UNBIASED - Ilhan Omar Investigation Explained: Why Her Home Was Searched | Is Katie Zacharia Actually a Lawyer? Did James Talarico Check Into a Facility?

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Thursday, October 15th. And today we're talking about the investigation into Ilhan Omar, the claims about James Tala Rico entering a mental health facility, the new press secretary, and whether she's actually an attorney, and more. As always, if you love today's show or find it valuable in any way, please share it with a friend. Leave me a five-star review wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you're watching on YouTube, just like this video and click that subscribe button. I know those things may not feel like they do a lot, but they do. Sharing with a friend helps spread the word. word and hopefully helps grow the show, reviews help with SEO and help other people find the show. And then, of course, the more engagement I have on YouTube, the more YouTube will push the show to other people. So thank you in advance. I really appreciate your help. Now, today's episode might end up being just a little shorter than usual, but that's only because I did decide to leave out the Cornell updates. I'm not including them in today's episode. I'm instead going to be releasing another episode. I think it'll be, it'll either be tomorrow night or Saturday morning. and that that episode will specifically be dedicated to Cornell updates.

Starting point is 00:01:04 So let's start today's episode with the first story, which is this federal investigation into Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar. In quick hitters on Monday, we briefly talked about the fact that federal agents searched her DC home pursuant to a warrant stemming from what the DOJ called an ongoing federal criminal investigation. But that was really all we knew. Since then, we've learned a bit more about both the search and the investigation. So let's get into it.

Starting point is 00:01:30 First, a little background, per usual. Omar was born in Somalia. She came to the United States with her family as a refugee in 1995. Her official congressional biography lists her birthday as October 4, 1982. And it says that she became a U.S. citizen in the year 2000 at the age of 17 through her dad, who had become a naturalized citizen himself. Well, her age is what is at the center of this investigation. So under the citizenship law at the time, a child born outside of the United States could, in certain circumstances, automatically derive U.S. citizenship when a parent became a citizen.

Starting point is 00:02:11 But the child had to satisfy the requirements before turning 18. Now, as an aside, sort of, Omar's mom died when she was little. So the relevant parent here is or was her father. Now, for years, the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, so the state's official research library, which keeps biographical records on Minnesota lawmakers, listed Omar's birth year as 1981, not 1982. But in May 2019, after Omar had been elected to Congress, her congressional staff asked the library to change her birth year to 1982. At the same time, her staff was also working. on correcting the year on both Wikipedia and the U.S. House's biographical records. So the theory that investigators are looking into is that the 1982 date might have been used on Omar's immigration paperwork to make her appear still under the age of 18 when her father became a U.S. citizen because that could have allowed her to obtain citizenship through her

Starting point is 00:03:18 father, even though she may have actually been born in 1981. That's what investigators are looking into. Omar's position, though, is that 1981 was just wrong and that her staff was reaching out to these sources to correct an error. Needless to say, federal investigators launched this investigation to try to figure out whether Omar really was 17 when she obtained citizenship or whether she and or her father intentionally gave the government a different birth year. But there's another layer here, too, because investigators are also reportedly looking into whether Omar repeated this allegedly false information on on more recent government documents, things like passport applications. And the reason that's notable is because as we've talked about before, criminal charges come

Starting point is 00:04:03 with statutes of limitations, meaning you typically can't prosecute someone forever for something that they allegedly did years and years, possibly decades ago, right? but if someone knowingly makes a new false statement on a new federal document, that could potentially open the door to prosecution for that particular offense. Now, it's also worth mentioning that the government's interest in these allegations did not start with the current Trump administration. Questions about Omar's immigration history have been floating around for years. In fact, back in 2019, during Trump's first administration, this conservative group called Freedom Watch actually petitioned DHS to investigate Omar for alleged immigration fraud. And when DHS did not

Starting point is 00:04:49 act on that request, this group sued DHS. That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed. But then during Biden's administration, federal investigators took a look at potential criminal investigations involving Omar, though investigators never actually charged her, never took the case nearly as far as investigators are taking it now because they reportedly did not find enough evidence to move forward. So then the case was reopened in 2025 after Trump returned to office. And earlier this year, Homeland Security Investigations, which is the investigative arm of ICE, launched a new review specifically of Omar's immigration history. So investigators are now looking not only at the older allegations, but also whether that

