Loose threads in the curious case

The curious case of Ilhan Omar is close to breaking open. The Star Tribune’s long Sunday page-one story — geared to the state campaign board investigation of Omar’s 2016 legislative campaign — tells us as much. Having cracked the door to the story open back in 2016, I am not about to give it up now.

The case has a number of loose threads hanging from it. One loose thread is the August 22, 2016 letter sent by former United States Attorney Andrew Luger to Minneapolis criminal attorney Jean Brandl. Brandl, incidentally, had responded to my original inquiry regarding Omar’s marriages. I published her response to me verbatim on Power Line and in the City Journal column linked at the top of this post.

Reviewing the evidence in the state campaign investigation of Omar, I saw that Andrew Luger’s letter essentially put an end to the controversy facing Omar at that time. I discussed the letter in part 6 and posted the letter itself in part 9 of my series on the state campaign finance board investigation of Omar.

Mr. Luger is a respected attorney whose work as United States Attorney was highly regarded by the Minnesota federal judges. He has a stellar reputation. His letter had a big impact. I wrote him yesterday morning to ask about it:

Andy: I’ve been covering the story of Ilhan Omar’s plural marriages over the past three years on the site Power Line. Reviewing the 2016 Omar campaign “crisis committee” emails that became public earlier this month, I wonder whether you actually reviewed any documents before sending out your August 22, 2016 letter to Jean Brandl. I also wonder if you ever sent out another such letter announcing that anyone was not under investigation by the Minnesota US Attorney’s Office. Would you please let me know if you are willing to respond to these questions and, if so, when you might be able to get back to me with the answers?


Scott Johnson

I didn’t have to wait long. He promptly responded early yesterday afternoon: “Thanks. I will pass on this.”

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.