President Joe Biden announced Sunday,  July 21, that he will end his presidential re-election campaign, bringing an abrupt and humbling conclusion to his half-century-long political career and scrambling the race for the White House just four months before Election Day.

Biden, 81, could not reverse growing sentiment within his party that he was too frail to serve and destined to lose to Donald Trump in November. He backed Vice President Kamala Harris in no uncertain terms to replace him as the Democratic nominee.

President Biden has been diagnosed with COVID and is self isolating and recovering at his home in Delaware.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/president-joe-biden-drops-2024-presidential-race-rcna159867

Following is President Joe Biden’s letter:

July 21, 2024

“My Fellow Americans,

Over the past three and a half years, we have made great progress as a Nation.

Today, America has the strongest economy in the world. We’ve made historic investments in rebuilding our Nation, ion lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, and in expanding affordable health care to a record number of Americans. We’ve provided critically needed care to a million veterans exposed to toxic substances. Passed the first gun safety law in 30 years. Appointed the first African American woman to the Supreme Court. And passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world. America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today.

I know none of this could have been done without you, the American people. Together, we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We’ve protected and preserved our Democracy. And we’ve revitalized and strengthened our alliances around the world.

It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.

I will speak to the Nation later this week in more detail about my decision.

For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me reelected. I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me.

I believe today what I always have: that there is nothing America can’t do — when we do it together. We just have to remember we are the United States of America.”

— Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/21/read-joe-bidens-letter-announcing-his-decision-to-drop-out-2024-election-president/74490492007/

In addition to the letter, President Biden also tweeted as follows:

“My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

President Joe Bidens decision to withdraw from the race is about as big a bomb shell as it gets and happened a mere 21 days since his disastrous debate performance, one month before the Democratic Party Nominating Convention and a little more than 4 months before the election. Now all eyes are on Kamala Harris and if she can in fact mount a successful campaign to secure the nomination, who she will select as her Vice President nominee and if former President Donald Trump can keep up his momentum.

The New York Times reported the news in part as follows:

“The president’s decision upended the race and set the stage for a raucous and unpredictable campaign unlike any in modern times, leaving Ms. Harris just over 100 days to consolidate support from Democrats, establish herself as a credible national leader and prosecute the case against Mr. Trump.

Although Democratic convention delegates must ratify the choice of Ms. Harris to take over as standard-bearer next month, Mr. Biden’s endorsement meant the nomination was hers to lose and she appeared in a powerful position to claim it. While Mr. Biden, 81, remained president and still planned to finish out his term in January, the transition of the campaign to Ms. Harris, 59, amounted to a momentous generational change of leadership of the Democratic Party.

The president’s decision meant that a nomination will be settled at a convention rather than through primaries. Ms. Harris starts the truncated process in the strongest position. Within minutes of Mr. Biden’s announcement, one potential rival, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, announced she would not run. Another, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, had previously said he would not challenge Ms. Harris.”

The link to the full unedited New York Times report is here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/us/politics/biden-drops-out.html

 

It is being reported that  New Mexico Senior Senator Martin Heinrich, who is up for reelection to a third term  became the third Democratic US Senator to publicly call on President Joe Biden to leave the presidential race. Heinrich said this:

“This moment in our nation’s history calls for a focus that is bigger than any one person, The return of Donald Trump to the White House poses an existential danger to our democracy. We must defeat him in November, and we need a candidate who can do that.  While the decision to withdraw from the campaign is President Biden’s alone, I believe it is in the best interests of our country for him to step aside. … By passing the torch, he would secure his legacy as one of our nation’s greatest leaders and allow us to unite behind a candidate who can best defeat Donald Trump and safeguard the future of our democracy.

Polling conducted by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and GOP nominee Nella Domenici’s campaign last month showed her in a margin-of-error race with Heinrich, though Democrats have expressed confidence about their chances for the seat.

An AP-NORC poll found nearly two-thirds of Democrats want Biden to withdraw. These calls have been mounting since the first presidential debate and subsequent public appearances that raised questions about his age and his ability to serve a second term.

