GUILTY'- Family Member BURNS Ilhan Omar In HUGE Fraud Scheme ct
GUILTY'- Family Member BURNS Ilhan Omar In HUGE Fraud Scheme
Investigation Links Ilhan Omar’s Sister To Massive Fraud Scheme
Reports indicate new questions are being raised about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s family following an investigation that uncovered connections between her sister and an address tied to individuals convicted in what authorities have described as the largest fraud scheme in Minnesota history.
The report does not accuse the Minnesota Democrat or her family of participating in the fraud, but observers note it points to business records and shared addresses that investigators and lawmakers are now examining as scrutiny surrounding the scandal continues.
According to an investigation published by the conservative outlet The Daily Wire, Omar’s sister, Sahra Noor, incorporated one of her consulting businesses using the address of a Minnesota woman whose business relationships allegedly connect her to multiple individuals convicted in the massive Feeding Our Future fraud case.
Media reports note the Feeding Our Future case involved hundreds of millions of dollars in federally funded child nutrition programs that prosecutors say were fraudulently billed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Federal prosecutors have described it as the largest public fraud case in Minnesota’s history.
The Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee has been examining issues related to the scandal.
Earlier this year, political analysts note Republican lawmakers sought to subpoena records from Omar as part of the committee’s investigation, but Democratic members voted to block that effort.
The Daily Wire reported that Noor incorporated Grit Partners Consulting using a residence on Hyacinth Avenue in Lakeville, Minnesota.
According to the report, the home is owned by Mashah Ahmed Ali and his wife, Ister Ahmed Afraa.
Public business records cited by the outlet show Afraa was associated with multiple companies alongside individuals later convicted in the Feeding Our Future investigation.
Among them was Hanna Marekegn, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud after admitting to stealing approximately $7 million through the federal meals program.
Federal prosecutors alleged Marekegn falsely claimed to be serving thousands of meals to children each day while using the proceeds to purchase luxury properties.
The investigation also alleges Afraa maintained business relationships with Sahra Nur, another individual who pleaded guilty in the Feeding Our Future case and was sentenced to prison.
According to court filings cited in the report, Nur admitted operating companies that prosecutors said submitted fraudulent meal reimbursement claims and provided false invoices to facilitate the scheme.
The Daily Wire also reported that Noor’s consulting company, Grit Partners, has publicly stated it helped secure more than $20 million for health initiatives and worked on projects supported by federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The report further notes that Noor previously led People’s Center Clinics & Services, which received a $2 million legislative earmark while Omar served in the Minnesota Legislature.
Observers point out the article does not allege that the earmark was connected to the Feeding Our Future investigation.
When contacted by The Daily Wire, Mashah Ahmed Ali reportedly denied knowledge of companies registered at his address or in his wife’s name.
“There must be some sort of scam going on. I have no idea,” he told the outlet.
He also said he had “nothing to do with anything” involving the businesses identified in the report.
According to the article, Afraa did not respond to requests for comment.
The Daily Wire also reported that Noor did not respond to its request for comment.
At the time of publication, reports note neither federal prosecutors nor Minnesota state investigators have publicly accused Rep. Omar or Sahra Noor of criminal wrongdoing in connection with the Feeding Our Future case.
The investigation instead focuses on business registrations, shared addresses and associations with individuals who have been convicted in the broader fraud scheme.
As legal proceedings continue against other defendants involved in the case, legal experts note the Feeding Our Future scandal remains one of the largest public corruption investigations in Minnesota’s history, with prosecutors alleging that hundreds of millions of dollars intended to feed children were instead diverted through fraudulent organizations and shell companies.
Supreme Court Justices Warn Rogue Lower Court Judges
Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh issued warnings this summer to lower court judges, cautioning them against defying precedents set by the high court in a series of cases involving President Donald Trump’s administration.
“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch wrote.
The decision was related to Trump’s cancellation of nearly $800 million in federal research grants. Kavanaugh joined the opinion, which criticized a district court for disregarding an earlier Supreme Court order.
Gorsuch noted that it was “the third time in a matter of weeks this court has had to intercede in a case ‘squarely controlled’ by one of its precedents.” He added, “When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.”
The decision allowed the administration to keep the grants frozen, overturning a ruling from U.S. District Judge William Young, who made the baseless claim he had “never seen government racial discrimination like this.”
Other justices have also criticized lower courts.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared together at an event for lawyers and judges held at the federal courthouse, with Senior U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman moderating the discussion.
The hour-long session quickly turned into something more revealing than the typical collegial exchange the Supreme Court often projects in public appearances.
Jackson sharply criticized the court’s growing reliance on emergency rulings known as the “shadow docket,” which allows the justices to act without full briefing, oral argument, or detailed written opinions.
While full litigation continues in the lower courts, the court increasingly uses the emergency process to resolve high-stakes disputes involving major national policies.
Jackson expressed her unwavering criticism of the court’s tendency to intervene at the emergency stage in politically sensitive cases.
“I just feel like this uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved … is a real unfortunate problem.”
