Representative Ilhan Omar's home raided in immigration fraud investigation.

 

Representative Ilhan Omar. New York Post.

Representative Ilhan Omar's home was raided in an immigration fraud investigation. New York Post. A federal judge signed off on the warrant. The investigation is likely due to accusations that Omar was 18 or 19 when she applied for citizenship while claiming she was 17. Though the statute of limitations would have run out years ago, the fact that Omar still claims she was born in 1982, instead of 1981. If those allegations are proven, Omar could be denaturalized and possibly deported. The investigation is not believed to be related to claims that her 2nd husband, Ahmed Elmi, was her brother. Sources say that those accusations are moot as the statue of limitations ran out years ago. 

My Comment:

Omar and her defenders are saying this is political given the timing of the raid three weeks before the election. I have to say that I don't buy it. Omar's district is so safe that I think if video came out today of her eating an infant, it wouldn't really change the chances of Republicans taking her seat. The election has nothing to do with it. 

I do think that there is a lot of meat to these accusations. Certainly a judge thought so, and its important to note that it was a DC federal judge that signed off on this. Given the political fallout from this investigation, it seems unlikely that a federal judge would sign a warrant if there wasn't a very good chance that evidence would be found. DC Judges are generally opposed to President Trump and his efforts and if there was a way to block it, it would have been done. 

It seems very likely that Omar was lying about her age when she filed for citizenship. Lying to get citizenship is a serious crime and continuing to do so for the rest of her life means she can be charged. Continuing to lie about it is what will screw her over, if she had simply stopped lying and updated her documents, the fraud would have had its statute of limitations expire, just like the claims she married her brother. 

Can it be proven? Omar claims her documents were lost during the civil war in Somalia. That seems plausible but it's possible that some documents have surfaced or someone is willing to testify to her true age. What I do know is that the standard of evidence for a criminal trial is going to be a lot higher than the standard for a judge signing off on a warrant. 

So what happens if Omar is convicted? Well, it's very possible that she would be denaturalized. But the standard for doing so is extremely high, even higher than for a criminal conviction. Denaturalization is fairly uncommon and when it does happen, it doesn't necessary mean she will be deported. Indeed, the process could take so long that it's very possible that the political winds could change. I would say that denaturalization is unlikely and deportation is even more so. 

Though the investigation is into Omar's immigration status, I do wonder if this raid will find evidence of other criminal activity. Omar is knee deep into a Somali community in Minnesota that is infested with fraud. There have been unproven allegations that she was involved with the fraudulent daycare facilities. I would be more surprised if she wasn't involved in some kind of criminal activity.  

The United States has threatened to end Ukraine's armament program if they do not agree to stop hitting Russian energy.

 

A 2S22 Bohdana self propelled artillery piece firing in Ukraine. Reuters. 

The United States has threatened to end Ukraine's armament program if they do not agree to stop hitting Russian energy. Reuters. Both officials in Kiev and Europe have confirmed that the United States is pressuring Ukraine into ending the attacks on Russia's energy production. In addition to ending the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), the United States is also threatening to end intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The report comes after an energy deal between Russia and the United States and an announcement of an energy ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine that has not been confirmed by either party. 

My Comment:

Very interesting developments in the Russia Ukraine conflict. Clearly something has shifted to the point where there is a lot of heavy pressure on Ukraine to give up their attacks. First there was the Russia energy deal which will lead to a lot of Russian diesel getting sent to the United States. Then there was Trump's announcement about the energy ceasefire. And Trump even said that Ukraine needs a new President. 

Clearly something has gone with the Trump Zelensky relationship. Not that it has always been steady in the first place, they have had some very serious spats before. But I almost wonder if it is broken now as, so far as I remember, I don't remember hearing Trump saying that he wanted Zelensky gone. 

So what happened? I am guessing that there is a very different idea of what Ukraine should be doing. Ukraine has been hammering Russia's oil refining and exports lately. That has increased gas prices globally, which Trump doesn't like. Trump has likely told Zelensky to knock it off and it seems like Zelensky hasn't listened. 

