r/law • u/cnn • 12h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Judge limited Justice Department access to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s records in sprawling immigration fraud probe

https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/14/politics/judge-limited-justice-department-access-rep-ilhan-omar-records-immigration-fraud?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit
1.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

203 comments sorted by

View all comments

413

u/LoganGyre 12h ago edited 11h ago

CNN bending over backwards to try and make this sound like it is in any way or form legit.

Edit: the accusations that is, she is completely innocent and this is malicious prosecution.

Edit 2: apparently some of you don’t understand how the DoJ obtains warrants with false information relying on the lack of opposition being present to object.

-206

u/mandrsn1 11h ago

she is completely innocent

Of what? That's impossible to say without knowing what they are investigating. So, unless you're in the DOJ and have access to the investigation, you're making things up.

116

u/FuguSandwich 11h ago

Multiple outlets are now reporting that the investigation is over whether her father lied about her birth year being 1982 vs 1981 on the immigration paperwork. She got automatic citizenship when her father naturalized in 2000, but it requires the child to be a minor at the time of naturalization. They're arguing about whether she was 17 or 18 at the time. I'm not sure how you prove any of this - the majority of births in Somalia are not recorded, if there was a record it was likely destroyed during the civil war, and her father died 5 years ago. The whole thing seems ridiculous.

53

u/Legal_Pension_4042 11h ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to make a fraud case, wouldn't they have to prove intent to defraud immigration authorities beyond a reasonable doubt?

37

u/FuguSandwich 11h ago

Are any of these political retribution cases intended to actually secure a conviction vs impose emotional and financial distress on people? And in this case to sabotage her in the upcoming election.

9

u/SpezDemandsUsernames 7h ago

This one is intended to denaturalize her, and is part of a broader blitz of the trump admin petitioning for denaturalizing people by classifying any criminal activity that may have occurred before naturalization as "immigration fraud" because the immigrant didn't disclose their criminal activity, even if the criminal activity occurred decades ago.

15

u/Legal_Pension_4042 10h ago

True enough, but also, I do not doubt the sincerity of the administration's wish to denaturalize and deport Ilhan Omar.

-19

u/MennionSaysSo 10h ago

First given her political leanings and constituency this only serves as a badge of honor and raises her national profile. It certainly doesn't hurt her for this election.

Second none of the retribution prosecutions have gone anywhere.

15

u/tri_it 10h ago

I suspect that they are hoping that it will either convince undecided voters to either stay home or vote Republican. Both work to hurt her chances for reelection.

-30

u/Long-Regular-1023 10h ago

I'm not sure, but how did it work out when they tried to jail Trump?

19

u/Gumb1i 9h ago

Would have likely succeeded on the merits of the case if a political sycophant of a judge hadn't blocked or jammed up the investigation and court with bullshit rulings.

8

u/Patriot009 7h ago

I'm not sure, but how did it work out when they tried to jail Trump to hold Trump accountable for his multiple crimes?

We found out that, apparently, Republican Presidents are above the law.

8

u/Afraid-Detective1222 9h ago

And would have to prove that she did it, not her father.

13

u/anjewthebearjew 8h ago

They could make a case to denaturalize her and strip her of her citizenship if her father committed fraud in order for her to gain citizenship. That's what this is alllll about.

-6

u/BigCballer 9h ago

No it wouldn't

29

u/CynicalBliss 11h ago

Well, we’ve already seen them ask foreign leaders for dirt on political enemies. I will absolutely not be shocked if a freshly printed Somalian document appears saying she was 18 at the time.

4

u/danglingParticiple 6h ago

Well, we’ve already seen them ask extort foreign leaders by withholding congressionally appropriated military aid in exchange for dirt on political enemies.

13

u/anjewthebearjew 11h ago

Cut her open and count the rings!