Starting point is 00:05:32 allegedly false information was repeated on more recent government documents. So while the criminal investigation into Omar has been going on for years, right? The current administration is taking the investigation further than the Biden administration did. At this point, there have been more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas, including subpoenas to members of Omar's family, a search warrant for her house, the seizure of her phone and seizure of other records and documents as well. So let's now touch on on that search warrant specifically. As we talked about before, the Fourth Amendment says that the government can't just go into your house. when it wants to and search, right? Investigators have to go to a judge and establish probable cause. That that probable cause has to show that there is evidence connected to a specific crime or crimes

Starting point is 00:06:18 that is likely to be found in the place they want to search. So in this case specifically, reports say that the warrant listed potential crimes involving conspiracy, immigration fraud, and false statements. That means investigators had to go to the judge and say, hey, we have these facts that we believe establish a fair probability that evidence connected to these potential crimes will be found in her house. And therefore, we want you to sign off on a warrant that allows us to search her house for that evidence. The judge then reviewed the facts and agreed that it met the probable cause standard and therefore signed off on the warrant, which allowed the investigators to then search the home. Probable cause, by the way, just to touch on this standard,

Starting point is 00:07:00 it's a reasonable basis based on facts and circumstances to believe that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. It's a reasonable basis. So for a search warrant, the government has to convince a judge that there is a fair probability that evidence connected to a crime will be found in the place that they want to search. Now, we did learn yesterday that the DOJ initially wanted a pretty broad access to records seized from Omar's home. But the federal judge pushed back a bit and required prosecutors to create a special screening process because Omar is a sitting member of Congress. And this actually takes us to a part of the Constitution that we don't talk about much, and that is the speech or debate clause. So the speech or debate

Starting point is 00:07:44 clause gives members of Congress special protection for legitimate legislative activity. The purpose is to prevent the executive branch from using criminal investigations to look into or interfere with Congress's legislative work, right? So because Omar presumably keeps both personal and congressional work at her home and on her devices, investigators can't just go through everything they sees and potentially expose themselves to constitutionally protected legislative material. That idea comes from an older case involving a search of a former congressman's office. But because of this, the judge required this special process to separate out anything

Starting point is 00:08:26 that might be protected before the investigators are able to review it. And that protocol reportedly, at least in part, gives Omar and her attorney, is an opportunity to first identify material that they believe is protected by the speech or debate clause. Now, just for clarity purposes, there is this other immigration allegation involving Omar that's been going around for years. That is that Omar's former husband was actually her brother and that the marriage was used for immigration purposes. Omar has repeatedly denied that allegation and it does not appear that that allegation is at the center of this current investigation plus, and this is probably why that allegation is not at the center of this

Starting point is 00:09:06 investigation, even if investigators did all of a sudden find evidence supporting that allegation, the criminal statute of limitations on the alleged marriage fraud itself would have already expired. So as it pertains to this investigation, investigators are focused on Omar's citizenship paperwork, her birth date, and whether allegedly false information was repeated on more recent federal documents. And keep in mind that this investigation could ultimately go in a few different directions. Okay, so prosecutors could decide the evidence doesn't support charges and just close the case. They could bring criminal charges if they ultimately believe they can prove that Omar knowingly made false statements or committed immigration fraud in violation of law,

Starting point is 00:09:47 or the government could potentially pursue a civil case challenging her citizenship, because federal law does allow the government in certain circumstances to revoke citizenship that was obtained illegally or through intentional concealment or misrepresentation. The other part of this story worth talking about is the timing. So Omar is up for re-election on November 3rd, which means the search of her house took place 22 days before election day. And sometimes you'll hear people refer to the Justice Department's 60-day rule, but there actually isn't a formal rule that says the DOJ is prohibited from taking any sort of investigative action within 60 days of an election. What DOJ does have is a longstanding election year policy that says prosecutors and agents cannot time. investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting an election.

