Politics

NM Dems demand raw Epstein files with graphic child sex abuse material

Leave a Comment / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico Democrats are escalating their fight with the U.S. Department of Justice over Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch records, demanding access to unredacted files even as federal officials warn that handing over millions of unredacted documents could violate court orders, federal law, and protections for victims and witnesses.

The public clash centers on New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s revived criminal investigation into Epstein’s former 7,500-acre ranch near Santa Fe, where court documents and accusers have alleged Epstein sexually abused girls and women.

Torrez, a Democrat, has accused the DOJ of stonewalling the state’s investigation by refusing to provide unredacted records that New Mexico investigators say they need to identify survivors, witnesses, and possible co-conspirators.

But the DOJ says the demand is not so simple — and the material at issue is not ordinary paperwork.

In Epstein-related cases, unredacted records can contain the most sensitive material imaginable: victim names, addresses, identifying details, witness information, sealed investigative records, and potentially child sexual abuse material, commonly called child pornography. Such files may also include graphic evidence, images, descriptions, or accounts involving minors being raped or sexually abused — exactly the type of material federal law and court orders are designed to keep from broader disclosure.

That is the backdrop of the fight now being waged by New Mexico Democrats, who are demanding records in unredacted form despite the DOJ’s insistence that it cannot simply turn over everything without violating legal protections.

According to reporting on the dispute, a Justice Department spokesperson rejected New Mexico’s claim that federal officials were refusing to cooperate, calling the accusation “false.”

“Federal law, court orders and privacy protections for victims and witnesses do not allow us to release millions of unredacted documents, regardless of any deadline set by NMDOJ,” the DOJ spokesperson said. “We will continue to follow federal law and the court orders that are in place.”

The spokesperson added, “To capitulate to their demands would be to break federal law. Is that what the NM AG is suggesting?”

That warning has not stopped Torrez from turning up the pressure.

Torrez recently told acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche that despite “verbal assurances of cooperation from the USDOJ,” state investigators had not received access to the requested documents and had received “no substantive response.” He warned that if records are not provided by July 31, New Mexico will consider the request denied and “pursue all available legal remedies.”

The New Mexico Department of Justice also posted on X that officials from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York had informed the state they “will NOT cooperate and will not support the only active criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.”

The dispute places New Mexico at the center of the national Epstein files fight — but with a major complication: the files reportedly include sensitive victim information, court-protected material, and other content that federal officials say cannot legally be handed over in raw, unredacted form.

In a separate court fight over Epstein records, the DOJ has defended redactions by arguing that many of the withheld details protect the identities and privacy of victims. Federal officials have also warned that handwritten FBI notes and other investigative materials carry a heightened risk of exposing personally identifiable information.

The Justice Department has reportedly released about 3.5 million pages of Epstein investigative materials while withholding roughly 2.5 million additional pages. DOJ officials say the remaining records are protected largely to safeguard victims and sensitive government interests.

The issue reached Capitol Hill this week when U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., pressed Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

Heinrich pushed Clayton to commit to providing the information requested by Torrez. Clayton said his office was willing to work with New Mexico officials but noted that some records are subject to court protective orders.

“My folks, I think as we speak, are seeking dialog with the attorney general to see if we can reach an accommodation that is consistent with those protective orders,” Clayton said.

Heinrich said he believed redacted names could be important to New Mexico’s probe.

“I think it is quite clear that it is likely that there are survivors, witnesses and co-conspirators whose names have been redacted that are necessary for him to effectively complete that investigation,” Heinrich said, referring to Torrez.

At the same time, Heinrich also acknowledged the need for caution, pointing to a prior incident in which the DOJ released some Epstein victims’ personal information.

Following the revelations, state Rep. John Block, who also serves as the Piñon Post‘s publisher, commented via X, “It’s sickening that radicals are demanding the fully un-redacted files (including personal victim information and child p*rn) — just to make political attacks — despite putting these victims in harm’s way. THEY LITERALLY WANT PHOTOS + VIDEOS OF KIDS BEING RAPED FULLY RELEASED. It’s vile and unconscionable.”

The Journal’s report also noted that a fundraising firm emailed a lunch invitation to Jeffrey Epstein on Heinrich’s behalf in 2012, a detail that adds another layer of political awkwardness as Heinrich now pushes for federal action on Epstein records.

Torrez’s office was not satisfied with Clayton’s public assurances.

“Words spoken to a Senate committee mean nothing if they don’t show up in writing to this office,” Lauren Rodriguez, the attorney general’s chief of staff, said in a statement. She reiterated the July 31 deadline before the state considers additional legal action.

The renewed Zorro Ranch investigation follows years of unanswered questions. Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide. New Mexico previously investigated allegations tied to the ranch, but no state charges were filed.

Piñon Post has previously reported on disturbing questions surrounding the ranch, including Epstein-linked references to a proposed “Zorro Smiles” dental setup, medical equipment, private ambulance plans, and allegations that victims were abused on the property. During Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 trial, Epstein accuser Annie Farmer testified that Maxwell abused her at Zorro Ranch when Farmer was 16.

State and local investigators searched the ranch in March after Torrez reopened the criminal investigation, but no results from that search have been publicly disclosed.

Now, the fight is shifting from the ranch itself to the records federal officials have long controlled.

New Mexico Democrats say they need unredacted files to pursue the only active criminal investigation into Epstein’s alleged crimes at Zorro Ranch.

The DOJ says releasing millions of unredacted documents could violate federal law, court orders, and victim privacy protections — including protections against exposing child sexual abuse material, victim identities, and graphic evidence involving minors.

That leaves one major question: are New Mexico Democrats demanding the records needed to finally investigate Zorro Ranch — or are they pushing federal officials to hand over sensitive victim material the law says must remain protected?

