New Documents Released Regarding Rep. Ilhan Omar's Possible Bigamy and Incest

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  4 weeks ago  •  98 comments

New Documents Released Regarding Rep. Ilhan Omar's Possible Bigamy and Incest

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The Minnesota Campaign Finance Board has released new documents in the case of campaign finance violations against Rep. Ilhan Omar, which shed a little more light on charges made during her 2018 campaign by PJM's David Steinberg and others that she married her brother, a British citizen, so he could enter the United States, but then married another man in 2017 before divorcing her first husband.

An investigation by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune revealed that Omar legally corrected the error, but questions surrounding her relationship with her first husband persist.

In August of 2016, the original story broke when Powerline blog covered it:

A reader has written us to point out that the Somali website Somalispotposted information last week suggesting Omar’s involvement in marriage and immigration fraud. The post notes that Omar married Ahmed Hirsi in 2002. Hirsi is the father of Omar’s three children. Omar is depicted with Hirsi and their children on Omar’s campaign website here.
The post further notes that Omar married her brother Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009, implying that the latter marriage assisted his entry into the United States. Her brother was a British citizen. “As soon as Ilhan Omar married him,” the post continues, “he started university at her [a]lma mater North Dakota State University where he graduated in 2012. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Minneapolis where he was living in a public housing complex and was later evicted. He then returned to the United Kingdom where he now lives.”

The Star-Tribune investigation tried to untangle the convoluted skein of Omar's personal life:


Omar has denied the allegations in the past, dismissing them as “baseless rumors” first raised in an online Somali politics forum and championed by conservative bloggers during her 2016 campaign for the Minnesota House. But she said little then or since about Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, the former husband who swept into her life in 2009 before a 2011 separation.

The questions surfaced again this month in a state probe of campaign finance violations showing that Omar filed federal taxes in 2014 and 2015 with her current husband, Ahmed Hirsi, while she was still legally married to but separated from Elmi.

Although she has legally corrected the discrepancy, she has declined to say anything about how or why it happened.

Only a newspaper carrying water for Democrats would describe being legally married to two men at the same time as a "discrepancy."


Since the recent findings of the campaign finance board that discovered Omar had improperly used campaign money to pay a lawyer to fix her tax filings, the Star Tribune searched public records — including available databases, the marriage and divorce filing, business licenses, university records and other documents — and could find little publicly available information about Elmi. The search of records could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling.

Sent a list of questions and a request to talk to her siblings and father, Omar declined to do so. Hirsi did not reply to multiple calls, texts and e-mails. Social media posts indicate Elmi is in Africa. He did not respond to multiple e-mails.

As the Star-Tribune explains, Omar divorced the man who might or might not be her brother in 2011 in, what she describes as "our faith tradition." A Muslim cleric told the newspaper that the tradition "requires two witnesses, ideally the same two who witnessed the marriage, plus a three-month waiting period." Of course, the marriage would not be legally dissolved until a legal divorce was obtained in the state court. Omar did not get a legal divorce until 2017.

Yes, I would say that's a great big "discrepancy."

There's more. Social media posts that purport to show Omar to be a liar about never having contact with her first husband after 2011 have disappeared:


Conservative activists say photos and other social media posted by Omar and Elmi on Instagram and Facebook suggest Omar may not be telling the truth. The Star Tribune has been unable to independently obtain the original posts, although images purporting to be screen grabs continue to populate right-leaning media sites such as Power Line Blog, PJ Media and Alpha News. They remain in public view.

One image featured on AlphaNewsMN depicts an Instagram photo purportedly posted by Elmi on June 12, 2012, the day after Omar gave birth to her third child. It shows a close-up picture of Elmi holding a newborn child the website says is Omar’s, based on accompanying text that ostensibly refers to the baby girl as “nieces.”

That and other Instagram photos have since been removed.

Rub-a-dub-dub and thanks for the scrub.

By this time, anything incriminating about Elmi being her brother has been expertly wiped -- possibly by people with the resources and knowledge to thoroughly erase the past, at least on the internet. This speaks to a level of sophistication beyond Omar or her staff's capability.

After all, Democrats take care of their own.

