theintercept--2020-08-18--As a Rising Star, Joe Kennedy Didn’t Want to Help Democrats Beat Republicans

high-profile , expensive Senate race between Rep. Joe Kennedy and incumbent Ed Markey , Kennedy has made one argument particularly central to his bid : that Markey has not “ leveraged ” his Senate seat as effectively as he could to further the goals of the Democratic Party .
The two men broadly align on liberal policy priorities , but Kennedy has repeatedly emphasized that there ’ s more to being a senator than just casting votes and filing bills , and that he would make better use of a Senate seat than Markey has or will .
To underscore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way he ’ s leveraged his seat in the House of Representatives , where he has served since 2013 , namely the many fundraising trips he made during the 2018 midterm cycle , when he raised nearly $ 5 million for other Democratic candidates and helped his party flip the House .
During that cycle , Kennedy served as a mid-Atlantic and New England regional vice chair for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and stumped for candidates in at least 15 states and D.C. , including battleground races in Pennsylvania , Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy acknowledges that he has not used his platform to bring national attention to policy issues like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ayanna Pressley have , he speaks proudly of leveraging his seat “ in a way that is most natural to me.
” Yet his eagerness to claim credit for flipping seats two years ago contrasts with how Kennedy used to talk about such partisan efforts .
Following a rough 2014 midterm cycle , during which Democrats — already a minority in the House — lost 13 seats in that chamber , party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party ’ s young , rising stars might be key to reversing Democrats ’ fortunes in 2016 .
Party operatives turned their sights to Kennedy and Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas as top candidates to potentially take over the DCCC and guide the party forward .
One of the primary goals of the DCCC and its counterpart in the upper chamber , the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee , is to flip seats held by Republicans .
Kennedy , then 34 years old , was just finishing up his first term in Congress and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given his knack for fundraising , driven by his lineage and last name .
The DCCC chair at the time was New York Rep. Steve Israel , who had already declared that he would not continue on for the 2016 cycle .
California Rep. Nancy Pelosi , who was expected to be reelected as House minority leader , would get to select the next DCCC chair .
But after Politico reported that party leaders were looking at Kennedy , the Massachusetts representative quickly made clear to House Democratic leadership that he had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedicating his energy to unseating Republicans .
“ It ’ s an important job , ” Kennedy told Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi .
“ But it ’ s not something that interests me .
If I do the job right , I would be finding ways to beat those guys.
” Since joining Congress , Kennedy had been making a point to cast himself as more open to working with Republicans than many of his Democratic colleagues .
He was a member of a small 6:30 a.m. exercise group led by Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a study from the Lugar Center and Georgetown University ’ s McCourt School of Public Policy ranked him as the most bipartisan House member in all of New England .
In 2013 , amid the federal government shutdown , Kennedy earned headlines for defending his tea party colleagues at a time when many , including President Barack Obama , were describing them as much more akin to extortionists .
“ They ’ re people too , ” Kennedy said , when asked his opinion of the tea party .
“ Everyone here got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for them .
Everyone is genuinely trying to do the right thing for the country.
” At the time , nationwide public opinion of tea party Republicans had declined precipitously .
Kennedy then proceeded to dismiss the media ’ s depiction of congressional divisions and said he understood that tea party Republicans are just seeking to represent their constituents who have a different worldview than those who live in Massachusetts .
“ We talk about the Red Sox , their kids , and whether they ’ ll have a chance to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the Boston Globe .
“ Regular old things co-workers would talk about.
” When asked about his lack of interest in 2014 to lead the DCCC and if his thinking on partnering with Republicans has evolved , campaign spokesperson Brian Phillips Jr. said in an emailed statement , “ Congressman Kennedy ’ s legislation has always been guided by building relationships with his constituents and learning the needs of his district .
In those efforts , he has developed diverse coalitions to deliver on those priorities , including tackling racial inequities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building a national manufacturing network , and enacting environmental justice policies .
Beyond his efforts in Washington , he has served in a leadership role in the DCCC , campaigned in dozens of Congressional districts , raised millions for Democratic candidates and traveled the country to fight for progressive causes.
” The high-profile race between Kennedy and Markey has grown increasingly competitive in the final days ahead of the September 1 primary .
A new poll released on Monday of likely Democratic primary voters found Markey leading Kennedy by 2 points — 44 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent still undecided .
Another poll , conducted by University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB and released last week found Markey with a more substantial 15-point lead over Kennedy .
Two polls released in early May had shown Kennedy up by 2 points and 16 points , respectively .
On Tuesday night , the candidates will face off in their final debate .
Politico reported earlier this week that Markey had raised $ 1.55 million in the preprimary period , which runs from July 1 to August 12 , in addition to the more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of June .
The incumbent has $ 3.5 million on hand to spend in the last two weeks .
Kennedy had raised nearly $ 1 million during that same period , on top of his nearly $ 8 million raised by the end of June .
All told , more than $ 20 million has been raised for this contest .

In the high-profile, expensive Senate race between Rep. Joe Kennedy and incumbent Ed Markey, Kennedy has made one argument particularly central to his bid: that Markey has not “leveraged” his Senate seat as effectively as he could to further the goals of the Democratic Party. The two men broadly align on liberal policy priorities, but Kennedy has repeatedly emphasized that there’s more to being a senator than just casting votes and filing bills, and that he would make better use of a Senate seat than Markey has or will.
To underscore his point, Kennedy regularly refers to the way he’s leveraged his seat in the House of Representatives, where he has served since 2013, namely the many fundraising trips he made during the 2018 midterm cycle, when he raised nearly $5 million for other Democratic candidates and helped his party flip the House. During that cycle, Kennedy served as a mid-Atlantic and New England regional vice chair for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and stumped for candidates in at least 15 states and D.C., including battleground races in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Arizona.
While Kennedy acknowledges that he has not used his platform to bring national attention to policy issues like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ayanna Pressley have, he speaks proudly of leveraging his seat “in a way that is most natural to me.”
Yet his eagerness to claim credit for flipping seats two years ago contrasts with how Kennedy used to talk about such partisan efforts.
Following a rough 2014 midterm cycle, during which Democrats — already a minority in the House — lost 13 seats in that chamber, party officials began discussing how one of the party’s young, rising stars might be key to reversing Democrats’ fortunes in 2016. Party operatives turned their sights to Kennedy and Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas as top candidates to potentially take over the DCCC and guide the party forward. One of the primary goals of the DCCC and its counterpart in the upper chamber, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is to flip seats held by Republicans.
Kennedy, then 34 years old, was just finishing up his first term in Congress and was seen as a particularly appealing contender given his knack for fundraising, driven by his lineage and last name. The DCCC chair at the time was New York Rep. Steve Israel, who had already declared that he would not continue on for the 2016 cycle. California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was expected to be reelected as House minority leader, would get to select the next DCCC chair.
But after Politico reported that party leaders were looking at Kennedy, the Massachusetts representative quickly made clear to House Democratic leadership that he had no interest in a role that would mean dedicating his energy to unseating Republicans.
“It’s an important job,” Kennedy told Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi. “But it’s not something that interests me. If I do the job right, I would be finding ways to beat those guys.”
Since joining Congress, Kennedy had been making a point to cast himself as more open to working with Republicans than many of his Democratic colleagues. He was a member of a small 6:30 a.m. exercise group led by Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, and a study from the Lugar Center and Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy ranked him as the most bipartisan House member in all of New England.