NM Dems demand raw Epstein files with graphic child sex abuse material Read More »

New Mexico voter roll fight may not be over

23 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit seeking New Mexico’s detailed voter registration list, handing Democrat Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver a courtroom win — at least for now — in a high-stakes fight over election integrity, voter privacy, and federal oversight.

U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera on Tuesday tossed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Toulouse Oliver, rejecting the DOJ’s demand for an electronic copy of New Mexico’s statewide voter registration list.

The case centered on whether the federal government could force New Mexico to hand over detailed voter data, including names, dates of birth, residential addresses, state driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of registrants’ Social Security numbers.

The DOJ filed the lawsuit in December after Toulouse Oliver refused to comply with a September demand letter from the Civil Rights Division seeking the records as part of a review of New Mexico’s compliance with federal election law.

Toulouse Oliver celebrated the dismissal Tuesday, framing the ruling as a victory for voter privacy.

“Federal and state legal guardrails on social security numbers and dates of birth exist for the identity protection of every voter in our state,” Toulouse Oliver said in a statement.

“I absolutely will not risk any disclosure of voters’ private data, as it could carry very real and severe consequences for the personal lives of New Mexicans participating in our democratic process,” she added.

The DOJ had argued that the voter records were necessary to ensure New Mexico is properly maintaining its voter rolls under federal law, including the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

As Piñon Post previously reported, the Justice Department said federal law gives the attorney general authority to demand election records and that such records “shall, upon demand in writing… be made available for inspection, reproduction, and copying.”

The DOJ also argued that federal law supersedes conflicting state law and that the requested records would be maintained under Privacy Act protections.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon previously defended the broader push for voter data, saying, “Our federal elections laws ensure every American citizen may vote freely and fairly.”

“States that continue to defy federal voting laws interfere with our mission of ensuring that Americans have accurate voter lists as they go to the polls, that every vote counts equally, and that all voters have confidence in election results,” Dhillon said at the time. “At this Department of Justice, we will not stand for this open defiance of federal civil rights laws.”

But Herrera found that the DOJ had not done enough to justify its demand.

“Nowhere does the DOJ articulate any factual suggestion that New Mexico has violated the NVRA or HAVA,” Herrera wrote, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

The judge also found that the department failed to show New Mexico had a pattern of noncompliance with federal election laws.

The ruling places New Mexico among a growing list of states where federal judges have rejected similar DOJ lawsuits seeking unredacted voter registration records. Herrera noted that DOJ sent similar demand letters to 48 states and the District of Columbia, and sued multiple states that refused to comply.

Still, the legal fight may not be over.

The DOJ has already appealed several similar losses in other states, and the issue appears likely to continue moving through the federal courts. In other voter-roll cases, the department has argued that it needs unredacted voter data to check for duplicate registrations, deceased voters, noncitizens, and other potential list-maintenance problems.

Piñon Post previously reported that DOJ attorney James Thomas Tucker described the effort in court as a “trust but verify approach,” saying the federal government was seeking to understand how states maintain voter rolls.

That argument remains central to the case. Supporters of the DOJ’s effort say accurate voter rolls are basic election integrity and that states should not be able to block federal oversight by invoking state privacy rules. Critics, including Toulouse Oliver and left-wing voting groups that intervened in the case, say the request is too broad and risks exposing sensitive voter information.

For now, Toulouse Oliver has won the first major round in New Mexico.

But given the national scope of the litigation and the DOJ’s willingness to appeal similar rulings, Tuesday’s dismissal may not be the final word.

If the Justice Department appeals, the case would likely move to the Tenth Circuit, where the fight over how much authority federal officials have to inspect state voter rolls could continue.

The question at the center of the case remains unresolved nationally: can the federal government demand full voter registration records to verify election-law compliance, or can states refuse when they say voter privacy is at risk?

In New Mexico, that question just produced a win for Toulouse Oliver.

Whether it survives appeal is another matter.

New Mexico voter roll fight may not be over Read More »

Vasquez attacks pro-life Republicans in abortion screed

28 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez is once again putting abortion at the center of his campaign message, using a newly published Albuquerque Journal opinion column to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and attack Republicans who support limits on abortion.

Vasquez, a far-left Democrat who represents New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District, framed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a national crisis and accused “MAGA extremists” of waging an ongoing campaign against abortion.

“On June 24, 2022, time stood still for many Americans,” Vasquez wrote, referring to the day the U.S. Supreme Court issued Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision that overturned Roe and returned abortion law to the states.

“Four years later, women are still paying the price,” he continued.

The column offers a clear look at where Vasquez stands on one of the most divisive issues in the country: unashamedly backing abortion up-to-birth. Rather than supporting even modest limits on abortion, Vasquez used the piece to call for broader federal protections and to back the Women’s Health Protection Act, a Democrat-backed proposal intended to establish unlimited abortion nationwide.

“I believe every woman deserves the freedom to make her own healthcare decisions in consultation with her doctor and guided by her own faith and values — not the government’s,” Vasquez wrote, although he, alongside many of his Democrat colleagues, likely has trouble defining what a “woman” is.

He also argued that abortion restrictions are not only about abortion, but about broader government control.

“This is not only an attack on women — it’s also a reminder that the government can take away anyone’s fundamental freedoms when power is placed in the wrong hands,” he wrote, although he is for a widespread government takeover of other fundamentals, such as gun rights and religious liberty.

For many, the op-ed reads as another example of Vasquez aligning himself with the national abortion lobby while trying to present the issue in softer language. He repeatedly referred to abortion as “healthcare,” “privacy,” “bodily autonomy,” and “reproductive freedom,” while attacking Republicans as extremists.

“MAGA extremists have continued their assault on women’s reproductive rights through the courts and Congress,” Vasquez claimed.

He specifically accused Republicans of blocking mailed mifepristone, targeting telehealth abortion, and trying to “put the government in control of women’s healthcare experiences.”

The comments come as New Mexico has already become one of the most permissive abortion states in the country. KFF listed New Mexico’s abortion policy as having “no gestational limits” as of April 2026, and other abortion access trackers similarly describe abortion as legal throughout pregnancy in the state.

New Mexico Democrats have also worked to block local governments from restricting abortion. In 2025, the New Mexico Supreme Court struck down local abortion restrictions in conservative communities such as Hobbs and Clovis, reinforcing the state’s broad abortion-access framework.

Yet Vasquez’s op-ed suggests that current law still does not go far enough. He wrote that he remains committed to supporting the Women’s Health Protection Act, which abortion-rights supporters describe as federal legislation to “re-establish a nationwide right to access abortion care,” which attacks federalist principles that his party has cherry-picked to pretend to support in other circumstances, but apparently not in this one.

“I remain committed to protecting reproductive freedom,” Vasquez wrote. “I will continue my support for the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would restore a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions and ensure healthcare providers can continue offering safe, effective healthcare options.”

Vasquez also argued that women should have access to abortion “when in a time of need.”

“Restrictions on abortion create chaos and uncertainty,” he wrote. “Women deserve the right to receive abortion care, access contraceptives and obtain emergency reproductive healthcare when in a time of need.”

The op-ed closed with a direct political call to action, with Vasquez pledging to “hold extreme MAGA Republicans accountable.”

“This fight is not over,” he wrote.

For New Mexico voters, the piece is a reminder that Vasquez is not running away from the abortion issue. He is leaning into it.

While many New Mexicans support protections for women in medical emergencies and cases of rape or incest, Vasquez’s column goes far beyond those narrow exceptions. He is backing a national abortion agenda at a time when New Mexico already allows abortion with virtually no state-level gestational limit (up-to-birth) with no protections whatsoever for mothers, babies, or doctors.

That contrast is likely to remain a major issue in the 2026 race, especially in a district that includes conservative, rural, and faith-driven communities across southern New Mexico. But Vasquez’s message is clear: he wants abortion kept front and center. 

Vasquez attacks pro-life Republicans in abortion screed Read More »

Speaker Martínez goes off on Trump, ICE after Houston shooting

22 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martínez, an Albuquerque Democrat, is drawing attention for an emotional social media video in which he accused ICE personnel of murdering a Mexican national in Houston and vowed to use his power as speaker to “protect our people.”

The remarks came after the fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a 52-year-old Mexican national, during an ICE vehicle stop in Houston. Federal officials have said Salgado Araujo failed to comply with commands, allegedly rammed an ICE vehicle, and tried to run over an officer before an ICE agent fired in self-defense. Other reporting has noted that witnesses and family members dispute the federal account, and DHS has said Salgado Araujo was not the original target of the operation but “resembled the target.”

But Martínez did not wait for the investigation to conclude before declaring what happened.

“Lorenzo Salgado was murdered in cold blood by so-called ICE personnel in Houston,” Martínez said in the video.

The statement marks a dramatic intervention from the most powerful Democrat in the New Mexico House, especially because the shooting happened in Texas and remains under investigation.

Martínez described Salgado Araujo as “a hardworking man” and “a blue-collar guy,” saying he represented “the best of this country.”

“The type of person who has rebuilt this country over and over again,” Martínez said.

He then suggested Salgado Araujo’s alleged failure to stop may have been understandable because, according to Martínez, an unmarked vehicle attempted to pull him over.

“An unmarked vehicle attempted to pull him over,” Martínez said. “Because who would?”

Martínez also referenced comments from a friend of Salgado Araujo who reportedly mourned him at a makeshift memorial.

“His friend cried at his makeshift altar and, you know, said, like, ‘You know, they chase us down like dogs,’” Martínez said.

The speaker then turned the Houston shooting into a broader attack on President Donald Trump and immigration enforcement.

“Trump and his lackeys do have this just hate for our people,” Martínez said. “It is tragic. It is enraging that this is happening, that it’s been happening, that it continues to happen.”

Martínez also personalized the incident, saying Salgado Araujo reminded him of his father.

“That could be my dad,” Martínez said. “My dad was just like Lorenzo. Dude would be out the door at 5:00 every single morning… to build houses. To build houses and buildings, and to fix buildings, properties, to make other people rich.”

From there, Martínez shifted his focus to New Mexico business groups, contractors, builders, and architectural firms, accusing them of silence while immigrant laborers are targeted.

“You know, these so-called job creators that run around all Albuquerque… your people build,” Martínez said. “The laborers build.”

He added, “Have not heard a peep from the Builders Association. Have not heard a peep from any of the big companies in town, architectural firms in town. Not a peep about what’s happening.”

Martínez also said the workforce used by those businesses is being “targeted,” despite DHS saying Salgado Araujo was not the original target of the Houston operation.

“And yet, it’s their workforce targeted. Targeted. And in this case, Lorenzo targeted,” Martínez said.

He then closed with a direct attack on Trump.

“Shame on Trump. Shame on Trump and shame on his lackeys,” Martínez said.

The speaker also invoked his own position in New Mexico government.

“You’ve got yourself an immigrant Speaker of the House in the state of New Mexico, one of 50 in the entire country,” Martínez said. “I’m going to do everything in my power to protect our people and to show that a different United States of America is possible,” however, it is unclear what he means by “our people” — illegal immigrants or New Mexicans.

The comments are likely to fuel further debate over how New Mexico Democrats talk about immigration enforcement and federal law enforcement officers — as they have been working to attack them by passing laws to make their jobs harder and put their safety in the crosshairs.

