Ilhan Omar’s Lawyers Seek Return of Property Seized in Federal Search
publishers 127articles 150first reported 12 Oct, 12:29 UTCdeveloping since 12 Oct · 11 editions
Attorneys for Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar asked the Justice Department on Friday to return property seized during a federal search of her Washington, D.C., home, arguing that the investigation was politically motivated and the search was unlawful.
Homeland Security Investigations agents executed what the Justice Department called a “judicially authorized search warrant” on Monday as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Omar has not been charged with a crime. A person briefed on the investigation told The Associated Press that agents seized her phone and issued more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas, including some to relatives.
The Justice Department has not publicly detailed the investigation. Multiple outlets reported that it concerns alleged immigration fraud involving paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she came to the United States as a child. Washington U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro separately said several investigations involving Omar were underway, including scrutiny of the lawmaker’s financial disclosures.
Omar’s lawyers said there was no legitimate basis to suspect that she violated laws concerning her citizenship and accused the government of targeting a prominent critic of President Donald Trump shortly before the November 3 midterm elections. Justice Department spokesperson Emily Covington said the attorneys’ letter contained “false allegations and inaccuracies” and that officials complied with court orders and legal requirements.
Omar called the search an effort to weaponize federal law enforcement and said she would not be silenced. Democratic leaders also criticized its timing. Trump said he had nothing to do with the search and that the matter was up to the Justice Department.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 8 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one (7 if wire copies count as one too); this version written 108 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 127
- Source articles
- 150
- Given to the writer
- 8, 8 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8 (7 if wire copies count as one)
- This version written
- 108 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →