Surprise Police Chief Benny Piña has found himself once again taking wide criticism stemming from the arrest of a mother who defied the city council while exercising her First Amendment rights. Along with the initial arrest, the Chief is now at the center of a firestorm after an internal department video from a week after the incident was obtained by KFYI’s James T. Harris. The video features Piña giving officers “a few things to avoid when confronted by a 1st Amendment auditor,” and defending the woman’s arrest.
Rebekah Massie, a mother from Surprise, was arrested in front of her 10-year-old daughter after criticizing the Surprise City Attorney Robert Wingo in August in a now-viral video. Massie and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) subsequently sued the city, and the council eventually reversed the policy that led to her arrest.
In the Surprise Police Department video created a week later, Piña is seen telling officers, “What happened last week in a council meeting resulted in what I think everybody in the world is calling an illegal arrest and a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights. That’s clearly not what we’re about, and that’s not what happened.”
Curiously, the Chief advised officers not to be completely open or truthful to what he called “First Amendment Auditors.” “[There are a] few things to avoid when confronted by a First Amendment auditor,” Piña said.
Piña introduced Sgt. Jamie Rothschild and suggested that the criticisms against him and the department are the work of “trolls and bots.” He responded to calls to fire Steve Shernicoff, the arresting officer.
The Chief told officers, “We took action that night to complete what we normally would do which is a use of force report. We took real quick action to make certain that we were in line with what our policy is and what our philosophy is, which is to take next steps to make certain that we were in a position of power to show that we, specifically Officer Shernicoff, acted with absolute speed to carry out the mission as directed that evening.”
He added, “When something doesn’t look right, or something doesn’t look popular, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”
Footage of the meeting and of Massie being led out as her child cried quickly went viral within days of the arrest. Bodycam footage was later released by Surprise PD.
The footage shows that Piña was present during the arrest and did not intervene. Massie was charged with trespassing, resisting arrest, and obstructing government operations. Following the uproar in response to the incident, State Senator John Kavanaugh publicly called for Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate the arrest.
“In Arizona statutes, we have a provision that specifically says, ‘[a] public body may make an open call to the public during a public meeting, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, to allow individuals to address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body,’” said Kavanagh.
“Protecting freedom of speech, especially in public government settings, is incredibly important to our democracy. Regardless of where they stand, members of the public deserve the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to city leaders.”
AZ Free News has reached out to Massie via her representation from FIRE for comment. As of this report no response has been received.
While the Biden-Harris administration is still boasting of the success of the CHIPS and Science Act, the Intel Corp. announced it will cut 15,000 jobs across the nation, “as part of the broad-based cost savings plan.” New reports show that almost four hundred of those job cuts will be at the company’s Ocotillo campus in Chandler.
As reported by Phoenix Business Journal, the series of layoff has come despite an upcoming injection of billions of taxpayer dollars via the CHIPS Act aimed at expanding the Chandler facility. Intel as a whole has approximately 12,000 employees in Arizona.
In a written statement Intel explained, “As part of the broad-based cost savings plan we announced in August, we are making the hard but necessary decisions to reduce the size of our workforce. These are the most difficult decisions we ever make, and we are treating people with care and respect. These changes support our strategy to become a leaner, simpler and more agile company as we position Intel for long-term sustainable growth.”
According to The Center Square, the office of Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs was quick to announce the mobilization of state taxpayer-funded resources being made available to the laid off Intel workers.
Spokesman Christian Slater told the outlet, “The Governor’s Office is already mobilizing rapid response resources at DES to connect affected workers with the resources they need to receive support and find new employment. Ensuring that every Arizonan has access to good-paying jobs is a top priority for Governor Hobbs, and she will continue bringing together workers and businesses to navigate challenges, create jobs and build an economy that helps every Arizonan thrive.”
The company was recently granted up to $8.5 billion in CHIPS Act funding, leading to scrutiny over their 15k global layoffs.
I've been asking AZ politicians about this, given that AZ was one of the four states to which the money was allocated for Intel.https://t.co/m2sIsRzW1i
In an August statement, Hobbs stressed Intel’s expansion in the state after the non-specific “cost savings plan,” was announced saying, “They’re expanding here. We’re thrilled to have their expansion here. We’re working with them on workforce initiatives to grow the skilled pipeline of workers that they need. We’re continuing to do that.”
Any direct mention of the billions of dollars earmarked for Intel via the CHIPS Act was decidedly absent from the Hobbs administration’s statement. However, a statement from the office of Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) doubled down on the multi-billion-dollar giveaway, which failed to prevent the layoffs.
Kelly’s office wrote that the round of layoffs, “further underscores the importance of the CHIPS Act.” His office added, “American companies like Intel are facing unprecedented competition from China, but thanks to the CHIPS Act, we’re making sure Intel, and other companies can manufacture the most advanced chips right here in America—creating thousands of construction jobs, and generating even more good-paying, permanent technician jobs in Chandler and across the state that don’t require a four-year degree.”
