave Coronado Park on the day it was closed nor were they jailed.

The Plaintiffs allege they were displaced from Coronado Park when the city closed it and that the city did not provide satisfactory shelter options to them.  The city said it did give notice and offered shelter and services, including vouchers.  According to an ACLU the lawsuit was filed to stop the City of Albuquerque from destroying encampments of the unhoused all over the city and preventing the city from seizing and destroying personal property and jailing and fining people for being unhoused.

The lawsuit alleges the city unlawfully seized personal property, denied due process of law, and violated constitutional rights by destroying property and forced all the unhoused at Coronado Park out with nowhere for them to go and with the city not providing sufficient shelter for them. The lawsuit sought court orders that required the city to cease and desist enforcement actions to stop the unhoused from camping in public spaces which includes public streets, public rights of ways, alleyways, under bridges and city parks unless the city has shelter or housing for them.

On September 21, 2023  State District Court Judge Josh Allison entered a Preliminary Injunction against the City of Albuquerque from “enforcing or threatening to enforce” statutes and city ordinance to displace the homeless from public spaces. The Court also enjoined the city from seizing and destroying homeless belongings and mandated a warrant and post deprivation hearings regarding personal belongings seized.

Judge Allison issued a preliminary ruling that said, given a shortage of shelter beds, the city of Albuquerque cannot punish homeless people for their “mere presence” on public properties. The injunction, which was later modified, was put in place and restricted how the city can ask people camping on public property to move. The injunction cited both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

The injunction was designed to limit the city’s sweeps of homeless encampments but the injunction was dropped in May of 2024. The injunction required that campers be given a 72-hour notice to vacate and be offered storage for belongings and transportation to a shelter. It also required an opportunity for belongings to later be reclaimed. The city said even though the injunction was dropped in May, it has been giving campers appropriate notice and offering resources.  The city said it will continue to send staff to conduct welfare checks at encampment sites and offer a list of services for campers.

A trial date was scheduled for August of this year, but it was vacated as a result of the pending United States Supreme Court case Grants Pass v. Johnson 

STATUTES AND ORDINANCES ENUMERATED

The lawsuit against the city specifically enumerates New Mexico Statutes and City Ordinances that have been enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property rights. The lawsuit does not challenge the constitutionality of any of the state statutes nor city ordinances.

The lawsuit makes the very broad allegation that “the  City regularly enforces City ordinances and state laws against unhoused people in a manner that criminalizes their status as homeless … [and] …  Unhoused people who erect tents or makeshift shelters around the City are routinely cited and/or arrested for violations of [the state laws and city ordinances].   Violations of these statutes and ordinances are punished as misdemeanors.”

All the laws cited have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused. The specific statutes cited in the lawsuit are:

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

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence.  The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department has agreed that only citations will be issued and no arrests will be made for violations of the 8 statutes and city ordinance as part of a court approved settlement in  a decades old federal civil rights lawsuit dealing with jail overcrowding.

US SUPREME COURT CASE GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON

 On June 28, the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.

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

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

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

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

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY’S REACTION TO SUPREME COURT RULING

On June 28, the City of Albuquerque issued the following news release in response to the US Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson:

 “In the coming weeks, City leaders will evaluate how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson will affect Albuquerque. The City appreciates more flexibility to enforce ordinances and will continue to protect the rights of unhoused individuals. 

The City of Albuquerque responds to over 50 illegal camps every day. Outreach staff conduct welfare checks on all those at camp sites, then provide an extensive list of services including medical, shelter, behavioral health, and property storage. The Albuquerque Community Safety (ACS) department provides evaluation and transport for anyone who accepts services. This process will continue. 

“I know there will be mixed reactions to this ruling in our community, so I want to be clear—the City will continue to do everything in our power to get people the help they need and to deal promptly with illegal encampments,” said Mayor Tim Keller.

The City of Albuquerque has made historic investments over the last few years to increase the number of shelter beds, resources, and pathways out of homelessness. 

