theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Saturday, July 20, 2019

House Democrat Quizzes New York Prosecutors For NOT INDICTING Trump

Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., holds up his gavel as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan appears before a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 18, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., holds up his gavel as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan appears before a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 18, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) 

Alex Swoyer

 House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings requested Friday the U.S. attorney overseeing the probe into alleged campaign finance violations give lawmakers information as to why President Trump wasn’t indicted along with his former personal attorney Michael Cohen.

In a letter sent to Audrey Strauss, the deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the Maryland Democrat said he wants to know if the internal Justice Department policy against indicting a president was a factor they considered when wrapping up their probe into the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Mr. Trump.
Mr. Cummings said the same policy prevented Special Counsel Robert Mueller from bringing obstruction of justice charges against Mr. Trump.
“The Office of the President should not be used as a shield for criminal conduct,” Mr. Cummings said.
The committee’s request comes after the Southern District of New York concluded its investigation earlier this week after only having indicted Cohen, who plead guilty and received a three-year prison sentence.
Cohen previously told lawmakers he made the payment ahead of the 2016 election to quiet Ms. Daniels at the direction of then-candidate Donald Trump.
Mr. Cummings asked Ms. Strauss to produce any information related to individuals who conspired with Cohen by August 2.
A Republican spokesperson from the committee said Cohen is a habitual liar and a convicted felon, yet Democrats continue to use him to attack the president.
“Democrats in Congress should be solving real problems instead of indulging their obsession with impeaching the president,” the GOP spokesperson said.

Friday, July 19, 2019

Penn professor Under Fire After Suggesting US Better Off With FIRST WORLD Immigrants

Image result for Professor under fire after suggesting US better off with 'fewer nonwhites'
Professor Amy Wax

Lukas Mikelionis

The University of Pennsylvania is facing calls to fire a professor over comments she purportedly made at a conservative conference last weekend, insinuating that the U.S. would be better off with “more whites and fewer nonwhites.”
Amy Wax made the supposed remarks during three-day Edmund Burke Foundation’s National Conservatism conference in Washington D.C. that lasted from Sunday through Tuesday.
During a panel discussion on immigration, Wax made the comments that inflamed a social media firestorm. A recording or exact transcript of the remarks isn’t yet available online.
According to Vox, Wax said immigrants are responsible for an increase in “litter” and suggested the U.S. should favor immigrants from Western countries rather than non-Western ones.
“Our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.”
— Amy Wax, according to Vox
“Our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites,” she said, according to the outlet, adding that her comments weren’t racially-charged because the opposition to nonwhite immigrants stems from culture not biology.
“Conservatives need a realistic approach to immigration that... preserves the United States as a Western and First World nation,” she added. “We are better off if we are dominated numerically ... by people from the First World, from the West, than by people who are from less advanced countries.”
But others have accused Vox of not providing proper context to Wax’s quote, with Yoram Hazony, author of the influential 2018 book “The Virtue of Nationalism,” saying that at no point did the professor advocated for fewer “nonwhite” immigrants.
“Wax advocated an immigration policy that favors immigrants with cultural affinities to the U.S. She emphasized that the position she was defending ‘doesn't rely on race at all,’” Hazony wrote in a tweet.
“Specifically, Wax did not propose racial tests for immigration, and did not say that her own position is that America ‘will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites,’” he added, adding that Vox “pulled these words out of context, and apparently misunderstood Wax's argument.”
Despite confusion over the exact context of the remarks, many have called out Wax for her comments, with some former students saying they will suspend donations to the university if Wax remains on staff.
“Hey @Penn, I'm an alumna who is more than happy to end my regular contributions to the University if Amy Wax remains on staff,” wrote Sara Paige. “This is certainly not the first time Wax has made abhorrent statements as a Penn professor, but it absolutely needs to be the last.”
The university spokesperson told PhillyVoice that the institution stands behind Wax on the basis of free speech, but noted that the individual faculty members don’t represent the university.
“As a member of the faculty Professor Wax is free to express her opinions as provided in Penn's policies protecting academic freedom and open expression. It is also the case that views of individual faculty members do not represent the views of the institution, but rather their own personal beliefs,” the statement read.

When it Comes to the ECONOMY, Democrats Live in an ALTERNATIVE Reality

Pining for the Obama years

FILE - In this June 9, 2010 file photo, U.S. President Barack Obama makes a statement about Iran in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington. Iran threatened Wednesday, May 8, 2019, to resume higher enrichment of uranium in 60 days if world powers fail to negotiate new terms for its 2015 nuclear deal, an agreement that capped over a decade of hostility between Tehran and the West over its atomic program. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
FILE - In this June 9, 2010 file photo, U.S. President Barack Obama makes a statement about Iran in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington. Iran threatened Wednesday, May 8, 2019, to resume higher enrichment of uranium in 60 days if world powers fail to negotiate new terms for its 2015 nuclear deal, an agreement that capped over a decade of hostility between Tehran and the West over its atomic program. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

Kelly Sadler

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared on “Meet the Press” this weekend and railed against the U.S. economy, stating it “continues to favor the people who have the wealth and the power, while all over this country people are working two or three jobs.”
Mr. Sanders echoed what California Sen. Kamala Harris stated in the first Democratic presidential debate.
“Well, yeah, people in America are working. They’re working two and three jobs,” Ms. Harris said. “So when we talk about jobs, let’s be really clear. In our America, no one should have to work more than one job to have a roof over their head and food on the table.”
But that’s simply not true.
Fewer than one in 20 employed Americans holds a second job of any type, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and there has been no spike in the number of people holding multiple jobs in recent years. Moreover, virtually no one works two full-time jobs as Ms. Harris suggested, according to BLS data, let alone do so to have a roof over their head and food on the table. 
Democrats seem to be living in an alternative universe, a terrible place, where jobs are hard to find, wages are stagnant, manufacturing is moving abroad, the stock market is crashing, and tax cuts only benefit the rich. 
None of their rhetoric actually matches what’s happening in reality.
Last month’s job report shattered expectations with the U.S. economy gaining 224,000 net jobs. Under President Trump’s tenure, 6 million new jobs have been added and the manufacturing sector has rebounded, with about a half-a-million new jobs created. The U.S. economy is in its longest-ever expansion, and for the first time ever there are more jobs than there are people to fill them. Wages continue to rise, especially for blue-collar workers, where wage growth is the strongest.
Yet these facts seem to elude the Democrats, who are constantly preaching Mr. Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation efforts have only benefited the top 1 percent. 
“There’s a $2 trillion tax cut last year. Did you feel it? Did you get anything from it? Of course not. Of course not. All of it went to folks at the top and corporations,” Joe Biden said at a campaign rally in Pittsburgh.
Oh really?
According to the Treasury Department, 80 percent of Americans received a tax break under the president’s historic tax reform legislation. Those most unlikely to receive a tax refund, according to IRS data? Those “folks at the top,” as Mr. Biden would call them, making between $100,000 to $250,000 annually.
And in terms of corporations — those evil profiteering, innovative, companies that employ, pay, and provide health insurance and 401(k)s for millions of Americans — well, they must be admonished. 
“So we’ve had an industrial policy in the United States for decades now, and it’s basically been let giant corporations do whatever they want to do,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in the first Democratic debate. “Giant corporations have exactly one loyalty, and that is to profits.” 
Maybe so, but that end goal doesn’t necessarily mean the average American worker isn’t benefiting, after all a rising tide lifts all boats. An analysis by economist Stephen Moore concluded Americans are $10 trillion better off thanks to rising stock prices under the guidance of President Trump.
“The value of all-American stocks today is estimated at roughly $36 trillion, according to a report by Nasdaq. So, we have already seen a $10 trillion to $12 trillion wealth boost under this president,” Mr. Moore wrote. “That is more than the entire gross domestic product of most countries in the world. It is why everyone wants to invest in our country. It is also equivalent to roughly $10,000 for every American household.”
Not so bad for all those Americans who hold retirement funds or invest in the stock market. 
The bottom line: Democratic presidential hopefuls are trying to convince you, you’re not better off than you were in the Obama years — when manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, when the “new normal” was a 1.6 GDP growth, where wage growth was stagnant and unemployment surged, where you had to accept that “some jobs are just not coming back,” and only a “magic wand” could return our country to greatness.
Newsflash: The American economy is the greatest its ever been, and President Donald Trump is responsible for it. It’s a hard truth Democrats just can’t seem to face. 
• Kelly Sadler is the communications director of America First, the official super PAC for President Donald J. Trump’s 2020 re-election bid.

