KRQE Newsfeed: DWI scandal, Illegal farms, Snow ahead, Infrastructure funds, Road improvements
Tax season is here. What you need to know to file your 2024 taxes in New Mexico
San Miguel County deputy on leave facing new charge for leaving scene of crash
New Mexico Strike Team leader speaks about fighting California wildfires
Report reveals record-breaking levels of PFAS at Holloman Lake
Lawmakers want to bring paid family and medical leave to New Mexico
Google Maps to rename 'Gulf of Mexico' to 'Gulf of America'
[1] Top federal prosecutor vows corruption scheme 'won't happen again' – Federal investigators are speaking out after the first member of the DWI dismissal scandal admitted to his role in the scheme. Friday, paralegal Rick Mendez admitted to his role, implicating his boss, attorney Thomas Clear III, and named several other players. According to Mendez's federal plea deal, officers would funnel DWI suspects to Mendez and Clear III's office by confiscating the person's driver's license and if they paid he'd conspire with officers to ensure they missed court. The Bernalillo County DA's office says last year their office had to dismiss 214 DWI cases because of credibility issues of officers involved in the investigation.
[2] Years-long FBI investigation into former Navajo Nation presidential candidate – A man who once ran for president of the Navajo Nation is now in federal custody after being accused of running an illegal pot-growing operation in New Mexico. A federal investigation spanning more that five years found Dineh Benally was running dozens of marijuana farms across the state. The Navajo Nation tried to shut down Benally's operations in 2020 by getting a court injunction to stop him from growing on tribal land. But, according to court records, Benally kept growing. In the following months the FBI raided 25 farms around Shiprock. Benally is now facing six federal counts related to drug manufacturing and trafficking as well as polluting waterways.
[3] Scattered snow and rain showers move in Wednesday – Tuesday will be similar to Monday with more mild temperatures and a breezy southwest wind. Some light rain and mountain snow will move into the Four Corners late Tuesday night. Scattered snow will move into western and northern New Mexico Wednesday morning, with a few spotty showers in eastern parts of the state. Snow and rain will already be wrapping up by Thursday morning. Warmer weather quickly returns Friday with this warming trend continuing into early next week.
[4] Bernalillo County asks for infrastructure funding from lawmakers – Bernalillo County is submitting requests to the state legislature to improve Albuquerque's infrastructure. The county wants funds to help reconstruct Isleta and Bridge. The county also wants to construct a drainage system and improve the roadway on Barcelona and Blake. Lastly, they want to design, construct, and install 'traffic calming devices.'
[5] Construction to start at Paseo Del Norte and Tramway intersection – The New Mexico Department of Transportation is working on improvements at Paseo del Norte and Tramway in Albuquerque. They will be installing new traffic signals and pedestrian access ramps. The first phase of the project will last about two months. One only lane will be open in each direction on Paseo del Norte during that time. Drivers are asked to slow down, expect delays and consider alternative routes.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Johnson pans discharge petition from Massie and Khanna
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday panned a discharge petition from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that is designed to force the release of more files on Jeffrey Epstein. The duo's bill is "reckless," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press." And it would force the DOJ and FBI to release information "that was not even credible enough to be entered into the court proceedings," he said. "I agree with President Trump, with the Department of Justice, with the FBI that you need all credible evidence and information out there," Johnson said. "That word 'credible' is important. And why? Because you have to protect innocent people's names and reputations whose names might be, as you noted at the outset of the program, intertwined into all these files." Another red flag: Johnson told Welker the bill doesn't include "adequate protections" for Epstein's victims. "These are minors in many cases who were subjected to unspeakable crimes, abject evil," Johnson said. "They've already suffered great harm. We do not need their names being unmasked. The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections." Congressional Republicans have spent the last few weeks grappling with the fallout of the Trump administration's handling of its Epstein investigation. Many of their core supporters are in uproar. And recent pronouncements from the president that the controversy is a hoax perpetrated by "Radical Left Democrats" have only increased the din. But Johnson insisted the legislative effort from the two lawmakers was not why he adjourned the House a day earlier than planned. Instead, he said the maneuver was necessary because of Democrats seeking to force Epstein votes in the House Rules Committee. "So what we did do this week is end the chaos in the rules committee because the Democrats are trying to use this in a shameless manner for political purposes, quite obviously," Johnson said. "They hijacked the rules committee. And they tried to turn it into an Epstein hearing. That's not what the rules committee is about. So that's why the floor vote ended on Wednesday instead of Thursday."