She described the emergency process as “a warped kind of proceeding” and said it is “not serving the court or this country well.”
Jackson argued that the number of emergency applications reaching the justices could decline if the court were more reluctant to grant them.
She also suggested that frequent Supreme Court intervention may influence how lower court judges approach politically charged disputes, potentially leading them to issue broader rulings in anticipation of Supreme Court review.
Jackson indicated that lower courts may feel pressure to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions if they believe the Supreme Court is likely to step in.
Kavanaugh rejected the criticism and defended the court’s responsibility to act when emergency applications arrive, declaring, “None of us enjoy this.”
Kavanaugh said the court cannot simply ignore emergency requests once they reach the justices. He argued that declining to act would effectively allow a single lower court ruling to dictate national policy.
Emergency rulings from lower courts have increasingly blocked presidential actions nationwide through nationwide injunctions. Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court must respond when those rulings immediately affect federal policy.
He also noted that the surge in emergency litigation is not unique to the Trump administration.
Kavanaugh said the court granted similar requests from the Biden administration, though at a somewhat lower rate.
He argued that the growing number of emergency applications reflects a broader shift in how modern presidents govern.
Presidents from both parties have increasingly relied on executive orders and administrative actions to implement policy.
Kavanaugh said that trend stems in part from Congress struggling to pass legislation in a deeply divided political environment.
When Congress cannot act, he said, presidents often seek to advance policy through executive authority.
Those executive actions frequently face immediate legal challenges in federal court. Kavanaugh said that dynamic has turned the judiciary into a central battleground for political and policy disputes.
He also noted that in some cases, the court has chosen to hear full arguments rather than issue quick emergency rulings. That approach allows the justices to provide longer explanations and more detailed legal reasoning in particularly significant cases.
Kavanaugh praised Chief Justice John Roberts for carefully navigating the court’s tensions. He said Roberts has sought to maintain the court’s institutional credibility amid intense political pressure.
Roberts recently issued a statement rejecting calls from some Trump allies to impeach judges who ruled against the administration. The chief justice said impeachment should not be used as a response to disagreements with judicial decisions.
Jackson acknowledged that the court’s issue is complicated.
“There’s no easy answer, for sure.”
Before that, Justice Samuel Alito said a federal judge had committed an “act of judicial hubris” in a case involving another Trump policy.
Supreme Court Says YES - Hillary Clinton Gets Brutal News After President Donald Trump is Now Taking Legal Battle...
They may have been friends in the past, but ever since they faced off in the 2016 election, President Donald Trump and former First Lady Hillary Clinton have been at war with each other, figuratively speaking.
Now, their fight is about to escalate to the nation’s highest court.
Trump is continuing his long-running legal battle against Clinton by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that dismissed his civil conspiracy claims and imposed nearly $1 million in sanctions.
Justice Clarence Thomas this week granted Trump’s request for additional time to file a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Trump now has until Sept. 9 to submit his petition in Trump v. Clinton, which stems from allegations that Clinton and others helped promote claims that Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia.
The extension is a routine procedural action and does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.
As the justice assigned to matters arising from the relevant federal circuit, Thomas handles administrative requests such as filing extensions.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the appeal only after the petition is filed, and at least four justices must vote to grant review before the case can proceed.
Trump’s legal team filed the extension motion on July 23 at the Supreme Court.
In it, his lawyers argued the forthcoming petition will raise “exceptionally important” issues and that the appellate ruling and sanctions order “carries with it profound impact on the Presidency, and the nation as a whole.”
Trump’s appeal is expected to focus not only on the underlying allegations surrounding the Russia investigation but also on the broader legal question of when courts may impose sanctions against a president and his attorneys for filing civil litigation.
The federal appeals court that reviewed the case sharply criticized the lawsuit, concluding that many of the legal arguments advanced by Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, lacked merit.
The court upheld sanctions totaling nearly $1 million against Trump, Habba, and her New Jersey-based law firm.
The sanctions represent a significant financial penalty, and Trump’s appeal is expected to address both the underlying lawsuit and the broader authority of courts to impose substantial sanctions on litigants whose claims are found to lack legal merit.
Trump’s original complaint alleged that Hillary Clinton and others conspired to promote a false narrative linking his 2016 presidential campaign to Russian election interference.
The district court dismissed those claims, and the federal appeals court upheld that decision. The filing seeking additional time to petition the Supreme Court did not identify the specific appellate circuit that issued the ruling.
The Clinton lawsuit is one of several cases Trump is currently asking the Supreme Court to review.
In a separate defamation lawsuit against CNN over the network’s use of the phrase “big lie” to describe Trump’s claims regarding the 2020 election, Thomas also granted Trump additional time to file his petition. That filing is due Aug. 14.
Trump is also continuing his legal challenge in the E. Jean Carroll case.
After the Supreme Court declined to hear his initial appeal last month, he filed a petition for rehearing on July 8, asking the justices to reconsider the damages award entered against him, which the high court agreed to do in an unusual move.
Together, the three petitions place multiple Trump-related legal disputes before the court, each involving distinct legal questions ranging from sanctions and defamation to civil liability.