Latest Development In Flynn Case PROVES Special Counsel Was A COVER For TAKING DOWN Trump

His former lawyer’s latest testimony establishes two facts, both of which benefit Michael Flynn and both of which the media has missed.

Margot Cleveland

The special counsel’s investigation was a sham controlled by the intelligence community. Evidence has long suggested as much, but testimony earlier this week from Michael Flynn’s ex-lawyer—that Flynn’s former legal team had not seen recently revealed information purporting to implicate Flynn in a conspiracy with a Turkish agent—confirms it.

This testimony came on Tuesday when Flynn’s former Covington and Burling lawyer, Robert Kelner, took the stand at the trial of Flynn’s former partner at Flynn Intel Group (FIG), Bijan Rafiekian. Rafiekian, who co-founded FIG with Flynn, is on trial for conspiring with his co-defendant Kamil Ekim Alptekin and others (unnamed in the indictment) to act as an unregistered agent of the Turkish government and conspiring to file a material false Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statement. (Alptekin is a fugitive believed to be in Turkey.)

The government had planned to call Flynn as a witness at Rafiekian’s trial, but at the last minute prosecutors informed the court that Flynn would not testify. Instead, prosecutors notified the court that they viewed Flynn as an unindicted co-conspirator and that they intended to present hearsay evidence against Rafiekian—something allowed if Flynn had conspired with Rafiekian and Alptekin to file the false FARA statements.

Last week, presiding Judge Anthony J. Trenga held that the government had not yet presented sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to admit prior statements made by Flynn and Alptekin. Until prosecutors made a preliminary showing of a conspiracy at trial, Trenga ruled, the hearsay evidence would not be admitted, and even then the government may be bound by its prior admission that Flynn was not a co-conspirator.

Then last Friday came the revelation that the government possessed previously undisclosed information supposedly implicating Flynn in a separate conspiracy with Alptekin. Rafiekian’s attorney disclosed this shocker at the close of a pre-trial hearing, telling the court that before the start of the proceedings, the government had handed him a one-sentence statement. “If I may read it for purposes of the record,” Rafiekian’s lawyer continued:

The United States government is in possession of multiple independent pieces of information relating to the Turkish government’s efforts to influence United States policy on Turkey and Fethullah Gulen, including information relating to communications, interactions, and a relationship between Ekim Alptekin and Michael Flynn and Ekim Alptekin’s engagement of Michael Flynn because of Michael Flynn’s relationship with an ongoing presidential campaign without any reference to the defendant or FIG.

(For more on Fethullah Gulen and Ekim Alptekin see this article.)

On Tuesday, while cross-examining Kelner, Rafiekian’s attorney asked Flynn’s former lawyer “if he knew what that statement alludes to.” According to Josh Gerstein, who is covering the trial for Politico, Kelner replied, “Ummm….I would say no. I learned of that through a media report last week.” Then, according to Gerstein, Kelner testified that Flynn had never told him about any “back channel relationship with Alptekin.”

There Is Important Info Hidden Here

Kelner’s testimony establishes two facts, both of which benefit Flynn and both of which the media has missed. First, while the press perceives the government’s recent disclosure of alleged communications between Flynn and Alptekin as damaging Flynn, Flynn’s current legal team is unconcerned with Kelner’s testimony, as demonstrated by the fact that it was Flynn’s waiver of attorney-client privilege that allowed Kelner to testify about their conversations.

Kelner made that point clear at trial, explaining to the jury that he was only answering questions about his conversations with Flynn, including those posed about his client’s reported communications with Alptekin, because Flynn had not asserted attorney-client privilege.

The second key take-away from Kelner’s testimony is not as straightforward, but it is extremely significant: Kelner’s lack of knowledge about the “multiple independent pieces of information relating to the Turkish government’s efforts to influence United States policy on Turkey and Fethullah Gulen, including information relating to communications, interactions, and a relationship between Ekim Alptekin and Michael Flynn and Ekim Alptekin’s engagement of Michael Flynn because of Michael Flynn’s relationship with an ongoing presidential campaign,” establishes that the intelligence community viewed the special counsel “probe” as merely for show.