In 2013, amid the federal government shutdown, Kennedy earned headlines for defending his tea party colleagues at a time when many, including President Barack Obama, were describing them as much more akin to extortionists. “They’re people too,” Kennedy said, when asked his opinion of the tea party. “Everyone here got elected. Everyone here got someone to vote for them. Everyone is genuinely trying to do the right thing for the country.” At the time, nationwide public opinion of tea party Republicans had declined precipitously.
Kennedy then proceeded to dismiss the media’s depiction of congressional divisions and said he understood that tea party Republicans are just seeking to represent their constituents who have a different worldview than those who live in Massachusetts. “We talk about the Red Sox, their kids, and whether they’ll have a chance to see them on the weekend,” Kennedy told the Boston Globe. “Regular old things co-workers would talk about.”
When asked about his lack of interest in 2014 to lead the DCCC and if his thinking on partnering with Republicans has evolved, campaign spokesperson Brian Phillips Jr. said in an emailed statement, “Congressman Kennedy’s legislation has always been guided by building relationships with his constituents and learning the needs of his district. In those efforts, he has developed diverse coalitions to deliver on those priorities, including tackling racial inequities in our education and health care systems, building a national manufacturing network, and enacting environmental justice policies. Beyond his efforts in Washington, he has served in a leadership role in the DCCC, campaigned in dozens of Congressional districts, raised millions for Democratic candidates and traveled the country to fight for progressive causes.”
The high-profile race between Kennedy and Markey has grown increasingly competitive in the final days ahead of the September 1 primary. A new poll released on Monday of likely Democratic primary voters found Markey leading Kennedy by 2 points — 44 percent to 42 percent — with 15 percent still undecided. Another poll, conducted by University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB and released last week found Markey with a more substantial 15-point lead over Kennedy. Two polls released in early May had shown Kennedy up by 2 points and 16 points, respectively. On Tuesday night, the candidates will face off in their final debate.
Politico reported earlier this week that Markey had raised $1.55 million in the preprimary period, which runs from July 1 to August 12, in addition to the more than $10 million he had raised by the end of June. The incumbent has $3.5 million on hand to spend in the last two weeks. Kennedy had raised nearly $1 million during that same period, on top of his nearly $8 million raised by the end of June. All told, more than $20 million has been raised for this contest.


theintercept--2020-08-19--One Man Will Decide Who Fills Kamala Harris's Senate Seat

Under current California law , one man , Gov .
Gavin Newsom , will have the power to decide .
Newsom will likely make an appointment for two years without that candidate having to face the voters in a special election .
Unlike in the House , where vacancies are filled only by special election , past practice has created a system such that governors are able to exercise sole control over temporary Senate appointments in many states , including California .
Kamala Harris ’ s selection as Joe Biden ’ s running mate has set off a frenzy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate if Biden is elected president in November .
Progressives like Rep. Rashida Tlaib , D-Mich. , immediately raised the possibility of left stalwart Rep. Barbara Lee filling the position , while others on the left have raised up California Reps. Karen Bass and Ro Khanna as possible candidates as well .
Those hoping that Newsom would appoint a woman or a progressive to replace Harris in the Senate seat could be facing strong headwinds .
CalMatters reported last week that “ prognosticators often name both California Secretary of State Alex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the most likely to be appointed ” because Newsom would be able to appoint their replacements as well , giving himself a twofer .
Both Padilla and Becerra are solidly in the center of the Democratic Party .
That ’ s exactly the type of backroom deal-making that the 17th Amendment sought to end , argues former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold , who is now the president of the American Constitution Society .
The 17th Amendment , which was ratified in 1913 , was a major priority of the populist movement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demand an end to the gold standard ( which was causing decennial financial crises ) , a breakup of the railroad trusts , and the legalization of trade unions .
Prior to the 17th Amendment , most states elected senators through their state legislatures : This resulted in naked bribery for Senate seats .
William Clark , whose daughter Huguette Clark ’ s orphaned estate has attracted media attention in recent years , was one of the most notable examples of this when he bribed his way into the Senate in 1899 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment was actually a 20-year campaign , ” said Garrett Epps , a retired law professor who has been active in litigation surrounding this issue .
“ There was extraordinary popular mobilization because the Senate was such a cesspool of corruption.
” Since the 17th Amendment was passed , it has been left to the states on how to fill a vacancy with three options being the norm : there is a vacancy until a special election ; the governor appoints a replacement until a special election ; or the governor appoints a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself introduced a constitutional amendment in 2009 that would ensure that all temporary appointments to the Senate would have to face a special election , which failed to pass .
“ The whole purpose of the 17th Amendment was that people should choose their senators directly , ” said Feingold .
“ The goal was to broaden the role of the voter in the selection of senators .
But instead , you often have one person getting to decide , with the most famous example being Rod Blagojevich.
” Blagojevich , the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of accepting bribes to fill Barack Obama ’ s Senate seat after Obama was elected president in 2008 .
“ That one person can fill a Senate seat for two years in a state the size of California strikes me as fundamentally anti-democratic , ” said Feingold .
Feingold pointed out that temporarily appointed senators almost never served for the duration of an entire two-year Congress prior to the 17th Amendment ’ s passage .
The original language in the Constitution allowed governors to make appointments until the next session of the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislatures met annually .
Feingold pointed out that the current system in most states “ gives the appointed an enormous leg up.
” In 2010 , Feingold noted that in Colorado , “ Andrew Romanoff was likely to win a primary , but Michael Bennet was given a leg up ; he was given such an enormous advantage ” and ultimately won in a close race .
Romanoff had been the speaker of the state House , while Bennet had never previously held elected office prior to being appointed to the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Schools and chief of staff to then-Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper .
“ It ’ s better for the people to choose , ” Feingold concluded .
“ The people of California should choose.
” Because it ’ s up to the states , the California state legislature could choose to change their system of selecting replacements in the Senate .
In California , currently , the governor ’ s appointee may serve until the next scheduled statewide election , in this case 2022 .
But in Massachusetts , for instance , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special election is held four to six months after the vacancy is created , which means that there is no gap in the state ’ s representation in the Senate .
Kimberly Ellis , a California political operative , argued that the current setup of gubernatorial appointment could reduce the likelihood of a woman of color replacing Harris in the Senate .
Harris is the only Black woman in the Senate and one of two Asian American women .
“ I think generally speaking to the extent that we ’ re able in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to choose their representatives — that is a good thing , ” said Ellis .
“ That ’ s part of a longer conversation to change California law to closely align with the Massachusetts one , that there would be a finite amount of time for somebody to serve before a special election.
” “ One thing that is becoming louder and louder is the call for more women and women of color specifically in the U.S. Senate , ” said Ellis .
Given the Democratic Party in California ’ s history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term for Harris ’ s seat could freeze out progressive women of color like Reps. Karen Bass or Barbara Lee .
“ I ’ m a big believer in data and numbers .
The data and numbers speak for themselves , which is that the California Democratic Party , like many state parties , have not supported investing in and recruiting women of color at every level to the extent that it should have and must if it continues to survive.
” Epps , the retired law professor , pointed out that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other areas of the Constitution .
“ I ’ ve spent 30 years studying the Constitution , ” said Epps .
“ I can ’ t find a single other place where an important appointment of that magnitude is made without participation from anyone else .
The president must make appointments with the confirmation of the Senate .
But governors make the decision by themselves .
So quite logically you end up with a Blagojevich situation .
He went to prison , but he wasn ’ t wrong to say that the appointment @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Kamala Harris’s selection as Joe Biden’s running mate has set off a frenzy of speculation as to who could replace her in the Senate if Biden is elected president in November. Progressives like Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., immediately raised the possibility of left stalwart Rep. Barbara Lee filling the position, while others on the left have raised up California Reps. Karen Bass and Ro Khanna as possible candidates as well.