Biden will turn 82 in November. If elected to a second term, he would leave office at age 86.

Heinrich joins fellow Democratic Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont and Jon Tester of Montana in publicly calling on Biden to step aside.

Senator  Peter Welch  became the first Democratic senator to call on President Joe Biden to step aside as the party’s presidential nominee. Welch said this in a Washington Post op-ed:

“The stakes could not be higher. We cannot unsee President Biden’s disastrous debate performance. We cannot ignore or dismiss the valid questions raised since that night. I understand why President Biden wants to run. He saved us from Donald Trump once and wants to do it again. … But he needs to reassess whether he is the best candidate to do so. In my view, he is not. For the good of the country, I’m calling on President Biden to withdraw from the race.”

Senator Jon Tester, who is up for reelection in Republican-leaning Montana said this about Biden stepping aside:

“Montanans have put their trust in me to do what is right, and it is a responsibility I take seriously.  … I have worked with President Biden when it has made Montana stronger, and I’ve never been afraid to stand up to him when he is wrong. And while I appreciate his commitment to public service and our country, I believe President Biden should not seek re-election to another term.”

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GABE VASQUEZ CALLS UPON PRESIDENT BIDEN TO WITHDRAW

On July 19, New Mexico U.S. Representative Gabe Vasquez called upon President Biden to withdraw from the race. In a statement released the freshman congressman called Biden an honorable public servant and said  this:

“President Joe Biden is an honorable public servant who has dedicated his career to bettering the lives of all American. … We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his time serving our nation. However, I believe too many of our fundamental freedoms and the wellbeing of our nation are at risk under a Trump presidency, and President Biden should step aside to give Democrats the best opportunity to win this November. … With abortion rights under attack and our Democracy at stake, we must unite to defeat Donald Trump and MAGA extremists. But make no mistake, regardless of who our nominee is, my number one job will be to take care of the people of my district and continue bringing results home to New Mexico.”

Vasquez has previously declined to answer questions about whether Biden should exit the race  after Biden’s debate last month with Trump raised questions about his mental acuity and ability to serve another term.  Vasquez narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Yvette Herrell in 2022 to win a district that was significantly redrawn by lawmakers a year earlier during the once-per-decade task of redistricting. He is facing a rematch with Herrell this year in what’s expected to be one of the nation’s most competitive  and expensive races.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/two-nm-congressional-democrats-call-on-biden-to-drop-out-of-race/article_a46afd56-45ed-11ef-a410-134ea284f8fe.html

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-president-joe-biden-calls-end-campaign/61649643#:~:text=U.S.%20Rep.%20Gabe%20Vasquez%20has,from%20KOAT%20Action%207%20News%22

The links to other quoted  and relied news sources are  here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/heinrich-calls-on-biden-to-drop-out-of-us-presidential-race/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/10/politics/peter-welch-democratic-senators-biden/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-trump-rnc-07-19-24/index.html

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-family-mapping-out-plan-drop-out-report-1927721

On July 18, commencing at noon, the New Mexico Legislature convened a Special Session called by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham to consider Public Safety measures. The governor’s public safety package was comprised of eight bills that addressed criminal competency standards, mental health treatment, crime reporting, pedestrian safety, gun violence, drug overdoses, and wildfire relief. She also added three bills in the final hours before the session including bills to address fentanyl distribution and racketeering.

When it was all said and done and within 5 hours of the special session convening, it came to an abrupt end with none of the Governor’s public safety measures enacted. The only legislation passed by  lawmakers was the approval  funding outlined in HB 1. 

A breakdown of the funding  in House Bill 1 is as follows:

• $10 million to the Mescalero Tribe to address damages caused by the South Fork and Salt fires.
• $10 million for wildfire mitigation; watershed restoration, slope stabilization, erosion control around the state.
•  $10 million for individuals and businesses applying for or in the claims process to receive public assistance funding from the federal emergency management agency for damages caused by flooding or a fire.,
• $70 million to the State Board of Finance to provide zero-interest reimbursable loans to political subdivisions that have been approved for federal assistance to replace or repair public infrastructure damaged by the Salt and South Fork fires, including damages from flooding.
•  $3 million to the Administrative Office of the Courts to fund assisted outpatient treatment programs and competency diversion pilot programs
•  $211,900 to pay for the special session.

Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth , D-Santa Fe said this of the appropriations:

“I would certainly ask the governor not to line-item veto this money and I would go one step further: I would suggest that by signing this diversion money into law, it’s an important first step towards rebuilding the collaborative relationship that needs to exist between the three equal branches of government.”

LEGISLATORS REPOND TO CRITICISM FOR NOT ADDRESSING PUBLIC SAFETY

Immediately after adjournment of the Special Session she had called, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued the following statement:

This legislature just demonstrated that it has no interest in making New Mexico safer. Not one public safety measure was considered. Not one, despite the bills having the backing of police chiefs, public safety unions, mayors, prosecutors, businesses, tribal leaders, crime victims and others who have seen firsthand the erosion of public safety that has deeply damaged the quality of life in our state. 

Today I visited a neighborhood that is being ravaged by dangerous activity and everyday petty crime. Families can’t walk in the park, employees are scared to go to work, and businesses are shuttering. For the legislature to ignore these stark realities is nothing less than a dereliction of duty. 

The legislature as a body walked away from their most important responsibility: keeping New Mexicans safe. But it is noteworthy that a majority of Republicans would have passed many or all of these bills — they were blocked. 

The legislature should be embarrassed at their inability to summon even an ounce of courage to adopt common-sense legislation to make New Mexicans safer. For those of you who go home to the sound of gunshots, who see hypodermic needles in your parks, and the families desperate to get a loved one living on the street the help they deserve, I’m sorry that most of our elected officials didn’t even try. 

This was one of the most disappointing days of my career, and the public should be outraged. My promise to you is that I will not stop fighting to protect you and your families. 

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/legislature/new-mexico-house-approves-funding-for-special-session-wildfire-relief-and-court-programs/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/santa-fe-northern-new-mexico/new-mexico-legislature-adjourns-special-session-on-public-safety/

https://nmindepth.com/2024/enraged-governor-blisters-legislature-for-five-hour-special-session/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/governor-legislature-should-be-embarrassed-after-rejecting-her-special-session-agenda/article_35be453e-4548-11ef-a9d4-4bc01c0232b9.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

When the Governor lashes out and says “The legislature should be embarrassed at their inability to summon even an ounce of courage to adopt common-sense legislation to make New Mexicans safer”, it is she that should be embarrassed as she refused to accept any responsibility for what happened.  Simply put, the Governor was part of the problem advocating complicated legislation without much analysis.

It was on April 17 that New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced she was calling state legislators into a Special Session starting July 18 with a focus on addressing public safety proposals. During the 3 months before the session, the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee, consisting of  36 House and Senate members, conducted a number of extensive  day long hearings on the legislation  with the Governor’s Office making presentations and stake holders offering research and analysis.  At one point the Governor actually withdrew legislation and offered substitute legislation.

Members of the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee made it clear repeatedly that the changes to the mental health commitment laws were way too complicated for a Special Session and there was a need for more time and research on the proposals, but the Governor rejected  the arguments made and refused to listen. Some of the presentations made by the Governor’s representatives, including the Governor’s general council, were woefully inadequate reflecting a misunderstanding of civil judicial mental health commitment  process and the resources that will be needed for the courts to carry out changes to the mental health commitment process. None of the legislation the Governor advocated for with respect to mental health commitment provided for funding for the courts and mental health facilities.  The Governor went so far as to engaged in an aggressive public relations campaign the week before the session that included press conferences with those she solicited to attend, interviews and letters to the editors to convince lawmakers that her proposed legislation was ready for prime time when it was not.

The Governor and her administration must accept responsibility for a failure in leadership to reach a consensus with house and senate leadership on any of the legislation she wanted before she called the special session in the first place. The only thing the Governor accomplished is having a little temper tantrum complete with self righteous rhetoric for all the world to see for not getting her way that was beneath the dignity of her office.