There is no other way to explain how Flynn’s lawyer did not know about that information. Prior to the recent falling-out between Flynn and federal prosecutors, Flynn met extensively with “the Special Counsel’s office and other components of the Government, totaling approximately sixty-two hours and forty-five minutes,” according to Flynn’s sentencing memorandum.

Yet not once during those meetings did the “multiple independent pieces of information . . . relating to communications, interactions, and a relationship between Ekim Alptekin and Michael Flynn and Ekim Alptekin’s engagement of Michael Flynn because of Michael Flynn’s relationship” with the Trump presidential campaign come up. That is despite the fact that the Robert Mueller report made clear that Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had “authorized the Special Counsel to investigate, among other things, possible criminal conduct by Michael Flynn in acting as an unregistered agent for the Government of Turkey.”

Now, arguably the special counsel’s office did not question Flynn about those “multiple independent pieces of information” because they already had enough to force a plea out of Flynn. But why not ask Flynn about that information to determine whether Rafiekian and Alptekin had committed any crimes?

That question was also expressly within the special counsel’s authority: According to Mueller’s report, in October 2017, Rosenstein “confirmed the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate Rafiekian and Alptekin because they ‘may have been jointly involved’ with Flynn in FARA-related crimes.” The answer is simple enough: The intelligence community did not share the “multiple independent pieces of information” concerning Flynn’s communications with Alptekin with the special counsel’s office.

Why Would Intel Agencies Withhold This from Mueller?

We can surmise this because the federal prosecutors did not provide Rafiekian’s attorneys with notice that the government possessed the information supposedly implicating Flynn in a separate conspiracy with Alptekin until Friday. And the court had ordered the government to turn over all Brady and Giglio evidence by the end of May.

Brady material refers to evidence favorable to an accused, and Giglio evidence consists of evidence adversely affecting the credibility of the government’s witnesses. The government has an obligation to provide a defendant this evidence prior to trial. But, and significantly, while the prosecution must turn over any material exculpatory or impeachment evidence, disclosure is only required of information in the prosecution’s “possession or knowledge, whether actual or constructive.”

Criminal defense lawyer Leslie McAdoo Gordon, a principal at the D.C. firm of McAdoo Gordon and Associates, explained it this way:

Clearly one (or more) of the intelligence agencies had possession of the information recently identified in the pre-trial hearing. However, it’s not enough that some federal agency has information helpful to the defense. If the intelligence agency owning the information is not participating in the prosecution, or if its representative to the prosecution team doesn’t know about the information, then it isn’t a Brady or Giglioviolation that they didn’t give it to the defense attorneys.

In order words, as McAdoo Gordon told The Federalist, “The prosecution lawyers must query their team members for all information that could be Brady or Giglio. But they don’t have to make a search of the entire agency where prosecution team members like agents, investigators or technicians work.”

In Rafiekian’s case, then, if intelligence agencies did not share the information they had with those involved in investigating and prosecuting Rafiekian, the prosecution would have no duty under Brady/Giglio to hand it over. Obligations under Brady/Giglio are continuous, though, meaning that whenever exculpatory or impeachment material makes its way into the hands of the prosecution team, the government lawyers must alert the defendant’s lawyers.

So, the fact that the government attorneys had not previously provided Rafiekian notice of the “multiple independent pieces of information” concerning Flynn’s communications with Alptekin, means that no one involved in the criminal investigation and prosecution of Rafiekian knew of that evidence, including the special counsel office, which had “investigated” Rafiekian and Alptekin for four months before handing off the case. If they had, they had an obligation to provide it to Rafiekian’s attorneys on a timely basis and by the court established deadline.

But someone knew of those “multiple independent pieces of information”—or rather some “community.” And it is troubling that the intelligence community had no problem withholding the information from the special counsel’s office and the Eastern District of Virginia prosecutors who inherited the case from Mueller—and in turn Rafiekian’s attorneys—until Flynn became a persona non gratis.

