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

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

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

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

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

Smith’s team wrote in part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRUMP CALLS JANUARY  6  “A DAY OF LOVE”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECALLING WHAT SENATOR MITCH MCCONNEL SAID ABOUT JANUARY 6

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

“January 6th was a disgrace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This was different.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That is an absurd deflection.”

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

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

“One person did.”

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

…  . “

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

Senator McConnell concludes his remarks by saying this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We put our constitutional duty first.”

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

With the landmark presidential immunity decision by the United States Supreme Court, the Trump 6 Supreme Court disciples of John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett,  the United State Supreme Court have done whatever they could do to undermine our federal criminal justice system and attempt to ensure that former President Trump returns to power. The 6 do so at the expense of our democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABORTION RIGHTS

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

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

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

 ELECTION NEWS UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SOUTHERN BORDER

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

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

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

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

ELECTION NEWS UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

FOREIGN POLICY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELECTION NEWS UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRIME AND DEALING WITH “ANTIWHITE FEELING”

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

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

UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY

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

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

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

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

THE COURTS, CONGRESS AND THE PRESS

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT IN WAITING

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

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

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

ACCEPTING RESULTS OF ELECTION ONLY IF HE WINS

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT

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

TRADE

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

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

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

FOREIGN POLICY

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

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

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

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

ENERGY

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

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

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

EDUCATION

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

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

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

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

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

HOMELESSNESS

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

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

PUBLIC SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

BY PETE DINELLI, ALBUQUERQUE RESIDENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link to a related blog article is here:

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

On September 24, Mayor Tim Keller addressed the New Mexico chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP). The commercial and real estate development organization is considered  the most influential business organization in the city consisting of developers, investors and contractors with membership in excess 300 with many bidding on city contracts. NAIOP has its own political action committee, and the organization endorses candidates  for Mayor and City Council while the membership donates to candidates.

Keller started his remarks by describing what he sees on his walk to work from his West Downtown home located in the Albuquerque Country Club area.  Keller told the audience this:

“We all know what’s happening now. I see homelessness. I see vagrants. I see broken windows all over our city. … All of the challenges we’re facing, I absolutely feel. I feel them and I see them. … I just want to make it abundantly clear that we are in this together. I don’t know anyone in Albuquerque who doesn’t have the same stories I just shared.  … This, by far and away, is our biggest challenge. This is a generational challenge for America; it also is absolutely for Albuquerque.  … This is the challenge of our lifetime.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/challenge-of-our-lifetime-keller-talks-crime-homelessness-and-promotes-downtown-tax-district-to-business/article_a9c9c66e-7acd-11ef-bf00-8be4da71ca2b.html

During his August 17 State of the City Address, Mayor Tim  Keller said homelessness and housing are  the biggest problems facing the city. Keller said this:

“Of all the challenges we face, this issue is without a doubt the main event. … Despite our best efforts [there are an estimated]  5,000 people living on the streets … We are not going back down… And we are not going to blame anyone else. We are going to do everything we can for those 5,000 people. But I know we can’t fix this alone. … We need help to build a healthy community across the continuum from the panhandler, to the addict, to those facing eviction.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/keller-talks-housing-and-other-challenges-touts-progress-in-state-of-the-city-address/article_c5435dda-5ccb-11ef-9788-a74942415286.html

ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

Mayor Tim Keller has repeatedly said the city has 5,000 homeless but never fully articulating his source for the statistics. The reality is he is embellishing the figures by more than doubling an official count.

On July 31, the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness released the 2024 Point-In-Time (PIT) Report for the numbers of unhoused in Albuquerque and in the balance of the state. The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive federal funding and to help understand the extent of homelessness at the city, state, regional and national levels.

The raw data breakdown of Albuquerque’s homeless contained in the 2023 Point In Time Survey is as follows:

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The total count of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,248. (Households include those with or without children or only children.)  The breakdown is as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 1,018
• Transitional Housing: 174
• Unsheltered: 1,056

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS: 2,248

PERSONS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The total count of PERSONS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,740 broken down in 3 categories.

• Emergency Shelters: 1,289
• Transitional Housing: 220
• Unsheltered: 1,231

TOTAL PERSONS: 2,740

ALBUQUERQUE’S 2009 TO 2024 STATISTICS

Total number of PEOPLE counted during the Albuquerque Point-in-Time counts from 2009 to 2024 to establish a graphic trend line for the period are as follows:

• 2009: 2,002
• 2011: 1,639
• 2013: 1,171
• 2015: 1,287
• 2017: 1,318
• 2019: 1,524
• 2021: 1,567
• 2022: 1,311
• 2023: 2,394
• 2024: 2,740

The data breakdown for the 2024 Albuquerque UNSHELTERED was reported as follows:

• 960 (78%) were considered chronically homeless.
• 727 (22%) were not considered chronically homeless.
• 106 (8.6%) had served in the military.
• 927 (75.3%) had NOT served in the military.
• 669 (56.6%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 525 (42.6%) were NOT experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 5% of all respondents said they were homeless due to domestic violence with 49.2% of those being women.
• 4% said they were adults with a serious mental illness.
• 0% said they were adults with a substance abuse disorder.
• 8% said they were adults with another disabling condition.
• 3% were asdults with HIV/AIDS.

Individuals who stated they moved to New Mexico from somewhere else were asked whether or not they were experiencing homelessness when they moved to the State and they responded as follows:

• 82 (24.8%) said they were homeless before moving to the state.
• 212 (63.8%) said they were not homeless before moving to the state.
• 77 (11.4%) refused to answer.

HISTORY OF ALBUQUERQUE’S EMERGENCY SHELTER COUNT

The 2024 PIT report contains the count of the number of people residing in EMERGENCY SHELTER in Albuquerque during the PIT Counts for the years 2011-2024.  Following are those numbers:

• 2011: 658
• 2012:  621
• 2013: 619
• 2014: 614
• 2015: 659
• 2016: 674
• 2017: 706
• 2018: 711
• 2019: 735
• 2020: 808
• 2021: 940
• 2022: 940
• 2023: 1,125
• 2024: 1,289

BARRIERS TO HOUSING LISTED

Unhoused respondents were asked to list the barriers they are currently experiencing that are preventing them from obtaining housing. Following are the responses:

• Access to services: 439 responses, 42%
• Access to communication: 263 responses, 25%
• Available housing is in unsafe neighborhoods: 119 responses, 11%
• Credit issues: 150 responses, 14%
• Criminal record: 220 responses, 21%
• Deposit/Application fees: 316 responses, 30%
• Lack of vouchers (rental subsidies): 333 responses,32%
• Missing documentation: 374 responses, 35%
• No housing for large households: 33 responses, 3%
• Pet deposits/Pet Rent: 57 responses, 5%
• Pets not allowed/Breed Restrictions: 48 responses, 5%
• Rental history: 144 responses, 14%
• Rental prices: 340 responses, 32%
• Safety/Security: 77 responses, 7%
• Substance Use Disorder: 283 responses, 27%
• Lack of employment: 45 responses, 4%
• Disabled: 34 responses, 3%
• No mailing address: 31 responses, 3%
• Lack of income: 30 responses, 3%
• Homeless by choice: 30 responses, 3%
• Ineffective service landscape: 25 responses, 2%
• Lack of transportation: 14 responses, 1%
• Discrimination: 8 responses, 1%

The link to review the entire 62-page 2024 PIT report is here:

 https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/ad7ad8_4e2a2906787e4ca19853b9c7945a4dc9

KELLER’S MULTIFACETED APPROACH

Mayor Keller has emphasized that the city is taking a multifaceted, all-in approach to get more people into houses and off the streets.  Keller announced the Metro Homelessness Initiative which has the goal to provide the unhoused staying at shelters with the opportunity of employment.  According to Keller, the city is overhauling its voucher program and improving collaboration with the nonprofits that do the work.

The city will have a total of 5 centers to deal with the homeless that is intended to be operated as an integrated system:

• The Gibson Gateway Shelter
• The Gateway West Shelter
• The Family Gateway Shelter
• The Youth Homeless Shelter
• The Recovery Shelter

Keller said the Gateway Center which is the former Lovelace Hospital on Gibson is the largest investment the city has ever made in health and homelessness with the goal of providing immediate help and a pathway into housing.  The Gateway West shelter is the old westside jail  being reshaped with no barriers to entry and wraparound services.  The city is now adding the Youth Gateway a Recovery Gateway, and the Family Gateway has already helped get 1,200 into permanent housing.  The Recovery Gateway is for the unhoused who are struggling with drug abuse.  The Family Gateway is a reworked hotel to house more than 50 families a night.