Under current California law, one man, Gov. Gavin Newsom, will have the power to decide. Newsom will likely make an appointment for two years without that candidate having to face the voters in a special election. Unlike in the House, where vacancies are filled only by special election, past practice has created a system such that governors are able to exercise sole control over temporary Senate appointments in many states, including California.
Those hoping that Newsom would appoint a woman or a progressive to replace Harris in the Senate seat could be facing strong headwinds. CalMatters reported last week that “prognosticators often name both California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra as among the most likely to be appointed” because Newsom would be able to appoint their replacements as well, giving himself a twofer. Both Padilla and Becerra are solidly in the center of the Democratic Party.
That’s exactly the type of backroom deal-making that the 17th Amendment sought to end, argues former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who is now the president of the American Constitution Society. The 17th Amendment, which was ratified in 1913, was a major priority of the populist movement, in which millions of Americans came together to demand an end to the gold standard (which was causing decennial financial crises), a breakup of the railroad trusts, and the legalization of trade unions. Prior to the 17th Amendment, most states elected senators through their state legislatures: This resulted in naked bribery for Senate seats. William Clark, whose daughter Huguette Clark’s orphaned estate has attracted media attention in recent years, was one of the most notable examples of this when he bribed his way into the Senate in 1899. “The passage of the 17th Amendment was actually a 20-year campaign,” said Garrett Epps, a retired law professor who has been active in litigation surrounding this issue. “There was extraordinary popular mobilization because the Senate was such a cesspool of corruption.”
Since the 17th Amendment was passed, it has been left to the states on how to fill a vacancy with three options being the norm: there is a vacancy until a special election; the governor appoints a replacement until a special election; or the governor appoints a replacement until the next election. Feingold himself introduced a constitutional amendment in 2009 that would ensure that all temporary appointments to the Senate would have to face a special election, which failed to pass.
“The whole purpose of the 17th Amendment was that people should choose their senators directly,” said Feingold. “The goal was to broaden the role of the voter in the selection of senators. But instead, you often have one person getting to decide, with the most famous example being Rod Blagojevich.” Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, was found guilty of accepting bribes to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat after Obama was elected president in 2008. “That one person can fill a Senate seat for two years in a state the size of California strikes me as fundamentally anti-democratic,” said Feingold.
Feingold pointed out that temporarily appointed senators almost never served for the duration of an entire two-year Congress prior to the 17th Amendment’s passage. The original language in the Constitution allowed governors to make appointments until the next session of the state legislature. At the time, most state legislatures met annually.
Feingold pointed out that the current system in most states “gives the appointed an enormous leg up.” In 2010, Feingold noted that in Colorado, “Andrew Romanoff was likely to win a primary, but Michael Bennet was given a leg up; he was given such an enormous advantage” and ultimately won in a close race. Romanoff had been the speaker of the state House, while Bennet had never previously held elected office prior to being appointed to the Senate, instead serving as superintendent of Denver Public Schools and chief of staff to then-Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
“It’s better for the people to choose,” Feingold concluded. “The people of California should choose.”
Because it’s up to the states, the California state legislature could choose to change their system of selecting replacements in the Senate. In California, currently, the governor’s appointee may serve until the next scheduled statewide election, in this case 2022. But in Massachusetts, for instance, the governor may appoint a vacancy until a special election is held four to six months after the vacancy is created, which means that there is no gap in the state’s representation in the Senate.
Kimberly Ellis, a California political operative, argued that the current setup of gubernatorial appointment could reduce the likelihood of a woman of color replacing Harris in the Senate. Harris is the only Black woman in the Senate and one of three Asian American women.
“I think generally speaking to the extent that we’re able in those situations to allow for the public to choose their representatives — that is a good thing,” said Ellis. “That’s part of a longer conversation to change California law to closely align with the Massachusetts one, that there would be a finite amount of time for somebody to serve before a special election.”
“One thing that is becoming louder and louder is the call for more women and women of color specifically in the U.S. Senate,” said Ellis. Given the Democratic Party in California’s history, Ellis is concerned that the two-year gubernatorial term for Harris’s seat could freeze out progressive women of color like Reps. Karen Bass or Barbara Lee. “I’m a big believer in data and numbers. The data and numbers speak for themselves, which is that the California Democratic Party, like many state parties, have not supported investing in and recruiting women of color at every level to the extent that it should have and must if it continues to survive.”
Epps, the retired law professor, pointed out that the gubernatorial appointment model is without precedent in other areas of the Constitution. “I’ve spent 30 years studying the Constitution,” said Epps. “I can’t find a single other place where an important appointment of that magnitude is made without participation from anyone else. The president must make appointments with the confirmation of the Senate. But governors make the decision by themselves. So quite logically you end up with a Blagojevich situation. He went to prison, but he wasn’t wrong to say that the appointment was his and his alone.”
Correction: August 19, 2020, 12:20 p.m. ET
Kamala Harris is currently one of three Asian American senators, along with Sens. Mazie Hirono and Tammy Duckworth, not one of two, as the article originally stated.


theintercept--2020-08-19--Trump Said 2 Years Ago That He Would Deny Citizenship to Americans Like Kamala Harris

“ It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment .
Guess what ?
You don ’ t , ” Trump told Swan in an interview excerpt published online on Oct. 30 , 2018 .
“ You can definitely do it with an act of Congress , ” Trump added , incorrectly , “ but now they ’ re saying I can do it just with an executive order.
” That ’ s because the president stated clearly in a televised interview with Jonathan Swan of Axios just before the 2018 midterms that he planned to issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reading of the Constitution , which would instruct federal agencies that children born in the United States to non-citizens were not entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth .
It is not hard to prove that Donald Trump was lying when he said twice in the past week that he hasn ’ t given much thought to the crackpot legal theory that Sen. Kamala Harris was not entitled to citizenship when she was born in Oakland , California in 1964 to immigrant parents — and so , is not eligible now to be Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question Eastman raised about Harris ’ s citizenship at birth “ very serious ” and a potential “ problem ” for her .
He also praised the fringe legal theorist as “ a very highly qualified , very talented lawyer ” on Thursday and called him “ a brilliant lawyer ” twice on Saturday .
In the 2018 interview , Trump called birthright citizenship “ ridiculous , ” and falsely asserted that the U.S. is “ the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , at least 30 nations grant citizenship this way .
He also said that an executive order was in the process of being drafted .
Whether or not that was true , the fact that Trump has at least discussed the possibility of stripping citizenship from people like Harris might help explain why he refused twice last week to confirm that she is obviously eligible for an elected office open only to “ a natural born Citizen.
” Swan also noted that Trump ’ s claim that an executive order would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizenship — an idea rejected by an overwhelming consensus of conservative and liberal law scholars — came just three months after the president was urged to issue such an order , and dare the courts to block it , in a Washington Post op-ed by Michael Anton , a former national security official in the Trump administration who is also a Claremont Institute fellow .
It was Eastman who claimed last week — in a discredited Newsweek op-ed that the publication has now , sort of , apologized for publishing — that Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since her parents were still , at the time , subject not just to the jurisdiction of the United States but also to their native lands of India and Jamaica .
As Swan reported at the time , John Eastman , a fellow at the far-right Claremont Institute think tank , argued , as he has for decades , that the amendment granting citizenship to “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , ” should be read to exclude the children of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their child is born .
