By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Republican candidate Solomon Peña has been sentenced to 80 years in federal prison for his role in a series of drive-by shootings targeting the homes of Democratic officials in Albuquerque following the 2020 election. A jury found Peña guilty of conspiracy, weapons, and other charges related to the attacks, which occurred in December 2022 and January 2023. Prosecutors argued Peña sought to terrorize officials due to his belief that the 2022 election was “rigged,” while his lawyers maintained his innocence. The attacks occurred amid rising threats and intimidation against election workers and public officials nationwide, and two other men involved in the shootings have already been sentenced.
Read the original article here
Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials’ homes, and it’s a story that unfortunately rings with a certain predictability in today’s political climate. The core of the matter is that a man, driven by the delusion that a “rigged” election cost him a seat in the state legislature, decided to express his displeasure through drive-by shootings at the homes of elected officials. The outcome? An 80-year prison sentence, a stark testament to the severity of the crimes and the justice system’s response.
This individual, a Republican candidate, lost his election bid by a significant margin, nearly 50%. It’s hard to ignore the implications of such a decisive defeat and the lengths he went to in an attempt to overturn the outcome. The fact that his convictions happened at the federal level significantly complicates matters, making the possibility of a presidential pardon a sobering reality. The legal system’s classification of the crimes raises crucial questions about the types of charges levied. Were terrorism charges included? The absence of such charges, in my estimation, would be a significant oversight, given the clear intent to instill fear and intimidate public officials.
The fact that the convicted individual was a Republican does raise questions on the political landscape. The phrase “We are all domestic terrorists” is a stark reminder of the rhetoric frequently used to stir up anger and division. The fact that his lawyers asked for a mere five-year sentence is truly remarkable, highlighting the disparity between the severity of the crimes and the legal team’s perspective. Thankfully, the court didn’t agree, and the convicted man will now spend the rest of his life in prison. His lack of remorse and apparent goal of silencing opposing viewpoints should send a shiver down anyone’s spine. It’s a scenario that echoes similar behaviors and ideologies seen elsewhere in the political arena.
The narrative surrounding the “rigged/stolen election” is another key element of the story, fueling the anger that led to these heinous acts. The repetition of such claims, without proof, is dangerous. When this narrative is repeated, it reinforces the idea that anyone disagreeing with a certain viewpoint is considered an enemy. This environment creates a breeding ground for mistrust, animosity, and, unfortunately, violence. Keeping the base scared, angry, and obsessed with guns was always going to lead to one place.
The impact on the victims, and the wider community, should not be lost amidst the political posturing and legal proceedings. These shootings were intended to intimidate and terrorize, directly affecting the safety and security of elected officials and their families. Such actions undermine the very foundations of democracy, making the court’s decision all the more crucial.
The discussion surrounding a potential presidential pardon cannot be overlooked. Given the federal nature of the case, the possibility looms, highlighting the potential for political interference in the legal system. It’s a situation that underscores the high stakes and the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions. The sad truth is, that in the current climate, the possibility of a pardon, regardless of the severity of the crimes, can never be completely dismissed.
Ultimately, this case is a stark reminder of the dangerous consequences that can arise when political division is mixed with delusional narratives and a complete lack of respect for democratic institutions. It highlights the necessity of critical thinking, responsible rhetoric, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law. The 80-year sentence serves as a clear message that such behavior will not be tolerated, and that those who seek to intimidate and terrorize others will be held responsible.