Samantha Sengel, the chief administrative officer for the city, said that between Gateway Center and Gateway West, also known as the Westside Shelter, 900 people are able to find shelter each night. The two other gateways in the works for youth and a recovery are also part of a full system of support.  Sengel said this:

“We know that we need to create a full system of support. All of what we are doing needs to be a part of that gateway system. … We also will be opening our medical respite center this calendar year. We will be opening a sobering center this year which is a really critical part of the system that we know are some gaps that we have in our community.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/keller-talks-housing-other-challenges-030100317.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/albuquerque-mayor-talks-public-safety-housing-at-2024-state-of-the-city-address/

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/opinion-albuquerque-is-a-resilient-city-with-a-future-worth-fighting-for/article_eb21aebc-60ea-11ef-83f1-c7b1e5ae8b16.html

https://www.koat.com/article/metro-homelessness-initiative-is-the-latest-effort-by-the-city/61968575

WESTSIDE JAIL REBRANDED AS NEW “GATEWAY WEST”

On August 9, it was reported that the Westside Emergency Housing has newly renovated sleeping areas.  During summer months, upwards of 450 people stay at the shelter on an average night. The old jail pods are being renovated on a rotating basis  to allow continuous housing of people while the facility is renovated.  The facility has been renamed the “Gateway West.”

The former jail located west of the city off of the old Route 66 was ill-equipped to serve as a full-time shelter. The shelter was opened year-round in 2018.  Over the past several years it has undergone various improvements. Those improvements include replacing a septic system with sewer to better serve a large population, adding a warming kitchen with a walk-in fridge and freezer to make sure three meals a day are available to people staying at the low-barrier shelter and working air conditioning.

The city is renovating the sleeping areas room by room, putting in new floors and replacing the 3 bunk high beds with a more typical option for shelters:  single beds across the center of the floor and “two bunk” beds along the walls. The beds have new mattresses designed to be bedbug proof and easily cleaned.

The third pod renovation has been completed and the city plans to complete 4 more by winter so that 7 renovated pods will be available before the shelter population rises during the colder months. There are 12 pods that will be renovated.  Seven of the dorms are for men, four are for women and one is for couples.

The building has five outdoor shade canopies, but more shaded areas could be added and the city wants to add a pet relief area, platforms for service providers to do fairs outdoors and make upgrades to the property to make it more accessible.

The Gateway West shelter started as an emergency winter night shelter. During the summer, upwards of 100 people who use walkers or wheelchairs stay there on a typical day. Those people often stay at the shelter the whole day, because it is difficult for them to spend the day on the streets.

The city has requested $2 million in federal dollars to meet American Disability Administration requirements by making sure showers, shower bars and seats can be modernized and to pave the outdoor paths to make them nice for wheelchair and walker use.

According to Gilbert Ramirez, the Director of Health, Housing and Homelessness, the facility needed $8.9 million in repairs in January, 2023. Bernalillo County contributed $600,000, which helped purchase the new beds and mattresses, while the City Council authorized $4.5 million, which will be enough to complete the interior renovations on all 12 pods. The city works with multiple nonprofits, which provide many of the services to help homeless people in Albuquerque.

Mayor Keller said this of the newly named Gateway West”:

“Over the last several years, we have been transforming this [former jail] into what it should have been all along, which is essentially a support center with services available for folks with no barriers to entry. … And so that’s why today we’re re-christening this the Gateway West, which, of course, it is our vision to have gateway centers throughout the city. … We want to encourage anyone in Albuquerque who wants to help out — help out a provider, one of these nonprofits that does this work each and every day,” Keller said. “It’s much more effective than just trying to do it yourself.”

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

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/as-renovations-continue-at-city-s-westside-shelter-the-facility-also-gets-a-new-name/article_d93855fc-5690-11ef-8ecc-ef0bc34c27ce.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

GIBSON GATEWAY HOMELESS SHELTER

It was on April 6, 2021, that Mayor Tim Keller officially announced the city had bought the massive 572,000 square-foot hospital complex for $15 million in order to convert it into a 24-7 homeless shelter to assist an estimated 1,000 homeless residents and connect them to other services intended to help secure permanent housing. The original hospital complex had a 201-patient bed capacity and includes large lobby common areas, administrative offices and physician offices, treatment rooms, emergency admittance areas and operating areas and a large 350 capacity auditorium. Once remodeling is completed, the shelter is intended to serve all populations of men, women, and families. Further, the city wants to provide a place anyone could go regardless of gender, religious affiliation, sobriety, addictions, psychotic condition or other factors.

Mayor Keller has always touted the Gateway Center as his top solution to homelessness, but construction issues have caused significant  delays.  Since the April 6, 2021 purchase of the Gibson Medical Center for conversion to the Gateway homeless shelter, completion of the project has experienced delay, after delay after delay. The repeated delays have been caused by neighborhood protests, a civil lawsuit and zoning battle and asbestos being discovered on the property requiring millions in  remediation costs and the city being find by the federal environmental health department.

The original Gateway Center as envisioned will provide navigational services for women and men. The Westside Shelter, now Gateway West, will still provide 600 beds for whoever needs them. The first phases of the Gateway Center, including 50 beds for women  has been completed. Construction costs for “phase one” was $7 million.

By this time next year, city leaders expect their entire Gateway system will be able to help up to 1,500 people a night, but that is contingent on remodeling  projects meeting deadlines.  City officials are saying the original Gateway Center,  which has been under construction for almost three years, will be fully up and running by mid-2025.  According to city officials, there already more than 300 people utilizing the Gateway Center right now, and a new sobering center is expected to open, along with a navigation center for men in the winter.

There have been major delays in openings over the years, and with an estimated $70 million price tag, split between the city, state and feds, it’s likely even more delays will occur.  Notwithstanding Mayor Keller and his administration leaders are asking the community to think about the big picture. CAO Sengel said this:

“We really need the community to believe in this model and get behind us in the sense that this is the place that we are investing to ensure that people have the support they need to move them from unhoused and living on the street through support services, and moving them towards the opportunity to be housed.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/keller-talks-housing-and-other-challenges-touts-progress-in-state-of-the-city-address/article_c5435dda-5ccb-11ef-9788-a74942415286.html

CITY MOVES FORWARD WITH YOUTH HOMELESS SHELTER

Notwithstanding the Gateway Center on Gibson and the Gateway West Center, Mayor Tim Keller says  that the city needs even more resources to address homelessness and he has announced a Gateway Center expansion plan. The big idea behind the city’s Gateway Center expansion plan includes a network of 5 different facilities providing specific resources for specific groups.

Chief Administrative Officer Samatha Sengel said this:

“This is a system of support, and we recognize that when you have individuals that are sleeping in a shelter, the most important thing we can do is ensure that they have access to support services. … Supporting individuals with true case management and walking along with them where they are and bringing them to housing. That model has been proven out in not only in Albuquerque and other places.” 

Keller announced that work is already underway to convert the old San Mateo Inn near I-40 into the city’s first major Gateway Center expansion.  The city purchased the building for nearly $5 million with plans to convert it into the city’s first Youth Homeless Facility. A recent report found a significant group of 15 to 25 year olds experiencing homelessness never utilize the city’s existing resources.

Dr. Samantha Sengel, the city’s chief administration officer, put it this way:

“We have very focused programs for men and women and family. But I think that recognizing that 20 year olds, 21 year olds, need a very different environment is exactly what we’re focused on. … They’re at a stage in their life that they need different types of support, and if we have a dedicated location for them, we can ensure that they have appropriate supports.  We’re right in the phase right now of determining the level of the renovation that’s going to require. So we’re all aiming for 2025.”

Gilbert Ramirez, director of the city’s Health, Housing, and Homelessness Department said this:

 “A lot of our young adults do not access adult-based services, because they don’t consider themselves necessarily to be adults, even though they’re 18, 19.”