While Trump , characteristically , did not identify the “ they ” saying that he could undo the definition of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution , the president has repeatedly praised one of the only lawyers in America who claims that the plain language of that amendment has been misunderstood for over 150 years .
A few months later , on November 21 , 2019 , Trump heaped praise on the think tank that pays Eastman and Anton when he awarded the National Humanities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for championing the Nation ’ s founding principles ” and fighting “ to recover the American idea.
” Last year , Trump thanked Eastman and praised him as a “ Brilliant Constitutional Lawyer ” in two tweets urging his followers to watch a Fox News interview in which the Claremont scholar claimed that “ the essential criteria for the appointment of ” Special Counsel Robert Mueller to look into the Russian effort to help elect Trump in 2016 “ did not exist.
” Swan did not immediately reply to a request to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report at the suggestion of someone in the Trump administration , but the president has made no secret of his admiration for far-right scholar or his think tank .
Although Trump ’ s claim that he has the power to deny citizenship to the children of non-naturalized immigrants like Harris thrills racists inside the White House and online , the idea has been summarily rejected by a broad consensus of liberal and conservative legal experts .
“ The president can not erase the Constitution with an executive order , and the 14th Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Omar Jadwat , the director of the ACLU ’ s Immigrants ’ Rights Project , said in 2018 when Trump ’ s Axios interview was broadcast .
“ This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms.
” Laurence Tribe , a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School , told The New York Times last week that Eastman ’ s “ idiotic theory ” was “ total B.S.
” and about as well grounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative experts have been equally dismissive .
Judge James C. Ho , who was appointed to the federal circuit court by Trump , comprehensively debunked Eastman ’ s interpretation in a 2015 debate at the conservative Heritage Foundation , and dissected it further in an essay the same year for The Federalist , an ultraconservative publication .
“ The original understanding of the Citizenship Clause is further reinforced by judicial precedent .
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark ( 1898 ) , the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a child born in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is nevertheless entitled to birthright citizenship , ” Ho wrote in his Federalist essay .
“ Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to alien Chinese parents who ‘ were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China.
’ After traveling to China on a temporary visit , he was denied permission to return to the U.S. ; the government argued that he was not a citizen , notwithstanding his U.S. birth , through an aggressive reading of the Chinese Exclusion Acts.
” The court rejected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6-2 vote .
“ The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory , in the allegiance and under the protection of the country , including all children here born of resident aliens , ” the majority wrote .
“ To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries , would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English , Scotch , Irish , German , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
” As Ho also noted , no less a conservative legal icon than Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed Eastman ’ s theory when it was submitted to the Supreme Court in 2004 , in a friend of the court brief on behalf of the Claremont Institute in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld .
In that case , the opinion of the Supreme Court majority was that Yaser Hamdi , an alleged Taliban fighter held as an enemy combatant , was entitled to due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by reason of his birth in Louisiana to parents who were in the U.S. on temporary work visas .
Scalia joined Justice John Paul Stevens in a dissent arguing that Hamdi , “ a presumed citizen , ” should be released .
Linda Chavez , a conservative who served in the Reagan administration as staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights , also took Eastman to task for his theory in 2016 , and drew attention to the racist history of efforts to restrict birthright citizenship .
“ From the Founding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law of jus solis , which granted citizenship based on the child ’ s birthplace , not that of his parents or ancestors , as was the practice throughout much of Europe , ” Chavez wrote in a critique of Eastman ’ s call to “ reform ” birthright citizenship .
“ The infamous Dred Scott decision ignored this precedent by declaring that no person descended from African ancestry , even if emancipated , free-born or living in a state that did not permit slavery , was entitled to U.S. citizenship under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in drafting the 14th Amendment , ” Chavez observed .
“ The framers of the 14th Amendment were radical Republicans who wanted to restore the guarantee of birthright citizenship that had been upended by Dred Scott , not place new restrictions on citizenship based on blood or ancestry , ” Chavez argued .
Trump ’ s claim in his 2018 Axios interview that birthright citizenship could be halted though legislation is also legally dubious .
In 1995 , Walter Dellinger , the Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed that year , which would have denied citizenship to children “ born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents , ” would be struck down if enacted .
Because “ the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution , ” Dellinger explained , “ it can not be changed through legislation , but only by amending the Constitution.
” “ My office grapples with many difficult and close issues of constitutional law , ” he added .
“ The lawfulness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This legislation is unquestionably unconstitutional.
” Republicans , however , have not given up on the idea of such legislation .
As a presidential candidate in 2015 , Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN that even though Trump ’ s plan to deport undocumented immigrants was “ absolute gibberish , ” he favored either amending the Constitution or introducing legislation to end birthright citizenship .
Three years later , after Graham ’ s abrupt embrace of Trump , he praised him for being “ willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported comprehensive immigration reform — and at the same time — the elimination of birthright citizenship , ” Graham tweeted in response to Trump ’ s 2018 Axios interview .
“ I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order.
” Still , unlike Trump , Graham seems to accept that birthright citizenship is the law of the land now , and has been for more than a century .
As the president was casting doubt on Harris ’ s eligibility for office , Graham tweeted : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not she is an American citizen .
She was born in the United States in 1964 to parents who were legally present .
Under the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent , she is unequivocally an American citizen .
”

It is not hard to prove that Donald Trump was lying when he said twice in the past week that he hasn’t given much thought to the crackpot legal theory that Sen. Kamala Harris was not entitled to citizenship when she was born in Oakland, California in 1964 to immigrant parents — and so, is not eligible now to be Vice President.
That’s because the president stated clearly in a televised interview with Jonathan Swan of Axios just before the 2018 midterms that he planned to issue an executive order based on that fringe reading of the Constitution, which would instruct federal agencies that children born in the United States to non-citizens were not entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth.
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump told Swan in an interview excerpt published online on Oct. 30, 2018. “You can definitely do it with an act of Congress,” Trump added, incorrectly, “but now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”
While Trump, characteristically, did not identify the “they” saying that he could undo the definition of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the president has repeatedly praised one of the only lawyers in America who claims that the plain language of that amendment has been misunderstood for over 150 years.
As Swan reported at the time, John Eastman, a fellow at the far-right Claremont Institute think tank, argued, as he has for decades, that the amendment granting citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” should be read to exclude the children of people who are not U.S. citizens when their child is born.
It was Eastman who claimed last week — in a discredited Newsweek op-ed that the publication has now, sort of, apologized for publishing — that Harris had no claim to citizenship at birth, since her parents were still, at the time, subject not just to the jurisdiction of the United States but also to their native lands of India and Jamaica.
Swan also noted that Trump’s claim that an executive order would suffice to change the constitutional definition of citizenship — an idea rejected by an overwhelming consensus of conservative and liberal law scholars — came just three months after the president was urged to issue such an order, and dare the courts to block it, in a Washington Post op-ed by Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration who is also a Claremont Institute fellow.
In the 2018 interview, Trump called birthright citizenship “ridiculous,” and falsely asserted that the U.S. is “the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen.” In fact, at least 30 nations grant citizenship this way. He also said that an executive order was in the process of being drafted. Whether or not that was true, the fact that Trump has at least discussed the possibility of stripping citizenship from people like Harris might help explain why he refused twice last week to confirm that she is obviously eligible for an elected office open only to “a natural born Citizen.”
Instead, Trump called the question Eastman raised about Harris’s citizenship at birth “very serious” and a potential “problem” for her. He also praised the fringe legal theorist as “a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer” on Thursday and called him “a brilliant lawyer” twice on Saturday.