Starting point is 00:10:36 And actions that could create even the perception of election interference require additional internal consultation. But even so, the DOJ says the proper officials were consulted here and top DOJ officials did sign off on the search. As for Omar's response, she wrote on X quote, make no mistake, this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement. For 10 years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation is in his campaign of political intimidation. I will not be silenced. And quote. And then one last clarification here, because there is another Ilhan Omar investigation in the news right now. And I don't want these two investigations getting

Starting point is 00:11:22 confused or two separate investigations. So the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, which is part of the DOJ, is separately looking into, possible financial misconduct involving Omar. One part of it goes back to a congressional financial disclosure form that showed an increase in the reported value of two businesses partly owned by Omar's husband. On one disclosure form, those businesses had been valued at somewhere between roughly $15,000 and $51,000. On the next disclosure, the reported value was somewhere between $6 million and $30 million.

Starting point is 00:11:57 So after that reported jump, Republican House Oversight Chairman James Comer asked the companies for financial records and an outside watchdog group actually filed a complaint asking Congress to investigate. Omar then amended the disclosure earlier this year and lowered the numbers. The corrected filing instead put the couple's reported assets at roughly $18,000 to $95,000. Omar's office said the original numbers were the result of an accounting error involving the valuation of her husband's businesses. Now, Congress's Office of Congressional conduct, which is an independent nonpartisan House watchdog, looked into the allegations, and its board voted five to one just last month to recommend that the House Ethics Committee

Starting point is 00:12:37 dismissed them. It found that there wasn't substantial reason to believe Omar had reported false or incomplete information. But this week, DC U.S. attorney, Janine Piro, said federal prosecutors are taking their own look. And when she was asked about the congressional watchdog recommending that the allegations be dismissed, she responded, quote, it doesn't matter what the House does. And, quote, quote. She said her office would look at the facts and follow them wherever they lead. In addition to that financial disclosure issue, though, prosecutors are also reportedly looking at possible misconduct involving campaign finance. Now, we don't know for sure

Starting point is 00:13:12 what part of Omar's campaign finances that are investigating, but we do know that Omar does have some campaign finance history. So back in 2019, when she was still dealing with expenses from her Minnesota state campaign, the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board found that her campaign had improperly used about $3,500 for expenses that were not allowed under state law. This included certain travel expenses and accounting work related to her personal tax returns. Omar was ordered to reimburse the campaign and pay a $500 civil penalty. Then, separately, there was a federal campaign finance complaint involving payments Omar's congressional campaign made to a consulting firm connected to the man who eventually became her

Starting point is 00:13:55 husband. There were allegations that some campaign money might have been used for personal expenses, but the Federal Election Commission ultimately voted six to zero that there was no reason to believe Omar, her husband, or the campaign illegally converted campaign funds to personal use. Now, whether either of those older campaign finance issues has anything to do with what Piro's office is investigating now, we don't know. Prosecutors haven't said what the campaign finance portion of the investigation involves, and Piero hasn't said what crimes specifically her office is looking into. But just so. To be clear on this, the financial investigation appears to be separate from the immigration

Starting point is 00:14:30 investigation we've been talking about. The search of Omar's home was tied to the immigration case. As far as we know right now, this financial and campaign finance inquiry is a separate investigation that's being handled by Piro's office. Let's do some quick hitters. Starting with an update to Monday's episode, President Trump says the execution of Nadel Hassan will not be live streamed. Trump wrote on truth social today in part, quote, Nidon Malik Hassan, a former U.S. Army major-turned-trader, is a very bad and evil man who killed 13 people, including a pregnant soldier, who died along with her unborn son and injured very seriously 32 more innocent people. I think streaming the execution for all to see might have been a strong deterrent for the world to witness how America deals with terrorists and scum like Hassan, but many very good and well-meeting people would rather not watch him die through streaming or through any. other visual device. He will die as scheduled by firing squad, but this event will not be streamed. That said, the execution may be viewed in person by the immediate families of the victims if they so

Starting point is 00:15:35 choose. They deserve to witness justice. And quote, and if you want to hear more about the prior possibility of a public execution and what the law says about that, be sure to tune into Monday's episode if you haven't already. And another update to Monday's episode, Kimberly Gilfoyle has officially resigned as U.S. ambassador to Greece after the White House asked her to step down amid the recent allegations of misconduct. In a statement posted on X, Gilfoyle denied the allegations and said she plans to defend her name and reputation. The latest inflation numbers are out and prices rose faster in September than they did in August. Prices were 3.7% higher than they were a year ago up from 3.4% in August and prices rose 0.6% from August to September.