City leaders say the new Youth Gateway Center is expected to house between 30 and 50 young adults at a time.  While the new Youth Gateway Center houses young adults, and another converted hotel offers services for families experiencing homelessness. There’s also plans for a recovery gateway, a micro-community dedicated to people suffering from addiction.

City leaders say more announcements about the Gateway Center are coming this fall.

City of Albuquerque moves forward with plans for youth homeless shelter – KOB.com

CITY’S FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO THE UNHOUSED

Originally, it was the city’s Family Community Services Department (FCS) Department that provided assistance to the homeless.  In fiscal year 2021-2022, the department spent $35,145,851 on homeless initiatives.  In 2022-2023 fiscal year the department spent $59,498,915 on homeless initiatives. On June 23, 2022 Mayor Tim Keller announced that the city was adding $48 million to the FY23 budget to address housing and homelessness issues in Albuquerque.  Key appropriations included in the $48 million were as follows:

• $20.7 million for affordable and supportive housing   
• $1.5 million for improvements to the Westside Emergency Housing Center
• $4 million to expand the Wellness Hotel Program
• $7 million for a youth shelter
• $6.8 million for medical respite and sobering centers
• $7 million for Gateway Phases I and II, and improvements to the Gibson Gateway Shelter facility
• $555,000 for services including mental health and food insecurity prevention

The link to the quoted source is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/family/news/mayor-keller-signs-off-on-major-housing-and-homelessness-investments

Effective July 1, 2024, the Family and Community Services Department was split to create two departments:  Health, Housing and Homelessness (HHH)  and the Youth and Family Services (YFS). The Health, Housing and Homelessness Department (HHH) provides a range of services to the unhoused. The services offered by the department directly or by contract with community providers include:

• Behavioral health services, which encompass mental health and substance abuse treatment and prevention.
• Homeless services.
• Domestic violence support.
• Health care.
• Gang/violence intervention and prevention.
• Public health services.
• Rental assistance and affordable housing developments.

HHH also operates four Health and Social Service Centers and the HHH department employs upwards of 100 full time employees.

The enacted FY/25 General Fund budget for the HHH Department is $52.2 million, which includes $48 million for strategic support, health and human services, affordable housing, mental health services, emergency shelter, homeless support services, Gibson Health HUB operating, and substance use services from Family and Community Services Department, and $4.2 million for a move of Gibson Health HUB maintenance division form General Service Department.

The HHH departments FY/25 budget which began on July 1, 20224 includes:

• $13.3 million of FY/24 one-time funding transferred from Family and Community Services, including $265 thousand for strategic support,
• $110 thousand for health and human services,
• $8.5 million for affordable housing,
• $1.5 million for mental health services,
• $1.2 million for emergency shelter,
• $200 thousand for substance use services,
• $1 million for homeless support services and $500 thousand for the Gateway Phase 1 and Engagement Center at Gibson Health Hub.

The FY/25 HHH Department budget increases recurring funding of $250 thousand for Family Housing Navigation Center/Shelter (Wellness-2), and recurring funding of $250 thousand for Gibson Health HUB maintenance. The proposed budget adjusts program appropriations of $776 thousand in FY/25 based on projected savings.

The Gateway Homeless shelter on Gibson, the city’s one-stop shop for shelter, housing and employment services, has been appropriated $10.7 million in total funding fiscal year 2025.

The Westside Emergency Housing Center was appropriated $1.5 million.

The proposed budget includes $8 million in one-time funding for supportive housing and voucher programs, plus $100,000 for emergency housing vouchers for victims of domestic violence.

Other major budget highlights for the homelessness, housing and behavioral health include the following:

• $900,000 nonrecurring to fully fund the Assisted Outpatient Treatment program.
• $730,000 in recurring funding for operation of the Medical Sobering Center at the Gateway Shelter.
• $100,000 nonrecurring for emergency housing vouchers for victims of domestic violence.
• “Full funding”for service contracts for mental health, substance abuse, early intervention and prevention programs, domestic violence shelters and services, sexual assault services, health and social service providers, and services to abused, neglected, and abandoned youth.
• $1.5 million in recurring funding for the Medical Respite facility at the  Gateway Center.
• $100,000 nonrecurring for the development of a technology system that enables the city and providers to coordinate on the provision of social services to people experiencing homelessness and behavioral health challenges.
• $500,000 nonrecurring to fund Albuquerque Street Connect. According to the mayor’s office, Street Connect is a “proven program” that focuses on establishing ongoing relationships with people experiencing homelessness to help them into supportive housing.

You can review all city hall department budgets at this link: 

Click to access fy24-proposed-web-version.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Since becoming Mayor in 2017, Mayor Tim Keller has made the homeless the top priority perhaps only second to public safety. During the past 7 years of his tenure , the city has established two 24/7 homeless shelters, including purchasing the Loveless Gibson Medical Center for $15 million to convert it into a homeless shelter and has spent upwards of $80 million to renovate it. The city is funding and operating 2 major shelters for the homeless, one fully operational with 450 beds and one when once remodeling is completed fully operational  will assist upwards 1,000 homeless and accommodate at least 330 a night. Ultimately, both shelters are big enough to be remodeled and provide far more sheltered housing for the unhoused.

According to the City budgets for the years 2021 to 2024, the Keller administration has spent upwards of  $200,000,000 or approximately $50 Million a year to provide shelter and services to the unhoused.

Keller has taken an “all the above approach” to deal with the city’s homeless. The city will have a total of 5 centers to deal with the homeless that should be operating as an integrated system by the end of next year:

• The Gibson Gateway shelter
• The Gateway West shelter
• The Family Gateway shelter
• The Youth Homeless shelter
• The Recovery Shelter

Notwithstanding all the efforts, the city’s financing and programs initiated by Mayor Keller, he insists that the city has 5,000 homeless. Every year that the Point In Time survey is released, the city and service providers always proclaim it is a massive undercount of the city and state’s homeless population. The accuracy of the numbers are called into question with some arguing that the city’s homeless numbers are as high as10,000 or more as demands are made for more and more spending.

Government and charitable providers who rely on government funding to assist the homeless to an extent are motivated to make claims that the numbers they serve are much greater than they really are because government funding or even donations are dependent on the numbers they actually serve. This is especially so when federal funding is at stake.

KELLER’S EMBELISHMENT OF THE NUMBERS

The Point in Time (PIT) survey is criticized because everyone at risk of or experiencing homelessness through the course of the entire year is not included.  The PIT report does not include those who are referred to as the “hidden homeless” which is defined as people who may be sleeping in their cars, overcrowded homes, vacant buildings or staying “on and off” with friends or relatives for short periods of time or in other unsafe housing conditions or in undetected campsites and those who have no permanent address.

Mayor Tim Keller’s embellishment that the city has upwards of 5,000 is not supported by the Point In Time survey.  The overall numbers found each year by the PIT over the last 12 years has been very consistent. Albuquerque’s total number of chronic homeless is between 2,002 counted in 2009  and 2,740 counted in 2024.

Until government and all homeless providers come up with an ongoing method of calculating the homeless throughout the year, the annual Point In Time is the only count that is reliable and should not be dismissed as inaccurate.  The blunt reality is that homelessness will never be solved until the underlying causes are resolved including poverty and the mental health and drug addiction crisis.

Given the numbers in the 2023 PIT report and the millions being spent on the homeless crisis it  should be manageable. Yet the crisis is only seems to get worse and worse each year and it is a continuing major drain on city resources. During the past few years the unhoused have become far more dispersed throughout the city and have become far more aggressive in camping where they want and for how long as they want.

The problem the city and Mayor Keller have failed to solve is the homeless squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers from the city or alternatives to living on the street and who want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space. Until that problem is solved, the public perception will be is that very little to no progress has been made despite millions spent to deal with what Keller describes as the “challenge of our lifetime.”

On October 18, 2022 Mayor Tim Keller announced his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan.” Mayor Keller set the goal for the City of Albuquerque to add 5,000 new subsidized housing units across the city by 2025 above and beyond what private industry normally creates each year. Keller called the 5,000 goal as “extremely ambitious.”  According to Keller, the city is in a major “housing crisis” and the city needs as many as 33,000 new housing units.