The President is given a chance to denounce birtherism 2.0 pic.twitter.com/Vqs8OuXQYD — Acyn (@Acyn) August 15, 2020
Swan did not immediately reply to a request to say whether he interviewed Eastman for his 2018 report at the suggestion of someone in the Trump administration, but the president has made no secret of his admiration for far-right scholar or his think tank.
Last year, Trump thanked Eastman and praised him as a “Brilliant Constitutional Lawyer” in two tweets urging his followers to watch a Fox News interview in which the Claremont scholar claimed that “the essential criteria for the appointment of” Special Counsel Robert Mueller to look into the Russian effort to help elect Trump in 2016 “did not exist.”
A few months later, on November 21, 2019, Trump heaped praise on the think tank that pays Eastman and Anton when he awarded the National Humanities Medal to the Claremont Institute, “for championing the Nation’s founding principles” and fighting “to recover the American idea.”
Although Trump’s claim that he has the power to deny citizenship to the children of non-naturalized immigrants like Harris thrills racists inside the White House and online, the idea has been summarily rejected by a broad consensus of liberal and conservative legal experts.
“The president cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order, and the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear,” Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in 2018 when Trump’s Axios interview was broadcast. “This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms.”
Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, told The New York Times last week that Eastman’s “idiotic theory” was “total B.S.” and about as well grounded as the “flat earth theory.”
Conservative experts have been equally dismissive. Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed to the federal circuit court by Trump, comprehensively debunked Eastman’s interpretation in a 2015 debate at the conservative Heritage Foundation, and dissected it further in an essay the same year for The Federalist, an ultraconservative publication.
“The original understanding of the Citizenship Clause is further reinforced by judicial precedent. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a child born in the U.S., but to alien parents, is nevertheless entitled to birthright citizenship,” Ho wrote in his Federalist essay. “Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to alien Chinese parents who ‘were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China.’ After traveling to China on a temporary visit, he was denied permission to return to the U.S.; the government argued that he was not a citizen, notwithstanding his U.S. birth, through an aggressive reading of the Chinese Exclusion Acts.”
The court rejected the government’s argument by a 6-2 vote. “The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens,” the majority wrote. “To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
As Ho also noted, no less a conservative legal icon than Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed Eastman’s theory when it was submitted to the Supreme Court in 2004, in a friend of the court brief on behalf of the Claremont Institute in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In that case, the opinion of the Supreme Court majority was that Yaser Hamdi, an alleged Taliban fighter held as an enemy combatant, was entitled to due process because he was an American citizen by reason of his birth in Louisiana to parents who were in the U.S. on temporary work visas. Scalia joined Justice John Paul Stevens in a dissent arguing that Hamdi, “a presumed citizen,” should be released.
Linda Chavez, a conservative who served in the Reagan administration as staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, also took Eastman to task for his theory in 2016, and drew attention to the racist history of efforts to restrict birthright citizenship. “From the Founding, American practice incorporated the English Common Law of jus solis, which granted citizenship based on the child’s birthplace, not that of his parents or ancestors, as was the practice throughout much of Europe,” Chavez wrote in a critique of Eastman’s call to “reform” birthright citizenship. “The infamous Dred Scott decision ignored this precedent by declaring that no person descended from African ancestry, even if emancipated, free-born or living in a state that did not permit slavery, was entitled to U.S. citizenship under the Constitution, which was the precipitating factor in drafting the 14th Amendment,” Chavez observed.
“The framers of the 14th Amendment were radical Republicans who wanted to restore the guarantee of birthright citizenship that had been upended by Dred Scott, not place new restrictions on citizenship based on blood or ancestry,” Chavez argued.
Trump’s claim in his 2018 Axios interview that birthright citizenship could be halted though legislation is also legally dubious.
In 1995, Walter Dellinger, the Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel, testified to Congress that a bill proposed that year, which would have denied citizenship to children “born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents,” would be struck down if enacted. Because “the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution,” Dellinger explained, “it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution.”
“My office grapples with many difficult and close issues of constitutional law,” he added. “The lawfulness of this bill is not among them. This legislation is unquestionably unconstitutional.”
Republicans, however, have not given up on the idea of such legislation. As a presidential candidate in 2015, Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN that even though Trump’s plan to deport undocumented immigrants was “absolute gibberish,” he favored either amending the Constitution or introducing legislation to end birthright citizenship.
Three years later, after Graham’s abrupt embrace of Trump, he praised him for being “willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship.”
“I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform — and at the same time — the elimination of birthright citizenship,” Graham tweeted in response to Trump’s 2018 Axios interview. “I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order.”
Still, unlike Trump, Graham seems to accept that birthright citizenship is the law of the land now, and has been for more than a century. As the president was casting doubt on Harris’s eligibility for office, Graham tweeted: “there is no issue as to whether or not she is an American citizen. She was born in the United States in 1964 to parents who were legally present. Under the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, she is unequivocally an American citizen.”


theintercept--2020-08-19--SEAL Who Shot Bin Laden Faces Ban From Delta Air Lines for Not Wearing Coronavirus Mask

who claims he killed Osama bin Laden faces a possible ban on Delta Air Lines after he tweeted a photo of himself failing to wear a mask — in contravention of airline policy that all passengers must use face coverings to fight the spread of coronavirus on flights .
On Wednesday , Robert O ’ Neill , a former member of SEAL Team 6 who fired several shots into bin Laden during the 2011 raid which killed the al Qaeda leader , tweeted a photo of himself maskless on a plane with what appeared to be a Delta logo on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a pussy , ” O ’ Neill wrote in the tweet alongside the photo .
The tweet was later deleted .
A subsequent tweet said O ’ Neill ’ s wife took the picture down .
Later , O ’ Neill said it was an “ attempt at a joke , ” but he has previously tweeted out that airline passengers on a different flight he was on were “ sheep ” for abiding by the mask requirement .
Later in the afternoon , he tweeted , “ I am not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy.
” Delta Air Lines said O ’ Neill may face a ban .
“ We ’ re aware of this customer ’ s tweet and are reviewing this event , ” a spokesperson for Delta told The Intercept .
“ All customers who don ’ t comply with our mask-wearing requirement risk losing their ability to fly Delta in the future .
Medical research tells us that wearing a mask is one of the most effective ways to reduce the COVID-19 infection rate.
” A spokesperson for O ’ Neill did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In his tweets , O ’ Neill has repeatedly cast doubt on the seriousness of Covid-19 , the virus that has already killed roughly 170,000 Americans since it began spreading in the U.S. , and the efficacy of masks — which he has called a “ novelty ” — in combatting the spread of the virus .
Airlines started requiring masks for travel in the spring , though enforcement was reportedly lax .
Airlines have come under increasing pressure to enforce the Centers for Disease Control-recommended mask mandates for flying , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not wearing masks onboard to social media .
In response , airlines have become stricter in recent weeks about enforcing compliance , as well as dictating what type of masks meet their requirements .
In addition to removing noncompliant passengers from individual flights , several airlines , including Delta , have said they will in some cases ban passengers for life .
Last Friday , Delta CEO Ed Bastian told CNN the airline had already banned dozens of people for refusing to wear masks .
“ We ’ ve had well over 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask on during the flight , ” Bastian said .
A consensus has developed among scientists and health experts that wearing a mask is one of the best tools for impeding the spread of coronavirus .
But masks have been politicized by right-wing political figures , not least President Donald Trump .
After serving 16 years in the Navy , O ’ Neill was fired from his team shortly after the bin Laden raid , after SEAL Team 6 discovered he was frequenting Virginia Beach bars and openly bragging that he was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intercept previously reported that O ’ Neill has misstated and embellished his role in bin Laden ’ s death .
