"🚨 POLITICAL SHOCKER! — 'I WANT TO COME CLEAN...' ILHAN OMAR'S MASSIVE ANNOUNCEMENT ROCKS DC!"
CNN host Jake Tapper was once again trying to protect a Democrat lawmaker while suggesting that the legal action taken against her this week by the Trump administration was purely political.
In a Wednesday segment, Tapper discussed the raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s DC home by DHS on Monday with network legal expert and former assistant U.S. Attorney Elie Honig.
At one point during the back-and-forth, Tapper suggested that Omar should have owned up to any previous legal “mistake” she may have made in years past during the Biden administration because she’d likely have gotten better treatment from a Democrat-run Justice Department – even though an investigation into her immigration status began while Biden was in office.
Tapper began the segment complaining that the Trump Justice Department appeared to ignore a long-standing department rule “not to take any overt action involving candidates within 60 days of an election.”
He then asked: “Is there any specific reason that you can see as to why the Justice Department would act now and kind of ignore this rule?”
“Well, a couple reasons potentially, Jake,” Honig began.
“So, as you say, this is an internal rule. It’s been followed for decades now by administrations of Republicans and Democrats alike that you wouldn’t make a move like this within 60 days of an election if you can avoid it. I can think of two possibilities here,” he said.
“One, there are exceptions to the rule if prosecutors determine there’s an ongoing danger to the public or if prosecutors determine that there’s some effort to obstruct justice or for somebody to flee,” Honig continued.
“The other possibility is this DoJ just might not care. They might just say, we’re not abiding by that rule. I think it would be a very bad idea if they do that, because the rule is intended to protect DoJ’s independence from politics, but it certainly would be within the powers and rights of DoJ to say, we’re just not playing by that rule,” he said.
Tapper then said, “The Justice Department had to get this magistrate judge to sign off on the search warrant. What does that tell you, if anything, about the seriousness of this investigation?”
“Well, it means that at least some external person, this magistrate judge outside of the Justice Department, reviewed paperwork and determined that there’s probable cause that a crime was committed,” Honig responded.
“That’s a lower standard, of course, than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecutors or agents were likely to find evidence of that crime in the place they’re searching. Now, I’ve done this more times than I can count, Jake,” he said.
“As a prosecutor, you do have to lay out your evidence in detail. You can’t just say, ‘hey, Judge, we think something’s wrong.’ And you have to specify a federal crime,” Honig explained.
“Judges and magistrates typically look at this fairly carefully. They’re not going to rubber stamp it, but, again, important to remember, the burden of proof here, probable cause, much, much lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you’re supposed to have before you charge a case and that you have to have if you want to get a conviction,” he said.
As the segment neared its end, Tapper then offered: “Just quickly, if this is true, would it not have been wiser for the congresswoman to have gone to the Biden Justice Department and said, this has happened, and there was a mistake, and I’d like to come clean and pay whatever fine, and then that way this, you know, not left up to the Trump Justice Department? Is that — I mean, has that occurred to you?”
Honig then noted that the initial investigation into Omar began during Biden’s term. “So, I think that’s going to undermine any argument she may have down the line that this is politically selective and vindictive,” he said.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
"🔥 FEDERAL INVESTIGATION EARTHQUAKE! — THE DNA TEST THAT COULD PROVE OMAR MARRIED HER BROTHER!"
VIA BILL MELUGIN ON X:
BREAKING: The feds are in possession of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) DNA and personal passport as part of the federal investigation into her US citizenship, colleague @davidspunt reports. It’s unclear how her DNA was obtained, but sources tell David it was NOT from a trash can or dumpster.
@FoxNews is told that reports of agents dumpster diving are incorrect. Additionally, David is told the feds have her personal passport as evidence. Her official passport (via her office) has not been retrieved, and authorities aren’t concerned that she fled the country. They believe she in the U.S., and feel that if she were to flee the country, it would create problems for her down the line as her husband and family members are in the US. DHS and DOJ continue to decline comment to FOX on the investigation.
VIA NEW YORK POST:
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors are planning to use DNA evidence to try to prove Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) committed immigration fraud, as part of the sprawling investigation into the congresswoman, sources told The Post.
People familiar with the years-long criminal probe said the feds have made use of whistleblowers, government records and now obtained DNA in an effort to substantiate decade-old allegations that Omar — and possibly members of her family like her father — defrauded immigration authorities.
One source said the DNA evidence was critical to proving an allegation that Omar married her brother when she wed Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 because she was trying to help him get a green card — which never came to fruition.
It’s unclear whether the DNA was taken before or after Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) searched the congresswoman’s home in Washington, DC, last Monday, when federal agents were seen exiting the bungalow with boxes marked “Seized Property Evidence.”
