Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., has tapped two high-powered Washington, D.C.-based attorneys who have previously represented elected officials at the highest echelon of American politics.

Amid dueling federal investigations — one for immigration fraud and another for financial disclosure discrepancies — the embattled Somali-born lawmaker hired Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz, according to a CBS report. Both are partners at Hecker Fink LLP.

The attorneys have in the past represented Democrat clients and taken on left-leaning cases especially those taking aim at President Donald Trump, his administration and his supporters.

ILHAN OMAR’S TURBULENT WEEK EXPLAINED: THE DUELING PROBES THAT THREW THE SOMALI-BORN PROGRESSIVE INTO CHAOS

Jeffress is a former federal prosecutor whose biography says she tried more than 40 cases during a decade in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia, where she was chief of the National Security Section. She has also been a Department of Justice (DOJ) attaché.

She served as former President Joe Biden’s attorney in his lawsuit against the DOJ earlier this year. In that case, Biden sought to halt the release of audio recordings between himself and his «Promise Me, Dad» book ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer. 

The audio was recorded in 2016 and 2017 and was subject to a FOIA request from the Heritage Foundation in 2024.

It was cited during special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into whether Biden illegally retained classified information from his term as vice president and piqued the interest of conservatives demanding answers about Biden’s mental acuity.

The court declined to block the release of the recordings, in which Biden had frequent memory lapses, and they were made public in July.

FEDERAL AGENTS SEIZE PHONE OF REP ILHAN OMAR IN RAID TIED TO IMMIGRATION FRAUD PROBE

Before her time at Hecker Fink, Jeffress, a 1992 Yale Law graduate, served as counsel for then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-led House January 6 committee, which spent two years investigating the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. She represented the committee when it was sued by a Trump campaign spokesperson, Taylor Budowich, after the committee subpoenaed his bank records.

Jeffress also represented Trump foe and former FBI attorney Lisa Page, a key figure in the left’s Russiagate conspiracy theory, during congressional scrutiny into the FBI’s handling of the matter. Page later sued the DOJ for releasing her text messages with her FBI colleague and lover at the time, Peter Strzok.

In the messages, Strzok assuaged Page’s concerns that Trump would become president by vowing that the FBI would stop it and referred to an «insurance policy» against his presidency. That case was settled in 2024.

ILHAN OMAR’S WEALTH SCANDAL TAKES A TURN JUST ONE DAY AFTER RAID OF HER DC HOME

Jeffress is married to U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Washington, D.C., who in May ruled that it was illegal for the John F. Kennedy Performing Arts Center to add Trump’s name. Trump publicly criticized Cooper as «highly conflicted» due to his relationship with Jeffress.

Matz is also a partner at Hecker Fink. He graduated from Harvard Law and clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

«Joshua’s practice has long included a focus on democracy and elections,» his biography page says.

He represented the state of Pennsylvania in defending the certification of its election results, including arguing before the Supreme Court.

ILHAN OMAR’S EMBATTLED HUSBAND APPEARS AT SCENE OF HSI RAID IN MIDST OF CRIMINAL FRAUD INVESTIGATION

He was counsel to House Democrats during both failed impeachment attempts against Trump during his first term in office.

Matz also represented E. Jean Carroll in two separate civil cases against Trump related to his denial of her sexual assault claims against him. He was never criminally charged. In 2022, Carroll accused Trump of defaming her in his denial of her account of an incident she claims happened in 1996. A New York jury found Trump liable for defamation and for sexual assault.

Prior to that case, in 2019, a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million for defamation stemming from other comments made by Trump.

Matz represented students, parents and teachers who opposed Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, which his biography describes as the «Don’t Say Gay» law, which restricted teaching students about sexual orientation and gender identity.

He also successfully represented Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear when he was sued for COVID-19 lockdowns, including school closures, and victims of the 2017 «Unite the Right» rally in Charlottesville.

Now, Matz and Jeffress are representing Omar as she seeks to battle two federal probes. In a video message posted to her social media earlier this month, the lawmaker pleaded with her supporters to keep sending money, noting that her fight against the investigations would be costly.

Omar’s attorneys did not respond to Digital’s request for comment. Neither did the White House.

ilhan omar, politics, justice department, attorney general, homeland security, immigration

The Justice Department is investigating allegations that Democratic operatives recruited Alaska Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan, dubbed «Decoy Dan,» to siphon votes from Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, prompting liberal-leaning election law experts to accuse the Trump administration of federal overreach.