O ’ Neill is a polarizing figure even in the tight-knit Navy SEAL community .
His former teammates credit another SEAL with fatally wounding bin Laden before O ’ Neill entered the room and fired several shots into the terrorist leader ’ s face .
Following his separation from the Navy , O ’ Neill ’ s name was added to SEAL Team 6 ’ s “ rock of shame , ” an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was banned from the team ’ s Virginia Beach headquarters .
After he left the Navy , O ’ Neill became a right-wing celebrity , including gigs as a paid Fox News contributor and popular public speaker .
The former Navy SEAL frequently uses Twitter to troll “ libs ” — liberals — as well as to hit on far-right themes .
For instance , O ’ Neill has used Twitter to decry social activism in the wake of George Floyd ’ s killing by Minneapolis police in May .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Rubber bullets might as well be white flags .
Shoot .
Or you don ’ t shoot.
” He then referred to police who “ retreated ” during protests as “ pussies.
” He later compared activists pushing to take down statues of Confederate officers with “ ISIS , al Qaeda and the Taliban.
” His tweets against wearing masks amid the coronavirus pandemic have also sometimes been tinged with racism .

The Navy SEAL who claims he killed Osama bin Laden was banned from Delta Air Lines after he tweeted a photo of himself failing to wear a mask — in contravention of airline policy that all passengers must use face coverings to fight the spread of coronavirus on flights.
On Wednesday, Robert O’Neill, a former member of SEAL Team 6 who fired several shots into bin Laden during the 2011 raid which killed the Al Qaeda leader, tweeted a photo of himself maskless on a plane with what appeared to be a Delta logo on the seats. “I’m not a pussy,” O’Neill wrote in the tweet alongside the photo.
O’Neill, who spent the better part of two days griping about the attention for his tweet attracted, announced Thursday afternoon on Twitter that Delta Air Lines had banned him from flights.
I just got banned from @Delta for posting a picture. Wow. — Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) August 20, 2020
The tweet was later deleted. A subsequent tweet said O’Neill’s wife took the picture down. Later, O’Neill said it was an “attempt at a joke,” but he has previously tweeted out that airline passengers on a different flight he was on were “sheep” for abiding by the mask requirement. Later in the afternoon, he tweeted, “I am not the bad guy. I killed the bad guy.”
Earlier, on Wednesday, Delta Air Lines told The Intercept that O’Neill faced a ban. “We’re aware of this customer’s tweet and are reviewing this event,” a spokesperson for Delta told The Intercept. “All customers who don’t comply with our mask-wearing requirement risk losing their ability to fly Delta in the future. Medical research tells us that wearing a mask is one of the most effective ways to reduce the COVID-19 infection rate.”
A spokesperson for O’Neill did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In his tweets, O’Neill has repeatedly cast doubt on the seriousness of Covid-19, the virus that has already killed roughly 170,000 Americans since it began spreading in the U.S., and the efficacy of masks — which he has called a “novelty” — in combating the spread of the virus.
Airlines started requiring masks for travel in the spring, though enforcement was reportedly lax. Airlines have come under increasing pressure to enforce the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended mask mandates for flying, particularly after outraged passengers posted pictures of people not wearing masks onboard to social media. In response, airlines have become stricter in recent weeks about enforcing compliance, as well as dictating what type of masks meet their requirements. In addition to removing noncompliant passengers from individual flights, several airlines, including Delta, have said they will in some cases ban passengers for life.
Last Friday, Delta CEO Ed Bastian told CNN the airline had already banned dozens of people for refusing to wear masks. “We’ve had well over 100 people that have refused to keep their mask on during the flight,” Bastian said.
A consensus has developed among scientists and health experts that wearing a mask is one of the best tools for impeding the spread of coronavirus. But masks have been politicized by right-wing political figures, not least President Donald Trump.
After serving 16 years in the Navy, O’Neill was fired from his team shortly after the bin Laden raid, after SEAL Team 6 discovered he was frequenting Virginia Beach bars and openly bragging that he was the man who killed bin Laden. The Intercept previously reported that O’Neill has misstated and embellished his role in bin Laden’s death.
O’Neill is a polarizing figure even in the tight-knit Navy SEAL community. His former teammates credit another SEAL with fatally wounding bin Laden before O’Neill entered the room and fired several shots into the terrorist leader’s face. Following his separation from the Navy, O’Neill’s name was added to SEAL Team 6’s “rock of shame,” an unofficial list of unit pariahs, and he was banned from the team’s Virginia Beach headquarters.
After he left the Navy, O’Neill became a right-wing celebrity, including gigs as a paid Fox News contributor and popular public speaker. The former Navy SEAL frequently uses Twitter to troll “libs” — liberals — as well as to hit on far-right themes.
These are not protesters. These are terrorists. — Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) June 2, 2020
For instance, O’Neill has used Twitter to decry social activism in the wake of George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police in May. During the George Floyd protests O’Neill tweeted, “Rubber bullets might as well be white flags. Shoot. Or you don’t shoot.” He then referred to police who “retreated” during protests as “pussies.” He later compared activists pushing to take down statues of Confederate officers with “ISIS, al Qaeda and the Taliban.”
His tweets against wearing masks amid the coronavirus pandemic have also sometimes been tinged with racism.
Update: August 20, 2020
This post has been updated to reflect that, on Thursday, O’Neill tweeted that he had been banned from Delta Air Lines.


theintercept--2020-08-19--Austin’s Vote to “Reimagine” Policing Prompts Threats From State Officials

Austin City Council ’ s budget meeting in mid-August , Kathy Mitchell , a longtime community organizer and grassroots lobbyist , “ basically spent the week in a deep and broad anxiety , ” she said .
“ I was just anxious for seven days.
” There was much at stake when the council members , mayor , and city manager met via Zoom on August 12 for a 14-hour hearing that included hundreds of city residents waiting for their minute to speak .
For years , community groups had been agitating for change at the Austin Police Department .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Austin police killed a man named Mike Ramos , and louder still in May , when the city , like so many others across the country , erupted in protests in the wake of George Floyd ’ s killing in Minneapolis .
The protests in Austin were at times met with violence from police ; at least two people suffered life-threatening injuries after officers fired so-called less lethal munitions at their heads .
Mitchell , who had been working with city leaders to pass a block of police reforms , was optimistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drew near .
“ Oh , man .
I have a habit of never counting my votes until the day that people actually vote , ” she said .
In the end , the 10-member council voted unanimously to cut , “ decouple , ” and redistribute roughly $ 150 million of the APD ’ s $ 434 million budget .
“ There ’ s no question that this is a big moment in Austin , ” Mitchell said .
Indeed , Mitchell and others say that what happened in Austin is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country too , potentially providing a road map for other municipalities that have pledged to cut police funding or dismantle their departments in the wake of Floyd ’ s killing , but that have so far had more limited success .
The Austin council voted on a three-tiered package of cuts to APD .
The first , totaling roughly $ 21 million , are direct , immediate budget cuts .
The next three cadet classes have been canceled — unless and until the department can revamp its academy , which has been called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is out of step with public service .
Vacant positions have been cut , overtime has been curtailed , various contracts ( for things like office supplies ) will be slashed , and funding for automatic license plate readers has been axed .
The pot of funds is being reallocated to workforce development , housing for the homeless , and substance abuse treatment , as well as to address food insecurity and increase health care access .