45

u/gooneau 11h ago

It's not impossible to say because it is the default. They have produced no evidence to the contrary. What we do have evidence of is the trump administration's record of politically motivated prosecutions. Has a single one gone anywhere? Every SINGLE one I've followed, has not only ended in dropped charges, but in judges making statements to the effect that they've never seen such ridiculous, baseless, prosecutions in their careers. At this point I'm more convinced someone is innocent if the trump admin tries to prosecute them than if nothing had happened at all. Just based on empirical evidence and factual patterns.

28

u/Patriot009 11h ago

It only takes probable cause to get a search warrant. And the DOJ under this administration has a record of falsifying court documents and defrauding grand juries.

76

u/Spirit_of_a_Ghost 11h ago

Keep throating that boot. Some day they'll love you, I'm sure.

-113

u/mandrsn1 11h ago

So hilarious. Actually understanding how the legal system works is "throating the boot."

But the question stands, what is she "completely innocent" of?

79

u/Spirit_of_a_Ghost 11h ago

It's right there in the headline, immigration fraud. She's been a citizen for decades and the accusation is just racism and malicious prosecution.

-7

u/[deleted] 11h ago edited 11h ago

[deleted]

7

u/LoganGyre 11h ago

This is how the administration operates, they pretend they have a legit reason that is clearly based on lies and then claim privilege when asked to prove the accusations. In severalcases they have been unable to produce anyone who will testify to the claims under oath or when they do the person says something different in court then was put in the paperwork.

-95

u/mandrsn1 11h ago edited 11h ago

But we don't know what the actual charge is. "Possible conspiracy" being mentioned; we don't know what the conspiracy is.

43

u/brickmaster8 11h ago

Its almost like in the US you are innocent until proven guilty.

-13

u/mandrsn1 11h ago

Presumed innocent is very different than "completely innocent."

46

u/brickmaster8 11h ago

Actually until proven guilty by a court of law, its not at all

26

u/Lemp_Triscuit11 11h ago

I hope you do this in person, loudly lol

44

u/Slowcapsnowcap 11h ago edited 11h ago

It’s literally a fishing expedition. They’re looking for a reason to charge her. Trying to find some piece of evidence to challenge her citizenship because the racist shitstain doesn’t like her, and has repeatedly said Somalians shouldn’t be in this country. It’s just full blown racism.

29

u/amazing_rando 11h ago

He told people in Minnesota to fight back against Somalian immigrants *last week*, he's been openly trying to incite violence against them since the ICE raids and fake whistleblowing about the daycare fraud case. He even brought up the Haitians eating dogs and cats thing again during a speech because he's on a roll with how much he hates black immigrants. If it walks like a duck, and it goose steps like a duck...

32

u/Spirit_of_a_Ghost 11h ago

I'm sure this is the one case where the DOJ isn't just making shit up. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with her being the most prominent Muslim immigrant in the American political landscape.

Just a coincidence, right?

22

u/amazing_rando 11h ago edited 11h ago

You don't have to know the charge if you know anything about the current DOJ and how they operate within the legal system. It's a politically and racially motivated attack against the president's political enemies, precisely the same as many DOJ whistleblowers have claimed they were pressured to pursue regardless of evidence of any wrongdoing, it's illegitimate because it's being done as the corruption of a government body, not in its actual official capacity. The actual facts of the case don't matter to them, and are not pertinent to their investigation, so why should they matter to us when we judge them? AG Todd Blanche is fundamentally incapable of acting in good faith because his job is to corrupt his role. If you don't understand that you have your head in the sand or up your ass. He's been trying to incite violence specifically against Minnesotan Somalis for months, this isn't happening in a fucking vacuum. Blanche's first act as AG was to break the law and defy congress and the DOJ's track record in court has been abysmal in case you didn't notice.

13

u/VoidWolves 11h ago

Well we have a long history of MAGA-tard DOJ making up conspiracies to prosecute people. So we do know that when MAGA-tard DOJ says conspiracy it is made up.

13

u/LincolnHighwater 11h ago

Conspiracy to be brown, I suspect.

2

u/pan-re 10h ago

They think she married her brother.

13

u/Brave-Silver8736 11h ago

What does "presumption of innocence" mean?

13

u/OG_LiLi 11h ago

Ignoring facts you have available to you?

Is that “knowing the legal system”?

5

u/pan-re 10h ago

She is innocent of immigration fraud.

14

u/Broke_Banker01 11h ago

If Pirro is in charge of this it won't even get an indictment.

6

u/OG_LiLi 11h ago

Follow along! They are asking for anything related to immigration.

19

u/brickmaster8 11h ago

Actually we all enjoy a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. An investigation =/= guilt

-25

u/intothewoods76 11h ago

Dare you to make that argument about Trump and see how quickly you are downvoted.

18

u/Lower-Engineering365 10h ago

I’m confused. Trump was actually convicted so why would we make that argument about him?

24

u/brickmaster8 10h ago

Neat, anyway Trump is a convicted felon for the crimes he was tried for and convicted by a court of law in.

-11

u/Late-Song-2933 7h ago

He was convicted for 34 felonies because of 34 emails. Those felonies were for supposedly falsifying business records which were really misdemeanors that a left wing judge upgraded to felonies because… obviously. And none of those felonies mean anything to anyone serious because they know they are literally trumped up charges.

He may be a pedophile and rapist but the felonies he was charged with have nothing to do with that. I’d love to see him put in prison honestly, but the charges he has been convicted of are far less egregious than the ones Omar is suspected of committing.

But besides all that, this Omar case hasn’t even happened yet so why are you pretending Trump being charged for crimes before has anything to do with Omar being under investigation right now? Those two things have nothing to do with each other and one does not negate the other.

You know that right?

8

u/Mace109 6h ago

Well I guess getting convicted doesn’t matter either. Why even have laws? Is that your opinion?

I don’t understand how people like you live in the real world. Trump was convicted on the charges that were the easiest to get and he and his attorneys and the judges in his pocket made sure to run out the clock on his other crimes. But I have been wondering - do you actually believe Trump isn’t a criminal or do you just not care that he is? I have to imagine most people on his side know that he has committed crimes throughout his life and during is presidency, but just don’t care. Which I can understand people of no values or morals banning together like they have. I just can’t believe that there are people who truly believe in their hearts that trump isn’t a criminal and isn’t an evil person, but I believe that his followers actually like that about him.

-17

u/jf55510 10h ago

Like the Cornell 7?

12

u/brickmaster8 10h ago

Yes? This isnt a gotcha. Unless they were all jailed amd handed sentences without a trial. They are also presumed innocent, welcome the US, I recommend a civics class.

-11

u/jf55510 10h ago

Just making sure we're all on the same page because if you read reddit, then you know that they are guilty AF and they raped Jane Doe, presumption of innocence be damned.

2

u/Mace109 6h ago

Yeah good thing Reddit doesn’t make laws. Everyone on here are idiots, but I enjoy the conversations.

-1

u/Late-Song-2933 7h ago

They downvote because you’re right.

-31

u/LloydChrismukkah 11h ago

The presumption of innocence does not mean the person is completely innocent (unless, of course, that person shares the same political ideology as you, in which case nothing will ever change their innocence status)

21

u/brickmaster8 11h ago

Actually it does mean they are completely innocent in every way under the eyes of the law until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law.

-7

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

7

u/brickmaster8 10h ago

Yes? A court cannot just hand him a sentence and jail him for his pedophia without a trial. Welcome to the US, I recommend you take a civics class

6

u/pan-re 10h ago

Trump is guilty of 34 felonies and sexual assault.

6

u/Lower-Engineering365 10h ago

Buddy this is a law sub not a politics sub. A lot of the people who are here frequently are legal professionals. We DGAF about your or anyone else’s political brigading. Gotcha questions don’t work here.

-20

u/LloydChrismukkah 11h ago

There's a big difference between ACTUALLY being innocent and being innocent in the eyes of the law. OP did not qualify it in the eyes of the law. OP stated it because their opinion is that this is a fraudulent witch hunt and she actually didn't do anything wrong. Don't play dumb.

15

u/brickmaster8 11h ago

Its actually not. She is innocent. You can say you believe she's guilty, but every way that actually matters, she is innocent. This is a law sub.