As reported by the New York Post in August, despite the passage of the CHIPS Act, Intel suffered a staggering $1.6 billion in losses, with CEO Pat Gelsinger saying, “Simply put, we must align our cost structure with our new operating model and fundamentally change the way we operate,” per the memo published to the firm’s website. “Our revenues have not grown as expected – and we’ve yet to fully benefit from powerful trends, like AI. Our costs are too high, our margins are too low.”
When the initial announcement broke in August, Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake placed the blame for Intel’s problems squarely on the Biden-Harris administration in a post to X, writing, “For over 45 years, Arizona has been Intel’s U.S. manufacturing powerhouse. In the last job reports, Intel Shares plunged 20%, forcing them to lay off more than 15% of their employees. These are the devastating consequences #Bidenomics is having on our state. In the US Senate, I will work with President Trump to cut the deficit, turbocharge the economy, & bring back good jobs so that all companies both big & small can thrive in State 48.”
For over 45 years, Arizona has been Intel’s U.S. manufacturing powerhouse.
In the last job reports, Intel Shares plunged 20%, forcing them to lay off more than 15% of their employees.
These are the devastating consequences #Bidenomics is having on our state.
Intel’s CEO also noted that staff drawdowns through voluntary exits in September via “early retirement and separation offerings,” already had the company almost halfway to its 15k downsizing goal. But Gelsinger warned at the time, “We still have difficult decisions to make and will notify impacted employees in the middle of October.”
Democratic Candidate for Congressional District 1 Amish Shah has found himself facing demands from the Tempe City Attorney.
According to the Arizona Agenda, Tempe City Attorney Eric Anderson contacted the Shah campaign and ordered the candidate to cease using a mailer that depicts a retired Tempe Police officer in full uniform including his sidearm. The advertisement shows Shah speaking with the officer and claiming he “stood up to his own party to crack down on fentanyl trafficking” or that he “voted to increase funding for border security,” forwarding a narrative that he is at least pro-law and order if not pro-law enforcement.
The ad naturally came to the attention of incumbent Republican Congressman David Schweikert who forwarded it to the city attorney. The mailer appears to be in violation of Arizona law A.R.S. 9-500.14, which forbids the use of city resources to influence an election, including: “monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the city or town.” In this case, the city’s logo represents a “thing of value.” Anderson also confirmed to the outlet that city policy also forbids the practice.
“Accordingly, my office has directed correspondence to both the former officer as well as Dr. Shah’s campaign demanding that any such use be discontinued,” he wrote, adding that if the Schweikert campaign sees him use it again, they should tell the city “so further action can be considered.”
It’s not uncommon for politicians to pose with police. 🚔📸
But the cops aren’t usually dressed in uniform, complete with gun. 🔫👮♂️
As of this report, the advertisements haven’t stopped. Schweikert campaign consultant Chris Baker told the Arizona Agenda that one more mailer hit homes just a day after the letter from the city attorney, which could have already been in process. But a few days later, another was deployed, leading the campaign to alert the city.
Responding to the allegations, Shah told the outlet that he passed the city’s letter on to his attorney and if his campaign had indeed violated the law, he would update the ad. He did note though that his team had contracted with a major national firm for the mailers and were told by both the company and the retired officer that use of the photo was “kosher.”
Shah told the outlet, “We’re checking with our team and our lawyers to see if what they allege to be a violation, was indeed a violation. And if we are found to be out of compliance, then we will take corrective action, meaning, blur it out.”
National Republican Congressional Committee Spokesperson Ben Petersen reacted in a statement saying, “Lawbreaking liberal Amish Shah thinks he’s above the rules and will do anything for power. Shah shamelessly doubling down on his illegal behavior despite being warned shows his contempt for the rule of law.”
In a post to X, Petersen even noted, “Let’s not forget Shah clearly forgot Tempe is not even in #AZ01.”
According to the law, “For each violation of this section, the court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars plus any amount of misused funds subtracted from the city or town budget against a person who knowingly violates or aids another person in violating this section.”
The McCain Institute played host to several “disinformation experts” in Phoenix last week, where they discussed how best to control free speech online.
These experts, Bret Schafer and Rachael Dean Wilson, hail from Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund.
Schafer created and manages Hamilton 2.0, an online open-source dashboard tracking the outputs of Russia, Chinese, and Iranian state media outlets, diplomats, and government officials. Wilson was the communications director and advisor to the late John McCain.
Schafer’s Hamilton 2.0 is a continuation of his original project within Alliance For Securing Democracy, Hamilton 68, which culled data from major social media companies to identify content similarities between foreign adversaries and Americans — X when it was “Twitter” prior to Elon Musk’s buyout, Facebook, and Instagram — shortly after Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017. Musk paywalled X’s application programming interface, stymieing Schafer’s data stream.