And I happen to agree with Trump. It's another example of the Zelensky regime trying to get headlines instead of actually improving battlefield conditions. They are sticking to the insane idea that somehow Putin will be overthrown if the economy gets bad. That makes zero sense given that the Russian people seem to understand that this war is existential. They aren't going to give up the war just because a few oil refineries are hit. 

It's also an almost criminal use of these resources. Attacking oil refineries isn't really going to change the battlefield conditions at all. Instead of attacking ammo dumbs and airfields, they are attacking energy production. They aren't hitting the front line troops and the supply lines that supply them. It's not going to win them the war or even help their troops in the fight.  

This is an effort to force the Ukrainians to course correct. Trump is worried about high gas prices and wants to do what he can to lower the prices. And he is sick and tired of Zelensky causing more problems for him. The threats are the stick. 

But I think the energy ceasefire is the carrot. It's getting cold in Ukraine and pretty soon it will be winter. Russia has been targeting their energy production for almost two years now. Ukraine managed to survive in 2025 because of the mild winter and the fact that they still had some good air defenses. I don't think they can depend on that in 2026 and it might be a very rough winter for Ukraine if they can't keep the heat on. 

I also don't think that the energy ceasefire is really going to happen though. Keep in mind, it's not just Zelensky that is pushing for the energy war, it's Europe. They still want Putin gone and their goal is regime change and they still somehow thinking that Putin will be removed. They aren't going to give that up anytime soon. 

And Putin has little reason to go along with it either. They have suffered some economic damage, to be sure. But he does want to keep up the pressure. I do think that Putin does want to improve relations with Trump so I think they will be more likely to go along with things for awhile, especially after the energy deal. But long term, I think that they will probably end up restarting the strikes after Ukraine continues their strikes. 

I do think that it's very possible that Ukraine gets cut off in the short term at least. I don't think this means that Ukraine will be totally cut off in the long term. Trump is already facing some whining for his deal with Russia and I am guessing totally cutting off Ukraine would be politically difficult. But a temporary pause is more than possible if Ukraine won't play ball. 

The Pentagon says that the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, will be executed publicly by firing squad.

 

Major Nidal Hasan. AP/police handout. 

The Pentagon says that the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, will be executed publicly. AP. Hasan, who was a Major in the US Army, launched a terror attack at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead and 32 others injured. The execution would be viewable on a livestream for members of the general public and the method of execution will be by firing squad. Making the execution public and the plans to broadcast it are controversial. Supporters say it will bring much needed transparency to the death penalty, especially after a botched execution in Tennessee where Christina Pike survived. Opponents say the method of execution is too brutal and that broadcasting it is disturbing. Regardless, it is unclear if the execution will happen on its scheduled date. Hasan could file an appeal, though there is not any indication that he wants to, as he has said that he feels an execution would count as martyrdom in his Muslim faith. 

My Comment:

I am not at all certain that this will even happen. Though Nidal Hasan is unlikely to appeal at this point, by all accounts, he wants to die, it's possible some judge somewhere could rule that executing him publicly is unconstitutional. That seems pretty unlikely, I don't think anyone but Hasan and his lawyers would have standing, but I also have very little trust in the legal system right now. And it's possible that Hasan's commitment to "martyrdom" is as strong as he says it is. It's very possible he changes his mind and a writ of habeas corpus could be filed, which would delay things considerably. 

Still, I think it's very possible that this could happen. Hasan might not want to appeal this and could want his death to be public. He is a devout Muslim of course and he launched his attack for Jihad. He might think his execution will get him into heaven. I'd say there's a very good chance that he won't appeal. 

The method of execution is controversial, but I don't really understand why. From what I understand, the firing squad is the most reliable method. It's the only American method that has never been botched, unlike lethal injection, like the Christina Pike case shows. And if the shooters are at all competent, death is almost instant, with little relative suffering. It hasn't been the standard for execution in the military, the last one was in 1961 by hanging, but it was commonly used in World War II for both enemy spies and cases of desertion. 

I think most of the objection is that a firing squad is a more bloody and violent method of execution compared to an injection or gas. I tend to disagree given how quick it is, but I can at least understand the argument. 

