So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for reelection.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when
all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and
he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like
the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They
literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into their current term. If running for office made them immune from
investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
No one is above the law. Not even a Minnesota grifter from Somalia.
Happy Columbus Day, Ilhan!
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They >repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >"extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >reelection.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when
all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and
he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like
the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They
literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into >their current term. If running for office made them immune from
investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
No one is above the law. Not even a Minnesota grifter from Somalia.
Happy Columbus Day, Ilhan!
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They >repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >"extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >reelection.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when
all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and
he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like
the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They
literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into >their current term. If running for office made them immune from
investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They >>repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>"extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal
operation.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when >>all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and >>he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >>your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like >>the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
The criminal actions that they are supposedly investigating would be
done by her dad. When he brought her to this country.
Unless you mean that conspiracy theory that she married her brother. Still >not sure why they would be looking for evidence in her DC home and not
back in Minnesota.
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They >>literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into >>their current term. If running for office made them immune from >>investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
It's not running for office. It's the official policy of not doing a
public investigation within 60 days of an election. That's the
complaint.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to
Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >> today, which carted off multiple boxloads of records and other evidence.
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >> "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for
reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal
operation.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when
all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and
he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >> your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like
the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
The criminal actions that they are supposedly investigating would be
done by her dad. When he brought her to this country. Unless you mean
that conspiracy theory that she married her brother. Still not sure
why they would be looking for evidence in her DC home and not back in Minnesota.
Besides, House members are only elected for 2-year terms. They
literally start running for the next term the day after they're sworn into >> their current term. If running for office made them immune from
investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
It's not running for office. It's the official policy of not doing a
public investigation within 60 days of an election. That's the
complaint.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>>Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>>today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They >>>repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>>"extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>>reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal >>operation.
She has a safe seat. That works only in a close race.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when >>>all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and >>>he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >>>your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like >>>the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
The criminal actions that they are supposedly investigating would be
done by her dad. When he brought her to this country.
He can't be charged with a crime, nor can she. But if the application
were approved on false statements, they can proceed against her in a >denaturalization proceeding even though she made no false statement.
Unless you mean that conspiracy theory that she married her brother. Still >>not sure why they would be looking for evidence in her DC home and not
back in Minnesota.
Why would she have retained any such evidence?
In any event, she had married and divorced a man rumored to be her
brother, but I've seen no basis for the rumor.
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They >>>literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into >>>their current term. If running for office made them immune from >>>investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
It's not running for office. It's the official policy of not doing a
public investigation within 60 days of an election. That's the
complaint.
Is that currently an actual policy? She had a primary challenge. That
would have been the election to influence, not the general election.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>>Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>>today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They >>>repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>>"extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>>reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal >>operation.
She has a safe seat. That works only in a close race.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when >>>all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and >>>he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >>>your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like >>>the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
The criminal actions that they are supposedly investigating would be
done by her dad. When he brought her to this country.
He can't be charged with a crime, nor can she. But if the application
were approved on false statements, they can proceed against her in a >denaturalization proceeding even though she made no false statement.
Unless you mean that conspiracy theory that she married her brother. Still >>not sure why they would be looking for evidence in her DC home and not
back in Minnesota.
Why would she have retained any such evidence?
In any event, she had married and divorced a man rumored to be her
brother, but I've seen no basis for the rumor.
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They >>>literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into >>>their current term. If running for office made them immune from >>>investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
It's not running for office. It's the official policy of not doing a
public investigation within 60 days of an election. That's the
complaint.
Is that currently an actual policy? She had a primary challenge. That
would have been the election to influence, not the general election.
. . .
As for the brother thing, the paperwork is there. Not sure why it's still >classified as a 'theory'.
. . .
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>> Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>> today, which carted off multiple boxloads of records and other evidence. >>>
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>> "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>> reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal
operation.
What policy?
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when >>> all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and >>> he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >>> your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like >>> the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
The criminal actions that they are supposedly investigating would be
done by her dad. When he brought her to this country. Unless you mean
that conspiracy theory that she married her brother. Still not sure
why they would be looking for evidence in her DC home and not back in
Minnesota.