Fast forward to October 1, 2024. With three months left until 2025, Mayor Keller admitted that his goal of the city subsidizing 5,000 new housing units by 2025 was too ambitious and that only 2,000 housing units have been subsidized.  Keller said this:

“… I wish that we would have said 2027. …We are a little short, based on our timeline, and our timeline was probably a little aggressive, but we’re at 2,000 for sure right now. And we do have another 300 units in the pipeline. … We’ve made a ton of progress. … It just takes a little longer than we thought to subsidize 5,000 units of new housing.”

Mayor Keller blamed the New Mexico Legislature and City Council for the city falling short on his goal of 5,000 subsidized housing units.  Keller said this:

“We did not get the funding we thought we would [from the legislature] …  Primarily last legislative session.  We asked for $50 million and we got $6.4 [million].”

Keller went so far as to blame the City Council for failing to enact 4 proposed zoning changes he wanted to the city’s zoning laws. Keller said this:

“When we made that pledge [of 5,000 city subsidized housing units], it was predicated on us getting four out of  four things that we wanted.”

Two of Keller’s proposed zoning changes were enacted by the City Council.  One allows casitas or detached units to be built on existing residential homes and the other eliminated building height limits on new construction.

The City Council rejected two of  Keller’s proposed zoning changes. One  would have allowed for duplexes to be built on existing homes. The second rejected measure reduced parking in mixed-use zone districts.

Connor Woods, the spokesperson for the Health, Housing and Homelessness department declined to give a number of affordable housing units the city added since 2022.  However,  he said since 2018 that 1,200 affordable housing units have been added and 200 new units were financed over the last year, calling it a record number. Woods said this:

“Despite major investments from the city, totaling more than $94.4 million dollars, funding to address the housing gap is significantly short of what is needed. … Moving forward we are dedicated to securing funding to continue the momentum to build the housing Albuquerque needs.”

Woods said  that “about 15,500 new housing units are needed for people making less than 30% of the Area Median Income.”

ALBUQUERQUE’S HOMELESS NUMBERS

Mayor Keller has  repeatedly said that the estimated  number of homeless in Albuquerque is  around 5,000 which is a gross exaggeration. The Point-In-Time (PIT) survey count is the annual federally funded process of identifying and counting individuals and families experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness in Albuquerque. The Point-In-Time (PIT) count of the homeless released in July, 2024 reported the actual number is 2,394, which is less than half of the 5,000 Keller has claimed.

https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/ad7ad8_6d9bf66e3a5d407eaad310cc44ecaf82.pdf

Keller said that while his Housing Forward Plan may not meet its 2025 goal of housing units, he is still looking to increase the supply of housing  and meet the ambitious goal of 5,000 units eventually. Keller said this:

“I think really what I’m hopeful about, and what is the most important thing, is how much funding we can get this [legislative] session. …  We’re doing a joint ask with the county for $100 million. That’s what we need, and the city can’t do these kinds of things.  We can’t finance these by ourselves.”

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

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/kellers-ambitious-subsidized-housing-goal-unlikely-to-be-met-by-2025/article_5b076bc0-7d3f-11ef-b6e7-4fed63bb1404.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

CITY COUNCIL GETS UPDATE ON HOUSING GOALS

On September 19, 2024, the Albuquerque City Council was given an update on Keller’s Housing ABQ Forward Plan and  the city’s efforts to bring 5,000 housing units to Albuquerque by 2025 with city support.   City Councilors had repeatedly asked for an update from the City to no avail.  The update report was on the city’s housing projects from the last 5 years as well as plans to increase unit production before 2025.  The Keller Administration cited a 30,000-unit shortage of housing and a need for 15,500 affordable housing units. The topic of the unhoused was also brought up by city councilors.

Joseph Montoya, the city’s new Deputy Director of Housing, made an in-depth presentation that laid out what the city has been doing and how they plan to address the affordable housing shortage.  Montoya said the goal was 30,000 units of new housing over the next 5 years. Out of that number, at least 5,000 units of affordable housing are needed. The 5,000 units of affordable housing by the city has from the get-go been the goal of the “Housing Forward ABQ Plan.”

STATISTICS PRESENTED

Over the past 5 years, the city has supported the construction of 2,224 housing units, 1,021 of which are subsidized for low to moderate income tenants. On average, the city has been producing between 200 and 250 affordable units per year, for about 450 units total. The city now has a goal of producing 1,000 affordable housing units per year. To reach that goal, the current housing output will have to at least quadrupled.

Joseph Montoya, the city’s Deputy Director of Housing, reported the following statistics to the city council:

• Nearly half of renters are rent-burdened.
• Rents have increased 20% since 2021.
• The median house price is $360,000.
• The city’s current waiting list for help with housing is about 800 people long.
• The city needs to produce 1,500 new units a year to keep up however only 200-250 units are being produced.

In addition to the initiatives already in place, Montoya outlined additional strategies the city would like to use. Those strategies include:

• Expediting planning approvals for affordable housing developments
• Opening request for proposals, known as RFPs, to “for-profit” as well as nonprofit developers
• Creating a loan fund for homeowners building affordable accessory dwelling units.
• Align the city’s RFP process with the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency and to create funding packages for developers.

Montoya is asking for a $20 million per year budget to focus on housing initiatives in the city.

REVISITING KELLER’S HOUSING FORWARD ABQ PLAN

Given Mayor Keller’s blaming the City Council and the New Mexico legislature for the failure of his Housing Forward Plan, an in-depth review of his plan and where it succeed and where it failed is in order.

It was on October 18, 2022 that  Mayor Tim Keller announced his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan.” It is a “multifaceted initiative” where Mayor Keller  set the goal of the City of Albuquerque being involved with adding 5,000 new subsidized housing units across the city by 2025 above and beyond what private industry normally creates each year.  According to Keller, the city is in a major “housing crisis” and the city needs as many as 33,000 new housing units immediately.

During his October 18, 2022  news conference announcing his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” Keller emphasized the importance of amending the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) to reach his goals.  Keller said this:

“Right now our zoning code will never allow us to meet the housing demand in the city … If you want a place to advocate, if you want a place to change policy, if you want a place to argue, it’s all about the IDO [Integrated Development Ordinance] .  …  The proposed changes are intended to be transformative, which is fitting for the crisis facing our local government, thousands of families in our community, and our housing partners.”

To add the 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025, Keller proposed that the City of Albuquerque fund and be involved with the construction of new low-income housing.  The strategy included a zoning code “rebalance” to increase population density in established neighborhoods, including historical neighborhoods.

It included allowing “casitas” which under the zoning code are known as “accessory dwelling” units and duplex development on existing housing and other major changes relating to parking and height restrictions.

It included “motel conversions” and conversion of existing commercial office space into low income housing.

It also included enactment of ordinances to regulate the rental and apartment industry and promoting city sanctioned tent encampments for the unhoused.

Allowing both casita and duplex development, increasing density in established neighborhoods, reducing parking requirements in new developments as well as allowing increases in height restrictions were all changes strongly supported and lobbied for by Mayor Keller with support from the development community.

The local chapter of the  National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) lobbied heavily in favor of Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” even going as far as having its President and Vice President testify before the City Council.

NAIOP is considered the most influential business organization in the city consisting of developers, investors and contractors with membership in excess 300 with many bidding on city contracts.  NAIOP has its own politcal action committee and the organization endorsees candidates for Mayor and City Council while the membership donates to candidates.  NAIOP also sponsors bus tours by City Councilors in all 9 City Council Districts to help identify development.

SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF KELLER’S HOUSING FOREWARD ABQ PLAN

The Keller Administration was able to narrowly secure some victories on his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan.”

Measures that PASSED included allowing two “Safe Outdoor Spaces” in all 9 City Council Districts, casita construction in established residential areas of the city to increase density and reducing restrictions on motel conversion projects to allow for easier development. Keller unilaterally without city council input instituted a plan to purchase existing motels to convert them into low income housing and increase the city’s ownership and inventory of low income housing.

Measures that FAILED included allowing duplex development on existing housing to increase density, reducing parking requirements for multifamily developments and increasing building heights for some apartment buildings.

Two new proposed city council ordinances that FAILED to be enacted included an ordinance requiring the disclosure and the  capping of fees on apartments and rental properties and to cap the number of short-term rentals in the city.