While Salgado Araujo’s family and community activists have called for answers, Martínez went much further than calling for transparency or an independent investigation. He labeled the shooting a “murder,” referred to ICE agents as “so-called ICE personnel,” accused Trump of hatred toward “our people,” and used the case to criticize New Mexico businesses.

The Houston incident remains under investigation, and federal officials, witnesses, and family members have offered sharply different accounts of what happened.

Even so, Martínez’s video shows how quickly a disputed law enforcement shooting outside New Mexico has become a political flashpoint inside the state — with the House speaker putting himself at the center of the fight.

Speaker Martínez goes off on Trump, ICE after Houston shooting Read More »

New Mexico law puts donor privacy in Supreme Court spotlight

3 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A new piece in The Federalist is putting national attention on a New Mexico campaign finance law that critics say forces civic groups to choose between speaking about elected officials and exposing private donors to the government.

The article, written by Marc Wheat and Mitchell Bahnsen, focuses on Rio Grande Foundation v. Oliver, a First Amendment case now being pushed toward U.S. Supreme Court review after the Tenth Circuit upheld New Mexico’s donor-disclosure rules.

At issue is a planned Rio Grande Foundation legislative scorecard — the type of voting record civic groups, newspapers, watchdogs, and taxpayer organizations have published for decades. The scorecard would have informed New Mexicans about how lawmakers voted on key issues. It did not tell voters which candidate to support or oppose.

But because the scorecard named candidates and was planned within a pre-election window, New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act treated the communication as an “independent expenditure,” triggering donor-disclosure requirements.

As The Federalist put it, “A voting scorecard shouldn’t trigger a government demand for supporters’ home addresses.”

Under the law, an organization that spends more than $1,000 on certain communications referencing a candidate or ballot measure near an election can be forced to disclose donors who gave more than $5,000 during a two-year election cycle, unless those donors affirmatively opt out.

Critics say that structure turns ordinary issue speech into a trap. A donor may support a nonprofit’s broad work on taxes, government transparency, education, or free markets without realizing that a future mailing could place his or her name and address in a government disclosure system.

“A $5,000 donation to a nonprofit organization that publishes voting records is hardly identical to a campaign contribution or an endorsement of any candidate, yet the state treats them the same,” Wheat and Bahnsen wrote.

That is the heart of the controversy. Supporters of disclosure laws argue voters have a right to know who is funding political messages. But opponents say New Mexico’s law goes far beyond campaign advocacy by sweeping in issue groups that merely mention public officials close to an election.

The Rio Grande Foundation says the law chilled its speech. In Supreme Court filings, the group said it planned to mail its “Freedom Index,” a legislative scorecard tracking lawmakers’ votes, to thousands of voters within 60 days of the 2020 general election. It did not do so because of the state’s donor-disclosure requirements.

The group argues that donor privacy is part of the First Amendment right to free association. The concern is not abstract. Donors to controversial causes can face harassment, threats, employment pressure, social retaliation, and efforts to punish them for supporting disfavored speech.

The Federalist piece pointed to the landmark 1958 case NAACP v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court stopped Alabama from forcing the NAACP to disclose its membership lists. The Court recognized that forced disclosure could expose members to retaliation and chill association.

The article also cited Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the 2021 Supreme Court case striking down California’s donor-disclosure regime for charities. In that case, the Court held that California’s requirement burdened First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored.

For conservatives, the New Mexico case raises the same basic question: why should citizens have to surrender privacy to support a nonprofit that publishes a voting record?

The Federalist also invoked McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, in which the Supreme Court wrote that “anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”

That line is especially relevant in a political climate where people are routinely targeted for donations, statements, affiliations, and even past political positions. The Federalist noted that donors to California’s Proposition 8 faced harassment after their names became public, and that Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich was later forced out of his own company after his donation to the measure resurfaced.

The Tenth Circuit sided with New Mexico, finding the disclosure requirements sufficiently tied to the state’s interest in informing voters about who funds large election-related communications near elections. But the Rio Grande Foundation and its supporters argue that the lower courts are applying too weak a standard to laws that burden anonymous speech and association.

They are asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether laws forcing disclosure of political association should face strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review, rather than the more flexible “exacting scrutiny” standard that courts have often applied.

The case now puts New Mexico at the center of a national free speech fight.

For Piñon Post readers, the stakes are obvious. If a nonprofit can be forced to expose donors simply because it mails a voting scorecard too close to an election, that gives government enormous power to chill criticism of politicians at the exact moment voters are paying attention.

New Mexico voters have every right to know how their elected officials voted.

And citizens have every right to support groups that publish that information without being placed on a government list.

The Supreme Court should take the case and decide whether New Mexico’s law protects transparency — or punishes speech.

New Mexico law puts donor privacy in Supreme Court spotlight Read More »

Dems abandon scandal-plagued Platner after Heinrich stood by him

12 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico’s Democrat senators are facing new scrutiny over their handling of Maine Democrat Senate nominee Graham Platner after a rape allegation sent national Democrats fleeing from a candidate many in the party had recently tried to rally behind.

Platner, the Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate in Maine, is accused by a woman he previously dated of drunkenly forcing her to have sex after she told him to stop, according to reporting cited by the Associated Press. Platner denies the allegation.

The latest report triggered a political crisis for Democrats in a must-win Senate race against Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins. Senate Democrat leaders, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, prominent progressives, and Maine Democrat officials quickly began calling for Platner to leave the race.

But the collapse comes after some Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, who “proudly” endorsed the scandal-plagued candidate, had already defended Platner through earlier scandals involving a Nazi-linked tattoo, inflammatory online posts, sexually explicit messages, and allegations involving past relationships.