Another source pushed back on initial reports that investigators had gone “dumpster diving” in order to get DNA swabs of Omar, Elmi, who is currently residing in the UK, or family members.
Two more indicated that the execution of the search warrant on Oct. 12, coupled with the DNA and additional evidence, has provided a solid basis to bring charges of conspiracy to commit some form of immigration fraud before a grand jury, stemming from the probe initiated by the Minnesota US Attorney’s Office.
Given the case is being pursued as a general conspiracy, the evidence will prove useful even if some of the acts fall outside of the statute of limitations.
“If you argue a conspiracy, you can allege overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that are outside the statute of limitations,” said Neama Rahmini, a former federal prosecutor.
DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro is also investigating issues related to the congresswoman’s finances — including entries in House disclosures that resulted in Omar deflating her net worth by tens of millions of dollars in the last year due to an unexplained accounting “discrepancy.”
“That judge would not have signed that warrant unless there was probable cause,” Pirro told Fox News. “If there was a crime committed, it will be prosecuted.”
The DNA evidence could finally prove an allegation that has percolated in Minnesota and DC political circles for more than a decade. Omar has repeatedly denied any accusations of the rumored sibling marriage since 2016, when she was first running for office as a state representative.
Elmi, who divorced from Omar in 2017, reportedly applied and then withdrew his application for a marriage-based green card in 2019, when US Citizenship and Immigration Services asked for additional evidence about his marriage to her, according to The Washington Post.
President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan said over the weekend that the feds have built “a strong case” that could result in the Trump administration seeking to denaturalize Omar, who has lived in the US since her family emigrated from war-torn Somalia in 1995.
Previously, sources said that the immigration fraud pertained to either Omar or her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, allegedly misrepresenting the future congresswoman’s birth date so that she could become a US citizen when her dad naturalized in 2000.
Legal experts have noted the statute of limitations is lengthier for providing false information on immigration paperwork than for fraudulently marrying someone.
A marriage fraud conviction also wouldn’t jeopardize Omar’s own citizenship in the same way as a case involving false statements, a stated goal of some administration officials and one that could be proven if the alleged inaccuracies were repeated on passport renewal forms or other official government paperwork.
Rahmani said that prosecutors could attempt to prove a conspiracy to commit immigration fraud that will likely fall within a 10-year statute of limitations — or else pursue a civil case that would have no statute of limitations. Pirro has also suggested either criminal or civil counts could result from the ongoing probes.
“There’s two reasons why I think the conspiracy will be charged,” Rahmani said. “First, you have an unindicted co-conspirator in her dad, who died. … [Second,] you get some of this older conduct that’s outside the statute of limitations as well.”
The ex-prosecutor added that the search warrant would not have been executed unless it had “come from the highest levels of the DOJ” and wouldn’t have been pursued unless prosecutors thought they could indict Omar.
Eventually, though, moving to strip a sitting member of Congress of their citizenship and deporting them would be an unprecedented move by the DOJ.
Her defense lawyers have said there’s “no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status.”
Additionally, a former immigration official told The Washington Post that Omar purportedly marrying her brother had been investigated during the first Trump administration but yielded insufficient evidence.
Omar has been married three times and divorced twice. Her first marriage to Ahmed Hirsi wasn’t legally entered into until after her divorce from Elmi was finalized — despite the two having a Muslim wedding ceremony in 2002.
She gave birth to three children, the last of whom was born when she was legally married to Elmi. Omar, Elmi and Hirsi also appear to have shared the same residence at one point, per documents previously reviewed by The Post.
Further complicating the overlapping marriages, Omar filed joint taxes with Hirsi in 2014 and 2015 while still legally married to Elmi, from whom she had separated in 2011.
Omar’s father is associated with different surnames, including Nur Said Elmi Mohamed.
In 2019, the congresswoman divorced Hirsi to marry Tim Mynett, a political consultant who did work for her own campaign, following an alleged affair.
Asked last week about the seizure of evidence in his wife’s case, Mynett told Fox News: “My wife came here when she was 12 years old as a child war refugee.”
As of last week, Omar also retained attorneys, who fired off a scathing letter to the Department of Justice citing “grave concerns” with the Trump administration’s investigation and demanding the “immediate return” of all seized property to the Minnesota Democrat.
The defense attorneys Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz, who did not respond to requests for comment, wrote that the feds didn’t comply with a magistrate judge’s “special requests” for executing the search warrant at Omar’s home and flouted longstanding DOJ policy by conducting it close to an election.
“President Trump has made no secret of his desire to target Representative Omar for criminal investigation and deportation as retribution for her political advocacy,” they said.
A DOJ spokesperson replied that the letter was “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies.”
“Our attorneys and law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations, as they always do,” the rep added. “Leaking a letter to the press right after sending it is not good faith. It is a publicity play.”