AMENDING CITY ZONING LAWS: CASITA’S IN, DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT OUT

Keller wanted to allow different forms of multi-unit housing development on existing residential neighborhoods and properties throughout the city.  City officials said that 68% of the city’s existing housing is single-family detached homes with 120,000 existing residential lots with already built residences on them.

As part of his Housing Forward ABQ Plan, Keller pushed for enactment of two major amendments to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) which is the city’s zoning laws.

One amendment allowed one 750 foot “casita” or one “accessory dwelling” unit on all built out lots which could double density to 240,000 housing units city wide.

The second amendment would have allowed “duplex development” on existing residents where 750 square foot additions for separate housing would be allowed on existing residences which with casitas would have tripled density to 360,000.

Mayor Keller called the legislation “transformative” updates to Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) to carry out his “Housing Forward ABQ”.  

The amendments contained in the legislation was to allow the construction of 750 square foot casitas and 750 square foot duplex additions on every single existing R-1 residential lot that already has single family house built on it in order to increase density. 

The amendments as originally proposed would allow one “casita” and one “duplex addition” with a kitchen and separate entrance to an existing structure on all built out lots.  City officials  said that 68% of the city’s existing housing is single-family detached homes with 120,000 existing residential lots with already built residences.

The zoning code amendments would have made both casitas and duplex additions “permissive uses”.  Historically, they have always been “conditional uses”.  A “conditional use” requires an application process with the city Planning Department, notice to surrounding property owners and affected neighborhood associations and provides for appeal rights.

A “permissive use” gives the Planning Department exclusive authority to issue permits for construction without notices and hearings and with no appeal process to surrounding property owners. Objecting property owners and neighborhood associations to the permissive casita and duplex uses would be relegated to filing lawsuits to enforce covenants and restrictions.

The Albuquerque City Council voted 5-4 to approve the zoning code changes with amendments made to the  Integrated Development Ordinance.  The version of the bill that ultimately passed on a 5-4 vote was amended extensively.

The city council voted to allow casita construction as a “permissive use” in all single-family R–1 zone and reduce parking requirements for some multifamily properties and changing building height limitations. This was a major change supported by the development community.

The city council voted to strike the amendment and to not allow duplexes to be permissively zoned in R–1 zone areas, which make up about two-thirds of the city.

 LOWERING THE BAR 

On July 6, Mayor Tim Keller signed into law the zoning amendments that embody his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”.  It allows casita construction on 68% of all built out residential lots in the city.  Casita construction is now a “permissive use” on all single-family R–1 zones giving the Planning Department exclusive authority to approve casitas over objections of adjoining property owners.

Mayor Keller announced his administration’s goal was to review and approve 1,000 new casitas all over the city by 2025.  Keller announced the Planning Department would “lower the bar” for property owners to build casitas and provide pre-approved casita designs. The city also wants to provide loans for building costs to homeowners that agree to rent their casita to those who use Section 8 housing vouchers. However, the Keller Administration has yet to announce how many casitas have in fact been approved and sources say the number is less than 50.

The most glaring fallacy in the zoning changes allowing  for increased casita and duplex development was Mayor Keller’s assumption that there was a widespread market and demand by private property owners for casita’s and duplexes when in fact such developments are extremely expensive and few private property and home  owners have the financial resources. It is estimated the average cost to build a 750 square foot casita or for that matter a 750 square foot duplex addition is $150,000 to $175,000.  It is the real estate development community that can afford casita and duplex development by purchasing existing private residents and converting them into multi family residences for investments and rentals.     

MOTEL CONVERSIONS

Mayor Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” places great emphasis on “motel conversions”.  Motel conversions is where the city acquires existing motels and converts them into housing.  The city officials  proclaims motels conversions are a simpler, lower-cost alternative to ground-up construction. City officials estimate the cost is $100,000 per unit to fix up or remodel existing motels for permanent housing.

 A zoning change enacted by the city council in early 2022 year eased the process for city-funded motel conversions by allowing microwaves or hot plates to serve as a substitute for the standard requirement that every kitchen have a cooking stove or oven. The existing layout of the motels makes it cost-prohibitive to renovate them into living units with full sized kitchens.

An Integrated Development Ordinance amendment provides an exemption for affordable housing projects funded by the city, allowing kitchens to be small, without full-sized ovens and refrigerators. It will require city social services to regularly assist residents. The homeless or the near homeless would be offered the housing.

Keller’s Housing Forward  plan called for hotel or motel conversions to house 1,000 people by 2025. However, the city’s goal of 1,000 has fallen seriously short with only two motels purchased for conversion represting approximately 200 units of housing.

On February 11, 2023, the City of Albuquerque executed a purchase agreement for the purchase of the Sure Stay Hotel located at 10330 Hotel NE for $5.7 million to convert the 104-room hotel into 100 efficiency units. The $5.7 million purchase price for the 104-unit complex translates into $53,807.69 per unit ($5.7 Million ÷ 104 = $53,807.69 per unit). The renovations and remodeling of the Sure Stay Motel have already been completed.

The city has also acquired the old San Mateo Inn near I-40. For decades, the old motel was formerly the La Quinta  The city purchased the building for nearly $5 million earlier this year, with plans to convert it into the city’s first Youth Homeless Facility. Renovations and remodeling are now underway by the city. A recent report found a significant group of 15- to 25-year-olds experiencing homelessness never utilize the city’s existing resources.

COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE CONVERSIONS

According to Keller’s original Housing Forward plan, the city wanted to convert commercial office space into to residential use. The Keller administration proposed $5 million to offset developer costs with the aim of transitioning 10 commercial  properties  and creating 1,000 new housing units.

The Keller Administration early on announced that the conversion office space plan was too heavy of a lift for the city and the city has yet to acquire a single commercial office building to be converted into residential use.

Despite the Keller Administrations failure to acquire commercial office space for conversion into residential use, the private sector has taken up the challenge with city assistance on tax abatement.

On September 4, 2024, the Albuquerque City Council unanimously approved tax abatements for major housing development projects in the city. One of the projects is exclusively an affordable housing project. The tax abatements will be a “freeze” for seven years on developers’ tax payments at the level being paid before any development took place on the property.

With the tax abatements in place, the developers will be able to move forward and secure building permits and financing.  According to a city staff report, the tax abatement will save developers hundreds of thousands of dollars of at least $744,332 in property taxes. The tax abatements are meant to incentivize the development projects.

One of the projects is the 10-story Two-Park Central Tower near the corner of San Mateo and Central. For decades the building was commercial office space.  It has been vacant for a number of years, and it will now be converted into housing. Developer Route 66 Multifamily plans to turn the vacant office building into 101 apartments. Some of the apartments will be market value, and some might become affordable housing.

Another housing development projects is the old Bank of the West Tower located at Central and San Mateo. It is a 17 story a high-rise office building completed in 1963 and when it was built it was the tallest building in the city. It is now the fifth tallest building in the state, and the tallest outside of Downtown Albuquerque. Developer Route 66 plans to turn the commercial building into apartments.

The third and only project dedicated to affordable housing will be built at the corner of Central and Alcazar SE. The 70-unit Somos affordable housing complex is being developed by Sol Housing. The nonprofit plans to set aside 84% of the units for income-restricted affordable housing. The tax abatement on this project will save the developer an estimated $514,376.  The city already owns the land that the Somos project is being built on and will transfer ownership to Sol Housing after the abatement period ends.

Sunlight Properties and Garfield Townhomes also received council approval for a tax abatement for a townhome project in the University Heights neighborhood. The developers plan to build 16 townhomes on a vacant lot on Garfield. The tax abatement should save the developer $151,209.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_West_Tower_(Albuquerque)#References

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/housing-planned-for-vacant-albuquerque-building-at-central-and-san-mateo/

 “SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES”

Although Safe Outdoor Spaces for the unhoused was not announced as part of Mayor Keller’s original “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”, they nevertheless required major changes to the Integrated Development Ordinance. They “dove tail” into Keller’s overall approach to what he labeled an “all above approach” to address the city’s housing shortage and to deal with the unhoused.

Safe Outdoor Spaces became one of the most divisive issues dealt with by the City Council in some time. It not only divided the city council but also resulted in major opposition by neighborhood associations and homeowners.