Address Records Show Rep. Ilhan Omar Still Lived With First Husband Throughout Marriage to Her Brother


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 weeks ago

While I think bigamy should be legal, as a congressperson she should first introduce legislation on the issue before engaging in it. The incest? Not so much.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    4 weeks ago
While I think bigamy should be legal

BTW, I think it already is. If marriage is not restricted to gender, it can't be restricted to number.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    4 weeks ago

It is illegal but it goes on anyway. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.2  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    4 weeks ago

Bigamy and polygamy are not legal. Since marriage is a legal contract, and most of the things it deals with are property and child-related (including in the case of divorce or death), the current marriage contract applies just fine to both straight and gay couples - but not to plural marriage. Imagine how rich the lawyers will get drafting a marriage contract that would work for plural marriages, and for writing pre-nups for them!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.3  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  katrix @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

What about incest counselor?

Can we get a legal ruling on that?

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

It was going on long ago. I recall a tenant in my parents upstairs apartment bringing in a young hottie, who spoke about 2 words of English. He was quite open in explaining the deal he had to my parents. I was ease dropping, as you may have guessed.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

I happen to believe that if a man wants to marry two women based on the "Obergefell v Hodges" decision, he wins. You say no. Ok, what in the decision limits marriage by number?   

I still contend that when the restriction "one man one woman" is removed, the one gets thrown out with the gender part. If I'm wrong, where in the decision is the provision protecting the number of the old marriage standard?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    4 weeks ago

Why would that change from - I take this woman to I take this woman and this woman and this woman and this woman - just like with gay marriage - why would it change?

That's nonsense.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.7  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    4 weeks ago

For someone who often accuses the President of incest one would have naturally thought you would condemn Ilhan allowing her brother to hump her hijab.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.7    4 weeks ago
Per Katrix - 'And there's no evidence that the second husband is actually her brother. Just some anonymous blog post that a bunch of biased websites picked up.'

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.10  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.9    4 weeks ago
"Swing your brother round and round, remove your hijab, hump him on the ground"  "Banjo solo"
 
 
 
katrix
1.1.11  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    4 weeks ago
I still contend that when the restriction "one man one woman" is removed, the one gets thrown out with the gender part. If I'm wrong, where in the decision is the provision protecting the number of the old marriage standard?

The contract is only made out to address two people.  As I said, the entire legal marriage contract would have to be rewritten. For bigamy it would be hard enough, but what about when you have 5 people all married to each other?  What if Joe wants to divorce Jane but stay married to everyone else, but Ed doesn't want to divorce Jane? Not that I can possibly understand why anyone would want more than one spouse! It's hard enough work with just one. 

Every state outlaws plural marriage - I suppose we'd have to wait for one to make it legal and have the Supreme Court take a look. There are also some Federal laws outlawing polygamy, I think.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1.11    4 weeks ago
The contract is only made out to address two people. 

Obergefell protected that?

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.13  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.12    4 weeks ago

I don't see how Oberfell could be applied to plural marriage. Now, if it were legal for one man to have multiple wives but not the reverse, that might be applicable. But nobody can marry multiple people, so I don't see how those arguments apply to bigamy or polygamy. But ... then there's the part about automony, which could be applicable. So hell, I don't know!

I still can't imagine what marriage contracts would look like for plural marriages, though! And then other state and Federal laws regarding distribution of property, retirement funds and SS, health insurance, welfare, all kinds of things that would have to be addressed ...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1.13    4 weeks ago
I still can't imagine what marriage contracts would look like for plural marriages, though! And then other state and Federal laws regarding distribution of property, retirement funds and SS, health insurance, welfare, all kinds of things that would have to be addressed ...

I get what you are talking about there. The complexity of it would be overwhelming, but I doubt most who consider marriage think about financial implications.


I don't see how Oberfell could be applied to plural marriage.

Kat, I think we really see that decision in different ways. You seem to think it simply included a group that was formerly excluded. I see it obliterating the old concept of marriage with all of it's ancillary components in the process.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.15  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.14    4 weeks ago
You seem to think it simply included a group that was formerly excluded.

I see it as allowing two consenting adults to marry - before Oberfell, gay people were excluded from a right that straight people have, which is to marry the consenting adult of their choice, and to obtain the legal benefits of marriage that straight people had. But I realize that's oversimplifying it - the autonomy issue could likely be applied to polygamy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1.15    4 weeks ago

Kat, it looks like we are in agreement once again!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.17  Raven Wing  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.10    4 weeks ago
remove your hijab, hump him on the ground

Disgusting. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.18  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.16    4 weeks ago

I would imagine we're both also in agreement about not understanding why anyone would want more than one spouse ;)

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.17    4 weeks ago

No worse than the average stuff we read about Trump here each and every day.