Prior to this administration, the Westside Emergency Housing Center was only open at night and during the winter. We made it year-round, 24/7 and increased the bed capacity. We opened the Gateway and have shelter for families, providing wrap around services for people get into permanent housing faster. The Gateway will nearly quadruple in size by next spring and will serve 1,000 people a day.

The City has also tripled supportive housing vouchers since FY18, one of the most effective ways to ensure a permanent exit from homelessness. Since 2018, the City has also invested more than $71 million to bring over 2,200 new housing units to market and is buying and converting underutilized hotels into housing, like Los Altos Lofts. This summer we are dedicating $23 million to help developers build affordable housing. 

“We know that everyone’s story is unique, and people need compassionate support and resources to exit homelessness and get the stable housing that they deserve,” said Gilbert Ramirez, Director of Health, Housing and Homelessness. “We are adding vital services and working with our partners to build out a robust continuum of care so we can lift up those struggling in our city.” 

“ACS builds relationships with people experiencing homelessness through our outreach, and we work to establish trust so that people are comfortable getting the services they need,” said Albuquerque Community Safety Department Acting Director Jodie Esquibel. “We will continue to work in step with the community to connect people resources.” 

The City has also worked tirelessly with our partners at Bernalillo County and UNM to identify and fill in gaps in Albuquerque’s behavioral health and substance use treatment system. The newly opened Crisis Triage Center at UNM and the Gateway’s Medical Sobering, opening this fall, will connect thousands of people per year to the psychiatric, peer support, and substance use recovery services they need while relieving our strained emergency rooms.

The link to the news release is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/mayor/news/city-leaders-react-to-grants-pass-v-johnson-ruling

NEW MEXICO ACLU REACTS TO SUPREME COURT RULING

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs in the Albuquerque lawsuit, indicated a state constitution argument could still be pursued and called fines or jail time imposed for sleeping outside “inhumane and ineffective.”

Maria Archuleta, communications director for ACLU New Mexico, said this in a statement in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling:

“Here in New Mexico, we believe our state constitution provides broader protections than its federal counterpart. … We will continue to push back against municipalities that criminalize people for simply existing in public spaces.”

The links to a quoted and relied upon news sources is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/supreme-court-rules-that-outdoor-camping-bans-are-lawful-how-could-that-decision-affect-albuquerque/article_d708fdd6-3593-11ef-bb6d-8350d9880c72.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson will no doubt have a major impact on the class action lawsuit filed against the City of Albuquerque.  The US Supreme Court has aggressively reversed the lower federal court’s ruling that local laws the ACLU feel effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment as they alleged in their case against the city. There is no requirement that local government nor municipalities be required to provide sufficient, satisfactory housing options to the unhoused before they can cite or make an arrest.

The closure of Coronado Park was absolutely necessary because of what it had become which was a violent, crime invested, ground contaminated park that posed an immediate threat to the unhoused, the surrounding neighborhood and to the general public. The unhoused have reached crisis proportions, not because their numbers have increased, but because they have become far more visible and aggressive by illegally camping in parks, on streets, in alleyways and in city open space, whenever they want and refusing city services, medical attention and city shelter. The overwhelming majority of the Coronado Park unhoused declined the services and shelter offered. Many told the city they planned to move to another park or street location.

The ACLU lawsuit makes sweeping allegations of civil rights violations that are highly inflammatory and, in many respects, simply false.  The suit alleges that “the City regularly enforces City ordinances and state laws against unhoused people in a manner that criminalizes their status as homeless, the City deprives them of the means to survive.  The destruction of people’s tents, tarps, blankets, and sleeping bags leaves them completely exposed to the elements. The destruction of people’s medicine, food, and water deprives them of some of the most essential conditions for life.”   Stolen grocery store baskets brimming with abandoned items found in business dumpsters or residential garbage bins are not “meager, essential necessities for life.”