Opposition to Safe Outdoor Spaces was shamelessly dismissed as “not in my backyard.” Safe Outdoor Space city sanctioned homeless encampments are not just an issue of “not in my back yard,” but one of legitimate anger and mistrust by the public against city elected officials and department employees who have mishandled the city’s homeless crisis and who are determined to allow them despite strong public opposition.

It was April 1, 2022, in his proposed 2022-2023 budget, that Mayor Tim Keller,  advocated and  supported an amendment to the Integrated Development Ordinance that allows for the land use known as “Safe Outdoor Spaces” to deal with the homeless crisis.

“Safe outdoor spaces” will permit 2 homeless encampments in all 9 city council districts with 40 designated spaces for tents, they will allow upwards of 50 people, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, 6 foot fencing and social services offered. Although the Integrated Development Ordinance amendment sets a limit of two in each of the city’s 9 council districts, the cap would not apply to those hosted by religious institutions.

On June 6,  2022 despite significant public outcry against Safe Outdoor Spaces  the Albuquerque City Council enacted the legislation and passed it  on a 5 to 4. On December 5, 2022 the City Council voted on a 5 to  4 vote to remove all references to Safe Outdoor Spaces within Albuquerque’s zoning code thereby outlawing the land use.  Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the legislation. It was the councils third attempt to reverse its own decision in June to allow Safe Outdoor Spaces with one vote defunding them. On January 4,  2023 the city council attempted to “override” Keller’s veto, but failed to secure the necessary 6 votes.

Initially, there were 6 applications for Safe Outdoor Spaces, but only 3 were approved with one of those approved abandoned because the city sold the property to where it was to be located.

Safe Outdoor Space tent encampments will destroy neighborhoods and make the city a magnet for the homeless. The general public has legitimate concerns that Safe Outdoor Space homeless tent encampments will become crime-infested nuisances, such was the case with Coronado Park.  The homeless crisis will not be solved by the city but must be managed with permanent housing assistance and service programs, not nuisance tent encampments.

CITY COUNCIL REJECTS AGGRESSIVE ORDINACES TO REGULATE RESIDENTIAL RENTAL INDUSTRY

Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” attempted  to address the shortage of affordable housing with two very aggressive new ordinances. Both the ordinances failed to get council approval.  Those two proposed  new ordinances were:

The “Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance” was to target what was declared “deceptive” practices and “unreasonable” fees charged by residential rental  proper owners and landlords. The ordinance was viewed as a form of,  or an attempt at, rent control.  The bill would have required landlords to post a list of application fees, minimum income and credit score requirements, plus background check results that could disqualify applicants. Supporters described the bill as “common sense” protections for tenants. They argued the regulations would ease the burden on lower-income renters who currently struggle to pay multiple application fees and who need to know and plan for about all the fees they will have to pay while in a rental agreement. Opponents of the bill, including the rental industry representatives, said it was “meddlesome”, “cumbersome”, “unnecessary” and interfered with property rights and contract rights and was an attempt at rent control .   It was argued passage would likely result in the raising of  rents to account for the new regulations.

The “Residential Rental Permit Ordinance” would have limited and placed caps on short term rentals.  The Keller Administration argued that there is a need to protect existing housing stock to make it available to all permanent residents and future residents so that they will always have access to a safe, stable home. The goal of the ordinance was to cap the number of short-term rentals like Airbnb and VRBO in an attempt to stop housing units from being removed from the overall housing market reducing the availability of homes for sale. The initiative was intended to boost housing stock in Albuquerque. Under the original legislation, the permit cap would have been set at 1,800. The cap was raised from 1,200 in the original legislation to accommodate all current rentals in the city.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Mayor Tim Keller blaming the Albuquerque City Council and the New Mexico Legislature for the failure of his Housing Forward Plan to build 5,000 new subsidized housing units and the City  falling short by 3,000 units amounts to nothing more than a spoiled child not getting what he wanted.  It reflects a Mayor who believes he is the only one who has the solution to the city’s housing shortages and reflects that he fully does not understand the cause and effect of supply and demand economics.

The housing shortage is related to economics, the development community’s inability to keep up with supply and demand and the public’s inability to purchase housing or qualify for housing mortgage loans. The shortage of rental properties has resulted in dramatic increases in rents. Simply put, Keller used a short-term housing “crunch” to declare it a “housing crisis” in order to shove his “HOUSING FORWARD ABQ PLAN” down the throats of the city residents and property owners. Keller used the housing crunch to declare a housing crisis to advocate major zoning changes that will increase density and destroy neighborhoods relying on neighborhoods, investors and developers to increase density by laxing zoning restriction for developers.

Keller’s “HOUSING FORWARD ABQ PLAN” empowers the Planning Department to unilaterally issue “permissive uses” for “casitas” on existing structures.  The Planning Department is now allowed to exclude the general public from the permissible use application and deny adjacent property owners the right to object and appeal casitas. It essentially will require property owners to sue adjoining property owners to enforce covenants and restrictions.

“HOUSING FORWARD ABQ” is an aggressive approach to allow the city Family and Community Services department to become alarmingly involved with acquisition of private property to promote Keller’s political agenda to supplement the housing market with low income housing when the city should be concentrating on providing basic essential services.

Mayor  Keller emphasized  the homeless crisis as a rues to promote the “HOUSING FORWARD ABQ” when the plan has nothing to do with housing the homeless and everything to do with increasing housing density in established and historical neighborhood to their determent.

KELLER’S HOUSING FORWARD PLAN CATERS TO DEVLOPERS

For decades, investors, developers and construction contractors have objected to sector development plans proclaiming they were too burdensome and stifled development.  They have wanted a loosening of the zoning laws to allow for casitas and duplexes and reducing parking requirements in new developments as well as allowing increases in height restrictions. The Integrated Development Ordinance repealed upwards of 60 sector development plans.

What really happened with Mayor Tim Keller’s “transformative changes” to  the Integrated Development Ordinance and his  “Housing Forward ABQ” plan is  Keller  catered to the development community as he  pretended  to be an expert in housing development and zoning matters.  Keller relied on his exaggeration of  the city’s housing crisis and homeless crisis to seek further changes to the city’s zoning code to help the development community and using city funding to do it.

Mayor Tim Keller’s Housing Foreword ABQ Plan is a city policy abomination that favors developers and the city’s construction industry over neighborhoods.  At all 5 public meetings on  Keller’s Housing Foreword ABQ Plan  revealed  strong public hostility and mistrust and what emerged was city residents telling  Keller he was going way too far.  The Albuquerque City Council essentially did the same by voting down many of the initiatives it contained, especially saying no to duplex development and the  “Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance” and the“Residential Rental Permit Ordinance”

Keller boldly proclaimed his Housing Forward Plan was “transformational”. The only thing transformational about it is the destruction of historic neighborhoods and the “gentrification” of the city where entire communities are displaced for housing development.

MEASURED APPROACH NEEDS TO BE TAKEN

The blunt reality is that it is not at all realistic for the City nor the State to try and attempt to solve the housing crisis on their own with nothing but government financing, construction and ownership. Government’s responsibility is to provide essential services, such as police protection, fire protection and utilities and not to directly compete with the housing industry.  It’s the market forces that must be relied upon to get the job done when it comes to affordable housing.

The approach that the City should take should be  in the form of tax deferrals, subsidies and low interest loans to act as incentives to construct low income housing.  This is a reasonable, responsible and measured approach to help solve the current housing crisis in the city.  The City can help the private sector to build more affordable housing by eliminating some zoning restrictions that unnecessarily drive-up housing costs so long as there is a preservation and respect for adjoining property owners’ rights and remedies. One area of reform to help the housing industry would be for the city to go to the legislature and ask it to  reduce the states gross receipts tax on construction materials in order to bring down construction costs.

On October 3, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump for his efforts trying to overturn the 2020 election results, unsealed a 165-page “GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY DETERMINATIONS” outlining  new evidence against Trump.  Special counsel Jack Smith provides the most detailed description of evidence against Trump outlining his efforts  to interfere with the 2020 presidential election and that his actions were done in his private capacity and not in his official role as president.

A link to review the entire 165-page court filing is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25182568-usa-v-trump-unsealed-govt-immunity-motion-1022024

The filing comes after the United States Supreme Court ruled that presidents enjoy broad immunity for “official acts” while in office, but not for “unofficial acts” as a candidate or a private citizen. Smith’s court filing  claims Trump actions were done  as a political candidate and not as a president and that therefore he is not entitled to immunity from prosecution for the conduct.