Using Their Special Powers for Political Revenge

In what appears to be a clear case of revenge, the intelligence community handed off their supposed intel on Flynn, knowing neither Flynn nor Rafiekian could adequately counter it because it was classified, and all Rafiekian’s attorneys would likely get would be a lousy one-sentence summary of the “multiple independent pieces of information.” That one-sentence summary would be made public and implicate Flynn in a criminal conspiracy.

After receiving this notice, Rafiekian’s attorneys argued to the court that the recently disclosed evidence is quite clearly Brady evidence and that “if Mr. Rafiekian is convicted without his counsel having access to this exculpatory evidence, we believe it will go right to the heart of his due process and confrontation rights.” But, as of yet, the court has refused to provide Rafiekian access to the intel (in a classified setting, of course).

There is no good excuse for intelligence agencies to have withheld this information from the special counsel team. There was a very bad excuse for it, though: The intelligence community knew the special counsel probe was a sham designed to take down a president and any other enemies of the deep-state status quo.

Flynn clearly fit the bill. Once he agreed to plead guilty and cooperated, that was good enough for the intelligence community. Their goal was accomplished, and the fact that Mueller had also been charged with investigating Rafiekian and Alptekin was of no matter.

How Many Other Times Has This Happened?

This pattern has likely repeated itself many times, which would explain why Mueller never addressed whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election by feeding Christopher Steele fake intel for his hit on Trump. Just as the intelligence community carefully guarded the information it believed it had on Flynn, the spies and spooks seeking to destroy the president likely kept a close grip on any information that exposed the Steele dossier as a Russian ploy (or a Hillary Clinton-funded lie).

That should be the lesson from the recent revelations related to Flynn—that the special counsel team never had access to the intelligence needed to properly investigate Rafiekian and Alptekin. In turn, this suggests the intelligence community withheld other evidence for Mueller’s team, such as intelligence showing Russia used Steele to interfere in the election.

There is only one reasonable explanation for this: The intelligence community viewed the special counsel’s investigation as an insurance policy meant to destroy Trump. And Flynn was just a means of getting to Trump.


Uncle Sam is Hurting and is Now Eyeing 16-Year-Olds to Fill Military Ranks

U.S. Needs To Reinstate The DRAFT. Global Challenges Need More Good Men and Women In Armed Services NOW!

In this June 4, 2017, file photo. nNew Army recruits take part in a swearing in ceremony before a baseball game between the San Diego Padres and the Colorado Rockies in San Diego. The Army has missed its recruiting goal for the first time in more than a decade. Army leaders tell The Associated Press they signed up about 70,000 new troops for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, 2018. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)
In this June 4, 2017, file photo. nNew Army recruits take part in a swearing in ceremony before a baseball game between the San Diego Padres and the Colorado Rockies in San Diego. The Army has missed its recruiting goal for the first time in more than a decade. Army leaders tell The Associated Press they signed up about 70,000 new troops for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, 2018. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)