Schafer was part of investigations into practices by social media companies that were weaponizing the government against right-wing citizens.
During last Thursday’s panel, Schafer said that an individual from Meta (Facebook) told him that they began to implement more “guardrails” following the Christchurch shooting, since the shooter used the company’s live-stream function, “Facebook Live,” to film and publish the attack. Schafer said that artificial intelligence (AI) was the “reverse” of efforts to implement guardrails, and expressed concern that there should be greater limitations on “problematic” online speech.
“I think the concern is this pollution in the information space, so if somebody has a narrative that’s particularly problematic it now seems as if it’s coming from 50, 100, 200,000 different sources and it can kind of drown out competing voices who are not using manipulated information to get their message out,” said Schafer.
Schafer advocated for social media companies to reduce the spread of content not originating from certain officials or media outlets. He recalled how those technology companies did some of this during the 2020 election. Schafer lamented that public perception of social media companies controlling content reach and visibility became “politicized” and controversial.
“The only way to make sure the people who genuinely want to actually access accurate information […] is for [social media companies] to make some decisions about what is and is not quality information,” said Schafer. “That has become politicized in ways that I think are really problematic so I think we do need to pressure the companies to the various mechanisms we can: advertisers, everything else to ensure at least around elections that they are taking an active role in making decisions about what should be prioritized because if it’s just left up to the algorithms we’re not going to see the good information surface at the top.”
Wilson agreed. She added that officials could rely on online influencers to spread their information. Combined with Schafer’s proposal of increasing and prioritizing reach for certain information from certain officials and experts, that may mean influencers would be incentivized to spread certain information in order to increase their visibility, engagement, and monetization.
“I think getting the influencers to encourage referencing experts is really important,” said Wilson.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes also participated in the panel discussions.
Like the Hamilton initiative, the Alliance for Securing Democracy was founded after Trump took the White House. The organization is led by Laura Thornton, whom the McCain Institute hired in August to serve as senior director of global democracy programs.
Among its team members are David Salvo, former Obama administration foreign service officer within the State Department, and Shanthi Kalathil, former deputy assistant to the president and coordinator for democracy and human rights at the National Security Council under President Joe Biden.
Alliance for Securing Democracy used to publicize its list of advisory members until some time late last year or earlier this year.
Mike Cherthoff, formerly the W. Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary;
Toomas Ilves, formerly the Estonia president and a World Economic Forum co-chair;
David Kramer, formerly a McCain Institute senior director and W. Bush administration State Department official;
Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and former staffer for the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations;
Rick Ledgett, formerly the Obama administration NSA deputy director;
Mike McFaul, formerly the Obama administration ambassador to Russia;
Michael Morelll, formerly the Obama administration CIA acting director;
Ana Palacio, lawyer and formerly European Parliament member;
John Podesta, formerly Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair and an official for both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
Mike Rogers, CNN commentator and formerly a GOP congressman, army officer, FBI special agent;
Marietje Schaake, formerly a European Parliament member;
Kori Schake, American Enterprise Institute director and formerly employed by the State Department, Defense Department, and White House National Security Council; and,
Nicole Wong, formerly the Obama administration deputy chief technology officer, Google vice president and deputy general counsel, and Twitter legal director for products.
This week, the McCain Institute announced it had been accepted to be featured in the competitive annual event, South by Southwest.
Last week’s full panel is available here:
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs is insisting that the Prop 139 amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would state, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion,” would not include minors. However, prominent critics of the Proposition, such as Cindy Dahlgren, communications director for Center for Arizona Policy Action, says different. Dahlgren told reporters, “It would clearly be argued that ‘every individual’ includes minors.”
In the text of the Proposition, the new amendment would read:
“Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following:
Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.
Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.”
The legal definition of “individual” is key to this argument:
According to A.R.S. 18-551, under Arizona law, an “individual” is defined as, “a resident of this state who has a principal mailing address in this state as reflected in the records of the person conducting business in this state.”
Under A.R.S. 43-104, “‘Individual’ means a natural person.”
Under family law in Arizona, A.R.S. 25-1202 also clearly establishes that the definition of “individual” applies to minors through the inverse: “’Child’ means an individual, whether over or under the age of majority.”
As reported by the Arizona Capitol Times, Hobbs claimed that even if the amendment to the Arizona Constitution were to overturn current abortion laws requiring parental consent, that minors would still be unable to obtain an abortion without that consent.
“Health care providers would be subject to the same provisions relating to minors as they are under any other circumstance,” Hobbs told the outlet.
However, current Arizona law under A.R.S. 44-132 doesn’t seem to bear that conclusion out. The law in question states clearly:
“The consent of the parent, or parents, of such a person is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical and surgical care.”
