This is the 'MOST IMPORTANT' piece of evidence in Omar probe, ex-ICE acting director says

[0:00] All right. Well, the Trump administration is ratcheting up the pressure on Congresswoman [0:04] Ilhan Omar. The feds have now seized her phone, her passport, subpoenaed people in her inner circle, [0:10] reportedly seeking ways to strip her of her U.S. citizenship. Omar calls it political intimidation, [0:16] but reporters are flagging these inquiries did not begin on President Trump's watch. [0:21] If this is true, would it not have been wiser for the congresswoman to have gone to the Biden [0:29] Justice Department and said, this has happened, and there was a mistake, and I'd like to come [0:35] clean and pay whatever fine? There was some investigation, as I think Evan just said, [0:39] that was started under the Biden administration, reopened under the Trump administration. So I [0:44] think that's going to undermine any argument she may have down the line that this is politically [0:49] selective. So let's bring in Jonathan Fahy, former acting ICE director and federal prosecutor. [0:56] Jonathan, good to be with you. The bar to denaturalize an American citizen, strip them of their [1:05] citizenship is very high, as all the legal experts agree that it should be, for any reason. It looks [1:12] like, in this case, based on what we know so far, that would mean authorities need to essentially [1:21] prove that she participated in fraud knowingly with her father when she was filling out her [1:29] immigration paperwork back in 1995. Is that right? [1:35] Yeah, there's basically two ways to denaturalize somebody. One is criminal. If you prove naturalization [1:41] fraud, which would be, say, back in the day in 2000, if her and her father entered into a conspiracy, [1:47] or she somehow is complicit in some scheme to change her name, to allow her to piggyback [1:53] on his citizenship, or change her age. The second is through the civil process, which is through clear [2:01] and convincing evidence, and that could be brought in front of a federal judge, no jury. So it's a lower [2:06] bar than a criminal bar. And the reason the naturalization bar, the first one, is hard to prove now [2:12] is because of statute of limitations has presumably run on that, unless they could prove an ongoing [2:17] conspiracy. But basically, two ways, it's a high bar. But remember, if they have evidence that they [2:23] used a fraudulent birthday to get citizenship, and then substantial evidence that she was actually born [2:29] another date, in fact, a year earlier, it may not actually be that hard to prove. And that's why one [2:36] of the things they're looking at, they're looking at documents she filled out. They're looking at the [2:40] most important piece of evidence they're going to have in this case is that passport that they [2:44] seized from her house. Yeah. So let me just step for folks at home who might not know the nuances [2:48] of all this. The Wall Street Journal lays it out pretty well here. Here's what they say [2:52] that could put her in jeopardy of losing her citizenship. At the center of the immigration [2:56] investigation is whether Omar or her father changed her age on her citizenship application to [3:02] show she was 17 years old, rather than 18, according to people familiar with the probe. If Omar was 17 at the [3:08] time, her father applied for citizenship, she would have qualified automatically, rather than needing [3:13] to pursue her own immigration process. So if she was 17, by virtue of her father getting citizenship, [3:19] she would get it as well. That happened with my first kids. But if she was 18 at the time, [3:25] she doesn't get to ride the coattails of her father. She has to apply herself. So if it was simply, [3:30] well, I mean, it would have to be, I guess, a conspiracy. You couldn't accidentally do it. [3:35] The father might have known what he was doing. But if she didn't know what the father was doing, [3:39] is she liable? I think here's why we think, [3:44] where I think they'll be able to prove she knew what he was doing, because if she is, say, [3:48] say right now on her passport, does she have the real birthdate or the fake birthdate, [3:54] assuming there is a fake birthdate? And if she has the one that she was naturalized under, [3:58] she presumably should have known when she had her second, 17th birthday in a row that something was up. [4:04] So if she has that, that shows not only she had knowledge at the time, [4:09] but she was complicit. Plus, if it's on her passport now with the wrong date, [4:14] she has another crime to contend with. And that's the easiest thing for the government [4:18] to prove is passport fraud, because if she put false information on that passport, [4:22] every single time she uses it, every airport, anytime she uses it for identification, [4:26] that's a federal crime. And not just in Washington, D.C., [4:30] any airport in the United States, she uses it. [4:33] If these charges, or excuse me, if this investigation does result in some kind of charges [4:39] here, there's a whole other layer of special consideration that will play in to the fact [4:47] that she's a sitting member of Congress. Here's John Yoo talking about that angle earlier today. [4:51] The Constitution says to be a member of the House of Representatives, [4:56] you have to be a citizen of the United States. [4:59] That's an easy question. Yes or no. Is she a citizen or is she not a citizen? [5:04] All you have to do is figure out, did she tell the truth in her citizenship papers? [5:09] If she's not, if she didn't, then she's not a citizen and she shouldn't be in Congress. [5:13] What do you say? [5:18] Well, I say she would still have to be denaturalized before we declare her not a citizen. [5:23] But I think she really, she's got, she's really in a trick bag with this age thing, [5:28] because if they, if they can prove that she used to use the age that she was older and all of a [5:35] sudden when she became a citizen, it was all of a sudden she's a year younger and she either [5:39] perpetuated that or went back to the old age, it just shows she's involved in a corrupt scheme. [5:44] I think the cleanest way would be if they convict her of something like passport fraud, [5:49] then secondarily denaturalize her in a district court, which takes a lower burden of proof. [5:55] But either way, I think she really has a tough, tough time here in the event we have the two [6:00] ages that don't, don't jive. Real quick before we let you go, Jonathan, [6:05] President Trump said the other day that he didn't know, he was not involved in this investigation [6:10] in the raid on her home. Do you believe that to be true? [6:13] Yes, I do. And remember, you guys were, you were talking about the beginning of the segment, [6:18] this investigation at least part, was partially started under the Biden administration and it [6:24] doesn't seem like, you know, there's any coordination. He didn't have kind things to say [6:27] about her, but he does seem to be pretty detached from this. And my guess is they entered the, [6:32] executed the search warrant because there was timing issues for other parts of the investigation. [6:36] So I, yeah, I don't believe he's, he's actively involved or even has any more knowledge than [6:41] probably people from the outside. All right, we'll see how this goes. [6:44] Jonathan Fahey for us. Jonathan, thank you for joining us. [6:46] Appreciate it. Thank you. [6:48] Be sure to like and subscribe for all the Fox News latest on YouTube and catch full shows [6:54] streaming now on Fox one.