The court filing includes new details of Trump’s frayed relationship with former Vice President Mike Pence, FBI evidence of Trump’s phone usage on January 6, 2021, when rioters overtook the US Capitol,  and conversations with family members and others where the then-president Trump  was fighting his loss to President Joe Biden.

The court filing delineates what witnesses told a federal grand jury and the FBI about Trump, along with other never-before-disclosed evidence investigators gathered about the former president’s actions leading up to and on January 6.  New detail is given about special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the former president’s efforts to lean on state officials and paint a narrative of widespread fraud that prosecutors say Trump knew was untrue.

Special Counsel Smith wrote in part:

“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office.  … At its core, the defendant’s scheme was a private one. … He extensively used private actors and his campaign infrastructure to attempt to overturn the election results and operated in a private capacity as a candidate for office.”

The court filing is broken into four main sections:

The first section lays out the case prosecutors said they would attempt to prove at trial, including a summary of evidence.

The second section gives Judge Chutkan a roadmap for how to assess which actions are official, and potentially covered by immunity, and which are not.

The third section identifies how the principles should apply in Trump’s case.

The fourth section is a brief conclusion that asks Judge Chutkan to rule that the actions described are not protected by immunity and that Trump “is subject to trial on the superseding indictment.”

The court filing adds new details of what happened on January 6, 2021, including sensitive testimony from witnesses and notes taken by former Vice President Mike Pence.

In one section, the filing details what Trump was doing on January 6, 2021, as a violent mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. It alleges that Trump settled into the dining room off the Oval Office around 1:30 p.m. and spent the afternoon reviewing TWITTER feed on his phone while Fox News played in the background.

At one point, a staffer rushed into the dining room to tell Trump that Pence had been rushed to a secure location because of the rioters. The staffer hoped that Trump would do something to ensure Pence’s safety. Instead, Trump looked at him and said only, “So what?”

The court filing provides a closer look at Trump’s interactions with his former political aide, podcaster Steve Bannon, including a phone call the two men had the day before the Capitol riot. Just a couple of hours later, Bannon told his podcast audience that “all hell” would break loose the following day.

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

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/02/nx-s1-5137303/trump-election-interference-jack-smith-immunity-jan-6

CNN REPORT HIGHLIGHTS NEW EVIDENCE

On October 2, the national news agency CNN published a succinct article summarizing the contents of the 165 page “Government’s Motion For Immunity Determinations”.  The  article is  entitled  “Special counsel Jack Smith provides fullest picture yet of his 2020 election case against Trump in new filing” written by staff reporters  Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed, John Fritze, Hannah Rabinowitz, Devan Cole, Holmes Lybrand,  Marshall Cohen, Kate Sullivan.  The article has been edited herein for brevity to be posted on www.PeteDinelli.com.  Following  is the summary of the major points contained in the 165-page court filing:

FBI KNOWS HOW TRUMP USED HIS PHONE ON JANUARY 6

“FBI experts have mapped out what Trump was doing on his phone while the US Capitol riot unfolded.

An FBI Computer Analysis Response Team forensic examiner can testify about “the news and social media applications” on Trump’s phone, Smith wrote in the filing, “and can describe the activity occurring on the phone throughout the afternoon of January 6.”

Those logs show that Trump “was using his phone, and in particular, was using the Twitter application, consistently throughout the day after he returned from the Ellipse speech.”

Smith said that three unidentified witnesses are also prepared to testify that on the afternoon of January 6, the television in the White House dining room where Trump spent much of the day was “on and tuned into news programs that were covering in real time the ongoing events in the Capitol.”

That testimony would allow prosecutors to show a future jury what Trump saw unfolding on TV while he made comments and posted online that afternoon.”

 PROSECUTORS FRAME TRUMP CONVERSATIONS WITH PENCE AS BETWEEN ‘RUNNING MATES’

“Even as they face a high bar for introducing evidence from Pence, Smith’s team [seeks] to do so by framing a series of interactions between the two as conversations between “running mates,” where Pence tried to convince Trump he needed to accept his electoral defeat.

They include a November 7, 2020, conversation where Pence allegedly told Trump that he should focus on how he revived the Republican Party, as well as Pence’s recollection of a Trump meeting with campaign staff, during which Trump was told the prospects of his election challenges looked bleak.

At a November 12 lunch, Pence told Trump that he didn’t have to concede but he could “recognize process is over,” prosecutors said, and during a November 23 phone call, Trump allegedly told Pence that one of his private attorneys were skeptical about the election challenges.

As part of those private conversations, prosecutors say, Pence “tried to encourage” Trump “as a friend” after news networks called the election for Biden. In other interactions, Pence encouraged Trump to consider running for reelection in 2024. Those interactions, prosecutors argued, were not at all related to Trump’s official duties as president. The Motion states:

“The content of the conversations at issue – the defendant and Pence’s joint electoral fate and how to accept the election results – have no bearing on any function of the Executive Branch.”

TRUMP PERSONALLY TWEETED PENCE ‘DIDN’T HAVE THE COURAGE’ TO OVERTURN ELECTION

 “Trump personally posted the tweet that Pence “didn’t have the courage” to overturn the election results, prosecutors say.  The revelation comes as part of Smith’s argument as to why the tweet, posted after the riot began, should be considered a private act and therefore not protected under presidential immunity.

The post targeting Pence was “a matter of intense personal concern to the defendant as a candidate for office,” Smith writes. At the time he posted the tweet, prosecutors say Trump “knew his request for Pence to block the Electoral College votes was illegal; knew that his supporters gathered in Washington, DC, believed his lies during his speech at the Ellipse that the election had been stolen; and knew that those supporters had now breached the Capitol building.”

Smith wrote “It was at that point — alone, watching news in real time, and with knowledge that rioters had breached the Capitol building — that the defendant issued the 2:24 p.m. Tweet attacking Pence for refusing the defendant’s entreaties to join the conspiracy and help overturn the results of the election.”

The tweet communicated “to his angry supporters that Pence had let him — and them — down,” Smith wrote, adding that it was “not a message sent to address a matter of public concern and ease unrest; it was the message of an angry candidate upon the realization that he would lose power.”

One minute after the tweet was posted, Smith wrote, the Secret Service was forced to evacuate Pence to a secure location in the Capitol.”

TRUMP TOLD FAMILY: ‘IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU WON OR LOST THE ELECTION’

 “Prosecutors allege they have a witness who will testify that Trump told family members, “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.”

The witness, Smith’s team said in the filing, will testify that he was aboard Marine One when then-President Trump made the statement to his wife, Melania Trump, his daughter Ivanka Trump, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Prosecutors did not name the official in the filing, but they said he was the director of Oval Office operations. Prosecutors wrote “He witnessed an unprompted comment that the defendant made to his family members in which the defendant suggested that he would fight to remain in power regardless of whether he had won the election.”

At the time, Ivanka Trump and Kushner were White House employees, serving as advisers to the president, and Melania Trump was first lady.  Prosecutors claim that the conversation aboard Marine One was “plainly private” and had nothing to do with the Trump family’s official government responsibilities. Prosecutors wrote “The defendant made the comment to his family members, who campaigned on his behalf and served as private advisors (in addition to any official role they may have played).”

TRUMP TOLD ADVISERS HE WOULD DECLARE VICTORY

 Prosecutors say that Trump was told by advisers that the 2020 vote likely would not be finalized on Election Day and that he could misleadingly look ahead in the ballot count on election night only to fall behind once all of the ballots were counted. Nonetheless, Trump told his advisers that he would claim victory before the ballots were fully counted, prosecutors say.

One private political adviser, three days before Election Day 2020, described Trump’s plan as: “He’s going to declare victory. That doesn’t mean he’s the winner, he’s just going to say he’s the winner.”  That adviser, not identified by name by prosecutors, also described the Democratic lean of the mail ballot vote as “a natural disadvantage” and said, “Trump’s going to take advantage of it. That’s our strategy.”

TRUMP SOUGHT TO ‘PERPETUATE HIMSELF IN POWER’

“Smith’s office stressed the private and political nature of Trump’s actions around the 2020 election. Prosecutors wrote:

“The executive branch has no authority or function to choose the next president.”

