Latest news with #BureauofInvestigation
Miami Herald
15-05-2025
- Miami Herald
Scrapyard worker makes gruesome discovery in car towed to lot, NC cops say
Human remains turned up in a macabre way when a scrapyard worker took a closer look at one of the junked vehicles sitting on the lot, according to investigators in North Carolina. The discovery was made late in the afternoon Wednesday, May 14, at Leonard Salvage on Old US Highway 52 near Lexington, the Davidson County Sheriff's Office said. The scrap business is about a 60-mile drive northeast from Charlotte. 'An employee with Leonard Salvage located human remains during their shift, which were removed from a salvaged vehicle on their lot,' the sheriff's office said in a May 15 Facebook post. 'Detectives ... and special agents with the North Carolina state Bureau of Investigation are actively processing the scene.' The remains 'will be sent to the North Carolina Medical Examiner's Office for autopsy,' the State Bureau of Investigation said in a news release. The identity of the person and possible cause of death have not been released. Details about the vehicle were also withheld. Leonard Salvage is in the scrap metals recycling business, including the purchase of car parts, according to
Yahoo
04-05-2025
- Yahoo
Could DNA testing shed new light on 93-year mystery of Lindbergh baby case?
HL Mencken, the prominent journalist and critic, once called it the 'greatest story since the Resurrection'. Though it has been 93 years since the Lindbergh baby kidnapping case merged crime, fame and mass media together, the enduring mystery of the crime still holds fascination for many in the US. The case was shocking. The transatlantic aviator Charles Lindbergh and his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh suffered the kidnapping and murder of their 20-month-old baby son on 1 March 1932. Now a new lawsuit filed in New Jersey – where the crime played out – seeks to force the state police to allow mitochondrial DNA testing on envelopes used to send a series of ransom notes. The crime was pinned on a 36-year-old German immigrant, Bruno Hauptmann, but his conviction relied on circumstantial evidence. Hauptmann, who was sent to the electric chair, maintained his innocence of the abduction and death of little Charles A Lindbergh Jr. But the involvement of unknown co-conspirators has never been entirely ruled out – and even the prosecutor in the case seemed to have doubts that Hauptmann acted alone when the infant was stolen from his second-floor nursery using a homemade ladder. The case had a profound impact on American legal and cultural history, expanding the authority of the FBI – then known as the BOI, or Bureau of Investigation – to investigate kidnappings involving interstate travel and expanding their role in law enforcement, while making kidnapping a federal offense and leading to a ban on photography and cameras in federal and most state courts. But enduring speculation about the death of the child – whose body was discovered on 12 May beside a nearby road – and who was behind the kidnapping and ransom demands has never entirely subsided. Now researchers want access to more than a quarter-million documents, photos and other bits of evidence in an archive at the New Jersey state police museum in West Trenton, New Jersey. The archive was made accessible 44 years ago by an executive order of the New Jersey governor, Brendan Byrne, so scholars and members of the public could study the crime. But for more than a year, researchers have been locked out as calls for advanced DNA testing on the evidence have mounted. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend that in an era when 'the very idea of historical or legal truth has come under political pressure it is incumbent on those of us who prize truthfulness in our public life to use every tool at our disposal to affirm its value'. Opening the case's archives to modern forensic science testing, they say, is a necessary step in the pursuit of truth and historical justice. DNA testing of the ransom letter 'has the potential to clarify lingering questions about the case, reaffirm or challenge past conclusions, and ultimately contribute to a fuller, more accurate account of our collective past.' The plaintiffs are Jonathan Hagel, a New Jersey native and professor at the University of Kansas who has studied the Lindbergh case for decades, Michele Downie, a retired schoolteacher, and Catherine Read, an author and developmental psychologist. They contend that saliva on the backs of stamps and on glue used to seal the envelopes could help to resolve questions about whether Hauptmann acted alone or in concert with unidentified others. But why would New Jersey want to prevent scientific testing of evidence? In response to a prior lawsuit over the archive, the state police said they wanted to ensure that there was no risk of damage or mutilation to the artefacts. The state police have said that closing the archive is a temporary measure so they can develop new access policies around genetic testing by experts. A court ruling in the earlier lawsuit, also brought by the current plaintiffs' attorney Kurt Perhach, over access to the material for genetic testing found that the suit had not sufficiently established a public interest in analytic testing. In message to the Guardian this week, the New Jersey's attorney general's office said it would not comment on pending litigation. 'This is a 93-year-old case and I don't think they actually care about knowing the truth,' says Perhach. 