Ben Wolfgang

The best way to fix the U.S. armed forces’ recruiting challenges may involve dipping further into the nation’s high schools.
As the Army, Navy and other services contend with a thriving economy and a directive to expand their ranks, there is a growing debate over whether the military should consider lowering the minimum enlistment age from 17 to 16. More than a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, already have adopted the policy.
Critics say the idea is deeply flawed and presents a host of societal problems, but supporters argue that the Pentagon needs to think outside the box if it wants to continually overcome one of the toughest recruiting environments in decades.
Neither the military nor lawmakers have given any indication that they are entertaining the idea, but some analysts say that opening the ranks to younger Americans could provide unique benefits and may be the kind of fundamental overhaul the recruiting system needs for the 21st century.
“For one, many of the factors that disqualify older youths from joining — like criminal records — are not as present in younger teens,” said Shane McCarthy, chief marketing officer of Sandboxx, a leading technology platform that connects military members stationed abroad with families and friends at home. Mr. McCarthy also has advised military commands on how to better target recruits.
“Currently, of the 75% of 17- to 24-year-olds who are ineligible to serve, for example, 10% are ineligible due to criminal records,” he wrote in a recent piece for the Military Times. “And, according to the Department of Justice, there are twice as many arrests of 18- to 20-year-olds as there are arrests of 15- to 17-year-olds.”
Mr. McCarthy’s argument touched off a firestorm, with skeptics saying the move could create more problems than it would solve. Peter Warren Singer, a senior fellow at the Washington think tank New America, countered that lowering the enlistment age to 16 would undermine combat effectiveness and unit cohesion and create other problems.
Mr. Singer, author of the book “Children at War,” also said the very idea shows a “misunderstanding [of] the different brain chemistry of youths and their ability to make informed judgment” and would destroy “the day-to-day lives of the poor drill instructors and commanders of these teens’ first unit.”
He made his case in a piece for the military-focused website Task & Purpose.
Despite those and other concerns, the notion certainly isn’t new. At least 13 nations allow enlistees younger than 17, according to the CIA World Factbook. They include major powers such as the United Kingdom and smaller countries with much less capable militaries, such as Tonga, Bolivia and Papua New Guinea.
In the U.S., analysts say, there is a lack of data about the issue and it’s unclear exactly what effects military services would encounter if they begin admitting younger teens.
“I think the broader answer about all of this is we really don’t know,” said Beth J. Asch, a senior economist at the Rand Corp. who studies military recruiting. “There’s no current research on what the effects would be, how would it expand the market, their qualifications. We don’t know.”
Like other analysts, Ms. Asch said she believes the idea of signing up 16-year-olds has been off the table for decades and remains so today.
But the discussion underscores the armed forces’ systemic recruiting challenges.
Last year, the Army fell short of its recruiting goal for the first time in a decade. The Army had set a goal of 76,500 recruits and pulled in just under 70,000, according to Defense Department figures.
The Army and all other branches of the military expect to meet this year’s targets, but officials readily acknowledge that the recruiting environment is as difficult as ever, largely because of a soaring economy, a consistently low unemployment rate and more economic opportunities in the private sector for young Americans who otherwise might consider military service.
Analysts say that recruiting 16-year-olds doesn’t seem to be the right solution, but they stress that the military can and must improve its outreach to younger teenagers.
“You have to compete and be in the marketplace, and that’s something the military doesn’t do very well,” said Rebecca Burgess, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who studies military and veterans issues. “It tells the story of itself that’s very traditional: ‘We’re freedom fighters doing good throughout the world; be part of our team.’ And it expects people to kind of come to them.”
That, she said, is why recruiting offices too often are found in dying shopping malls or other low-traffic sites rather than out in the community.
The military has taken serious steps in recent years to increase its visibility and engagement in the nation’s communities. The Army has launched a comprehensive recruiting program in major cities and said the approach already has paid huge dividends in the number of recruits from urban centers such as Baltimore and Minneapolis.
But analysts say the military’s past tack of using marketing slogans such as the Army’s “Be all you can be” mantra no longer works.
Instead, they say, the branches should craft multiple appeals centering on the host of benefits that come from military service, including educational assistance, patriotism, career benefits, and the host of jobs a man or woman can perform in the military outside of a combat zone.
“I think what’s happening now — and it’s not that messages aren’t important — but I think there’s a realization that different people are interested in different things,” said Ms. Asch. “It’s not one message. People want to join for a variety of reasons, so the message has to be somewhat tailored.
“The trick is to communicate all of that so people get the message they need to hear,” she said.

Thursday, July 18, 2019

BREAKING NEWS!! Ilhan Omar Used FALSE NAME to Enter U.S.

New claim amid growing evidence she married brother in immigration scheme

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. (video screenshot)

An investigative reporter who has helped compile compelling evidence that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., committed immigration fraud by marrying her brother and lying about it under oath now cites multiple sources within the Minneapolis Somali community who claim the congresswoman entered the United States in 1995 as a fraudulent member of the Omar family.

In other words, her real name is not Omar, reports David Steinberg for Alpha News.

Steinberg, who was New York City Editor at PJ Media from 2009-2019, writes that there is now “probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.”

“To be clear: The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”

Steinberg explains that the Omar family is a second, unrelated family that was being granted asylum by the United States, noting the information from his sources is corroborated by public records.

“The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family,” he writes.

While the three received asylum in the United States, Ilhan’s three other siblings, using their real names, obtained asylum in the United Kingdom. Among the British siblings, according to abundant evidence reported by Steinberg over the past three years, was Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

Before applying for asylum, the congresswoman’s name was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.

