CNN's Tapper: A Judge Outside The DOJ Signed Off On A Warrant To Find Out If Ilhan Omar Pretended To Be A Minor To Get Citizenship
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/10/15/cnns_tapper_a_judge_outside_the_doj_signed_off_on_a_warrant_to_find_out_if_ilhan_omar_pretended_to_be_a_minor_to_get_citizenship.html

CNN's Elie Honig and Jake Tapper report on the potential charges against Rep. Ilhan Omar:


ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: 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. 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. 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.

TAPPER: 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?

HONIG: 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. 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. 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. 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.

TAPPER: So, the allegation, as we've discussed with Evan and Katelyn, is that she may have -- and we're not saying this is true, but the allegation is that when she was an adult, maybe 18, maybe 19, she claimed to be a minor, maybe 17, and because it would be easier to become a citizen because her father from Somalia was a naturalized citizen. That seems like a long time ago. I mean, that was, I think, in the year 2000. What about the statute of limitations, or is it important if she continued allegedly to keep up this lie and conspiracy to hide the truth from 26 years ago?

HONIG: Right. Most federal crimes in the immigration area will have a maximum of a five-year statute of limitations. We're obviously well beyond that from 2000.

So, there could be a couple possibilities. One, some offenses say that if a person gets into the country or gets status by making false statements and then remains in the country, that will extend -- the person remaining in the country will extend the statute of limitations.

Two, it could be that more recent paperwork was submitted, perhaps a reapplication or a renewal. It could be somebody relating to Representative Omar, somebody around her.

And then, three, if prosecutors have evidence that within the last five years there's been some evidence of obstruction, some effort to get stories straight, to destroy documents, to persuade potential witnesses to say a certain thing, then those obstruction charges, if they happened within the last five years, would also be within the statute of limitations.