'But their argument about damaging the documents is completely laughable.' Perhach says there is an urgency to examine the documents because the Lindbergh documents have already been threatened by a water leak. 'It's not like they're being kept in the Smithsonian – it's not an environment where it's going to last indefinitely. They're deteriorating and wearing down, and will continue to do so.' The demand for scientific access to the documents comes as the Trump administration has released archives relating to the assassinations of President John F Kennedy and his attorney general brother, Robert F Kennedy, with little new gleaned from either. But the Lindbergh files, conceivably, could show that others were involved in a conspiracy to kidnap and ransom the child. They could either confirm or – perhaps more likely – dismiss conspiracy theories that have surrounded the case. Some have suggested that Hauptmann was the victim of a police frame-up; others that the hero-aviator may have been involved in the kidnapping and murder of his own son. 'Maybe there is no more saliva available there, but there's 15 total envelopes which contain 12 stamps and there's still adhesive. Unless somebody in 1932 had the foresight to dab water on the adhesive there's a high likelihood that there's still saliva attached to these pieces of paper,' said Perhach. Angelique Corthals, a forensic anthropologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, who has written a letter in support of the lawsuit argues that the envelopes would be handled in 'a non-destructive manner'. Corthals, who drew international attention in her successful attempt to extract DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies, told the Guardian that it was 'pretty realistic' to think DNA could be extracted. 'We have the technology to amplify very, very small amounts of DNA and are getting better at parsing out contaminate DNA, including recovering particles from a document or a stamp without destroying it,' Corthals told the Guardian. Advances in DNA analysis have produced, for instance, an entire Neanderthal genome, identified by the evolutionary genetics specialist and Nobel prize winner Dr Svante Pääbo, and the arrest of 'Golden State Killer' Joseph DeAngelo using DNA from a cup collected at the 1980 double murder of Lyman and Charlene Smith, and running it through a genealogy database. Few seriously doubt that 36-year Hauptmann was at least involved with the Lindbergh baby case. He was arrested in September 1934 after using a $10 bill from about $50,000 in ransom paid by Lindbergh. Some of the ransom money was found in Hauptmann's garage and wood used to make the ladder matched wooden beams in his home. But the man who came to collect the ransom through an intermediary at a Bronx cemetery, who became known as 'Cemetery John', did not match Hauptmann's appearance. The intermediary on the exchange, Dr John Condon, specifically said the man he had met was not Hauptmann. But opening up the Lindbergh files to DNA testing under open public access records laws could open up access to countless government-controlled records and documents, says Perhach. 'In the event that Hauptmann's DNA is found on the envelopes it just proves he was a conspirator like everyone knew, but the broader concern they have is that extending the Open Public Records Act will open up DNA testing in future cases,' he said.
The Guardian
03-05-2025
- The Guardian
Could DNA testing shed new light on 93-year mystery of Lindbergh baby case?
HL Mencken, the prominent journalist and critic, once called it the 'greatest story since the Resurrection'. Though it has been 93 years since the Lindbergh baby kidnapping case merged crime, fame and mass media together, the enduring mystery of the crime still holds fascination for many in the US. The case was shocking. The transatlantic aviator Charles Lindbergh and his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh suffered the kidnapping and murder of their 20-month-old baby son on 1 March 1932. Now a new lawsuit filed in New Jersey – where the crime played out – seeks to force the state police to allow mitochondrial DNA testing on envelopes used to send a series of ransom notes. The crime was pinned on a 36-year-old German immigrant, Bruno Hauptmann, but his conviction relied on circumstantial evidence. Hauptmann, who was sent to the electric chair, maintained his innocence of the abduction and death of little Charles A Lindbergh Jr. But the involvement of unknown co-conspirators has never been entirely ruled out – and even the prosecutor in the case seemed to have doubts that Hauptmann acted alone when the infant was stolen from his second-floor nursery using a homemade ladder. The case had a profound impact on American legal and cultural history, expanding the authority of the FBI – then known as the BOI, or Bureau of Investigation – to investigate kidnappings involving interstate travel and expanding their role in law enforcement, while making kidnapping a federal offense and leading to a ban on photography and cameras in federal and most state courts. But enduring speculation about the death of the child – whose body was discovered on 12 May beside a nearby road – and who was behind the kidnapping and ransom demands has never entirely subsided. Now researchers want access to more than a quarter-million documents, photos and other bits of evidence in an archive at the New Jersey state police museum in West Trenton, New Jersey. The archive was made accessible 44 years ago by an executive order of the New Jersey governor, Brendan Byrne, so scholars and members of the public could study the crime. But for more than a year, researchers have been locked out as calls for advanced DNA testing on the evidence have mounted. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend that in an era when 'the very idea of historical or legal truth has come under political pressure it is incumbent on those of us who prize truthfulness in our public life to use every tool at our disposal to affirm its value'. Opening the case's archives to modern forensic science testing, they say, is a necessary step in the pursuit of truth and historical justice. DNA testing of the ransom letter 'has the potential to clarify lingering questions about the case, reaffirm or challenge past conclusions, and ultimately contribute to a fuller, more accurate account of our collective past.' The plaintiffs are Jonathan Hagel, a New Jersey native and professor at the University of Kansas who has studied the Lindbergh case for decades, Michele Downie, a retired schoolteacher, and Catherine Read, an author and developmental psychologist. They contend that saliva on the backs of stamps and on glue used to seal the envelopes could help to resolve questions about whether Hauptmann acted alone or in concert with unidentified others. But why would New Jersey want to prevent scientific testing of evidence? In response to a prior lawsuit over the archive, the state police said they wanted to ensure that there was no risk of damage or mutilation to the artefacts. The state police have said that closing the archive is a temporary measure so they can develop new access policies around genetic testing by experts. A court ruling in the earlier lawsuit, also brought by the current plaintiffs' attorney Kurt Perhach, over access to the material for genetic testing found that the suit had not sufficiently established a public interest in analytic testing. In message to the Guardian this week, the New Jersey's attorney general's office said it would not comment on pending litigation. 'This is a 93-year-old case and I don't think they actually care about knowing the truth,' says Perhach. 'But their argument about damaging the documents is completely laughable.' Perhach says there is an urgency to examine the documents because the Lindbergh documents have already been threatened by a water leak. 'It's not like they're being kept in the Smithsonian – it's not an environment where it's going to last indefinitely. They're deteriorating and wearing down, and will continue to do so.' The demand for scientific access to the documents comes as the Trump administration has released archives relating to the assassinations of President John F Kennedy and his attorney general brother, Robert F Kennedy, with little new gleaned from either. But the Lindbergh files, conceivably, could show that others were involved in a conspiracy to kidnap and ransom the child. They could either confirm – or perhaps more likely – dismiss conspiracy theories that have surrounded the case. Some have suggested that Hauptmann was the victim of a police frame-up; others that the hero-aviator may have been involved in the kidnapping and murder of his own son. 'Maybe there is no more saliva available there, but there's 15 total envelopes which contain 12 stamps and there's still adhesive. Unless somebody in 1932 had the foresight to dab water on the adhesive there's a high likelihood that there's still saliva attached to these pieces of paper,' said Perhach. Angelique Corthals, a forensic anthropologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, who has written a letter in support of the lawsuit argues that the envelopes would be handled in 'a non-destructive manner'. Corthals, who drew international attention in her successful attempt to extract DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies, told the Guardian that it was 'pretty realistic' to think DNA could be extracted. 'We have the technology to amplify very, very small amounts of DNA and are getting better at parsing out contaminate DNA, including recovering particles from a document or a stamp without destroying it,' Corthals told the Guardian. Advances in DNA analysis have produced, for instance, an entire Neanderthal genome, identified by the evolutionary genetics specialist and Nobel prize winner Dr Svante Pääbo, and the arrest of 'Golden State Killer' Joseph DeAngelo using DNA from a cup collected at the 1980 double murder of Lyman and Charlene Smith, and running it through a genealogy database. Few seriously doubt that 36-year Hauptmann was at least involved with the Lindbergh baby case. He was arrested in September 1934 after using a $10 bill from about $50,000 in ransom paid by Lindbergh. Some of the ransom money was found in Hauptmann's garage and wood used to make the ladder matched wooden beams in his home. But the man who came to collect the ransom through an intermediary at a Bronx cemetery, who became known as 'Cemetery John', did not match Hauptmann's appearance. The intermediary on the exchange, Dr John Condon, specifically said the man he had met was not Hauptmann. But opening up the Lindbergh files to DNA testing under open public access records laws could open up access to countless government-controlled records and documents, says Perhach. 'In the event that Hauptmann's DNA is found on the envelopes it just proves he was a conspirator like everyone knew, but the broader concern they have is that extending the Open Public Records Act will open up DNA testing in future cases,' he said.