During a CNN appearance with Wolf Blitzer before the latest rape allegation surfaced, Heinrich defended Platner as a man who had grown from his past.

“Graham has made a lot of mistakes in his life,” Heinrich said. “He’s owned those mistakes… that’s what leadership looks like.”

That quote now looks very different after the newest allegation sent Democrats scrambling to distance themselves from Platner.

According to the AP, the woman, Jenny Racicot, accused Platner of entering her home in 2021 while drunk and assaulting her. Racicot said she had been in an on-and-off relationship with Platner but cut off contact after that night and later told him the encounter was not consensual.

“He violated multiple layers of consent that night,” Racicot said in a CNN interview, according to the AP.

Platner denied the allegation in a video statement.

“Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically false,” Platner said.

He also said he was considering the future of his campaign.

“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we’re taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” Platner said.

For Democrats, the political reality was immediate.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand issued a joint statement calling on Platner to withdraw.

“Graham Platner needs to immediately withdraw as the Democratic nominee for Senate and allow Maine Democrats the opportunity to choose a new candidate who can defeat Susan Collins,” they said.

The DSCC also said it would not spend money on the Maine Senate race if Platner remained the nominee.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said Maine Democrats should choose a new nominee. Rep. Ro Khanna, who had previously supported Platner, withdrew his endorsement.

“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” Khanna said. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”

U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Ruben Gallego of Arizona also pulled their support and called for Platner to exit the race. Maine Democratic Party leaders joined the calls for him to withdraw.

The pressure is especially intense because Maine law allows Platner to be replaced on the ballot only if he withdraws by July 13, with a replacement nominee named by July 27.

The latest allegation is not the first controversy surrounding Platner.

Before winning the Democrat nomination, Platner had already faced scrutiny for a chest tattoo recognized as a Nazi symbol, which he later covered up. He also reportedly faced criticism over explicit messages sent to women shortly after getting married and a history of inflammatory online comments.

In one 2013 Reddit post, Platner wrote that people should not get so drunk “they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to” and suggested sexual assault victims should “just take some responsibility for themselves.” He has since apologized for the post and said he no longer believes those things.

Graham Platner. MAINEiac4434 via Wiki Commons.

The New York Times also reported on volatile relationships with former girlfriends, including one allegation that an argument became physical. Platner denied that allegation.

New Mexico’s other Democrat senator, Ben Ray Luján, also addressed Platner before the latest wave of calls for withdrawal. Luján said Platner needed to be “forthright” and “honest” with voters.

“Look, he’s the nominee right now,” Luján said. “He has to go and earn the trust of voters. And just like every other candidate has to do as well.”

That careful language stopped short of fully cutting Platner loose at the time. But after the latest allegation, the Democrat Party’s calculus changed almost overnight.

Now, Lujan wrote via X, “The American people deserve leaders they can trust. These allegations are serious, demand accountability, and make that trust impossible. Graham Platner should withdraw from the Senate race.”

For New Mexicans, the episode raises an obvious question: why were national Democrats, including Heinrich, so willing to treat Platner’s long list of earlier controversies as forgivable “mistakes” until the political pressure became impossible to ignore?

Heinrich’s “that’s what leadership looks like” defense is now being viewed in a harsher light as Democrats rush to push Platner off the ballot. Luján’s insistence that Platner needed to earn trust also reflects the awkward position Senate Democrats found themselves in: trying to hold a crucial seat while managing a nominee with extensive baggage.

Platner remains the Democrat nominee unless he withdraws. Collins, the Republican incumbent, responded briefly to the allegation.

“These allegations are appalling,” Collins said. “Nevertheless, it is not up to me to choose the Democratic nominee for Senate.”

For Democrats, that choice may now define one of the most important Senate races in the country.

And for New Mexico’s senators, the question is no longer just whether Platner can survive.

It is why Democrats ever tried to explain away so many warning signs in the first place.

Dems abandon scandal-plagued Platner after Heinrich stood by him Read More »

Disgraced ex-Dem majority leader finally headed to trial in huge corruption case

15 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Nearly five years after federal agents raided the home of former New Mexico House Majority Leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton, the disgraced Albuquerque Democrat is finally set to face trial in one of the largest public corruption cases in recent New Mexico history.

Williams Stapleton, once one of the most powerful Democrats in the New Mexico Legislature, appeared in court Thursday after federal prosecutors added two more tax fraud charges to her already sprawling federal case. She now faces 37 federal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, money laundering, mail fraud, bribery involving programs receiving federal funds, fraud, and false statements.

The federal trial is currently set for August 3.

The case centers on allegations that Williams Stapleton used her positions at Albuquerque Public Schools and in the New Mexico Legislature to funnel millions of dollars connected to APS career and technical education programs through a Washington, D.C.-based company called Robotics Management Learning Systems.

Investigators say Robotics was tied to Williams Stapleton’s co-defendant, Joseph Johnson. Prosecutors allege Williams Stapleton used Johnson’s company to divert federal grant money intended for educational programs and instead used the funds for personal and political benefit.

According to the new report, federal prosecutors say Williams Stapleton embezzled $1,152,506 in federal grant funds — roughly 35% of the money APS paid to Robotics — and used the money for items including a home remodel, her family’s restaurant, her consulting company, trips, shopping, and vehicles.

As she entered court Thursday, Williams Stapleton avoided eye contact with cameras. When KRQE asked, “What do you say to the people who believe you did something wrong?” her attorney, Ahmad Assed, responded, “We don’t have any comment at this time, thank you.”

Inside the courtroom, the once-powerful lawmaker reportedly sat quietly and showed little emotion as she waited for the judge. Across the aisle was Johnson, her co-defendant.