Now, lets justify why one is bad and the other is okay?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.20  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1.18    4 weeks ago

Yes, we are in total agreement on that!

Remember, that is a moral point, not a legal one!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.17    4 weeks ago

Agreed

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.19    4 weeks ago
'No worse than the average stuff we read about Trump here each and every day. Now, lets justify why one is bad and the other is okay?'

Because Rep. Ilhan is not a bigamist or practicing incest.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.22    4 weeks ago
Because Rep. Ilhan is not a bigamist or practicing incest. 

Lol .... hitting a little too close to home eh?

Your comment makes zero sense within the context of my post in question.

SOSDD considering you're the source.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.24  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    4 weeks ago
Remember, that is a moral point, not a legal one!

It's a moral point - but also a sanity point.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.25  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1.24    4 weeks ago

Kat, We are a nation of laws. The people have a chance to enact moral & sane legislation. In the meantime we have to obey the law whether we like it or or.  I share your interest in seeing that what has been established will be refined.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.26  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.25    4 weeks ago

Well, from a moral perspective, I have no problem if others want to have a plural marriage - I don't feel I should legislate my morals on them if they want to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else.  I'm monogamous when I'm in a committed relationship and expect the same from my partner, but other consenting adults can do what they like IMO.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1.26    4 weeks ago

I agree with you 100%. In my entire life, Iv'e never had more that 1 girlfriend at one time and as you say that is what a committed relationship amounts to. The day of the community dictating standards is over whether we like it or not, so ya, to each his own.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.28  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.21    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.29  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.17    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.30  Raven Wing  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.19    4 weeks ago
No worse than the average stuff we read about Trump here each and every day.

You're entitled to your own opinion. I'm entitled to mine. 

However, I personally don't agree with that kind of filth from either side, or aimed at anyone. So take your snark and have a great day with it.

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.1.31  Sunshine  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.19    4 weeks ago
Now, lets justify why one is bad and the other is okay?

Very difficult for hypocrites to do.  The endless Trump bashing will continue.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.32  Raven Wing  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.29    4 weeks ago
You don't like banjo solos?

I just don't like the filthy ones.

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.1.33  Sunshine  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.29    4 weeks ago
You don't like banjo solos?

Wonder if the filthy comments towards Melania and Ivanka have produced the same protest?  

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.34  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.7    4 weeks ago

Wow  talk about childish comments

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.35  KDMichigan  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.3    4 weeks ago
What about incest counselor?

Little late for that, Omar seems to be a product of inbreeding.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.1.36  bbl-1  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.17    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.37  JBB  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.17    4 weeks ago

I would say I am surprised by such sentiments but it is to be expected...

[delete]

Is it open season on young non-white or non-xtian Democratic women?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.38  Sparty On  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.30    4 weeks ago
However, I personally don't agree with that kind of filth from either side, or aimed at anyone.

Well then, we agree on that.

So take your snark and have a great day with it.

Snark is that snark does and top of the morning to ya!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

Voted up.  Omar's religion does not shelter her from the same critical look every other member of congress has to endure these days.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 weeks ago

Inquiring minds want to know, was she screwing her brother (Que up the dueling Somali Banjos) or did she just want to get him a green card? When the citizens of this country commit fraud, the heavy hand of the law comes down us.

Furthermore filing federal income taxes with deceptive information gets most of us audited, penalized and fined and sometimes jailed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1    4 weeks ago
'Furthermore filing federal income taxes with deceptive information gets most of us audited, penalized and fined and sometimes jailed.'

Gee I wonder if that's why the 'president' hasn't released his taxes/info.?  Hmmmmm

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

He hasn't released them because it isn't anyone's business and he is under no obligation to do so to satisfy some Democrats' wet dreams.

too bad.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
He hasn't released them because it isn't anyone's business and he is under no obligation to do so to satisfy some Democrats' wet dreams. too bad.

You understand he is under investigation for tax fraud...correct?   That makes them the House's business.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.4  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

This article has a topic and her name is Ilhan Omar. Let's get there!

