A former prosecutor is accusing President Donald Trump’s Justice Department of “trashing” its political independence after federal agents searched Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Washington home less than a month before the midterms.
Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, writing Monday for New York magazine’s Intelligencer, argued that the October 12 raid crossed a long-established line to keep criminal investigations from influencing elections.
Honig summarizes Attorney General Todd Blanche rise as one that is “trampling on tradition and trashing DoJ’s political independence.”
He said that Blanche “doesn’t care” about the Justice Department’s unwritten “60-day rule,” which generally discourages high-profile investigations or subpoenas involving candidates in the two months before an election.
However, agents searched Omar’s home 22 days before the November 3 midterms, which can only be summarized as a clear violation of the rule. Omar, a frequent target of Trump, is seeking reelection in Minnesota.
While it’s not legally binding, Honig explained that it is vital to the DOJ’s perception of impartiality and that it protects election integrity.
Justice Department officials defended the raid, arguing that the timing does not violate any policies and had nothing to do with the upcoming elections
“The standard is purpose, not proximity to Election Day,” a department official told The Washington Post. Officials also argued that an ongoing investigation doesn’t stop because an election approaches. However, the timing is hard to ignore.
Honig called that explanation “bogus,” noting that no prosecutor would acknowledge the intent to interfere with elections
The raid received judicial authorization from U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh, who approved a warrant after prosecutors presented evidence sufficient to establish probable cause.
Federal authorities are investigating whether Omar or family members made false statements in immigration and naturalization paperwork, and they have issued more than a dozen subpoenas.
However, the investigation is not new, prompting questions about the nature of the new evidence. The Washington Post reported that immigration officials looked into some of the same allegations during Trump’s first term in 2019 and found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. A separate investigation also began during Joe Biden’s presidency and did not yield any results.
The raid also presented constitutional complications because Omar is a sitting member of Congress and investigators must ensure they do not access documents protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, which safeguards legislative work.
Omar has stated that she believes the investigation is politically motivated. However, Trump, who has repeatedly attacked the congresswoman and called for her deportation, denied involvement in the decision to search her home.
Honig wrote that the evidence against Omar remains unknown but questioned how Omar, who became a naturalized citizen 26 years ago, could fall within the typical five-year statute of limitations for federal offenses.