The Governor would be wise to set aside her animosity against the legislature for what happened. She should  meet with the legislative leadership personally and immediately to  access what can be done to regroup and come up with a consensus on a viable public safety package they are will to sponsor and enact  during the 2025 legislative session.

On April 17, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced she was calling state legislators into a Special Session starting July 18 with a  focus on addressing public safety proposals. There are a total of 5 measures Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham put forward for the July 18 Special Session. The postscript to this blog article provides a summation of the 5 proposals. Since the April 17 announcement of a special session,  absolutely no agreement has been hammered out between the Governor’s Office and majority Democrats in the run-up to the special session on any of the legislation.

GOVERNOR ISSUES SPECIAL SESSION  PROCLAMATION

On July 17, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued her proclamation calling lawmakers into Special Session on July 18 commencing at noon. The proclamation authorizes 9 issues for legislative debate during the special session. The  list includes emergency aid for damages caused by the South Fork and Salt fires that scorched the Ruidoso area last month, as well as funding to pay for the session, which is expected to cost at least $50,000 per day.

As expected, the  special session agenda primarily focuses on crime issues. The proposals include requiring temporary holds for certain criminal defendants deemed incompetent to stand trial, more frequent crime reports from law enforcement and enhanced criminal penalties for individuals with felony convictions who are found with guns. In a surprise move, outgoing  Albuquerque Republican Sen. Mark Moores said he had agreed to sponsor most of the bills. As part of the  agreement for Moore’s to sponsor the legislation, the Governor added Republican-backed proposals dealing with racketeering and penalties for fentanyl trafficking and possession as part of the back-and-forth discussions.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/governor-sets-stage-for-showdown-broadens-special-session-agenda/article_95437bae-4454-11ef-a926-d322166e45d7.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

ORTIZ Y PINO GUEST OPINION COLUMN

On July 17, the Albuquerque Journal published the following 600  word guest opinion column by Progressive Democrat State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino entitled “Special Session Can Close The Door For Minor And Nuisance Crimes”:

“Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is calling the Legislature into session on Thursday. The substantive issue among the four topics she wants discussed is mandating treatment for people who come before the courts for offenses that were committed under the effect of mental illness or substance use disorder.

I carried Senate Bill 16 in the January session this year, a bill supported by the governor that dealt with this topic. It drew considerable opposition from defense attorneys, civil libertarians and disability advocates. It ultimately was tabled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I took careful notes during all the discussions and presentations on SB 16. The objections raised were important — and valid. SB 16 needed considerable work. It was not ready for prime time.

Still, I am of the opinion that until we end the revolving door of impaired individuals who are released by the courts because jail is not where they belong we will not get a handle on our homelessness and petty crime problems.

Several new approaches to revising the competency statute are being worked on. I am worried that a two- or three-day special session is not where a major overhaul of a complex law ought to be tackled.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t do something valuable in the session.

We already have an Assisted Outpatient Treatment statute on the books. It was passed in 2016 after a five-year struggle led by former Senate President Mary Kay Papen.

It uses the “black robe effect” of judicial authority to urge people before the court for a criminal offense to get into treatment instead of going to jail.

It was passed only after we deleted the consequence of jail for those who did not voluntarily go into treatment. After seven years, only Doña Ana County makes much use of the existing AOT law.

Occasionally, I am told, it is used in Bernalillo district courts. The drawback is that after passing the AOT bill, the Legislature failed to ever appropriate money for the services that were to be offered.

Sen. Papen tried in 2019 and again in 2020 to secure funding for AOT. It failed each time.

Thus there are two big problems with AOT that could be dealt with in the special session. First, it is useless to mandate treatment if we don’t have enough treatment services for those who are voluntarily seeking them.

Forming longer waiting lines isn’t going to do any good.

Second, we need to re-focus AOT onto misdemeanor cases and away from felonies. The revolving door is largely spinning out into our streets, parks and alleys those arrested for minor and nuisance crimes.