However, if it was just a firing squad execution very few people outside of determined opponents of capital punishment would care. But the decision to make the execution public is going to be hugely controversial. America hasn't done a public execution since 1936, and it has never been broadcast. Doing so would certainly be different. 

The bleeding heart argument is that it's humiliating to Hasan and not befitting to human dignity. I don't agree given that he murdered 13 people and betrayed not only his government, but his comrades in arms. There are other objections to be made. I do wonder if children will be prevented from watching it. Honestly though, as someone who watched enough World War II documentaries, I have seen executions on TV before and I don't think it affected me in any way. Though I would guess the execution will likely have some kind of age verification. 

I think the arguments for this being broadcasted are strong. I do think that transparency for capital punishment is something we should have always been doing, and even many death penalty opponents agree. I also think that sending a message is important. I generally think half the problem with Islamic terrorism is that our enemies don't take us seriously at all. They see weakness in us because we don't do these kinds of things. In their world, hiding an execution is cowardice (though not as cowardly as not executing anyone at all). If you don't believe me I am sure you can see plenty of ISIS and al-Qaeda murders. 

Politically, this might be a mess. I do think that this could "scare the normies" a bit and turn a few people off from the GOP. I can see this playing fairly poorly with women especially. On the other hand, I have seen many accounts on social media that were otherwise unhappy with the Trump administration ecstatic with this move, to the point where folks who were planning on sitting out the midterms will actually vote for Republicans now. My guess is that it will likely end up as a wash. 

As for my thoughts, I am in favor of this. Hasan's actions were unforgivable and execution is a deserved punishment for his actions. Broadcasting it is unusual but I do think it's important to publish it. I have never been very comfortable with how much secrecy there has been around execution in this country and I also think it sends an appropriate message to the terrorists. 

FBI arrests 18 year old man of Somali descent for plot to attack the Mall of America.

 

File photo of the Mall of America. AP.

The FBI has arrested an 18 year old man of Somali descent for a plot to attack the Mall of America. AP. Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud was arrested after purchasing an AK style rifle and 200 rounds of ammo from a federal agent. Mohamud had expressed interest in returning to Somali to fight for al-Shabaab but was unable to afford travel expenses. Instead, he devised a plot to attack the Mall of America and wanted to kill between 30 and 60 people. Mohamud is a descendent of Somali immigrants and is an US citizen. Tens of thousands of people of Somali descent have moved to Minnesota and many of them have been charged for supporting or committing terrorism. 

My Comment:

It's still crazy that so many of these would-be terrorists fall for these FBI stings. You would think it's obvious that the guy that wants to sell you a rifle so you can commit a major terror attack is probably a fed, but apparently it is not. Again, I am thankful terrorists are so stupid. 

That doesn't mean this man wasn't dangerous. Had he simply gotten a low paying job in a few months he would have enough money to buy actual weapons and could have pulled off an attack. Hell, Somali Americans are capable of getting all kinds of government aid and he could have even used that to fund an attack. That this didn't happen is lucky. 

Would an attack have gotten the 30 to 60 casualties with what he had? Probably not. 200 rounds is not much and it didn't seem like he had any training or experience with weapons. And the Mall of America? It's kind of a hard target. It has a large security force and a permanent police presence and I am guessing that he probably would have gotten one magazine off before he was killed. That still could have resulted in multiple casualties, but, regardless, his plan was not a good one. 

What is concerning is that this is not the first time someone of Somali descent has attempted a plot like this. Indeed, it's fairly common. Islamic radicalization is very common in Somalia and it stands to reason that it would disappear once the people came to the United States. And this incident fits the patter where a 2nd generation person ends up radicalized.  

It does seem like bringing in all these Somalians has backfired rather badly for Minnesota especially. They have a huge fraud problem there, largely due to the Somali community and the people that empower them and there is also the terrorism threat. I do expect both of those problems to continue in the future... 

Cornell 7 frat brother makes explosive claim saying that Jane Doe assaulted him.

 

The Chi Phi frat house at Cornell. New York Post.