The second pot of money , about $ 80 million , is the decoupling fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime lab ( which under APD was so mired in scandal that it shuttered its operations in 2016 ) , victim services , and the 911 call center will be removed from police control .
City leaders are also aiming to change the way the police themselves are policed , by moving the APD ’ s Internal Affairs and Special Investigations Unit outside of the department .
Details on how those transitions will happen , what revamped services will look like , and who will control them will be worked out in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money , roughly $ 49 million , is being put into a “ reimagine safety ” fund , with the goal of removing additional duties — like traffic enforcement and response to mental health crises — from police .
That money will instead go “ toward alternative forms of public safety and community support , ” according to a document compiled by council members .
“ This is all complex and complicated , and there are lots of variables to consider , ” said Natasha Harper-Madison , who is the council ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leading edge of the city ’ s efforts at reform .
“ I think people need to know that there is nothing that ’ s happened by way of council action that was simple , or easy , or without recognitions of the nuance here.
” To date , other cities that have vowed to reimagine public safety have mostly taken more modest steps or hit stumbling blocks .
In New York , for example , a vote to cut $ 1 billion from the NYPD ’ s $ 6 billion budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , while the bulk of the $ 150 million cut from the Los Angeles police budget will come from reducing overtime .
In Minneapolis , where Floyd was killed , budget cuts have not yet been identified and efforts to disband the police department have been stalled , likely until at least next year .
While a majority of the Seattle City Council has endorsed a plan to defund police by 50 percent , the cuts have remained far below that and council members have taken some heat , including from Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ham-fisted approach that ostensibly forced the city ’ s first Black woman police chief , Carmen Best , to resign .
By comparison , Austin ’ s first effort toward a long-term redefinition of public safety has been more concrete .
But it did not happen overnight , notes Scott Henson , a longtime criminal justice reformer and author of the influential blog Grits for Breakfast .
Instead , the seeds for the changes voted on last week were planted years ago and have been doggedly tended to by a growing coalition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake of the Ramos and Floyd killings , he said , “ we already had the coalition and the agenda ” teed up for action .
Crucial to last week ’ s unanimous council vote , says Henson , was a fight that unfolded in 2017 , when activists led by the Austin Justice Coalition decided to take on the local cop union , the Austin Police Association .
Reformers wanted a seat at the table as the city negotiated a new contract with the union in order to ensure the adoption of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disciplinary process .
The union resisted , and in the end , the council voted down a roughly $ 83 million contract .
Although the union dug in its heels , discontinued negotiations , and predicted that scores of officers would resign , that did not happen .
Instead , everyone eventually sat back down and a contract with significant reforms was approved for far less money .
According to Chas Moore , founder and executive director of the Austin Justice Coalition , the whole episode showed the city ’ s elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they challenged the union , which , as is widely the case , has long wielded tremendous political power , often to the detriment of meaningful reform .
“ I do think that kind of changed the culture of police power here in the city .
Until that moment , police contracts in Austin , it was a rubber stamp process : They ask for everything and they get 99 percent of it , ” Moore said .
But “ the world didn ’ t end after the police contract went to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think it allowed city council to really just understand , maybe we can trust in each other and the police can ’ t run the city.
” Although that lesson may have bolstered the council ’ s confidence during the budget session last week , not everyone was satisfied with the recent cuts .
After the vote , Grassroots Leadership and Communities of Color United , which had called for a 50 percent reduction to the police budget , declared that “ the budget passed today does not meet this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ does not mean simply reorganizing departments or taking the same functions that APD currently performs and moving them , complete with their current staff and culture , to a civilian department , ” the groups said in a joint statement .
“ When we say ‘ reimagine public safety , ’ it ’ s a step beyond defunding the police .
It means imagining a world where we don ’ t rely on cops , cages , and other punitive approaches to keep us safe.
” Moore understands the frustration , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step toward that future .
“ Either we ask for the big thing and we don ’ t get nothing and then we ’ re stuck in the same place , or we can start chomping away at the elephant one bite at a time , ” he said .
“ I think we took a pretty good chunk out when council took the vote last week.
” Meanwhile , on the other end of the spectrum , state officials and other lawmakers from outside Austin were quick to decry the cuts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts , ” as a Dallas-area state senator put it .
Gov .
Greg Abbott pledged to have state police “ stand in the gap ” to protect the city , while George P. Bush , the elected state land commissioner , took to Twitter .
He posted a video of a row of cars with broken windows in a parking garage downtown and implied that the vandalism had taken place the same night as the city council ’ s vote .
“ The need for police funding is as clear as ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a dangerous path to go down.
” The grandstanding was little more than transparent fearmongering .
The city hasn ’ t cut any current positions , so there ’ s really no “ gap ” to stand in .
Besides , the state police already play a big role in Austin , where they have jurisdiction over state property — including parking garages like the one where the vandalism Bush was decrying took place .
State police said the vandalism actually happened on August 8 , four days before the council vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patrol .
And state leaders have continued foaming at the mouth over the Austin council ’ s actions .
On August 18 , Abbott joined with Lt. Gov .
Dan Patrick and state House Speaker Dennis Bonnen to suggest capping tax revenue for cities that dare “ defund ” police — though they did not respond to questions from the Houston Chronicle about exactly what that meant .
“ What they have done in Austin should never happen in any city in the state , and we ’ re going to pass legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Patrick said .
Part of what is frustrating to Harper-Madison is that she hasn ’ t seen department or police union leadership do much to communicate with officers about what the current cuts actually mean — and what they don ’ t mean , including layoffs .
After she mentioned this during a recent interview , her phone blew up .
She had lengthy conversations — some prickly — with officers across the department .
Ultimately , she said they were positive .
And she ’ s encouraged them to speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to transform its approach to public safety , which she says is both necessary and long overdue .
“ The way forward is we have to have better conversations .
We have to have more substantive conversations .
If there ’ s no substance , then what ’ s the point ?
” she asks .
“ We ’ re just using words , and taking up space , and sucking up air that somebody else could use.
” Moore is also ready to push forward .
“ I just hope we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything that has been socialized within us so we can truly allow ourselves to imagine and get creative with things outside of boxes , outside of what the norm is , so we can come up with something pretty groovy , ” he said .
He notes that major shifts in U.S. history have been rife with uncertainty : abolishing slavery , women ’ s suffrage , desegregation .
“ We always had these assumptions that the most terrible thing was going to happen if we stopped doing the status quo , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s still oppression and people are still fighting … but because we ’ ve taken these big steps in history , it ’ s only made us better .
”

Ahead of the Austin City Council’s budget meeting in mid-August, Kathy Mitchell, a longtime community organizer and grassroots lobbyist, “basically spent the week in a deep and broad anxiety,” she said. “I was just anxious for seven days.”
There was much at stake when the council members, mayor, and city manager met via Zoom on August 12 for a 14-hour hearing that included hundreds of city residents waiting for their minute to speak. For years, community groups had been agitating for change at the Austin Police Department. Those calls grew louder in late April after Austin police killed a man named Mike Ramos, and louder still in May, when the city, like so many others across the country, erupted in protests in the wake of George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis. The protests in Austin were at times met with violence from police; at least two people suffered life-threatening injuries after officers fired so-called less lethal munitions at their heads.
Mitchell, who had been working with city leaders to pass a block of police reforms, was optimistic but still uncertain as the budget session drew near. “Oh, man. I have a habit of never counting my votes until the day that people actually vote,” she said. In the end, the 10-member council voted unanimously to cut, “decouple,” and redistribute roughly $150 million of the APD’s $434 million budget. “There’s no question that this is a big moment in Austin,” Mitchell said.