But former Federal Election Commission member Hans von Spakovsky argued that the Biden-era Justice Department’s prosecution of Donald Trump over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election laid the groundwork for the Alaska probe.

«The Justice Department has talked about a potential conspiracy to defraud the voters of Alaska and people are saying, ‘Oh, he’s got no case. That’s a weak case,’» von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, told Digital. 

«Well, I suggest you do a Google search and pull up the indictment that Jack Smith got against Donald Trump in the District of Columbia. He set a precedent for this.»

MARY PELTOLA’S CAMPAIGN, DEMS BACKED COVERT SCHEME TO FIELD SPOILER CANDIDATES IN ALASKA SENATE RACE: REPORT

Joined by FBI officials and Alaska State Troopers, Alaska U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman announced at a news conference Friday that the Justice Department has been investigating whether Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired school teacher who will appear on the ballot without a party affiliation, was colluding with Democratic operatives tied to Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign.

The Justice Department previously sued Alaska election officials, seeking to block certification if Sen. Dan Sullivan loses re-election by fewer votes than those cast for Daniel J. Sullivan. 

The lawsuit was amended Friday to include reporting by The New York Times that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and senior aides of Peltola’s campaign allegedly worked to recruit candidates who could pull votes away from Sen. Sulllivan. Heyman mentioned the Times reporting repeatedly at the news conference.

«We are taking that extremely seriously,» Heyman said.

Sources at the Justice Department told Thursday the Trump administration had issued more than 30 subpoeanas in a span of 24 hours as part of its criminal investigation into the alleged collusion, but Heyman did not say at the news conference what criminal charges are being pursued.

«I’m not making any assumptions on whether a crime has been committed or not,» Heyman said. «That’s why we are conducting that thorough investigation.»

Von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission commissioner, said potential indictments of Democratic operatives in the Alaska Senate race could rely on federal statutes similar to those Smith, the former special counsel, used in his 2023 indictment of Trump over alleged efforts to overturn the election.

Von Spakovsky pointed to charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights. In Trump’s case, prosecutors alleged that he used fraud and deceit to obstruct the federal government’s process for certifying the 2020 election and conspired to deprive voters of having their lawful votes counted and honored.

Von Spakovsky said prosecutors could potentially apply similar theories in Alaska if they determine that Democratic operatives knowingly recruited Daniel J. Sullivan to confuse voters and divert votes from Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.

ALASKA’S GOVERNOR ORDERS INVESTIGATION AFTER NYT REPORT ON ALLEGED DEM-LINKED SENATE ELECTION SCHEME

Smith’s «indictment is basically along exactly those same lines, claiming that Donald Trump was trying to defraud U.S. voters from fair and honest elections. So, Jack Smith and Democrats, they set the precedent for the kind of investigation Justice Department is doing now.»

Aubrey Wieber, executive director of 907 Initiative, a progressive advocacy group running critical ads against Sen. Sullivan, told Alaska Public Media that the news conference announcing the investigation «on the eve of the election» may be stemming from ulterior motives.

«One could say it appears that they are trying to interfere in an election and put their thumb on the scale,» Wieber said.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit was filed Oct. 22, prompting a parade of condemnations from those who argued the federal government had «no authority» to intervene, with many pointing to the Alaska Supreme Court rejecting the state’s push to disqualify Daniel J. Sullivan from appearing on the ballot.

GOVERNOR PROBING ‘DECOY DAN’ SULLIVAN ELECTION SCANDAL WARNS SYSTEM FLAW HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

«DOJ’s theory: Two candidates named Sullivan might confuse voters. The Alaska Supreme Court settled that in June, and the ballot labels the incumbent. DOJ has no role in state election law,» Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, a self-described non-partisan watchdog organization.

Von Spakovsky called recruiting a candidate with the same name as a political opponent a «dirty trick» but said the recruitment itself was not necessarily a criminal violation. He said the legal analysis could change if operatives paid the candidate or provided services to help organize his campaign.

«The place you run into potential issues is not only if you just recruit a candidate, but you’re being paid to recruit that candidate, and you then provide services to help him run his campaign and organize it,» Von Spakovsky said.

Providing campaign assistance outside of being a volunteer is an in-kind contribution subject to federal reporting and contribution rules. Von Spakovsky said any failure to properly report such contributions could create a separate campaign-finance violation.

justice department, elections disputes, fbi, attorney general, politics

Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s warning to young Americans not to join the Trump administration could backfire by handing Trump officials legal ammunition to derail the investigations Democrats hope to launch if they retake Congress, a former federal prosecutor warned.