Clinton has not publicly commented on the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Trump additional time to file his petition.
Although she is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, the court filings do not indicate that she took any separate action in connection with the extension request.
The additional defendants identified in Trump’s original complaint were not specified in the available court records.
The lawsuit stems from Trump’s longstanding contention that allegations linking his 2016 presidential campaign to Russian election interference were knowingly promoted through false or misleading claims.
NEW: Election Overturned After Recount Reveals Trump-Backed Candidate As Victor
Republican Paula Copenhaver pulled off a stunning comeback Monday after an Indiana recount erased incumbent State Sen. Spencer Deery’s razor-thin primary victory, handing her the GOP nomination by three votes.
The Indiana Recount Commission formally certified Copenhaver as the winner after reviewing the District 23 race, finding she received 6,332 votes to Deery’s 6,329. The outcome shifted after eight ballots that had originally been counted for Deery were rejected.
During the hearing, commission members said several ballots were thrown out because of “clerical errors” made by election officials.
The decision means the election was overturned months after Deery was initially declared the winner of the May 5 Republican primary by just three votes.
Copenhaver sought the recount on May 18, arguing that “illegal voting by unqualified voters” had undermined the integrity of the election after she narrowly lost to the first-term senator.
The race attracted statewide attention because Copenhaver had President Donald Trump’s endorsement as part of a broader effort to unseat Republican incumbents in the Indiana Senate.
Trump announced in February that he would back challengers running against Deery and several other GOP state senators who opposed redistricting.
Election night produced one of the closest contests in Indiana. Initial returns showed Deery with 50.01% of the vote and Copenhaver with 49.99%, prompting both candidates to claim victory as the margin remained razor thin.
Deery, who was first elected to the Indiana Senate in 2022, was ultimately certified the winner by three votes after the original canvass. Monday’s recount reversed that outcome, with Copenhaver finishing ahead by the same three-vote margin.
Vance, Labor Dept. To Crackdown On Fraudulent Migrant Workers In U.S.
Vice President JD Vance has received another very important task from President Donald Trump to accomplish.
And already he’s wading right into it.
Vance and the Department of Labor’s inspector general on Wednesday announced a new investigation into alleged abuse of U.S. work visas by foreign nationals, describing it as part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to combat fraud.
Speaking at an anti-fraud event in Milwaukee, Vance said Labor Department officials had issued dozens of subpoenas as part of the investigation, which he said is intended to ensure that “American jobs … go to American workers and not foreign fraudsters.”
Labor Department Inspector General Anthony D’Esposito told the New York Post that investigators believe the alleged schemes have cost the U.S. medical industry hundreds of millions of dollars, while also affecting other employment sectors.
He said some of the operations under investigation are believed to involve forced-labor networks and human trafficking organizations.
Labor’s Office of Inspector General has already “uncovered widespread schemes in which employers and labor brokers submitted fraudulent applications, exploited foreign workers through coercive wage-kickback arrangements, and undercut American workers by flooding the market with below-wage labor.”
Department of Homeland Security assessments so far have found as much as 21 percent of the H-1B petitions were fraudulent, The Post reported.
D’Esposito also told Fox Business’ Mornings with Maria that the investigation will examine alleged abuses involving both H-1B visa holders and recipients of employment-based green cards.
He said investigators are reviewing cases in which foreign workers may have improperly displaced American employees or obtained immigration benefits through fraudulent means, The Post said.
“This is another example where fraud is fueling violent crime,” D’Esposito said, adding that the visa fraud “is tied to cartels, is tied to transnational gangs.”
“This is not just people working in factories or actual labor,” he added. “These are people working in medical facilities and doctors’ offices that are actually putting people in harm’s way.”
At an event in Milwaukee, Wis., Vance said the probe will root out fraudsters who “undercut” American workers.
“This is a visa program that was set up to ensure that if you were a brilliant technology person or a brilliant scientist or a brilliant doctor, you could come to the United States and get access to this visa program,” he told attendees.
“But you know, what’s happening way too much is that big corporations and fraudsters overseas are using this program to undercut the wages of American workers,” he added, according to The Post.
“What we’re doing in the Trump administration, we’re saying, ‘No more,’” the vice president continued.
“If you are trying to take advantage of that visa program, you are not allowed in to the United States of America.”
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations that typically require specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent.
The PERM labor certification process is the first step for many foreign nationals seeking employment-based permanent residency, allowing employers to sponsor workers for green cards after demonstrating they cannot readily fill the position with qualified U.S. workers.
According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 73% of H-1B recipients come from India.
More than half hold a master’s degree, and the largest share work in fields such as computer programming, data communications, software development and technical support, noted The Post.
Major technology companies, including Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and Apple, are among the largest employers of H-1B visa holders.
Foreign workers admitted through the program are also employed across the health care, manufacturing and higher education sectors, said The Post.
California, Texas, New York, Illinois and Washington receive the largest share of approved H-1B petitions, according to federal data.
The number of approved H-1B petitions reached a high of 442,425 in 2022 during the Biden administration, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center.