The allegation is that her birth date was falsified to make her a minor so >she could ride the coat tails of her father's naturalization. If she had >actually been 18 instead of the claimed 17, she wouldn't have automatically >gotten citizenship when her father did. Even if it was her parents that >falsified the paperwork, she went along with it and has never corrected the >'mistake' all these years later. That makes her complicit in the crime.
As for the brother thing, the paperwork is there. Not sure why it's still >classified as a 'theory'.
Besides, House members are only elected for 2-year terms. They
literally start running for the next term the day after they're sworn into >>> their current term. If running for office made them immune from
investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
It's not running for office. It's the official policy of not doing a
public investigation within 60 days of an election. That's the
complaint.
This investigation has been ongoing for the better part of two years. It >doesn't just stop because it's October.
Tue, 13 Oct 2026 03:21:00 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
. . .
It's not running for office. It's the official policy of not doing a >>>public investigation within 60 days of an election. That's the
complaint.
Is that currently an actual policy? She had a primary challenge. That
would have been the election to influence, not the general election.
Yes, it is the unofficial policy. That's according to Glen Kirschner
who spent a few decades working in the DOJ as a lawyer. As he says in
this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTYEen1FXqw
. . .
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 03:27:41 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>>> Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>>> today, which carted off multiple boxloads of records and other evidence. >>>>
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>>> "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>>> reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal
operation.
What policy?
As discussed by Glenn Kirschner the DOJ has a policy of not doing
anything publicly within 60 days of an election
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 03:27:41 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>>> Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>>> today, which carted off multiple boxloads of records and other evidence. >>>>
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>>> "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>>> reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal
operation.
What policy?
As discussed by Glenn Kirschner the DOJ has a policy of not doing
anything publicly within 60 days of an election that might interfere
with said election (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTYEen1FXqw)
There's no emergency to do this attempt at retrieving evidence. Though
as Adam brings up you have to wonder what evidence they hope to
retrieve from a possible mistake or lie on an immigration form from 26
years ago that justifies all this effort.
On 10/12/2026 8:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to
Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >> today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >> "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for
reelection.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when
all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and
he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >> your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like
the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They
literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into
their current term. If running for office made them immune from
investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
No one is above the law. Not even a Minnesota grifter from Somalia.
Happy Columbus Day, Ilhan!
I'll wait to hear the inevitable charges, but carting off "multiple box >loads of records" sure sounds like witch-hunting plus showmanship.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Tue, 13 Oct 2026 03:21:00 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
. . .
It's not running for office. It's the official policy of not doing a >>>>public investigation within 60 days of an election. That's the >>>>complaint.
Is that currently an actual policy? She had a primary challenge. That >>>would have been the election to influence, not the general election.
Yes, it is the unofficial policy. That's according to Glen Kirschner
who spent a few decades working in the DOJ as a lawyer. As he says in
this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTYEen1FXqw
All right. I watched it. He's wrong. The current policy is to go aftr
Trump's enemies list. In any event, if she can't make political hay out
of a potentially spurious prosecution, she;s too incompetent to run for
dog catcher. I will also point out that Trump benefits from her
existence. Perhaps he's propping her up. In the leak, the government
cited conspiracy to extend the statute of limitations.
For denaturalization, he didn't explain if a search wsrrsnt can be
granted.
. . .
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>> Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>> today, which carted off multiple boxloads of records and other evidence. >>>
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>> "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>> reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal
operation.
What policy?
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when >>> all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and >>> he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >>> your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like >>> the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
The criminal actions that they are supposedly investigating would be
done by her dad. When he brought her to this country. Unless you mean
that conspiracy theory that she married her brother. Still not sure
why they would be looking for evidence in her DC home and not back in
Minnesota.
The allegation is that her birth date was falsified to make her a minor so >she could ride the coat tails of her father's naturalization. If she had >actually been 18 instead of the claimed 17, she wouldn't have automatically >gotten citizenship when her father did. Even if it was her parents that >falsified the paperwork, she went along with it and has never corrected the >'mistake' all these years later. That makes her complicit in the crime.
