‘Reckless and Dangerous:' Nadler Attacks Trump After DHS Detained His Staffer
Rep. Jerrold Nadler criticized Donald Trump and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after officers detained a crying staff member in Nadler's district office.
While protesters gathered outside an immigration courthouse, DHS officers attempted to enter Nadler's Manhattan office in the same building and accused his staff of 'harboring rioters.'
The incident, first reported by Gothamist, was captured on camera. In the video, which the outlet said was recorded by a person who was monitoring activity in immigration court, DHS is seen handcuffing an unidentified staff member.
'No she did not. That is not what happened,' another staff member said off camera.
'She pushed him back,' an unidentified officer responded.
'I'm a federal officer,' a DHS official said to a staff member who was stopping him from entering a private section of the office and asking if they had a search warrant. The officer said no, they did not have a warrant, but the staff member eventually allowed him to enter the area.
Nadler blasted Trump and DHS for 'aggressive and heavy-handed tactics' used in this incident and to detain others across the country.
'President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are sowing chaos in our communities, using intimidation tactics against both citizens and non-citizens in a reckless and dangerous manner. In the most recent and deeply troubling incident, DHS agents forcefully entered my Congressional office and handcuffed a member of my staff,' Nadler said in a statement released Saturday.
Nadler said the officers actions demonstrate 'a deeply troubling disregard for proper legal boundaries.'
'If this can happen in a Member of Congress's office, it can happen to anyone — and it is happening,' the New York congressman said, calling on DHS and Trump to 'halt the use of these dangerous tactics.'
Nadler also criticized the administration's 'use of the expedited removal process which denies due process to immigrants and citizens alike.'
The detained staff member was ultimately not arrested, nor was she charged with a crime. She told Gothamist that 'everything resolved' but did not comment further.
More from Rolling Stone
Mike Johnson and Russ Vought Continue to Lie About Medicaid Cuts
Trump Spreads Bizarre Conspiracy Theory That Biden Was Executed and Replaced by a Robot Clone
How a Radical Ideology Infected the Supreme Court and Poisoned the Country
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
18 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Heard on the Street Monday Recap: Heavy Metal
What Happened in Markets Yesterday: Trade tensions boiled over. The Trump administration and China exchanged accusations of violating the fragile trade truce struck in mid-May. President Trump also announced late Friday a doubling of duties on imported steel and aluminum, to 50%. The U.S. dollar and bonds weakened, with the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasurys rising 0.043 percentage point to 4.461%. Gold and silver futures jumped.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's New Pardon Spree
SINCE ISSUING A BLANKET PARDON affecting nearly 1,600 individuals convicted of crimes relating to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, Donald Trump has issued another 57 individual pardons.1 (The only presidents to issue more pardons were Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served three full terms, and Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, who both pardoned large numbers of draft evaders.) Among the recipients of Trump clemency actions, the most 'worthy' include government fraudsters, obsequious political loyalists, and financial benefactors. This was not how the Framers intended the pardon power to work. Nor is it how pardons are assessed under prevailing Department of Justice guidelines, which require applicants to wait five years after completion of the underlying sentence before filing. The substantive criteria include acceptance of responsibility, engagement in community activities, the reasons for committing the crime, and a description of how a pardon will improve the applicant's life. For the over 156,000 inmates in federal custody and thousands of others who have completed their sentences, meeting these metrics won't help much. To get a presidential pardon in this administration what matters is some combination of political access, a large amount of money, and a demonstrated commitment to political vengeance. According to the New York Times, Trump has installed 'a team of appointees . . . with a particular focus on clemency grants that underscore the president's own grievances about what he sees as the political weaponization of the justice system.' Join now Last week, Trump pardoned Todd and Julie Chrisley, a reality-TV couple serving time for a $30 million conspiracy to defraud banks; their daughter appeared at the Republican National Convention last year and on Lara Trump's Fox News show. He pardoned Newsmax commentator Michael Grimm, a former member of Congress who once threatened to break a reporter in half 'like a boy' and throw another off a balcony at the U.S. Capitol, and who spent seven months in prison after a conviction for felony tax evasion. He pardoned former Virginia sheriff Scott Jenkins, calling him 'a victim of an overzealous