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell deserves life sentence over Epstein crimes, rejects potential pardon
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Sunday that Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell deserves a life sentence, rejecting the idea of a potential pardon for the convicted sex trafficker. In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Johnson was asked if he supported a pardon for Maxwell, but the speaker emphasized that the decision ultimately belongs to President Donald Trump. "I think 20 years was a pittance," Johnson said of Maxwell's time behind bars. "I think she should have a life sentence, at least. I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes." "I mean it's hard to put into words how evil this was and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it, at least under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing," Johnson added, acknowledging that federal prosecutors identified more than 1,000 victims, many of whom were underage. "So again, not my decision, but I have great pause about that as any reasonable person would." While leaving the White House on Friday en route for Scotland, Trump was asked if he considered a pardon or clemency for Maxwell. The president left the door open, responding: "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about." Johnson said he supports the position of the president, the FBI and the Justice Department that "all credible evidence and information" be released, but emphasized the need for safeguards to protect victims' identities. As for Maxwell, she was questioned by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche at federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida, for two consecutive days last week. Her lawyer told reporters she answered questions on about 100 potential Epstein associates as she angles for clemency. "That's a decision of the president," Johnson said of a potential Maxwell pardon. "He said he had not adequately considered that. I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane. My lane is to help direct and control the House of Representatives and to use every tool within our arsenal to get to the truth. I'm going to say this as clearly and plainly and repeatedly as I can over and over. We are for maximum disclosure. We want all transparency. I trust the American people. I and the House Republicans believe that they should have all this information to be able to determine what they will. But we have to protect the innocent. And that's the only safeguard here that we've got to be diligent about, and I'm insistent upon doing so." Johnson criticized a petition for the release of all the Epstein files brought by Reps. Thomas Massie, and Ro Khanna, D-Penn., as "reckless" and poorly drafted, arguing that it ignored federal rules protecting grand jury materials and "would require the DOJ and FBI to release information that they know is false, that is based on lies and rumors and was not even credible enough to be entered into the court proceedings." The speaker said the petition also lacked safeguards for minor victims who were subjected to "unspeakable crimes, abject evil" and who risk being "unmasked." Johnson said Massie and Khanna "cite that they don't want child abuse, sex abuse information uncovered, but they cite the wrong provision of the federal code, and so it makes it unworkable." The speaker argued Republicans on the House Rules Committee are committed to a better drafted approach that will protect the innocent. Asked about a potential pardon for Maxwell, Massie told NBC's Kristen Welker earlier in the program that it "would be up to the president, but if she has information that could help us, I think that she should testify." "Let's get that out there, and whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of," Massie said. Khanna said he did not believe Maxwell's sentence should be commuted and that he was concerned that Blanche was meeting with her. He said he agreed with Massie that Maxwell should testify but noted she has been indicted twice for perjury. "This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence," Khanna said.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
‘Missing' Epstein Video—Digital Forensics Experts Reveal What Really Happened
The Epstein 'missing video" explained by digital forensics experts. When reports emerged of 'missing minutes' in Jeffrey Epstein's jail surveillance video, the story seemed to suggest something sinister. After all, how could crucial surveillance footage be incomplete during such a significant event? But this case offers a perfect example of why understanding digital forensics is essential in modern litigation, and why the most dramatic explanations aren't always the correct ones. Two former FBI Senior Forensic Examiners, Stacy Eldridge and Becky Passmore, decided to conduct their own analysis when they felt media reports lacked sufficient technical detail. Their findings suggest not a cover-up, but rather the complex reality of how digital video works in the modern surveillance age. However, their analysis also reveals an important limitation: without access to the original raw surveillance files, even expert forensic examiners cannot be completely certain about what occurred. Understanding Work Product vs. Raw Evidence When digital forensic examiners need to share surveillance footage, they rarely share the original files straight from the camera system. Instead, they create what's called a 'work product.' This happens because raw footage often requires specialized and sometimes proprietary software and equipment for viewing. Think of it like the difference between a photographer's original camera files and the edited photos they share publicly. The FBI's released video falls into this category. As Eldridge and Passmore discovered through their analysis, 'This is not a 'raw' file. It's not evidence. It's work product. Something someone would make for easier viewing and sharing.' Understanding this distinction is vital because work products undergo processing that can create timing discrepancies without affecting the underlying evidence. It's the difference between the original surveillance recording and a presentation version designed for public release. However, this also means that definitive conclusions about tampering require access to the original files that the experts did not have. How Modern Digital Forensics Works Digital forensics operates much like traditional detective work, but instead of fingerprints and DNA, experts examine metadata, file structures and digital signatures. Metadata serves as a digital fingerprint that reveals a file's complete history: when it was created, what software processed it, how many times it was saved, and even details about the computer that handled it. Eldridge and Passmore employed the same rigorous techniques used in criminal investigations. Their analysis revealed several important technical details. The video was processed using Adobe Premiere Pro, as evidenced by a project file named 'mcc_4.prproj' and metadata showing it was created from two separate source files. They even found a partial username, 'Mjcole~1,' providing insight into who processed the footage. This level of detail matters because it allows forensic experts to reconstruct how the final video was created and identify what changes may have occurred during processing. However, the experts were careful to note the limitations of their analysis without