Indeed, Mitchell and others say that what happened in Austin is a big moment for the rest of the country too, potentially providing a road map for other municipalities that have pledged to cut police funding or dismantle their departments in the wake of Floyd’s killing, but that have so far had more limited success.
The Austin council voted on a three-tiered package of cuts to APD. The first, totaling roughly $21 million, are direct, immediate budget cuts. The next three cadet classes have been canceled — unless and until the department can revamp its academy, which has been called out for instilling a warrior cop mentality that is out of step with public service. Vacant positions have been cut, overtime has been curtailed, various contracts (for things like office supplies) will be slashed, and funding for automatic license plate readers has been axed. The pot of funds is being reallocated to workforce development, housing for the homeless, and substance abuse treatment, as well as to address food insecurity and increase health care access.
The second pot of money, about $80 million, is the decoupling fund. Primarily civilian-led endeavors like the Austin crime lab (which under APD was so mired in scandal that it shuttered its operations in 2016), victim services, and the 911 call center will be removed from police control. City leaders are also aiming to change the way the police themselves are policed, by moving the APD’s Internal Affairs and Special Investigations Unit outside of the department. Details on how those transitions will happen, what revamped services will look like, and who will control them will be worked out in the coming months.
The third pot of money, roughly $49 million, is being put into a “reimagine safety” fund, with the goal of removing additional duties — like traffic enforcement and response to mental health crises — from police. That money will instead go “toward alternative forms of public safety and community support,” according to a document compiled by council members.
“This is all complex and complicated, and there are lots of variables to consider,” said Natasha Harper-Madison, who is the council’s only Black member and has been on the leading edge of the city’s efforts at reform. “I think people need to know that there is nothing that’s happened by way of council action that was simple, or easy, or without recognitions of the nuance here.”
“The Police Can’t Run the City”
To date, other cities that have vowed to reimagine public safety have mostly taken more modest steps or hit stumbling blocks. In New York, for example, a vote to cut $1 billion from the NYPD’s $6 billion budget has been criticized as budgetary sleight of hand, while the bulk of the $150 million cut from the Los Angeles police budget will come from reducing overtime. In Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed, budget cuts have not yet been identified and efforts to disband the police department have been stalled, likely until at least next year. While a majority of the Seattle City Council has endorsed a plan to defund police by 50 percent, the cuts have remained far below that and council members have taken some heat, including from Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County, for a ham-fisted approach that ostensibly forced the city’s first Black woman police chief, Carmen Best, to resign.
By comparison, Austin’s first effort toward a long-term redefinition of public safety has been more concrete. But it did not happen overnight, notes Scott Henson, a longtime criminal justice reformer and author of the influential blog Grits for Breakfast. Instead, the seeds for the changes voted on last week were planted years ago and have been doggedly tended to by a growing coalition of advocates across the city. In the wake of the Ramos and Floyd killings, he said, “we already had the coalition and the agenda” teed up for action.
Crucial to last week’s unanimous council vote, says Henson, was a fight that unfolded in 2017, when activists led by the Austin Justice Coalition decided to take on the local cop union, the Austin Police Association. Reformers wanted a seat at the table as the city negotiated a new contract with the union in order to ensure the adoption of meaningful oversight and transparency policies related to the disciplinary process. The union resisted, and in the end, the council voted down a roughly $83 million contract. Although the union dug in its heels, discontinued negotiations, and predicted that scores of officers would resign, that did not happen. Instead, everyone eventually sat back down and a contract with significant reforms was approved for far less money.
Austin Mayor Steve Adler speaks with a protester on June 7, 2020. Photo: Vic Hinterlang/Shutterstock
According to Chas Moore, founder and executive director of the Austin Justice Coalition, the whole episode showed the city’s elected officials that the sky would not fall if they challenged the union, which, as is widely the case, has long wielded tremendous political power, often to the detriment of meaningful reform. “I do think that kind of changed the culture of police power here in the city. Until that moment, police contracts in Austin, it was a rubber stamp process: They ask for everything and they get 99 percent of it,” Moore said. But “the world didn’t end after the police contract went to ‘no,’” he continued. “I think it allowed city council to really just understand, maybe we can trust in each other and the police can’t run the city.”
Although that lesson may have bolstered the council’s confidence during the budget session last week, not everyone was satisfied with the recent cuts. After the vote, Grassroots Leadership and Communities of Color United, which had called for a 50 percent reduction to the police budget, declared that “the budget passed today does not meet this moment.”
“‘Reimagining public safety’ does not mean simply reorganizing departments or taking the same functions that APD currently performs and moving them, complete with their current staff and culture, to a civilian department,” the groups said in a joint statement. “When we say ‘reimagine public safety,’ it’s a step beyond defunding the police. It means imagining a world where we don’t rely on cops, cages, and other punitive approaches to keep us safe.”
Moore understands the frustration, but he believes Austin has taken a powerful step toward that future. “Either we ask for the big thing and we don’t get nothing and then we’re stuck in the same place, or we can start chomping away at the elephant one bite at a time,” he said. “I think we took a pretty good chunk out when council took the vote last week.”
Read Our Complete Coverage Protests for Black Lives
Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, state officials and other lawmakers from outside Austin were quick to decry the cuts and pledge legislative action against such “short-sighted efforts,” as a Dallas-area state senator put it. Gov. Greg Abbott pledged to have state police “stand in the gap” to protect the city, while George P. Bush, the elected state land commissioner, took to Twitter. He posted a video of a row of cars with broken windows in a parking garage downtown and implied that the vandalism had taken place the same night as the city council’s vote. “The need for police funding is as clear as ever,” he wrote. “This is a dangerous path to go down.”
The grandstanding was little more than transparent fearmongering. The city hasn’t cut any current positions, so there’s really no “gap” to stand in. Besides, the state police already play a big role in Austin, where they have jurisdiction over state property — including parking garages like the one where the vandalism Bush was decrying took place. State police said the vandalism actually happened on August 8, four days before the council vote, and was discovered during a routine patrol.
And state leaders have continued foaming at the mouth over the Austin council’s actions. On August 18, Abbott joined with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and state House Speaker Dennis Bonnen to suggest capping tax revenue for cities that dare “defund” police — though they did not respond to questions from the Houston Chronicle about exactly what that meant. “What they have done in Austin should never happen in any city in the state, and we’re going to pass legislation to be sure it never happens again,” Patrick said.
Part of what is frustrating to Harper-Madison is that she hasn’t seen department or police union leadership do much to communicate with officers about what the current cuts actually mean — and what they don’t mean, including layoffs. After she mentioned this during a recent interview, her phone blew up. She had lengthy conversations — some prickly — with officers across the department. Ultimately, she said they were positive. And she’s encouraged them to speak up as the city moves forward with plans to transform its approach to public safety, which she says is both necessary and long overdue. “The way forward is we have to have better conversations. We have to have more substantive conversations. If there’s no substance, then what’s the point?” she asks. “We’re just using words, and taking up space, and sucking up air that somebody else could use.”
Moore is also ready to push forward. “I just hope we can try to break the barriers of everything that has been socialized within us so we can truly allow ourselves to imagine and get creative with things outside of boxes, outside of what the norm is, so we can come up with something pretty groovy,” he said. He notes that major shifts in U.S. history have been rife with uncertainty: abolishing slavery, women’s suffrage, desegregation. “We always had these assumptions that the most terrible thing was going to happen if we stopped doing the status quo,” he said. “Yes, there’s still oppression and people are still fighting … but because we’ve taken these big steps in history, it’s only made us better.”