Yahoo
16-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Will Kash Patel turn out to be the next J. Edgar Hoover?
Kash Patel, Donald Trump's nominee for FBI chief, has said he wants to dismantle the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the agency's concrete fortress headquarters in Washington, and disperse the 7,000 employees who work there to offices around the country. Patel could well succeed in demolishing the landmark building named for the FBI's founding director. It was opened in 1974 and is now considered obsolescent; a replacement site in Maryland has already been chosen. But many of the incoming director's critics worry that Patel worry he may return to the practices of the Hoover era, including unauthorized surveillance operations, massive collection of personal data and harassment of dissidents, activists and perceived political enemies. Hoover served as FBI director from 1924 to 1972 — the first 11 years at its predecessor organization, the Bureau of Investigation — and built the agency from a small and obscure department of the federal government to the fearsome, sprawling security force of today. Currently, the FBI has a budget of $10 billion and employs 33,000 workers, including 13,000 special agents and 20,000 support personnel. Hoover became a national hero in the 1930s and '40s, when the FBI captured notorious criminals like John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd and Machine Gun Kelly, and rounded up dozens of Nazi spies during World War II. But his legacy is quite different today. Most historians now regard Hoover as a racist and a misogynist. He belonged to an openly white supremacist fraternity as a law student at George Washington University; it is perhaps no accident that the FBI remained 99% white and all male until Hoover's death in 1972. He fiercely guarded his autonomy, serving under seven presidents, none of whom dared fire him — perhaps because they feared what was in his voluminous files. He compiled enormous troves of information on senators, members of Congress and other public figures, and curried favor with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, among others, by sharing gossip about their political rivals. On occasion, he conducted secret wiretapping or surveillance for his bosses. Although Hoover officially lived on a modest salary in a small home in Washington, not far from where he was born and raised, he supplemented his income with speaking fees, gifts from admirers and free travel. An enthusiastic gambler on horse races, he was rumored to have obtained inside tips from track officials, perhaps one reason he was considered to be 'soft' on pursuing organized crime. In the 1950s, he targeted the Communist Party USA for special scrutiny, and by the end of that decade, an estimated 1,500 of the party's 10,000 or so members were FBI informants. Historians estimate that the FBI bureau compiled files on 10 million Americans; of those, 20,000 were considered 'subversive' and subject to detention in an emergency. After the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, Hoover offered to round up as many as 10,000 individuals immediately; President Harry Truman was horrified and rejected the idea. Hoover's racism and anti-communist paranoia resulted in his notorious vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Hoover could not believe that Black people, whom he considered inferior and submissive by nature, would rise up and challenge the oppression they endured in the segregated South. He was convinced that the Soviet Union was orchestrating the civil rights movement and that King was a communist agent. Obsessed with destroying King's reputation, Hoover ordered the wiretapping of King's home and hotel rooms, collecting reels of tape documenting the leader's extramarital affairs. His agents routinely mailed and telephoned death threats to King. Shortly before King's assassination in 1968, the FBI sent a package to his wife, Coretta Scott King, containing tape recordings of his sexual escapades. Hoover kept this and other illegal actions secret, and his reputation remained largely intact until the legendary 1975 hearings held by Sen. Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat. Held in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon's resignation, the Church committee hearings uncovered many rogue activities of the FBI and CIA. Among its most spectacular and alarming findings were the CIA's many assassination attempts against Cuban leader Fidel Castro. After the Church hearings, Attorney General Edward Levi published a new and far stricter set of guidelines for the FBI. Later FBI directors, including William Webster and Robert Mueller, have reportedly followed them closely. James Comey, the FBI director fired by Trump in 2017, kept in his office a framed FBI letter requesting a wiretap on Dr. King. He called it a 'reminder of the bureau's capacity to do wrong."In an interview with The New York Times, Yale professor Beverly Gage, author of the acclaimed 2023 Hoover biography "G-Man," said the founding director would have been "appalled" at Trump's nomination of Kash Patel. Gage said she found the most frightening aspect to be Patel's sycophancy to Trump. "He's making no secret that he will use the bureau to punish Mr. Trump's enemies," Gage said. The obvious question here is how far Patel is willing to go. Will he ignore agency guidelines and seek to persecute citizens that Trump considers enemies? In 2023 Patel published a book entitled "Government Gangsters," in which he labeled the FBI "a tool of surveillance and suppression of American citizens" and "one of the most cunning and powerful arms of the Deep State." The so-called deep state, he continued, was "a dangerous threat to democracy" which used the FBI to target and persecute conservatives. At the end of the book, Patel included an appendix naming 50 current or former U.S. officials he labeled as "members of the Executive Branch deep state." That list included Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Bill Barr, John Bolton, Christopher Wray, James Comey and Gen. Mark Milley. In his first confirmation hearing on Jan. 30, Patel denied that the roster of names was an enemies list, describing it as "just a glossary." "I have no interest, no desire, and will not, if confirmed, go backward," Patel told the senators. "There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no retributive actions taken by any FBI." Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, was not convinced. He called Patel "a dangerous choice" with "a wavering commitment to the rule of law," who appeared ready to "silence dissent." Under current law, the FBI director reports to the attorney general, the recently confirmed Pam Bondi. She would be in a position to potentially limit a new director's activities. If Patel does indeed conduct covert surveillance on innocent American citizens and persecute individuals he perceives as Donald Trump's enemies, he will (consciously or otherwise) be emulating J. Edgar Hoover. If he follows the U.S. Constitution and sticks to FBI guidelines, then the dark days of Hoover's secretive, vengeful reign will remain in the past.