That argument appeared designed for federal appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, that have placed a heavy emphasis in recent years on the historical understanding of the separation of powers. In other words, Smith argues  that Trump’s effort to overturn the election was necessarily private because the Constitution gives a president no official authority for choosing his successor. The motion reads:

“The defendant’s charged conduct directly contravenes these foundational principles. … He sought to encroach on powers specifically assigned by the Constitution to other branches, to advance his own self-interest and perpetuate himself in power, contrary to the will of the people.”

WHITE HOUSE STAFFER DETAILS PLANNING MEETINGS

 “Prosecutors focus in particular in the filing on what Trump learned from a White House staffer referred to in the filings as “P9,” as they try to show that Trump was well aware he had lost the election as he pressed on with the reversal schemes.

The person, identified only as “P9,” appears to have personally had discussions over the phone about the fake electors strategy with Trump, and had repeated text conversations with other people in the campaign about how the strategy was “crazy” or “illegal,” according to the filing.

When Trump told the staffer he would not pay the private lawyer spearheading his legal challenges unless the challenges were successful, the staffer told Trump that the private attorney would never be paid. That prompted a laugh and a “we’ll see” from Trump, the filings said. The private attorney is identified by prosecutors as co-conspirator 1, who CNN has previously identified as Rudy Giuliani. Ted Goodman, a spokesman for Giuliani, told CNN Wednesday night that the brief was “blatant election interference by Jack Smith, a person with a long track record of weaponizing the law for political gain.”

In a follow up conversation, the White House official told Trump that Giuliani would not be able to prove his false claims in a court and Trump told the staffer “The details don’t matter.”

The brief lays out several other interactions between the White House staffer and Trump in which Trump was told that the election fraud claims wouldn’t hold up in court.”

PROSECUTORS SAY THEY WOULD CALL ELECTION OFFICIALS IN BATTLEGROUND STATES AT TRUMP TRIAL

 “In the filing released, prosecutors identify witnesses they hope to call at a trial to testify against Trump – including election officials in battleground states and his White House deputy chief of staff.

The prosecutors say they also want to show a jury at trial Trump’s campaign speech on January 4, 2021, in Georgia, and his campaign speech on the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, just before the riot at the US Capitol.

And, they’d like to show the jury tweets that they say can prove Trump was driving the public campaign of fraud in the election, as he knew there was none that was widespread enough to overturn his loss. They argue those tweets weren’t part of Trump’s official work as president.

At trial, prosecutors say they would like to call the only other adviser to Trump who had access to his Twitter account to testify that Trump was sending tweets on January 6 that would put pressure on Pence to stop the counting of the electoral votes at the Capitol. The person is described as White House deputy chief of staff.

The motions states “The Government will elicit from Person 45 at trial that he was the only person other than the defendant with the ability to post to the defendant’s Twitter account, that he sent tweets only at the defendant’s express direction, and that person 45 did not send certain specific Tweets” – specifically a tweet Trump sent that said Pence didn’t have the courage to block the certification of the vote.”

That type of testimony would allow prosecutors to assert in court they have evidence of a moment like this:

“At 2:24 p.m., Trump was alone in his dining room,” prosecutors write in the filing, “when he issued a Tweet attacking Pence and fueling the ongoing riot: ‘Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!’”

SECRET SERVICE WAS WARNED ABOUT PENCE’S SAFETY

 “According to prosecutors, the Secret Service was warned about Trump threatening to criticize Pence if he failed to overthrow the election results.

On January 5, 2021, Trump once again met with Pence to allegedly try to pressure him not to certify the Electoral College votes. In that meeting, the special counsel wrote that Trump threatened to criticize him publicly.

Smith says that Pence told someone identified only as “P8” about that comment, and that P8 was so concerned by the prospect that he alerted Pence’s Secret Service detail.

Prosecutors allege Trump tried again to pressure Pence on the morning of January 6, shortly before driving to deliver his speech at the Ellipse. Pence, however, again refused and Trump “was incensed,” the filing says. [The motion alleges]  it was then that Trump “set into motion the last plan in furtherance of his conspiracies: if Pence would not do as he asked, (Trump) needed to find another way to prevent the certification of Biden as president” … So on January 6, (Trump) sent to the Capitol a crowd of angry supporters, whom the defendant had called to the city and inundate with false claims of outcome-determinative election fraud, to induce Pence not to certify the legitimate electoral votes and to obstruct the certification.”

According to prosecutors, Trump also showed his “desperate conduct as a candidate rather than a President” when rioters stormed the Capitol, forcing Pence to be moved to a secure location.  An unnamed White House aide, according to the filing, ran to Trump when he received a phone call that Pence had been taken to a secure location “in hopes that (Trump) would take action to ensure Pence’s safety.”  Trump, according to prosecutors, looked at the aide and simply replied “So what?”

PROSECUTORS LEAN ON HATCH ACT TO BOLSTER TRUMP CHARGES

 “Smith is again using the Hatch Act – which limits the political activities of federal employees – to bolster the 2020 election subversion charges against Trump. Prosecutors said in the filing that the Hatch Act allows White House staffers to “wear two hats,” separating out their official conduct to serve the public from their political conduct to help a candidate.

Therefore, even if some of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing occurred on White House grounds and in front of White House staff, he doesn’t have immunity because that fell under the “political” umbrella, Smith’s team wrote. [Prosecutors argue]:

“When the defendant’s White House staff participated in political activity on his behalf as a candidate, they were not exercising their official authority or carrying out official responsibilities. … And when the President, acting as a candidate, engaged in Campaign-related activities with these officials or in their presence, he too was not engaging in official presidential conduct.”

‘MAKE THEM RIOT’ AND ‘CREATE CHAOS’

 “Prosecutors describe an effort by Trump operatives to “create chaos” in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election when the voting looked to be going for Biden.

In Philadelphia, prosecutors allege campaign operatives sought to create confrontations at polling places and then “falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access” as a predicate to claim fraud.

Prosecutors also raised the fracas at the Detroit Counting Center, pointing to evidence that a campaign staffer, upon learning a heavy incoming batch of votes leaned Biden, asked for “options to file litigation” even if [it] was [baseless].”

The same campaign operative said “make them riot” when told that protests at the counting center were heading in the direction of the so-called Brooks Brothers Riot that disrupted the 2000 Florida count between Al Gore and George W. Bush.”

BILL BARR DECIDED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST TRUMP’S ELECTION LIES AFTER SEEING HIM ON FOX NEWS

“Then-Attorney General Bill Barr decided in 2020 to publicly rebut Trump’s false claims that the election was rigged after watching Trump spread these lies on Fox News, prosecutors say. Prosecutors write:

“On November 29, [Barr] saw the defendant appear on the Maria Bartiromo Show and claim, among other false things, that the Justice Department was ‘missing in action’ and had ignored evidence of fraud.”

They continued, “[Barr] decided it was time to speak publicly in contravention of the defendant’s false claims, set up a lunch with a reporter for the Associated Press, and made his statement.”

This was the December 1, 2020, statement in which Barr infamously said the Justice Department had looked into potential election irregularities but didn’t find any widespread fraud that could’ve tipped the results. This was a major move by Barr, a lifelong Republican who at the time was a staunch Trump ally.

Barr’s name is redacted in the filing, and he is referred to as “P52.” But P52 is described as the “attorney general,” and Barr was the attorney general at that time.

Barr resigned just before Christmas 2020.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing/index.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

With the landmark presidential immunity decision by the United States Supreme Court, the Trump 6 Supreme Court disciples of John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett the United State Supreme Court have done whatever they could do to undermine our federal criminal justice system and attempt to ensure that former President Trump returns to power. The 6 do so at the expense of our democracy.

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

The 6 appointed Republican Justices have already made a profound difference with their right wing Republican Judicial Activism. The 6 Republican United State Supreme Court Justices have issued 6 major decisions that confirm it has become a far right wing activist court.

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

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

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

What we have now is a Republican “politcal judicial monarchy” consisting of 6 conservative Republican Justices all dressed up in their black ropes with gavels replacing scepters and a courtroom replacing a royal thrown room as they render their decrees of justice to carry out the will of Donald Trump and his Trump Republican Party