CNN host Jake Tapper was once again trying to protect a Democrat lawmaker while suggesting that the legal action taken against her this week by the Trump administration was purely political.
In a Wednesday segment, Tapper discussed the raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s DC home by DHS on Monday with network legal expert and former assistant U.S. Attorney Elie Honig.
At one point during the back-and-forth, Tapper suggested that Omar should have owned up to any previous legal “mistake” she may have made in years past during the Biden administration because she’d likely have gotten better treatment from a Democrat-run Justice Department – even though an investigation into her immigration status began while Biden was in office.
Tapper began the segment complaining that the Trump Justice Department appeared to ignore a long-standing department rule “not to take any overt action involving candidates within 60 days of an election.”
He then asked: “Is there any specific reason that you can see as to why the Justice Department would act now and kind of ignore this rule?”
Advertisement
“Well, a couple reasons potentially, Jake,” Honig began.
“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,” he said.
“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,” Honig continued.
“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,” he said.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Tapper then said, “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?”
Advertisement
“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,” Honig responded.
“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,” he said.
“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,” Honig explained.
Advertisement
“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,” he said.
As the segment neared its end, Tapper then offered: “Just quickly, if this is true, would it not have been wiser for the congresswoman to have gone to the Biden Justice Department and said, this has happened, and there was a mistake, and I’d like to come clean and pay whatever fine, and then that way this, you know, not left up to the Trump Justice Department? Is that — I mean, has that occurred to you?”
Honig then noted that the initial investigation into Omar began during Biden’s term. “So, I think that’s going to undermine any argument she may have down the line that this is politically selective and vindictive,” he said.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