Both Williams Stapleton and Johnson pleaded not guilty to the additional charges. Prosecutors say both could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

The long delay in the case has frustrated New Mexicans who watched the scandal explode in 2021, when Williams Stapleton resigned from the Legislature in disgrace after search warrants were served at her home and APS office.

Before the federal indictment, Williams Stapleton had already been charged in state court in 2021. Her attorney said the existence of two separate cases helped slow the process.

“This is a unique case in that Ms. Williams is facing two trials and the timeline with respect to trying the federal case first is paramount, before a state case is ensued,” Assed said. “And so that dynamic aided a lot in terms of delay with respect to trying the case.”

But the allegations have never been simple.

Piñon Post reporting from 2021 exposed how Williams Stapleton’s alleged scheme appeared to involve a web of political connections, nonprofits, shell companies, education funds, and longtime Democrat power players stretching back decades.

Robotics Management Learning Systems was registered at a Washington, D.C., address connected to Johnson, who also operated National Corrections and Rehabilitation Corporation. Johnson was also listed as president of the Ujima Foundation, another entity tied to the alleged scheme.

The relationship between Johnson and Williams Stapleton was not new. Piñon Post previously reported that Johnson and Williams Stapleton both had roots in New Mexico State University and New Mexico political circles dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s. Johnson later became a figure in former Democrat Gov. Toney Anaya’s administration, eventually rising to secretary of Health and Environment after a scandal involving state health contracts.

Johnson was later charged in connection with bribery, fraud, conspiracy, kickbacks, and racketeering allegations from that era, though the charges were ultimately dismissed after a key witness recanted. He later returned to political work and became associated with Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.

Williams Stapleton also had ties to the Rainbow Coalition. Piñon Post previously noted that she was listed as the New Mexico contact for the group and was active in the organization in the late 1980s.

Those old connections matter because prosecutors now allege the APS scheme relied on the same types of entities and political relationships that allowed millions in education funds to move with little scrutiny.

At the Legislature, Williams Stapleton was not a backbencher. She was the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the New Mexico House and served for decades while also working as an APS administrator. Critics have long argued that dual role gave her unusual influence over education policy, appropriations, and public-school spending.

Piñon Post previously reported that Williams Stapleton sponsored or supported legislation related to career and technical education — the same general area from which federal APS funds were allegedly diverted through Robotics. Prosecutors have alleged she used her legislative and APS positions to benefit herself financially.

The scandal also renewed scrutiny over APS itself.

Years before the federal indictment, KRQE investigative reporting found Williams Stapleton had been paid more than $100,000 by APS for work she allegedly did not perform while serving in the Legislature. Instead of being punished, APS leadership changed the rules to allow legislators employed by the district to continue being paid while serving in Santa Fe.

Now, years later, the criminal case is finally nearing trial.

For New Mexicans, the allegations are staggering: federal education money meant for students, a longtime Democrat lawmaker, a politically connected out-of-state company, alleged kickbacks, alleged money laundering, and more than $1.1 million prosecutors say was diverted for personal benefit.

Williams Stapleton and Johnson are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But the case has already become a symbol of how political power, weak oversight, and public money can create a corruption nightmare.

The trial set for August could finally begin to answer the question New Mexicans have been asking since 2021:

How did this alleged scheme go on for so long — and who else knew?

Disgraced ex-Dem majority leader finally headed to trial in huge corruption case Read More »

Leger Fernández loses it again over SAVE America Act

38 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández is once again attacking Republican-backed election integrity reforms, claiming the push to require proof of citizenship and voter identification is part of an effort to make it harder for Americans to vote.

In a series of social media videos, the far-left congresswoman from New Mexico’s Third Congressional District accused Republicans of shutting down Congress and holding the legislative process “hostage” over the SAVE America Act, a voter integrity proposal backed by President Donald Trump and House conservatives.

“Republicans just shut down Congress to make it harder for you to vote,” Leger Fernández wrote on X. “That’s how scared they are of your power.”

In the accompanying video, Leger Fernández stood outside in Washington, D.C., and claimed Republicans were not acting to “help the American people,” but instead trying “to take away your ability to register to vote.”

“Unless you’re rich, have a passport, willing to pay more money to get documents, because you know what, that photo ID you have, that won’t count under their proposal,” she said.

The claim fits a familiar Democrat talking point: requiring proof of citizenship or voter ID is somehow voter suppression, even though citizenship is already a basic requirement to vote in federal elections.

The SAVE America Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. The legislation lists multiple forms of acceptable proof, including a valid U.S. passport, certain REAL ID documents that indicate citizenship, military ID paired with a service record showing U.S. birthplace, a government-issued photo ID showing U.S. birthplace, or a government-issued photo ID paired with documents such as a birth certificate, naturalization certificate, certificate of citizenship, consular report of birth abroad, or certain other documents.

That is far different from the simplified Democrat attack that voters would essentially need a passport to participate.

Leger Fernández also attacked the bill over mail-in voting.

“And they want to make sure we don’t have mail-in voting,” she said. “I tell you, mail-in voting makes it easier for rural people to vote, for military to vote, for people who might have kids at home and can’t take time out of their work to go vote.”

She added, “So that’s what they’re trying to do, is to make it harder for you to vote.”

The White House’s SAVE America Act page frames the proposal very differently, saying “American citizens — and only American citizens — should decide American elections.” It describes the proposal as requiring valid ID before registering to vote in a federal election, proof of citizenship, and restrictions on mail-in ballots except for illness, disability, military service, or travel.

In another video posted one day earlier, Leger Fernández claimed Congress was being “held hostage by the most extreme members of the Republican Party.”

Note: Over 80 percent of Americans support the provisions of the SAVE America Act.