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
This Trump Pick Could Get Dems' Support—and Then Aid Mass Deportations
The raids were sudden; thousands collected in sweeps across the country. To make full use of the media, photo ops were furnished and accounts given to make clear that those who were perceived as part of the invasion—whom the president had accused of poisoning the blood of our nation—were to be deported immediately. These countries, the president contended, didn't send us their best, instead filling our shores with 'multitudes of men of the lowest class' who were without advanced skills, potentially ,violent, and thus a danger to the public. They had to go in order to keep the rest of us safe, we were told. At the same time, the president pushed back against civil rights advances, ordering an end to diversity in the federal government while openly courting terrorists and white supremacists. It all took place a little over a hundred years ago under the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. The immigrant sweeps, said to target Bolsheviks and anarchists, were led by the zealous attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, and an eager subordinate at the Bureau of Investigation named J. Edgar Hoover. They would eventually net around ten thousand people. Yet the heroic efforts of one man, Louis Freeland Post, a genuine progressive who had fallen into his post as secretary of labor by pure happenstance, were largely responsible for thwarting Wilson's plan and reversing the vast majority of the arrests, leading eventually to only around 6 percent of those arrested actually being deported. It's a safe bet that before today you had never heard of Louis Post. Similarly, if asked to name Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of labor, most people would be unable to identify Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the one-term congresswoman from Oregon who narrowly lost her reelection bid in a district that has swung back and forth in recent years. This can be forgiven: Chavez-DeRemer, a rare Republican with fairly pro-union views, is known as a moderate in these intemperate times, and may in fact be Donald Trump's least controversial Cabinet appointee. She was one of only three Republicans to support President Joe Biden's PRO Act, which sought to expand worker protections and ease organizing efforts. She's also supported bipartisan legislation such as the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, described as a bill intended to 'secure the rights of public employees to organize, act concertedly, and bargain collectively'; a bill to protect TSA workers; commonsense railroad safety legislation; and even efforts to enforce the proper labeling of compostable packaging, which sounds more like something that would come from a Democrat than a member of the GOP. But Chavez-DeRemer has been somewhat less forthcoming about her views on migrant workers and ICE enforcement. Democrats should thus bring a healthy dose of skepticism to her confirmation hearings. Naturally, it's not hard to understand why her appointment to Trump's cabinet has been overshadowed by others, with media attention instead zeroing in on a new defense secretary in Pete Hegseth who possesses little in the way of experience and much in the way of accusations of alcoholism and abuse; on the candidacy of anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head Health and Human Services; and on the threats posed by Kash Patel, Trump's choice to head the FBI, whose 'enemies list' and accusations of a subversive 'Deep State' in government could impact the Justice Department for the next decade. Chavez-DeRemer, by contrast, has won both enthusiastic support from Teamsters President Sean O'Brien and somewhat more cautious support from Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Patty Murray, though neither has fully committed to a yes vote on her yet. Her confirmation hearings are unlikely to generate the intense scrutiny of nominees like RFK Jr, Hegseth, Patel, or Pam Bondi, Trump's loyalist attorney general pick who appears ready to do his bidding. Yet Democratic senators will be committing a dereliction of their duties if they fail to press Chavez-DeRemer on her views, particularly in relation to immigration and cooperating with ICE raids on businesses. Already we're seeing ICE director Tom Homan carrying out Trump's promised raids, at times without warrants or notification to local leaders. These raids, much like the Palmer Raids before them, are less about a sincere effort to get violent offenders off the street. Instead, they are designed to strike fear into the larger law-abiding migrant populace, exaggerating the danger that population poses and using executive orders and a new theory of expansive presidential power granted by the Supreme Court to overcome legal hurdles. No regard is given to the disruptions that will be caused to families, businesses, and communities. The parallels between the Wilson administration and today are not entirely analogous: For starters, while the raids conducted by Palmer and