A fraternity member accused of sexual assault in the Cornell 7 case has made and explosive counter-claim that the Jane Doe in the case actually assaulted him. New York Post. Matthew Ingalls made the statement during Cornell's internal investigation into the incident. Ingalls said that while he was passed out, Jane Doe "sodomized" him (referring to oral sex). Ingalls also said that university was aware that he made the claims against Jane Doe but did not receive any assistance or help because of his gender. Doe's own account said that Ingalls passed out multiple times during the initial sexual encounter. Ingalls was expelled by Cornell after the investigation, and no one has faced charges in the case. 

My Comment:

When I first read about this case I thought that by Jane Doe's original statement, it was very possible that she sexually assaulted at least one of the brothers under New York Law. Male #1 and Male #2 in her statement were showing signs of extreme intoxication and even she admitted that Male #1, Matthew Ingalls, had passed out during the sex. She claimed she stopped having sex with him then, but Ingalls now claims that he was assaulted as he was passed out. 

Indeed, the accusations against Jane Doe are a lot less legally ambiguous than the accusations she made. Under New York Law simple intoxication isn't enough, you have to be drugged against your will. Nothing in Doe's original statement said that she was drugged against her will. 

However, Ingalls accusation is a lot more cut and dry. If he was passed out while Doe was giving him oral sex, that's unambiguously rape. There isn't a legal question there, it's pretty explicit, having sex with an unconscious person, even just oral sex, is highly illegal and if Jane Doe did so she should be charged and convicted.  

Ingalls isn't the only one who has accused Jane Doe of wrong doing. Another brother, Gillio Lopes, said that Jane Doe initiated sexual contact with him without his consent. Again, this is a bit more cut and dry as it doesn't have much to do with how intoxicated Lopes was. Legally, it probably doesn't reach the standard of sexual assault under New York Law, but it would be a violation of Cornell's sexual assault guidelines. 

Of course, people's reactions to these new accusations against Jane Doe will probably tell more about them than the actual facts of this case. I think the feminist supporters of Jane Doe will, at best, not update their priors at all and will simply dismiss the claims of Ingalls and Lopes. At worse they will claim they are making it up. Supporters of the Cornell 7 will likely say this proves that Jane Doe was lying about everything and that at least Ingalls and Lopes were the actual victims. 

However, it's very possible that both groups are wrong and both Ingalls and Jane Doe assaulted each other. If we take both Ingalls and Doe's statements at face value and "believe the victims" than that is what happened. It's very possible that Ingalls passed out, Jane Doe assaulted him, he wakes up, Doe passes out and he assaults her. Then both of them are felons! And, of course, it's not proof either way for the rest of the frat brothers named in the lawsuit, especially the three that said they had no sexual contact with Jane Doe whatsoever. 

I think the ambiguity over this case and the obvious questions over the law more than justifies the fact that this case never made it to an arrest. Ingalls does have a credible claim that he was a victim and Jane Doe is not a good witness given she changed her story. Without clear evidence proving either side is telling the truth, a conviction would be unlikely. Indeed, I think that the original Cornell case outcome is almost fair, two brothers were kicked out for their behavior, which even if Jane Doe's accusations are false, would still be a violation of Cornell's policies, not to mention the drug use. It would be fair if Jane Doe had been expelled too, as, again, without any judgement to the truth to the claims, still voluntarily took illegal drugs. 

What I do think is true is that Cornell did discriminate against Ingalls. If he did indeed report Jane Doe for assault, there should have been an investigation into his claims. I do think that this was not done because Ingalls was a man. He might have a lawsuit against Cornell as well. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, under the laws of the United States, he had just as much of a right to have his accusations examined as Jane Doe. 

Finally, I do think that this case is a lot more complex than folks want to make it out to be. It's an extremely messy and complicated one where there may have been multiple victims. It's not an open and shut case of sexual assault or a clear cut false accusation. And the truth of the matter is that without actual physical evidence or a witness that doesn't have an incentive to lie, we probably won't ever know what exactly happened and who did what to whom. 

It's he-said she-said all the way down and it's a major reason why it's frustrating that this case blew up the way it did. I know some of that is the Democrats trying to blow it up to get young women to vote in the midterms, but honestly this is a case of generating heat, not light. What I do know is that it is pouring fuel on an already raging gender war.