If AOT was focused on getting them help in the form of housing, medication and case management, we would see a reduction in the homeless population.

The state has financial resources to do this. Sen. Papen knew this. We all do. What we lack is any confidence that spending money on this population will work. Yet it has proven to work in other cities where it has been tried. Miami, for one, is often pointed to as an exemplar for providing service instead of jail as a way to reduce homelessness.

Of course, the Medicaid program could provide, as advocates have urged, a new waiver for those with mental illness and substance use disorder. Other states have done that. It could include supportive housing. That way the federal government would pay 75% of the cost.

Adequate funding for AOT services statewide is something the special session could accomplish. That would be a huge step in reducing the behaviors that can lead to more serious crimes.”

Gerald Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, represents District 12 in the New Mexico Senate and serves as chair of the Senate Health & Public Affairs Committee. Senator Ortiz y Pino is retiring and is not seeking another term.

SENATE BILL 16 EXPLAINED

Senate Bill 16 was the criminal competency bill introduced in the 2024 session that would have mandated court-ordered treatment for a defendant deemed dangerous and incompetent to stand trial. Under current laws, individuals found incompetent largely have charges against them dismissed and are given information about services. The bill never made it to the floor. Lujan Grisham said this:

“We need a tool for folks who are repeat offenders because of these issues — substance abuse, behavioral health, mental health issues — to make sure that they can get the required treatment for more than a minute.”

PROVSIONS FOR VARIOUS DEGREES OF CRIME

The legislation included provisions for the various levels of crimes.

For violent felonies, if the defendant regained competence, the prosecution would continue. If the defendant failed to gain competence, they will remain in the residential facility with intermittent reporting to the court about his progress.

For non-violent felonies only the defendant would be referred to a diversion to treatment program for no longer than 18 months.

Upon completion, charges are dismissed.

If a defendant was unable or refuses to participate once referred, they would be assessed for civil commitment or assisted outpatient treatment.

For misdemeanors, the defendant could be diverted to treatment and wraparound services for up to 6 months.

https://ladailypost.com/gov-michelle-lujan-grisham-announces-legislation-that-increases-access-to-mental-health-services-for-repeat-defendants-in-new-mexico/

SUPPORT FROM PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE

The term “revolving door” is often used to refer to criminals who are arrested, released before trial with conditions, and then arrested again for committing more crimes.  During the 2024 legislative session, state lawmakers did approve a bill that addressed to some extent part of the issue, but law enforcement leaders say the revolving door also includes suspects who are arrested, deemed incompetent to stand trial, and then released back on the streets only to be arrested again.  It’s a gap in the system that state leaders want to close, but changing state law is only part of the solution.

Bernalillo  County District Attorney Sam Bregman said he  believed state lawmakers were on the right track with Senate Bill 16 to allow judges to order certain low-level suspects into behavioral health treatments to restore their competency so they’re able to stand trial. Bregman said this:

“Right now we just keep doing the same thing and we’re just having people go through the system with no real help for them, and it’s not good for the community. … A tremendous amount of cases are being dismissed because if someone’s not competent, they can’t help in their defense … and that’s not the way our criminal justice system works.”

Chief Public Defender Bennett Bauer said he agrees the system need to be fixed. Bauer said this:

“It’s important that people know that treatment, instead of incarceration, isn’t just to be nice to the person facing the charge. … It’s really what builds community safety. … We, as a community, need to step in, but much of that is stepping in and providing assistance to lift those folks up.”  

Notwithstanding Bauer saying the system needs to be fixed, he said it was a good thing Senate Bill 16 died in the Roundhouse because he believes lawmakers and law enforcement leaders need more time to work through those health care capacity issues and a  mental health care system that  is does not have enough providers nor facilities to do mental health evaluations. Bauer said this:

“Creating the capacity for treatment in the 33 counties in New Mexico, and at the same time, we create a court system that supports that community safety is critical.”

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/new-mexico-faces-critical-public-safety-gap-competency-and-behavioral-health-treatment/

https://seconddistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/home/programs-specialty-courts/pre-trial-services/jsdp-programs/mental-health-court/

ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PROGRAM

One of the governor’s proposals for the Special session is 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. The program is called the Assisted Outpatient Treatment, or AOT, was approved by lawmakers in 2016.

The court-supervised Assisted Outpatient Treatment program is intended for those who have a history of arrests and hospitalizations and who do not or who are unlikely to voluntarily adhere to prescribed treatments.  The law passed in 2016 allows for State District Court Judges to order people into mandatory treatment programs, which includes medication, therapy or drug testing. Participants have to be at least 18 years old, have a mental illness diagnosis and have a history of not following through with treatments ordered. Under the original law passed, cities and counties have to opt into the program to participate. In the eight years since the law was enacted, only Doña Ana County, in the state’s 3rd Judicial District, has implemented a functioning AOT program.  The program serves about 40 people a year.

Holly Agajanian, chief general counsel for the Governor’s Office, told members of the House Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee last month that legislation is needed to expand the program statewide.  Agajanian told lawmakers:

“Even though jurisdictions are already statutorily allowed to implement these programs, they aren’t doing it.”

COST OF SPECIAL SESSIONS

On July 17, the online news agency New Mexico In Depth publish a story that addressed the cost of a Special Session. The article was written by New Mexico In Depth reporter Trip Jennings.  Below are quoted excerpts from the article:

[According to the New Mexico In Depth report], the cost of a special session is often determined by how many days it lasts, plus the daily rate the Legislative Council Service sets for each day state lawmakers are in session. The two factors help to explain why in the past decade special sessions, on average, have been less expensive than in the two decades preceding it.

“The average cost to taxpayers of the last eight special sessions held from 2015 through 2022 was $164,970, according to a review of special session costs 1990 to 2022, the year of the last special session.

From 2002 through 2011 the average price tag of seven special sessions and one extraordinary session was much higher, $309,856. (Special sessions are called by governors, who set the agenda. State lawmakers called themselves into session to override then-Gov. Gary Johnson’s veto of the state budget in 2002.) And that was lower than the prior decade, from 1992 through 2001, when the average cost of six special  sessions was $357,641.

In six of the last eight special sessions held from 2015 through 2022, state lawmakers were paid for five days or fewer to conduct the state’s business. In the decade that produced the costliest special session average — 1992 through 2001 — state lawmakers were paid for six days or more in four of the six special sessions.

The Legislative Council Service hasn’t set a daily rate for this week’s special session. But the cost of each day state lawmakers were in special session over the past 30 years has hovered just below $45,000. There have been noticeable deviations. The highest daily rate was recorded in 2022 for that year’s special session — $71,484; the lowest — $28,035 — came in 2007 for that year’s special session.

To summarize, the shorter a special session, the less expensive it is. Or to state the inverse, the longer a special session lasts, the more expensive it is.”

https://nmindepth.com/2024/special-session-turns-into-a-game-of-chicken-who-will-blink-first/?mc_cid=2c0f329fe7&mc_eid=1d7cc037e1

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is extremely disappointing that since April 17 when Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called for a special session, absolutely no consensus was reached on any of the legislation. The failure to reach any consensus is a reflection of failed leadership on both sides. Unless a consensus on any legislation can be arrived at and within a 3 to 4 day session, the Special Session should adjourned as a waste of taxpayer money.

Progressive Democrat State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino provides a means for both the Governor and the New Mexico Legislature to safe face and enact meaningful legislations during the Special Session. Specifically, the Special Session should enact a version of Senate Bill 16 that was proposed in this year’s 2024 legislative session and expand and fund Assisted Outpatient Treatment program and mandating that it be a mandatory program in judicial districts an include full funding.

POSTSCRIPT

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.

There are 3 other measures that the Governor wants the Specials Session to enact apart from the two 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 third measure  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 fourth measure would 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 fifth measure  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.

Gov. MLG Insists On Going Forward With July 18 Special Session Despite No Consensus Reached On Proposed Legislation; No Consensus On Any Legislation For Special Session Reflects Failed Leadership; Cancel Special Session

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.”