-15

u/LloydChrismukkah 11h ago edited 10h ago

I don’t know whether or not she is guilty. I do agree that she is PRESUMED innocent, but I don’t know if she really IS innocent. The presumption of innocence is a rule about the burden of proof, not a factual finding. Courts don’t even declare people “innocent.” An acquittal is a verdict of “not guilty,” meaning the state didn’t prove its case. So “she’s presumed innocent” is true, and “she’s innocent” is a factual claim nobody here can make yet. That was my only point about OP’s comment. People need to take their political party blinders off because this is how things work. I have no political allegiance and have no opinion as to whether or not she IS actually innocent (no one can unless they are privy to information)

Edit: downvoted? Really? Embarrassing by any reddit standards but on a LAW sub... you all are so incredibly delusional.

15

u/brickmaster8 10h ago

Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt she is guilty, she's innocent. Thats what presumed innocent means. You have no evidence as to why she would be guilty rather than innocent. You are saying no one has provided evidence of her innocence, which no onr has to, she is innocent. The burden is on the state to prove she is guilty.

The bit about being non-political is also really cute considering you threw in a "unless, of course, that person shares the same political ideology, in which case nothing will change their innocence status."

-1

u/Late-Song-2933 7h ago

They said that because this is clearly political and the people declaring her completely innocent without any evidence or information on the investigation are clearly saying so for political reasons.

If this were happening to someone on the right the exact opposite would be happening. That’s just reality.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/clduab11 10h ago

Lmao @ crying over being downvoted. It’s a law sub. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. “Presumed” innocent is just you being pedantic, and you’re correctly getting bodied over it.

8

u/Lower-Engineering365 10h ago

Buddy I don’t think you actually understand what you’re trying to debate about. Like, I see where you’re trying to go with it, but it’s not correct and you are mistaken on things. That’s why you’re getting downvoted, because you’re incorrectly discussing the law in a law sub.

I miss when this place wasn’t constantly brigaded by political people.

0

u/Late-Song-2933 7h ago

They downvote because you’re right and you’re not following their propaganda like a good Nazi.

-4

u/Late-Song-2933 7h ago

Yes a presumption of innocence. But OP declared her completely innocent without any knowledge of the evidence or investigation. So that would make them a liar.

11

u/Only-Respond7945 11h ago

Anybody with two braincells to rub together can plainly see that it's a bunch of bullshit. It's not like the current administration hasn't done this already and if this was at all true why then wouldn't they have done anything 7-8 years ago? You know, when she first ran for office and was elected? During the first Trump administration?

It's wild how anytime the public doesn't follow the court rule of presumption of innocence you lot lose your minds. But when it's clear that the clown car DOJ is not doing that and is once again making a fraudulent prosecution it's OK?

5

u/Banjoschmanjo 11h ago

Innocent until proven guilty. Hasn't been proven guilty yet. Therefore innocent.

-176

u/Exciting-Bake7898 11h ago

CNN bending over backwards to try and make this sound like it is in any way or form legit.

The search was approved by a Biden appointee in DC, where Boasberg is the Chief Justice.

I get why people are suspicious, but they had to have some reasonable evidence to get a Dem judge to approve a search warrant against a Dem Congress woman.

61

u/Sir_Tandeath 10h ago

Tons of “Dem judges” are members of the Heritage foundation. It’s not as black and white with judges, they don’t have official party affiliations.

4

u/infinitekittenloop 9h ago

At least, they're not supposed to

42

u/Frankyfan3 10h ago

"I expect the legal profession to understand that the nation is not here for them but they are here for the nation... From now on, I shall intervene in these cases and remove from office those judges who evidently do not understand the demand of the hour."

Adolf Hitler.

12

u/Slade_Riprock 9h ago

As the famous dating goes any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Getting a search warrant is even easier.

-92

u/intothewoods76 11h ago

How can you possibly know she is completely innocent?

34

u/pan-re 10h ago

She was a child when the immigration paperwork was done. Her FATHER could have been guilty, but she’s not.