Despite that, she accused Republicans of demanding that a “voter suppression bill” be attached to “everything we pass.”

“No, we are not going to suppress our elections,” she said. “We are not going to require that you have a passport to be able to vote.”

She then added, “We’re going to say no to that.”

Leger Fernández also said Congress should return to other business, including the National Defense Authorization Act, while making clear she opposes the proposed level of defense spending.

“Listen, I’m against spending $1.4 trillion on defense, but we should be able to have a debate about that,” she said.

Her comments came as a group of House Republicans pushed to force action on the SAVE America Act. The fight disrupted the House schedule and helped send lawmakers home early for the July 4 recess.

But for most Americans, the issue is simple: requiring proof that a voter is a U.S. citizen should not be controversial.

For Democrats like Leger Fernández, however, the proposal has become another opportunity to portray basic election safeguards as an attack on voters. Her argument effectively assumes many New Mexicans are unable to manage basic documentation requirements — an argument critics say is insulting to the very voters Democrats claim to defend.

Leger Fernández has made similar claims before. In February, after the House passed the SAVE America Act, her office released a statement calling the bill “voter suppression, plain and simple.” She claimed it would make it “harder and more expensive” for citizens, “especially women, Native Americans, service members, and rural voters,” to register and vote.

That framing turns a proof-of-citizenship requirement into an accusation that Republicans are targeting vulnerable groups. But the actual policy question is far narrower: should people registering to vote in federal elections be required to prove they are U.S. citizens?

Republicans say yes.

Leger Fernández says that is voter suppression.

The clash comes as President Trump and the White House continue urging Congress to pass the SAVE America Act. Trump has described the issue as a national emergency and has used other legislative priorities to pressure Congress into acting.

The result has been predictable: Republicans are pushing election integrity, while Democrats are warning of voter suppression, racism, hardship, and disenfranchisement.

But to many New Mexicans, the Democrat meltdown may sound increasingly detached from common sense. Showing ID is required to board a plane, buy alcohol, enter many government buildings, cash a check, or pick up certain prescriptions.

Yet when Republicans propose requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, Leger Fernández insists the sky is falling.

Her message is clear: asking voters to prove eligibility is too much.

But why are Democrats so terrified of basic election security?

Leger Fernández loses it again over SAVE America Act Read More »

NM Dems’ fundraising panic spills into inboxes

19 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico’s three far-left Democrat members of the U.S. House closed out the latest fundraising quarter with a flood of urgent, panicky emails begging supporters for cash before the midnight Federal Election Commission deadline.

Reps. Gabe Vasquez, Melanie Stansbury, and Teresa Leger Fernández all sent last-minute fundraising appeals on June 30, warning supporters that the deadline was only hours away and urging them to rush money through ActBlue.

The emails varied in style, but the message was the same: send cash now.

Vasquez, who represents New Mexico’s Second Congressional District, appeared especially anxious, sending multiple deadline-day appeals. In one email with the subject line “A quick thought before my morning run,” Vasquez tried to turn a morning jog into a campaign metaphor.

“Just wanted to touch base before I lace up my shoes for my morning run,” the email began.

“Progress is a lot like running a marathon — it’s not about speed, but endurance, consistency, and pacing yourself, especially when the road gets tough,” the message continued.

The email then quickly moved from the running metaphor to the real point: money.

“Here in NM-02, we’re in a real race against time,” Vasquez’s campaign wrote. “National Republicans are pouring money into this race, trying to slow us down and tilt this seat in their favor.”

The campaign said its FEC report would send “a powerful message” and claimed it needed to hit a $100,000 deadline.

“That’s why hitting our $100,000 FEC deadline is so important — it’s how we prove we’re ready to sprint through the final stretch,” the email said.

Before “hitting the pavement,” Vasquez asked supporters to donate $10 to help his campaign “cross tonight’s finish line.”

But Vasquez was not done.

Later that evening, his campaign sent another email with the ominous subject line “The signal we send at midnight.”

“Our first major FEC deadline of the general election is tonight at midnight,” the email warned.

“This is our moment to show the strength of this movement,” Vasquez wrote, claiming the report would prove he had the grassroots support to win “one of the most competitive House races in the country.”

Then came the admission: “But here’s the honest truth: we’re still behind on our $100,000 goal.”

The email also singled out Republican Greg Cunningham and his supporters, claiming, “Greg Cunningham and his Republican backers already have millions locked in for attack ads. They think their money can drown us out. They believe they can buy this seat.”

Vasquez’s campaign warned that if the FEC report was weak, the campaign could lose momentum.

“If it’s weak, we risk losing momentum and watching crucial support drift away,” the email said.

Meanwhile, Stansbury, who represents New Mexico’s First Congressional District, sent her own late-night appeal with the subject line “Hey, where’d you go?”

“I’m reaching out personally because there are just a few hours left until our midnight deadline,” Stansbury wrote.

“This is the most important deadline yet,” she added. “If you’ve been waiting to give, now is the time.”

Stansbury’s campaign claimed it was just short of a donor target.

“My campaign manager Brandon tells me that we only need around 70 more donors,” the email said. “Can I count on you?”

The message included a direct button asking recipients to “BE ONE OF THE 70.”

Leger Fernández, who represents New Mexico’s Third Congressional District, took a more casual route, sending an email from “Teresa Leger Fernandez (phone)” with the subject line “por favor.”

“Hola, [NAME], it’s Teresa,” the email began. “I’ll be quick, but I need 30 seconds!”

Leger Fernández said her campaign was “just a few hours away” from its end-of-quarter FEC deadline and asked supporters to give before midnight.

“I know you’re getting a lot of asks right now,” she wrote. “I know there are a lot of races and a lot of campaigns competing for your attention. I don’t expect you to chip in every time I reach out — really, I don’t.”