In 2009, she married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi and did not divorce him until 2017, after her run for the state legislature drew attention to the marriage.

Last month, WND reported, a Minnesota agency found that Omar violated state campaign finance rules and filed federal taxes in 2014 and 2015 with her current husband, Ahmed Hirsi, while she was legally married to but separated from Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

President Trump waded into the issue on Wednesday before boarding Marine One, responding to a question from the conservative OANN, One American News Network.

“Well, there’s a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother. I know nothing about it,” Trump said.

“I hear she was married to her brother. You’re asking me a question about it. I don’t know, but I’m sure there’s somebody who will be looking at that.”

Under penalty of perjury

Steinberg points out that Omar’s marriage to Ahmed came after the State Department on Oct. 22, 2008, stopped accepting applications for a program enabling refugees to apply for asylum if one family member is already a legal U.S. resident.

The program was halted because DNA testing — primarily of Somalis — had concluded that some 87 percent of applicants were fraudulently claiming family relationships.

When Omar applied for a default divorce from Ahmed in August 2017, she swore under penalty of perjury that she had no contact with him after June 2011. Further, she swore that she didn’t know where to find him and didn’t know a single person who was likely to know his whereabouts.

“Now, a tremendous amount of evidence — from this article and our prior articles — shows that Ilhan perhaps perjured herself eight times with her nine answers,” Steinberg writes.

He points out that Minnesota’s perjury statute allows for a sentence of up to five years for each instance of perjury.

Steinberg has found evidence that Omar had considerable contact with Elmi from 2011 to 2015. He points to an Instagram photo of the two together in 2014 in London, where Elmi was living. In posts with family photos, Omar refers to Elmi as her children’s uncle.

A 2014 Instagram post apparently shows Ilhan Omar with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in London.

In an Instagram post, Ilhan Omar refers to Ahmed Nur Elmi as an uncle to her children.

In addition, Samsundar contacted Ahmed and published his email admitting to being photographed with Omar in London in 2015.

Steinberg also notes that the information on how to contact Ahmed was made public a few months before Omar swore to the nine-question court document.

Omar: ‘conspiracy theories and false accusations’

Omar, Steinberg writes, “has refused all inquiries from her constituents, elected officials, and media outlets to provide any specific evidence contradicting even a single allegation suggested by three years of now-public information.”

“In fact, Omar has responded by making information less available.”

In August 2016, after Powerline blogger Scott Johnson and Samsundar published the allegations, Omar’s verified social media accounts were taken offline, as were Ahmed’s. When the accounts returned, Steinberg notes, a large amount of potentially incriminating evidence had been deleted.

He published at least 10 additional “before and after” instances of evidence being deleted in 2018.

“Omar has released carefully worded statements that denigrate those seeking answers from her as racists,” Steinberg writes. “Yet she has repeatedly refused to answer questions or issue anything other than public relations statements.”

In June, Omar spokesman Jeremy Slevin issued a statement to the Minneapolis Star Tribune saying that since before her election, she had been “the subject of conspiracy theories and false accusations about her personal life.”

“Emboldened by a president who openly treats immigrants, refugees and Muslims as invaders, these attacks often stem from the presumption that Ilhan — like others who share those identities — is somehow illegitimate or not fully American,” Slevin said.

“Ilhan has shared more than most public officials ever do about the details of her personal life — even when it is personally painful,” he continued. “Whether by colluding with right-wing outlets to go after Muslim elected officials or hounding family members, legitimate media outlets have a responsibility not to fan the flames of hate. Continuing to do so is not only demeaning to Ilhan, but to her entire family.”

The Star Tribune, which finally examined the issue when the state agency found campaign finance and tax-filing violations, reported it can’t confirm or deny the claim she married her brother. But the paper said Omar, curiously, has refused to reveal the names of all of her family members.

Steinberg says sources have published video and photo evidence of threats from Omar’s campaign team.

He concludes that he, along with Johnson and Samsundar, have produced three years of articles, columns and posts that “have provided more than enough evidence to give law enforcement authorities probable cause to open an investigation.”

“Now would be the chance for law enforcement, and especially for Rep. Ilhan Omar’s House colleagues, to make a sincere stand against corruption and for the uniform application of the law.”