The ACLU complaint against the city essentially asserts the unhoused, because of their status and because there is no city housing available, they have the right to violate the law and illegally camp wherever they want for how long as they want without government interference.  The unhoused are not above the law and do not have the right to violate the law because they are homeless.

The complaint alleges that the city is “jailing and fining” the unhouse because of their status of being homeless. This allegation is FALSE.  APD has a “no arrest” policy for nonviolent homeless crimes such as trespass on public and private property, illegal camping in city parks and streets, rights of way, alleyways and open space. When the unhoused are cited for such crimes, they are given a 3-day notice to vacate their encampment along with their belongings.  When APD arrests or detains the unhoused it’s for felonies such as illicit drugs, stolen property, stolen or unlicensed guns or weaponry, individuals with outstanding arrest warrants or unhoused who pose an immediate threat to the public or themselves.

Being unhoused is not a crime. Government, be it federal or local, have a moral obligation to help and assist the unhoused, especially those that are mentally ill or who are drug addicted.  The city has spent or is spending upwards of $100 million a year on homeless services including for two  emergency shelters, subsidized housing, food and medical care and drug counseling. The vast majority of the chronically unhoused refuse or decline city shelter, housing, services and financial help offered or simply say they are not satisfied with what is being offered by the city.

The unhoused are not above the law. They cannot be allowed to just ignore the law, illegally camp wherever they want for as long as they want and as they choose, when they totally reject any and all government housing or shelter assistance. The City has every right to enforce its laws on behalf of its citizens to preserve and protect the public health, safety and welfare of all its citizens.

Unlawful encampment squatters who refuse city services and all alternatives to living on the street, who want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space give the city no choice but to take action and force them to move on. The city needs to seek the immediate dismissal of the case and the 8 plaintiffs unsubstantiated or questionable claims for a failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted.

Allowing the homeless to use, congregate and camp anywhere they want for as long as they want in violation of city laws and ordinances should never be considered as an option to deal with the homeless crisis given all the resources the city is dedicating the millions being  spent  to assist the homeless.  It was Mayor Keller who allowed a once beautiful and pristine park dedicated to public use to become a festering blight on the community.

Simply put, Coronado became an embarrassment with the city violating its own ordinances and nuisance laws by allowing overnight camping and criminal conduct in the park thus creating a public nuisance both under state law and city ordinance. Coronado Park became the symbol of Keller’s failure as Mayor to deal with the homeless crisis and he had to deal with a nuisance property of his own creation.

The homeless crisis will not be solved by the city nor by Mayor Keller, but it can and must be managed. The management of the crisis is to provide the support services, including food and lodging, and mental health care needed to allow the homeless to turn their lives around, become productive self-sufficient citizens, no longer dependent on relatives or others.

Too many elected and government officials and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Association of New Mexico, have a hard time dealing with the fact that many homeless adults simply want to live their life as they choose, where they want to camp for as long as they can get away with it, without any government nor family interference and especially no government rules and no regulations.  No county and no municipality should ever be required to just simply ignore and to not enforce anti-camping ordinances, vagrancy laws, civil nuisance abatement laws and criminal laws designed to protect the general public’s health, safety and welfare of a community.

Squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers or alternatives to living on the street really give the city no choice but to make it totally inconvenient for them to “squat” anywhere they want and force them to move on. After repeated attempts to force them to move on and citations, arrests are in order.

The City of Albuquerque should seek the immediate dismissal of the ACLU lawsuit based on the United States Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson .

Links to related blog articles are here:

Unhoused Sue City Over Coronado Park Closure; City Should Seek Immediate Dismissal; Unhoused Cannot Be Allowed To Violate The Law As They Refuse City Shelter And Services

https://www.petedinelli.com/2023/09/25/judge-enjoins-city-from-enforcing-or-threatening-to-enforce-laws-against-homeless-to-displace-them-from-public-spaces-seizing-and-destroying-homeless-belongings-without-warran/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/08/18/coronado-park-closed-self-proclaimed-mayor-of-corondo-park-arrested-now-the-hard-part-of-dealing-with-displacements/