Dana Perino: This investigation BEGAN under Biden…

[0:00] Democrats and their belief that no one is above the laws getting tested again [0:03] after federal agents raided the home of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. [0:07] The investigation is reportedly related to potential immigration crimes. [0:12] Omar putting out a defiant statement writing this, [0:15] I'm okay, make no mistake, this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement. [0:22] President Trump says he had nothing to do with the investigation, [0:25] but he had plenty to say about the Congresswoman at last night's rally in Ohio. [0:29] She's a disaster. [0:31] She comes into our country and she says, I have a constitutional right. [0:37] She's got a constitutional right. [0:38] She's telling us about the Constitution. [0:41] And she comes from one of the worst countries anywhere on the planet. [0:46] Last week, savage Somali gang members shot two people in the high school parking lot [0:51] in the middle of a football game. [0:53] Just days later, a few miles away, the FBI arrested a radicalized Somalian [0:59] who was planning to carry out an ISIS-style terrorist attack at the Mall of America. [1:06] But the media is not taking Trump at his word, accusing the administration of racism [1:12] and claiming Omar is a victim of political prosecution. [1:17] It's racism aimed at Congresswoman Omar and at an entire community. [1:21] It looks highly suspicious. [1:22] Three weeks before election day, it looks like a political ploy. [1:26] As everyone knows, there's been a longstanding controversy, mostly in right-wing circles [1:30] about Ilyana Omar's immigration providence and whether she's in the country legally. [1:35] It does look like she's being targeted for political persecution [1:39] like a lot of our other congressional colleagues have been. [1:43] Emily, none of them addressed the substance of the matter. [1:47] And it is, I think, worth pointing out that the investigation began under Joe Biden. [1:52] Correct. [1:53] And first of all, there's a lot we don't know, but there is a lot going on here in different avenues. [2:00] So the investigation that was begun under Biden's Department of Justice [2:04] had to do with financial issues and ethics issues. [2:08] As we know, this obviously is part of the Department of Homeland Security, [2:11] but it's attached to the criminal DOJ department. [2:14] And I think that the thing to really grasp, if you're watching here, [2:18] is to, first of all, disregard all of those commentators' points, [2:21] because this required judicial authorization of federal investigation. [2:26] And when you have a warrant, there are requirements for the warrant. [2:30] So before a judge signs off on it, you have to describe with particularity and specificity [2:35] the thing to be seized and the thing to be searched. [2:37] And you have to, by probable cause, prove with facts, [2:41] not just political allegations or the color of her skin, [2:44] which these MSNOW commentators are trying to say, [2:47] that there is a nexus between that thing you're searching or seizing and a crime. [2:52] And from New York Times reporting, we know that that has to do with potentially conspiracy. [2:56] It has to do with potentially immigration crimes. [2:58] So there's a lot going on there. [3:00] And everything that they brought out of their house, which we have on camera, [3:04] there were boxes of evidence. [3:06] So it's like we were talking about earlier, what is that likely electronics? [3:08] If you talk about the ephemerality of the evidence, [3:11] are there things that they got rid of? [3:13] You know, we don't know. [3:13] That's a whole separate crime. [3:15] But I will say this. [3:16] If there is a warrant that has been executed by a federal judge in the D.C. Circuit [3:21] on a sitting congressperson's house that led to the seizure of boxes of evidence, [3:27] then there is a lot to be uncovered. [3:29] And the questions we have now are the tip of the iceberg. [3:33] And yes, the fact that it's happening right before midtimes, [3:35] it goes to show that whatever they have and whatever the judge signed off on [3:40] is far more important than the appearance of propriety [3:43] or the appearance of affecting negatively the midterm results. [3:48] Harold, you can comment on the substance of it as well, [3:52] but on the timing, Jack Smith, when he went after Trump, [3:55] he made it very clear he was trying to do that before the 2024 election. [3:58] Has Democrats sort of forfeited that grace period? [4:02] So when I think you might be referring to when there was the executed warrant on Mar-a-Lago [4:08] and people talked about that became very partisan and political, [4:14] the same facts that I think Emily rightly and eloquently said, [4:19] for this to happen three weeks before the election, [4:21] you have to sign up on this in the Justice Department, [4:23] several layers, including their public integrity department, [4:26] and you have to have a judge. [4:27] You presume that the judges in D.C. that sign up on this. [4:30] I know everybody likes to be political, not us necessarily, [4:32] but people like to wonder if the judges are— [4:34] these are probably all Democrat-appointed judges that looked at this, [4:38] and I think judges are above their partisan people who may have appointed them, [4:42] but just to get in the weeds with everybody for a moment. [4:44] So I would agree with you, Emily, [4:46] just like I would agree that the warrant that was executed on Mar-a-Lago [4:49] was done the same way. [4:50] I give people, like you should, like we do in our American system, [4:54] she's not been charged with anything, [4:55] but it sounds like these agents and this warrant for a judge to sign up for a sitting member of Congress [5:01] who was up for re-election three weeks before an election, [5:04] they must believe, as you talked about, [5:06] the specificity that had to be outlined in their request, [5:09] that there's something here. [5:12] If she does get charged, there's a presumption of innocence in our country, [5:15] which would apply to her. [5:17] I don't like the president saying that somehow another person [5:19] that comes from a country that he doesn't like [5:21] and might be a poor country. [5:23] She's been here two decades. [5:25] She has every right as an American to say whatever she wants to say, [5:28] but what she does not have the right to do is break the law. [5:31] And if laws are broken here, we're going to find out. [5:33] Be sure to like and subscribe for all the Fox News latest on YouTube [5:38] and catch full shows streaming now on Fox 1.