the original source material. Decoding Three Types of Time Discrepancies The experts identified three distinct issues that created timing discrepancies. Understanding each category helps explain why timing problems don't automatically indicate evidence tampering, while also showing why definitive conclusions require more complete information. The first category involves the acknowledged system reboot. Surveillance systems, like all computers, require periodic maintenance. The jail's system underwent routine maintenance around midnight, creating a 62-second gap in recording. The experts pinpointed this precisely: 'Nightly reboot start timestamp 8/09/2019 11:58:58 last number appeared' and 'nightly reboot end timestamp 8/10/2019 12:00:00 AM first number reappeared.' This gap represents actual missing time, but it's the kind of planned maintenance that occurs in surveillance systems nationwide. The key question isn't whether this gap exists, but whether it occurred naturally or was deliberately timed to coincide with significant events. Without access to system logs and maintenance records, this question cannot be definitively answered. The second category involves edited content from the beginning of the file. The experts found evidence that approximately 3 minutes of content appears to have been removed from the very start of the video file. However, they emphasized an important caveat: 'The 3 minutes not accounted for from the file 2025-05-22 was likely cut from the beginning of the file. This is an assumption based on time calculations based on the metadata we were able to retrieve. This is not definitive as we do not have the original videos that were used to create This finding illustrates both the power and limitations of forensic analysis. The location of missing content matters enormously. Content removed from the beginning of a file often suggests routine editing to focus on relevant timeframes, similar to how a documentary editor might trim unnecessary footage from the start of a scene. Content removed from the middle of a timeline, particularly during critical moments, would raise much more serious questions about tampering. Yet the experts' honest acknowledgment of uncertainty demonstrates scientific integrity. They found patterns suggesting routine editing, but cannot eliminate other possibilities without the original files. The third category involves dropped frames, a concept that requires careful explanation because it's often misunderstood. When video systems encounter processing limitations, whether due to hardware constraints or file compression needs, they employ a technique called frame dropping. Instead of losing entire sections of video, the system removes individual frames scattered throughout the recording. Think of this like removing every 100th word from a novel. You lose some detail, but the story remains coherent and readable. The experts found approximately 12,000 individual frames were dropped during processing out of more than 1.2 million total frames, creating a loss rate of 0.97%. 'Dropped frames account for the missing 6 minutes and 34 seconds we thought we discovered. Loss rate is less than 1%,' the experts concluded. This distinction between dropped frames and missing video segments is necessary for understanding evidence integrity. Dropped frames represent a technical limitation that doesn't compromise the evidentiary value of surveillance footage, while truly missing video content could suggest deliberate tampering. However, distinguishing between routine frame dropping and intentional deletion requires access to the original processing logs and source files. Epstein Video: Why Technical Context Prevents Misinterpretation The Epstein video case demonstrates why technical literacy matters in interpreting digital evidence. Without understanding how video processing works, timing discrepancies can appear suspicious when they're actually routine technical artifacts. Consider how the initial reports interpreted the evidence. WIRED reported '2 minutes and 53 seconds' of missing footage.. However, without the proper forensic context, this was presented as potentially significant missing content rather than normal processing artifacts. As Eldridge and Passmore noted, they were motivated to conduct their analysis after being 'not satisfied with the reporting on the metadata involved in this case.' Their expertise allowed them to distinguish between technical processing effects and actual evidence problems, though they acknowledged the inherent limitations of analyzing processed files rather than original evidence. The confusion stemmed primarily from two factors: the FBI labeling processed video as 'raw footage,' creating expectations that this was unaltered surveillance content, and normal frame dropping during video compression creating timing discrepancies that seemed suspicious without technical context. The Critical Limitation: Why Raw Footage Matters While the expert analysis provides valuable insights, it also highlights a fundamental principle of digital forensics: the most definitive conclusions require access to original, unprocessed evidence. As Eldridge and Passmore honestly acknowledged, their analysis was limited by working with processed files rather than the original surveillance data. This limitation doesn't invalidate their findings, but it does place them in proper scientific context. The experts found no evidence of tampering and identified plausible technical explanations for all timing discrepancies. However, for these conclusions to move from 'highly probable' to 'certain,' forensic examiners would need the FBI to provide the original raw surveillance files for examination. This distinction matters because it demonstrates both the power and the limits of forensic analysis. Expert examination can rule out many conspiracy theories and provide strong evidence for technical explanations, but absolute certainty in digital forensics often requires access to complete evidence chains that may not always be available. Balancing Skepticism with Technical Reality The Epstein video analysis ultimately reveals that the most complex conspiracy theories can often have the simplest explanations. In this instance, timing discrepancies that seemed suspicious were most likely routine technical artifacts created during normal video processing. This doesn't diminish the importance of thorough investigation or the value of healthy skepticism about official accounts. Rather, it demonstrates why proper technical analysis is essential for distinguishing between genuine evidence problems and normal digital processing effects. It also shows why honest scientific analysis includes acknowledging limitations and uncertainties. The case serves as a reminder that in today's world, technical literacy is becoming as important as traditional investigative skills. Understanding how digital systems work helps us ask better questions, interpret evidence more accurately and avoid drawing dramatic conclusions from routine technical processes. It also helps us understand when additional evidence is needed for complete analysis. As Eldridge and Passmore noted, they conducted their analysis because 'We're both former FBI Senior Forensic Examiners and we're here to share the facts.' Their work exemplifies how proper forensic analysis can cut through speculation and provide evidence-based conclusions, while also demonstrating the scientific integrity to acknowledge when complete certainty requires additional evidence.