The freshman Michigan Democrat said last month that she wants her party to pursue «signature cases» against officials who helped Trump, reasoning that it would discourage young Americans from considering jobs in his administration.

«I want that deterrence message sent,» Slotkin said during an Oct. 13 event at the University of Chicago, describing how young graduates might fear «buying myself a ton of problems» by joining the administration.

But Abhishek Kambli, a former deputy associate attorney general in Trump’s Justice Department, said Slotkin’s remarks could backfire if Democrats retake either chamber of Congress in the midterm elections and gain greater control over congressional investigations.

«If they just throw in boilerplate language that this is for legislative purpose, anyone challenging those subpoenas will have that entire record to demonstrate that it’s anything but that,» Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel, told Digital.

HOUSE DEMS PLOT TRUMP INVESTIGATION BLITZ IF THEY SEIZE MAJORITY

While Congress has broad authority to conduct investigations, subpoena witnesses and review government operations, the Supreme Court has ruled that lawmakers cannot use those powers solely to punish individuals.

The Supreme Court confronted those limits in 2020, when House Democrats attempted to obtain Trump’s personal financial records through congressional subpoenas.

In Trump v. Mazars, the justices established a four-factor test requiring courts to examine whether Congress demonstrated a legitimate legislative need for the records, whether its requests were sufficiently narrow, whether the information could be obtained elsewhere and what burden the subpoenas would impose on the president.

The court sent the dispute back to lower courts without ruling that the subpoenas satisfied those standards, leaving unresolved questions about how the framework would be applied.

«So it’s not enough just to tack on a legislative purpose,» Kambli said, arguing that courts must look beyond Congress’ stated reasons for an investigation to determine whether its demands are constitutionally justified.

Democrats’ public remarks could become evidence against them if future subpoenas are challenged, according to Kambli.

SLOTKIN WANTS GOP PROSECUTIONS TO DETER YOUNG PEOPLE FROM TRUMP ADMINISTRATION JOBS

«They don’t have to bury their head in the sand,» Kambli said of the courts. «I think they have to look at the facts of the case and look at it in terms of how they fits into the broader comments that they made.»

House Democrats are already laying the groundwork for investigations into Trump’s family business dealings and potential conflicts of interest if they regain control of Congress. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., has also vowed to expand his investigation into donors funding Trump’s White House ballroom if Democrats retake the Senate,

But another constitutional law expert questioned whether Democrats’ remarks would carry enough legal weight to undermine future congressional investigations.

Michael Morley, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, said courts generally recognize that politicians bring partisan motivations to congressional investigations and would be reluctant to invalidate subpoenas merely because of provocative public remarks.

«I don’t think that the fact that there might be partisan motivations for a congressional investigation would ultimately be a valid basis for refusing to comply with a subpoena,» Morley told Digital.

«At the end of the day, a court is going to be very reluctant to conclude, based on one or more members’ possible subjective motivations, that Congress lacks constitutional authority to investigate,» Morley said.

SLOTKIN’S VIRAL ‘THREAT’ TO CONSERVATIVES TAKES NEW TWIST AS STUDENT MOVES TO HOLD HER ACCOUNTABLE: ‘SHOCKING’

He also emphasized that Trump v. Mazars focused specifically on subpoenas for the president’s personal records, arguing that applying the same heightened legal standards to subpoenas targeting other administration officials would be a stretch.

But Morley said Slotkin’s language could give judges pause when the legal basis for a subpoena is already uncertain.

«It’s bad atmospherics,» he said, adding that such statements could make courts «marginally less likely» to resolve doubts in Democrats’ favor.

Slotkin has rejected accusations that she wants to target Americans merely for working for Republicans. She told CNN that she was talking about officials who break the law or misuse taxpayer dollars, calling the criticism «manufactured outrage.»

But Kambli warned the consequences could extend beyond whether Democratic subpoenas survive legal challenges, saying that investigations could inflict financial and reputational damage even without criminal charges.

«There is the idea that the process is the punishment, and there is no doubt that some members of Congress intend to use the process to bankrupt people that can’t afford legal representation,» Kambli said.

He also said that while Trump’s Justice Department would be unlikely to prosecute administration officials over criminal contempt referrals from a Democratic-controlled Congress, that could change under a future Democratic administration.

Morley also criticized the prospect of intimidating young government employees who may lack the resources to defend themselves.

«That’s just not how we want our political disputes to be handled,» Morley said.

politics, congress, senate, justice department, attorney general