“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”-George Orwell.
For previous entries, click here.
A story from last week that I have been meaning to highlight is that of DHS agents handcuffing a staffer at US Representative Nadler’s (D-NY) Manhattan offices. It illustrates the increased brazenness of federal law enforcement and the degree to which they are willing to abuse power and attempt to intimidate.
Via the Gothamist: Homeland Security cops handcuff one of Rep. Nadler’s aides in chaotic day at NY fed building.
In the video, which was shared with Gothamist and filmed by a person who was monitoring activity in immigration court, DHS officers entered Nadler’s district office and accused staff members of “harboring rioters.” A Nadler staffer is seen crying and being handcuffed. Another officer is at a door trying to enter a private area of the office while a staffer asks for a warrant.
DHS later said in a statement that “one individual” — the woman seen being handcuffed — had blocked police from performing a security check they intended to do based on information there were protesters in the lawmaker’s office. Later that day, protesters gathered outside of the federal building, demonstrating against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The staff member was not arrested and not charged with any crime, both Nadler’s office and a DHS spokesperson confirmed. In a brief telephone interview, the staffer who’d been handcuffed said that “everything resolved” and declined to comment further.
I expect to see an increase in using such tactics to clearly intimidate while using the “no charges were filed” as if to say “no harm, no foul.”
It is unclear from the reporting as to whether there was a “riot” (which is needed for there to be a “rioter” for DHS to go looking for). It is also unclear as to what legal standing DHS officers have to conduct this kind of search.
I agree with Nadler’s assessment as reported by Politico: ‘It can happen to anyone’: Nadler rebukes DHS after staffer detained in Manhattan office.
Nadler slammed both DHS and President Donald Trump in a statement Saturday afternoon for demonstrating “aggressive and heavy-handed tactics” and “sowing chaos” not only in his district, but across the country, as the Trump administration escalates its crackdown on immigration.
“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, adding that he was “alarmed by the aggressive and heavy-handed tactics DHS is employing in New York City and across the country.”
The New York representative also cautioned that the incident showed a “deeply troubling disregard for proper legal boundaries,” and warned that “if this can happen in a Member of Congress’s office, it can happen to anyone — and it is happening.”
Also from Politico:
DHS maintained in a statement — issued earlier on Saturday — that its Federal Protective Service officers showed up at Nadler’s office to “conduct a security check” because they were “concerned about the safety of the federal employees in the office” after hearing reports of “incidents” nearby.
The statement did not mention the issue of “harboring rioters” that the officer referred to in the video. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday afternoon.
Two things I look for in such statements.
First, does the statement outline a legal basis for the actions being criticized? None is given here,
Second, does the statement mirror what was said during the incident, or does the justification change? There is a change, specifically the notion that they were there out of “concern” for the safety of those in the office. That is not what comes across in the video, nor does it comport with the initial reporting.
As best I can tell, the statement is the following on Twitter.
This all comes across as DHS being overly aggressive about someone who protested the Trump administration, coupled with a lack of adequate respect for a legislator’s offices and a clear attempt to intimidate.
And it fits a broader set of examples of using federal law enforcement as a means of intimidating domestic actors, including government officials, as it pertains to immigration.