As for the brother thing, the paperwork is there. Not sure why it's still >classified as a 'theory'.
On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 21:52:47 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2026 8:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>> Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>> today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence. >>>
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>> "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>> reelection.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when >>> all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and >>> he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of >>> your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like >>> the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October.
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They
literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into >>> their current term. If running for office made them immune from
investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
No one is above the law. Not even a Minnesota grifter from Somalia.
Happy Columbus Day, Ilhan!
I'll wait to hear the inevitable charges, but carting off "multiple box
loads of records" sure sounds like witch-hunting plus showmanship.
Like Mara Lago????
On 2026-10-13 03:53:24 +0000, shawn said:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 03:27:41 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:51:39 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>>>> Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI
today, which carted off multiple boxloads of records and other evidence. >>>>>
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's
"extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>>>> reelection.
Because it is. It is against the policy to do something like this
within a few months of an election. So not illegal but not normal
operation.
What policy?
As discussed by Glenn Kirschner the DOJ has a policy of not doing
anything publicly within 60 days of an election that might interfere
with said election (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTYEen1FXqw)
There's no emergency to do this attempt at retrieving evidence. Though
as Adam brings up you have to wonder what evidence they hope to
retrieve from a possible mistake or lie on an immigration form from 26
years ago that justifies all this effort.
James Comey trotted out and announced a DOJ investigation of Hillary
Clinton a couple of weeks before the 2016 election over the ridiculous >server emails "scandal," it's been cited as a major reason why Trump
won.
On 10/13/2026 9:00 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 21:52:47 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2026 8:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >>>> Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >>>> today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence. >>>>
So what did the legacy corporate media focus on? The calendar. They
repeatedly reminded viewers that early voting has started and claimed it's >>>> "extremely unusual" to investigate a member of Congress who's running for >>>> reelection.
Then they complained that Tom Homan even acknowledged the operation, when >>>> all he said was that the investigation has been going on for a while and >>>> he'd leave the details to the Homeland Security Secretary.
Since when does running for office make you immune from the consequences of
your criminal actions? A judge approved the warrant. The media acts like >>>> the real scandal here is that the law applies to Democrats in October. >>>>
Besides, House members have are only elected for 2-year terms. They
literally start running for the next term the day after their sworn into >>>> their current term. If running for office made them immune from
investigation and enforcement, they'd have blanket immunity forever.
No one is above the law. Not even a Minnesota grifter from Somalia.
Happy Columbus Day, Ilhan!
I'll wait to hear the inevitable charges, but carting off "multiple box
loads of records" sure sounds like witch-hunting plus showmanship.
Like Mara Lago????
Could be.
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to >Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So the woman who abrogated her oath of office by declaring her fealty to
Somalia over the people of the United States had her DC home raided by HSI >> today, which carted off multiple box loads of records and other evidence.
Ann Coulter is still blonde but no longer young and somewhat cute when
Bill Maher first gave her a national audience.
I don't know where she got this, but she claims Omar's grandfather was
part of the administration of Siyaad Barre. Barre came to power, third president, in a free and fair coup following the assasination of his predecessor. Barre made an alliance with the Soviet Union and declared a Marxist-Leninist government. He promised to unite people and ignore ethnicities, then made war on Ethiopia to grab the territory of their
ethnic Somalis, then made war on other neighboring countries, which they lost.
He dropped his alliance with Russia in favor of the United States.
His Wikipedia page says he presided over the murder of 200,000 from two
other clans. Coulter said 500,000 to 600,000. No idea what her source
was.
Barre was ousted in a rebellion, then tried to raise an army. He was
finally out in 1995.
After the government, Omar's grandfather was forced to flee. While
Coulter didn't say what crimes the grandfather committed, it sure as
hell doesn't sound like he was a victim.
No idea what Coulter read.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MswcLhqY138
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 95:01:41 |
| Calls: | 221 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 85,849 |