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.5  lib50  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

Doesn't mean one can overlook the blatant double standards in place here.   We read this and wonder why conservatives care when they don't care about themselves.  And why everybody in office should not be required to release their tax returns, including republicans.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1.6  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.3    4 weeks ago
You understand he is under investigation for tax fraud...correct?   That makes them the House's business.

It is under state investigation not federal.  Doesn't make it the Houses's business.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.6    4 weeks ago
It is under state investigation not federal.  Doesn't make it the Houses's business.

Part of the House's job, by Constitution, is oversight of the Executive Branch.  That DOES make it the House's business.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1.8  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

Yeah, but that can't get whatever their TDS hearts desire.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.8    4 weeks ago

Yeah, but that can't get whatever their TDS hearts desire.

The Constitution specifically states that that House committee can get ANY American tax return.  So, again, yes they can get it and would have it if not for the criminal action of Trump and his stooges.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

The Constitution specifically states that that House committee can get ANY American tax return. 

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
The Constitution specifically states that that House committee can get ANY American tax return.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Uh, humina, humina…..oh shit!

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.12  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

As usual you are wrong

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.13  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

Do your own homework Greg  Do you need help in using Google or another browser?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.12    4 weeks ago
As usual you are wrong

Okay, Don, willing to prove it, or are just doing another drive-by?

Show me ANYWHERE in law that states the President (or any citizen) must release their tax returns.

Should I wait, or can we just skip to you making a wild-ass claim and then ignoring this post?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.15  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
Gee I wonder if that's why the 'president' hasn't released his taxes/info.?  Hmmmmm

because trump did not marry his brother?  LOL

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

JUST a little hard to believe that filing your taxes incorrectly in her case was an inadvertent "discrepancy".

 
 
 
lib50
3.1  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @3    4 weeks ago

Keep a straight face while typing that?   I sure couldn't when I read it.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @3.1    4 weeks ago
'Keep a straight face while typing that?   I sure couldn't when I read it.' 

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @3.1    4 weeks ago

Good for you!

gee, for some of us, remembering you are married, and to who, is easy-peasy.

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.3  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

Lol, keep 'em coming!

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

I said for SOME of us.

maybe not you?

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.5  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

Whoosh!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Brother marriage, tax fraud, anti-antisemitism and Democrats love her...

Besides the rampant criminality of Omar,  the released emails show how confident the Democrats are they can order the Star Tribune (supposedly objective newspaper) not to cover the story. 'Just reach out and tell the Star Tribune to shut it down, as we do with it.'

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5  Freedom Warrior    4 weeks ago

Are Omar's hijinks going to become the left's benchmark / model for Family Values?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5    4 weeks ago

Family values = loving your brother?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

Well it looks like the congressional district the FBI says has more terrorists than any other in the country is too.

“More men and boys from a Somali American community in Minneapolis have joined — or attempted to join — a foreign terrorist organization over the last 12 years than any other jurisdiction in the country.

FBI stats show 45 Somalis left to join the ranks of either the Somalia-based Islamic insurgency al-Shabab, or the Iraq- and Syria-based ISIS combined. And as of 2018, a dozen more had been arrested with the intention of leaving to support ISIS.”

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

Isn't this off topic?

I thought this was about Rep. Ilhan marrying her brother?  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 weeks ago

Brother from another mother?

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 weeks ago

Only if they ain't heavy ....

 
 
 
katrix
6  katrix    4 weeks ago

I haven't found any actual proof for any of this. Apparently the first marriage was just a Muslim marriage of faith without completing the civil marriage process - like getting married in a Christian church without a civil marriage, it is not a legal marriage. So, no bigamy. And there's no evidence that the second husband is actually her brother. Just some anonymous blog post that a bunch of biased websites picked up.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  katrix @6    4 weeks ago

Star Tribune finally ran the story this weekend after emails were leaked with Minnesota dems and the paper killing the story during the election. 

That's what all the fuss is about.

A little corruption kept this buried. Now back to the topic, dueling Somali banjos....

384

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1    4 weeks ago

Does this mean you've ended your obsession with Joe Biden and have moved on to a new one?  We have to keep things moving along you know. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

All roads lead back to bf, now what obsession are you talking about? Your's with BF or mine with news?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

Everyone who has followed NT knows you beat conspiracy theories and hoaxes to death.  The Biden thing has died down so now we will get a new "outrage" to stir up the Trump crowd. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.4  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    4 weeks ago

Yes I seeded a verified hoax for three years as you did. Good point.

jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @6    4 weeks ago
 And there's no evidence that the second husband is actually her brother. Ju

If there's no evidence, then why won't the Star Tribune, say that she didn't marry her brother?