Hoover were often cruel, indiscriminate, and on shaky legal grounds, they were responding to some degree of legitimate violence, as politicians and businessmen around the country were being targeted by anarchist bombings. Even Palmer himself had been sent one that could've killed his ten-year-old daughter. The estimated 11-12 million undocumented workers here now, by contrast, are overwhelmingly nonviolent, and actually commit substantially fewer crimes than the average American. It's also important to note that Post had more power to stop the injustices of his time than Chavez-DeRemer will have now, since it was the Department of Labor that oversaw deportations in Post's day. Yet there are some overlapping jurisdictional issues between Homeland Security and Labor, since it is the latter agency's mission to protect workers and to regulate workplace environments (OSHA, for instance, is part of the department). These overlapping concerns have largely been governed by a series of memoranda that stipulate how the two departments will share information, work together on enforcement issues, handle data collection, et cetera. While Trump can override these agreements at any time, coordination between DHS and Labor will still be required for many of ICE's actions. Undoubtedly, the raids that Homan is conducting will result in more workers being detained. He'll also need to acquire information to help him in his appointed task, much of which may come from the Department of Labor. It is therefore imperative that we discern Chavez-DeRemer's views on these raids and her duties, as she understands them, to protect workers. The former congresswoman has been somewhat circumspect so far. She supported the Dignity Act (or DIGNIDAD Act, as it's also known), a bipartisan effort that would've increased border security and required asylum cases to be settled in sixty days or less, but also would have extended work visas, allowed the Dreamers to stay in the U.S. (though without granting citizenship), and provided a path for those under 'temporary protective status,' or TPS, and classified as Deferred Enforced Departure immigrants to become lawful permanent residents. While some of the provisions were onerous – including having to pay back-taxes and restitution fees – the overall goal was to turn many undocumented migrants into legal residents. Chavez-DeRemer has also acknowledged the inadequacy of our current immigration system and has pleaded for humane treatment of migrants, a critical factor now that Trump is making inhumane treatment the order of the day once again. In cosponsoring a bill with Democrats to create courts with jurisdictional power over migrant children, she said, 'It's no secret that our immigration system is riddled with serious flaws, including in the immigration court process. Unfortunately, the current process can result in children being left alone to fend for themselves. Although a number of problems are contributing to this crisis, we are a compassionate nation – and we should make needed improvements to ensure vulnerable children aren't abandoned in our immigration court system.' This all sounds as if she might be the type to oppose the knock-down-drag-out tactics of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and her bulldog Homan. Nevertheless, we've seen how differences with Trump and his acolytes on issues can suddenly evaporate – we don't have to look beyond his current vice president for an example. Palmer based his authority to conduct his raids on the 1917 and 1918 Sedition Acts, intended to muffle dissent during World War I. The Laken Riley Act, passed with not only unanimous Republican support but also with 12 Democrats foolishly joining the GOP in the Senate and 46 doing so in the House, grants similarly extensive authority, permitting police to arrest someone if they're merely suspected, say, of stealing a can of soda and then giving them over to ICE to be deported if they're undocumented, with no due process. It essentially amounts to giving license to create a police state. Any senator questioning Ms. Chavez-DeRemer, then, must ask her how she sees her role in either supporting or checking these efforts. Will she, for instance, work with ICE to detain workers – migrants and Americans – on suspicion of undocumented status? Will she share information on vulnerable Americans? What does she see as her responsibilities in this regard? Democrats have gotten so used to bending over backwards for Republicans that they almost seem as if they're frozen in that position. The post-election period has been marked by a noticeable reluctance to take up any fight or even perform proper due diligence. One suspects they won't want to make Ms. Chavez-DeRemer's confirmation hearing one of the more contentious ones when there's so much else with which to contend. Yet we're seeing unprecedented actions by a president who believes in governance by fiat, and we cannot be passive and caught off-guard. We need to seek answers in any forum in which they might be elicited. Chavez-DeRemer's confirmation process may be more revelatory terrain than many imagine.