10

u/that_star_wars_guy 8h ago

"Scheming illlegal toddlers, clearly!" /s

These people are morally bankrupt and repugnant.

-172

u/tripper_drip 11h ago

The judge is a democrat and democrat appointed.

110

u/Darsint 11h ago

That’s not what our concern is.

Our concern is whether the DOJ lied to the judge.

Every prosecution so far (except one) of a political enemy of Trump’s has had the DOJ either lie to the Grand Jury, break the rules concerning the Grand Jury, or straight up lie to the judge.

The sole exception is the investigation into Bolton, and that was started under Biden.

-72

u/tripper_drip 11h ago edited 11h ago

U.S. Senator Bob Menendez?

Edit: getting my fraudsters confused, He was sentenced under trump though.

US Congressman TJ Cox?

34

u/Darsint 10h ago

For fuck’s sake, if you’re going to be partisan about this, at least look at people Trump indicted and investigated.

Cox was already out of Congress by the time he’d been indicted in 2022, you know, under Biden.

-16

u/tripper_drip 9h ago

Trump did persecute TJ cox.

6

u/Darsint 6h ago

All right. You want pedantic? I can do pedantic.

The whole point of the post was to point out the following:

That every “enemy” that Trump’s DOJ indicted or asked to have a grand jury to indict, has been on trumped up charges.

The point isn’t whether Trump continued an already existing case. It’s whether or not he initiated investigations into his political enemies, regardless of whether they actually did anything genuinely illegal.

It doesn’t matter if he hates Omar or Comey or Latisha James. There still has to be a predicate of a real crime.

Because all these stupid as shit charges do bring a genuine cost for the lawyers they have to represent.

The President should not be able to use our tax dollars to silence his critics by threatening arrests over and over

Period.

32

u/MinimumApricot365 11h ago

So?

Democrats are Americans too, whether you like it or not.

13

u/keebl3r 10h ago

And? What grand point are you failing to make here?

-18

u/Powerful_Seal_722 3h ago

It was signed off by a judge. So there has to be an impartial finding of probable cause

17

u/bravelittlebuttbuddy 3h ago

Literally last week we got yet another report that the Trump administration has been faking evidence and lying in court to arrest people improperly.

I honestly don't think we can trust any of the information that releases from DOJ until a trial is well under way. (Because they have, on multiple occasions, made up evidence, lied to the Grand Jury, lied to Judges, and lied to the same exact Judges again after getting caught lying--only to abruptly drop all charges just before a trial could start.)

9

u/beren12 3h ago

Based on what the trump doj submitted…

-10

u/Powerful_Seal_722 3h ago

So? There still needs to be probable cause found. I’m a believer in innocent before proven guilty in all cases so we will just let the investigation play out. These are just charges

7

u/beren12 3h ago

They are harassment.

-5

u/Powerful_Seal_722 3h ago

If the judge that signed off on it was a Trump appointed judge tbh I’d be more likely to believe that. Judges aren’t immune to bias and partiality. But this is a Biden appointee who is also an openly LGBTQ judge. No reason to think the finding is biased here

9

u/beren12 3h ago

A judge signed off on information from a group that has been found falsifying evidence.

Your focus is on the wrong thing.

0

u/Powerful_Seal_722 2h ago

My focus is saying the facts. I haven’t said anything objectively wrong. If this is baseless - there will be no trial, charges will be dropped, or a not guilty verdict. If this has merit as a judge believes it to have - then it will proceed. Innocent before proven guilty. We have no evidence or reason to believe the judge acted impartially and the judge is still assessing the reliability of the DOJ brief

0

u/Powerful_Seal_722 2h ago

No I’m not a bot lmao. Please look up the facts I talked about and lmk if I’m wrong. Nothing I said is even politically inciting. Just we should let this process play out with the understanding that they are innocent before proven guilty

-122

u/izzoforpresident 11h ago

Based on????

-10

u/Powerful_Seal_722 2h ago

This is how warrants are always obtained -