But after acknowledging donor fatigue, she asked anyway.

“In critical moments like these, I can’t afford not to ask for your support,” the email said.

Leger Fernández then asked supporters to “chip in $5 or $10” to help her campaign “defend this seat, and flip the House in November.”

Together, the emails offer a revealing look at New Mexico Democrats’ fundraising machine as the general election season begins. All three House Democrats framed their campaigns as urgent national fights, leaned on deadline pressure, and pushed supporters to give through ActBlue in the final hours before reports were due.

For Vasquez, the panic is especially notable. His district is widely considered New Mexico’s most competitive congressional seat, and his own campaign repeatedly emphasized the stakes. His emails warned about Republicans, attack ads, momentum, donors, strategists, reporters, and the message his FEC report would send.

Stansbury and Leger Fernández represent safer Democrat territory, but their emails still carried the same end-of-quarter desperation — a scramble for more donors, more money, and more proof of political strength.

The broader message is clear: New Mexico’s far-left Democrat delegation may publicly project confidence, but behind the scenes, their campaigns are still sending frantic, last-minute pleas for cash.

And as the clock ticked toward midnight, all three had the same closing argument for supporters: give now.

NM Dems’ fundraising panic spills into inboxes Read More »

MLG blames Trump, then asks for oil cash rebates

24 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is calling on lawmakers to send New Mexicans at least $250 in energy relief checks after a spike in oil prices created what she described as an $825 million windfall for the state’s trust funds.

In a new opinion column, Lujan Grisham argued that New Mexico’s latest oil-driven revenue surge should be returned, at least in part, to taxpayers who are paying more at the pump.

“It’s no secret that New Mexico’s finances rise and fall with oil prices — and right now, prices are high,” Lujan Grisham wrote. “That’s good news for state coffers, and it should be good news for New Mexicans, too.”

The column is notable because it openly acknowledges what conservatives have said for years: New Mexico’s budget depends heavily on oil and gas revenues, even as Democrats routinely attack the industry, push aggressive “clean energy” policies, and rail against fossil fuels.

Lujan Grisham placed blame for rising gas prices squarely on President Donald Trump, writing that crude oil prices “surpassed $100 per barrel this spring, up from $58 before President Trump’s reckless war in Iran.”

According to the governor, economists project that the price spike will add an extra $825 million to New Mexico’s trust funds. But she argued that the same surge is hurting working families.

“But the same price surge padding the state’s bank accounts is draining New Mexicans’ wallets at the pump,” she wrote. “Since the start of the war, New Mexicans have paid as much as $1.30 more for a gallon of gasoline, and that adds up fast.”

Lujan Grisham cited a constituent, Urban Trujillo of Bloomfield, who wrote to her office about high gas prices in San Juan County.

“We can blame all kinds of things, but that doesn’t change having to choose between food or fuel,” Trujillo wrote, according to the governor. “If you decide on food, you still can’t get it because you can’t get to it.”

The governor used that example to argue that rising fuel prices are hitting families across the state, from commuters in Gallup to grocery shoppers in Las Cruces to families in Albuquerque reconsidering summer trips to Carlsbad Caverns.

“It is the summer trip to Carlsbad Caverns an Albuquerque family can no longer afford,” she wrote.

Lujan Grisham also claimed households nationwide have shouldered an estimated $450 in additional fuel costs since the conflict began, calling that money “foregone groceries, stalled medical care and spent savings.”

The governor argued that New Mexico is in a unique position because the state benefits financially from rising oil prices while families suffer from higher fuel costs.

“New Mexico is one of the only states in the nation where rising gas prices are simultaneously creating a state budget windfall and a kitchen-table crisis,” Lujan Grisham wrote. “Our severance taxes and oil royalties capture the upside; our families absorb the downside.”

Her proposed answer is a rebate.

“When the state’s good fortune comes at a direct cost to the people who live here, the appropriate response is to share what we’ve collected,” she wrote. “That is why I am asking the Legislature to consider giving some of it back as an energy relief rebate of at least $250 for every taxpaying New Mexican.”

“We can afford it,” she added. “Moreover, it’s just plain good sense to reinvest in the hard-working New Mexicans who fuel this state’s economy.”

The proposal may appeal to New Mexicans frustrated by higher prices, but it also exposes an uncomfortable contradiction for Santa Fe Democrats. The same oil and gas industry often treated as a political punching bag by the left is now being credited by the governor as the source of a massive state windfall.

New Mexico Democrats frequently campaign on “climate change” rhetoric, “green” energy promises, and attacks on fossil fuels. Yet when oil prices rise, state government benefits enormously through severance taxes and royalties.

Now Lujan Grisham wants to use that oil money to soften the impact of high fuel prices — while blaming Trump for the pain families are feeling — despite the terrible economic policies foisted upon New Mexicans by far-left Democrats that are the true driver of costs for families.

“New Mexicans didn’t choose this war or its consequences,” she wrote. “But they’ve borne the cost of this conflict in every gallon of gas they’ve pumped. Now we have an opportunity to give back.”

She closed by urging state lawmakers to return part of the windfall directly to residents.

“New Mexico’s oil revenue windfall belongs to New Mexicans,” Lujan Grisham wrote, “and I urge state lawmakers to return at least part of it directly to them.”

The Legislature would have to act for any rebate to move forward, and if she wants it while she’s governor, she would have to call a special session. But the governor’s column already makes one thing clear: when Santa Fe needs money, oil and gas are indispensable.

And when prices spike, even New Mexico Democrats suddenly remember that energy policy has real consequences for working families.

MLG blames Trump, then asks for oil cash rebates Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 249
Scroll to Top