Biden Department of Justice' and 'a wonderful person, who was persecuted by the Radical Left 'monsters,' and 'left for dead.'' In March, Jenkins was sentenced to prison for taking $75,000 in cash in exchange for giving law-enforcement badges to eight civilians—but, says Trump, he 'doesn't deserve to spend a single day in jail.' Trump also commuted the sentence of Imaad Zuberi, a $900,000 donor to Trump's first inaugural committee who was convicted of falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent and obstructing an investigation into the fund. He pardoned Paul Walczak, a former nursing-home executive who was sentenced in April to eighteen months in prison after he pleaded guilty to tax crimes involving the personal use of funds earmarked for employees. Walczak's mother, Elizabeth Fago, raised millions for the Trump campaign and was nominated to Trump's National Cancer Advisory Board. Walczak made note of Fago's donations on his pardon application, along with her efforts to hurt Joe Biden by making public the private diary of his daughter, Ashley Biden, an incident that prompted a DOJ investigation. Three weeks after Fago attended a $1 million dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Trump signed a full and unconditional pardon for her son. Trump also commuted the life sentence imposed in 1998 on Larry Hoover, the founder of a criminal gang known as the Gangster Disciples, which was implicated in drug trafficking, money laundering, and even murder across 110 cities and 31 states. Meanwhile, for those keeping score, Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains in an El Salvador prison despite a Supreme Court order directing that Trump facilitate his return to the United States. Abrego Garcia is too dangerous to be afforded basic due process or to re-enter the United States, Trump says, because of his supposed gang membership—but an actual convicted gang leader and murderer deserves a commutation.2 Keep up with all our articles, newsletters, podcasts, and livestreams—and pick which ones show up in your inbox: LAST WEEK, REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-Md.) sent Trump's new pardon attorney, Ed Martin, a letter demanding an explanation of 'the criteria and process' now being used for vetting pardon applications: Alas, it at least appears that you are using the Office of the Pardon Attorney to dole out pardons as favors to the President's loyal political followers and most generous donors, completely ignoring and abandoning the thousands of individual applications for clemency in the normal process. These Americans depend on your office for a fair shot at a second chance in a process that has some real integrity. Although designed as a tool of mercy, the presidential pardon has always been ripe for abuse. At the constitutional convention in 1787, George Mason of Virginia voiced concern that a 'President could . . . frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself to stop inquiry and prevent detection, eventually establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic.' Edmund Randolph, also a Virginia delegate, proposed an exception for treason, arguing that the pardon was otherwise 'too great a trust, that the President may himself be guilty, and that the Traytors may be his own instruments.' Yet in his Trump v. U.S. ruling last year creating criminal immunity for presidents exercising 'core' and adjacent executive power, Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted the pardon power as 'conclusive' to the president and 'preclusive' of any oversight. In a concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett took issue with the suggestion that the taking of a bribe in exchange for an official presidential act should be immune from prosecutorial scrutiny, to which Roberts retorted that 'such second-guessing would 'threaten the independence or effectiveness of the Executive.'' The Supreme Court got it exactly backwards. It's the Court's endorsement of a culture of corruption—not accountability for criminal abuses of presidential power—that harms society. The Trump administration's trend toward pay-to-play government not only continues the culture of lawlessness that began during Trump's first term of office. It also will likely threaten national security, enable terrorism and organized crime, deepen inequality, and erode citizens' trust in government institutions. In the case of Trump's pardon spree, we are witnessing a constitutional tool of mercy, one whose use the Supreme Court has put practically beyond question, being wielded as a tool for rewarding loyalty and creating 'an incentive structure to encourage people to take illegal actions' on the president's behalf. George Mason's fear that the pardon power could be abused and help 'destroy the republic' seems more plausible by the day. Zip this article to a friend's inbox or zap it onto social media: Share 1 One figure in this corrupt mess of Trump pardons who deserves praise for moral clarity: Pamela Hemphill, the 'MAGA Granny' who pleaded guilty to a minor offense related to January 6th—unlawfully demonstrating—and served out her two-month prison sentence. She refused to accept Trump's pardon, and yesterday posted a letter from the Department of Justice acknowledging her refusal. 'How could you sleep at night taking a pardon when you know you were guilty?' she has said. 2 Hoover will remain behind bars, for now at least, since his murder conviction was on a state charge.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Sanctions relief is worth a shot for Syria's chance at recovery
