Obama-era FBI investigated Ilhan Omar in 2016, says NYT; case reignites political dispute in the USA
According to Fox Business, a report from the New York Times indicates that federal agents have gathered evidence of alleged immigration fraud involving the congresswoman, and the case is now with the Department of Justice.
BY THE X-TRADER NEWS NEWSROOM · REPORTING FROM FOX BUSINESS · 3 MIN
An FBI investigation launched in 2016, during the Barack Obama administration, gathered evidence that would support suspicions that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar may have married her own brother as part of an immigration fraud scheme, according to a New York Times report cited by Fox Business. The case was referred to the Department of Justice.
The information was discussed on the program by Fox News legal analyst Kerri Urbahn. According to the channel, the investigation took place ten years ago, and the New York Times had as its source federal agents who worked in different presidential administrations.
Defense and counterpoint
The program showed excerpts in which the parliamentarian was defended by allies. In one of the statements, the attack was classified as something that "smacks of racism, sexism, Islamophobia" and as an attack on a member of Congress elected by vote. Another speech cited the “authoritarian manual” and said that she is a frequent target of the president. According to Fox Business, Obama had defended Omar two weeks earlier, saying that the Trump administration was acting out of political motivation.
In Urbahn's opinion, the political debate is one thing, and the legal issue is another. She said she saw the fact that the newspaper obtained federal sources with this report as significant, and pointed out that allegations in 2016 were that the congresswoman was married to a man suspected of being her brother, which would have allowed her to obtain citizenship illegally.
Case closure questions
Urbahn questioned the version attributed to the then federal prosecutor, who, according to the report, said he was not aware of federal agents pursuing the allegations. For her, this would be unlikely, because the same article states that prosecutors decided not to move forward, even though there was evidence outside the statute of limitations. She also said she was skeptical about the historical account he gave.
The analyst also highlighted a chronological point: in the same month that the Minnesota attorney's office and Obama's Department of Justice released a statement saying that Omar was not under investigation, she won the primary and defeated a state legislator. He then won his seat in the Chamber in a historic victory. Urbahn questioned whether the outcome of the disputes would have been the same had the accusations gone forward.
What's next
According to Urbahn, the case should continue, possibly at the state and federal levels, regardless of the outcome of Tuesday's elections. She said there is nothing stopping the Department of Justice and DHS from opening a similar immigration fraud case if they have the evidence, as the statute of limitations would not apply in that type of situation. In her assessment, the consequence, if the government proves its case, would be denaturalization.
For the investor, the episode has little direct effect on the stock market, interest rates, dollar or Nasdaq, and the transcript does not deal with markets. The issue fuels polarization in Washington, a factor that usually weighs on the perception of political risk, but the outcome will depend on evidence that has not yet been presented publicly.
Automatically translated from Portuguese.