The Arizona Capitol Times noted that Attorney General Kris Mayes, another Democrat advocate for the sweeping pro-abortion law, told reporters that this major legal distinction would likely need to be settled in court. “If Prop 139 passes, my office will conduct an analysis on its impact to other statutes,” Mayes explained.
“As with most newly passed referendums, litigation may be necessary to determine the specific impact on state law,” she added. “Ultimately, the courts may have to decide how any new constitutional provisions interact with current laws.”
The Arizona Capitol Times also observed that there is existing legal language in statute that addresses a judicial path for a minor to seek abortion without parental consent if she proves to a judge she is “sufficiently mature and capable of giving informed consent.” And while not a majority of the abortions performed involve minors, these cases do present a significant portion, about 12% of the total cited in 2022: 37 out of 250.
The outlet also spoke with Attorney Andrew Gaona, representing Arizona for Abortion Access, who told reporters that the measure would create “a fundamental right to abortion and sets forth the standard that existing and future laws regulating abortion must satisfy.” He also claimed that the new law wouldn’t be definitive on the question of minors.
“How that standard will apply to the more than 40 existing abortion-related statutes if a party chooses to challenge some or all of them will be determined by Arizona courts,” he said.
Bethany Miller, an attorney representing the Center for Arizona Policy told the Arizona Capitol Times that the distinction between Prop 139 and other amendments pertaining to individual rights comes down to the wording. “The Arizona right to bear arms is not ‘fundamental,’” she said, citing a 1994 ruling that declared the right to bear arms a qualified rather than absolute right. “In other words, Arizonans do not have the right to bear arms in any time or any way.”
“By contrast,” she warned, “Prop. 139’s fundamental right is likely to be interpreted as a near absolute right.”
Former Ambassador and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) wrote a post to X on Sunday in which he reiterated his support for Democrat Presidential nominee Kamala Harris, extolling the virtue of the “rule of law.” In a scathing response to the post, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio refuted Flake’s stance based in the “rule of law” by hearkening back to a 2014 scandal that nearly ended Flake’s career.
In his post, Flake wrote, “I’m voting for Kamala Harris not in spite of being a conservative, but because I’m a conservative. Conservatives believe in the rule of law.”
In reply, an evidently unamused Arpaio wrote, “Your son Austin and his wife killed 23 dogs, and then sued me and the Sheriff’s Office for prosecuting them. You tried to destroy me and my detectives, you don’t believe in the rule of law!”
Your son Austin and his wife killed 23 dogs, and then sued me and the Sheriff's Office for prosecuting them. You tried to destroy me and my detectives, you don't believe in the rule of law!
Arpaio was referring to an incident which found Flake’s son Austin Flake and wife Logan Flake (née Hughes) indicted on multiple felony charges in connection with the deaths of 23 dogs at the Green Acre dog-boarding facility, owned by his in-laws Jesse Todd and MaLeisa Hughes. Arpaio, then-Sheriff, was the public face of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department which led the investigation and told the public during a press conference, “The caretakers were the Senator’s son and his wife.”
As reported by ABC15, the case against the Flakes was dismissed and the Hughes pleaded guilty to animal cruelty charges in 2014. As the saga unfolded, the Flake family launched a lawsuit, alleging malicious prosecution against Arpaio and his now-late wife Ava personally, along with Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and Deputy Sheriff Marie Trombi and her husband.
The legal battle raged for three years until its resolution, largely in Arpaio’s, Trombi’s, and the county’s favor in 2018. That’s when a final effort to revive the lawsuit and a civil trial was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Neil Wake, according to AZCentral.
During the ongoing litigation, then-Senator Flake announced that he would not seek re-election. Flake was facing collapsing populariaty, had vocally set himself against the sitting President Trump, and faced primary defeat from pro-Trump Republicans. At the time, Politico reported that a top GOP strategist “said Flake’s team had been polling the race since the beginning of the year and had repeatedly found no path to victory in either the GOP primary or the general election.”
“He basically lost to all comers,” the GOP strategist told the outlet. “There wasn’t a Republican or a Democrat you could put next to him on the ballot who he wouldn’t lose to.”
Since his public fall from grace with the Arizona GOP, Flake has become a minor surrogate for the Biden administration, attracting a small cohort of anti-Trump Arizona Republicans. He was rewarded for siding against Trump with a posting as U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye. The 61-year-old ex-Senator stood down from his post in Ankara in September and has since aligned himself with the Biden campaign at first, and now the Harris campaign as previously reported by AZ Free News.
Flake’s enthusiastic advocacy for Harris has left many in Arizona wondering what a future under Harris could hold for the Snowflake-born politician. When asked by AZ Free News if he received any policy concessions for his endorsement, such as protecting the filibuster, religious liberty, or SCOTUS; or if he was promised another ambassadorship or a cabinet post, Flake did not reply.