Seems pretty easy to disprove. 

 
 
 
katrix
6.2.1  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2    4 weeks ago
Seems pretty easy to disprove. 

If it's true, it should be pretty easy to provide proof.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @6.2.1    4 weeks ago

Somalia doesn't require births to be registered.

 
 
 
katrix
6.2.3  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.2    4 weeks ago

So then how do you expect it to be either proven or disproven?

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.2.4  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @6.2.3    4 weeks ago

I doubt it will.  Do you think she knew that?

 
 
 
katrix
6.2.5  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.4    4 weeks ago

I'm inclined to not believe it unless there is more evidence; I see it as plausible but not likely. It's just so far out there; and it started out as an anonymous post on a blog site, which has since been deleted, but not before being picked up by some websites.  That's not much of a source, so this might well be nothing more than a smear job.

I'm pretty sure people in her Somali town would be able to refute it or support it, if any of those websites had bothered to do some actual research instead of treating an anonymous blog post as fact. At least the Star Tribune is doing some actual record searches, but if births aren't registered, I don't know what they would expect to find.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.2.6  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @6.2.5    4 weeks ago

Seems though she did marry someone just for entry to the US and lived with her kids father during her marriage to this other guy and had another child with the father of her other children during this time frame.  That can and has been documented.

Maybe not illegal but some may find unethical for a US Senator.

 
 
 
katrix
6.2.7  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.6    4 weeks ago
Seems though she did marry someone just for entry to the US and lived with her kids father during her marriage to this other guy and had another child with the father of her other children during this time frame.  That can and has been documented.

Now that I can believe - it's the brother part that I find unlikely. Although you never know; people do all kinds of things to scam the immigration system. I would agree, if she did this, it's unethical and will likely impact her chances at re-election next time around.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  katrix @6    4 weeks ago
"...like getting married in a Christian church without a civil marriage, it is not a legal marriage."

That's news to me. I thought that ministers, priests, rabbis were LICENSED to perform LEGAL marriages, but what the hell, what do I know about legal matters?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

I have tried to get interested in this story, but I can't.  If she has broken any laws then she should face the consequences. Otherwise this is all much ado about nothing. 

The right and the fake news crowd on the right need boogermen to set up as the objects of their "patriotic" wrath. Omar is a Muslim woman with a big mouth so the right is obsessed with attacking her. In reality she is an insignificant figure in national politics. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago

She is a confirmed bigot, why would you support such?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1    4 weeks ago

I dont even think about her. 

You are the one who concentrates on minor figures. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

She like the Trumpanzee is a controversial tweetasaurus.

Aside from politics I could see these too procreating if they were siblings.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.3  katrix  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1    4 weeks ago

I haven't read much about her, but what I have read certainly hasn't been flattering. Isn't she the one who's anti-Semitic?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.4  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  katrix @7.1.3    4 weeks ago

Bingo....

She is and it was very disappointing to see her party make excuses for it. I don't care what party you belong to, bigotry is and will always be wrong. As a society if we don't apply the same standard to all, then we shovel fuel into that fire.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago

Omar is her own boogerman ..... she needs no help from the right.

None at all ......

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @7.2    4 weeks ago

As I've said elsewhere, she and her two buddies AOC and Tlieb are the best "inside agents" the Republican Party could dream for.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago

"In reality she is an insignificant figure in national politics."

LOL.  Using an expression by Jean Reno from the movie The DaVinci Code, in describing the crystal pyramid in front of the Louvre: "It is a scar on the face of Paris", IMO Omar and her 2 buddies, AOC and Tlieb, are a scar on the face of their political party.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8  Sunshine    4 weeks ago

So the brother marries his sister to go to college for free, divorces her and then leaves the country with his free US education.

Taxpayers money hard at work.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
8.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sunshine @8    4 weeks ago

Not to mention we have a new curse word. BroFo

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 weeks ago

Ilhan Omar's brother/ex husband was located yesterday after the star tribune article ran this weekend.

Ooops.....

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Texan1211
Dignitatem Societatis
igknorantzrulz
ArkansasHermit-too
Bob Nelson
Drakkonis


39 visitors