During his recent trip to the Middle East, President Donald Trump made the surprise announcement that he would lift sanctions against Syria 'in order to give them a chance at greatness.' This news was received with enthusiasm across the region, since the wide-ranging sanctions make it nearly impossible to attract the investment and aid essential to rebuild after more than a decade of civil war. If the transitional government can't kick-start the economy, generate revenue, rebuild critical infrastructure and provide jobs for its people, a return to conflict is far more likely — an outcome most of Syria's neighbors and people would like to avoid. Syria remains at high risk. Countries emerging from civil war have a 40% chance of returning to conflict soon after. Sanctions relief doesn't guarantee a stable path ahead, but without it, the country has no real chance of one. The United States has imposed a comprehensive embargo on Syria since 2011 when Bashar Assad's regime began a lethal crackdown on public protests, sparking the civil war. An embargo bans nearly all economic interactions with a target state, including trade and financial transactions. The United States had already designated Syria a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979, triggering limitations on aid, arms sales and dual-use exports, as well as some financial transactions, and it levied some sanctions in 2004 as well. The dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency and the U.S. economy's broad reach mean that our sanctions have real bite. They don't just prevent U.S. businesses from interacting with Syria but also foreign businesses subject to U.S. laws due to presence or activity in the American economy. This means existing U.S. sanctions have had a chilling effect on most businesses considering investing in Syria. U.S. sanctions relief is a huge win for the new Syrian government and has second-order effects since other Western countries tend to follow America's lead. The European Union followed suit soon after Trump's announcement by lifting its sanctions too. For those who wondered if Trump's unexpected revelation was a real policy shift or just Trump speaking off the cuff, the U.S. State Department followed with a 180-day sanctions waiver to make it official. This is only a temporary reprieve, though, and the legal framework for the various sanctions remains in place. Risk aversion will continue to deter many businesses until the administration starts the involved task of unwinding relevant laws and designations. But the sanctions waiver is a big step. This might seem like an obvious policy move, since these provisions were levied against an authoritarian regime that is no longer in place. Why punish a new transitional government for the crimes of the regime it ousted? But this outcome wasn't inevitable. Sanctions can be a powerful tool, but they are famously hard to change in response to changing circumstances. The legal steps are straightforward, but the domestic politics around these punitive tools are more complex. What if the new government turns out to be just as bad as the old one? Political players are hesitant to give the benefit of the doubt to potentially dangerous groups, and the new government in Syria doesn't exactly have clean hands. In December, after years of stalemate in the war, Assad's long-standing authoritarian regime collapsed, in the face of an unexpected offensive by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an Islamist militant group once affiliated with al-Qaida. HTS rapidly made its way across the country from Idlib, taking control of Aleppo and Hama, and then marched into Damascus without a fight. Several other Syrian militant factions joined in the effort. Commanders of the factions named HTS' leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, interim president weeks later. HTS is still a U.S.-designated terrorist group and has a poor human rights record. The $10 million bounty on al-Sharaa's head was only removed in December. In areas of Syria that HTS recently controlled, it reportedly governed with a harsh version of Islamic law. Al-Sharaa has publicly claimed he will build an inclusive government, 'reflecting Syria's diversity in its men, women and youth,' and that he will protect minorities. But many rights groups are skeptical and think this is little more than a performance for Western countries in order to secure the relief he needs to consolidate his rule. Perhaps so. Or perhaps he understands now that inclusion is the best path to governing a country such as Syria where different minority groups have proven their willingness to take up arms in the face of oppression. Al-Sharaa has not earned blind trust from the world, but for the sake of Syria's beleaguered people, we should give him the chance to succeed. If he proves a bad bet, the United States and others can bring down the economic hammer once again. _____ Elizabeth Shackelford is senior policy director at Dartmouth College's Dickey Center for International Understanding and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of 'The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.' _____