Starting point is 00:16:19 Now, a big reason for that monthly increase was gas prices. Gas prices jumped 9.1% and accounted for more than half of the overall increase. Core inflation, which leaves out food and energy prices, also ticked up slightly to 2.6% over the past year. So these numbers will now be a part of what the Fed considers when it decides whether to raise interest rates again at its next meeting later this month. Pope Leo has been diagnosed with lung cancer after doctors removed the lower lobe of his right. lung during surgery Tuesday. The Vatican says the cancer is lung adenocarsinoma, which is a common type of lung cancer, and that the tumor had been caught early and appeared to be localized. Doctors say the surgery was successful and there were no complications. And the Vatican now says his progress, his recovery is progressing normally. He's walking, eating normally, doing light work and

Starting point is 00:17:09 participating in physical therapy. A chest x-ray today also showed good recovery of the lung that was operated on, but doctors are still waiting on more test results to determine whether the cancer had spread and whether he'll need any further treatment. A federal judge has ordered the White House to continue allowing reporters from CNN, MS now, and Politico onto White House grounds while their lawsuit against the administration continues. The judge had temporarily restored their access last month, but this new ruling extends that protection for the foreseeable future. The judge said that outlets are likely to succeed on their claims that the administration, related both due process and the First Amendment. Notably, this ruling applies specifically to their

Starting point is 00:17:51 White House credentials. It does not necessarily guarantee access to smaller, limited spaces like Air Force One and the Oval Office. Spaces like those are treated differently. Bank of America has agreed to pay about $1.2 billion in penalties after federal regulators found problems with the bank's anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance programs. Regulators say the bank failed to properly detect and report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions, including activity tied to national security and illicit finance risks. Bank of America also admitted to willfully violating the Bank Secrecy Act and agreed to a separate settlement over apparent sanctions violations involving countries, including Iran and Russia. As part of the settlement, the bank will have to bring in an

Starting point is 00:18:33 independent third party to review past transactions and identify suspicious activity that may have been missed. MS Now has retracted a report that FBI director Cash Patel traveled to Russia for meetings with Russian security officials. The network initially cited two unnamed sources who said Patel had landed in Russia for a planned trip, but the FBI quickly pushed back and said Patel was actually in Lynchburg, Virginia, attending a law enforcement event at Liberty University. Video and pictures from the event confirmed Patel was in Virginia and not Russia. And MSNN reporter Ken Delanyan later went on air, corrected the report and said the network regretted the error. In

Starting point is 00:19:12 Open AI employee has been arrested after the company discovered a hidden recording device inside an executive conference room at its San Francisco office. Federal prosecutors say a 35-year-old Saudi National allegedly concealed the device in toilet paper and plugged it into the back of a television in a room where executives discussed confidential research, products, and business strategy. Open AI says it used its own AI tools to help trace the device to the man who was later fired. investigators say a second similar device was later found in his bag and court filings show that he, his wife and another family member had one-way tickets booked to Saudi Arabia for October 12th, three days after he was arrested.

Starting point is 00:19:53 Prosecutors cited those travel plans when arguing the complaint should remain sealed until he was taken into custody. The man has not been charged with illegally intercepting or attempting to intercept private conversations. His attorney says the allegations are out of character and that the Saudi tribe had been booked in advance. Let's take a quick break here when we come back. We'll cover some more quick hitters, the claims about James Talarico and the claims about the new press secretary, and then we'll finish with critical thinking. Welcome back. Continuing with quick hitters, San Antonio has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to temporarily stop ICE from converting a nearly 640,000 square foot warehouse on the city's east side into an immigration detention and processing facility that could hold up to 1,500 people. The city argues that DHS and ICE need to complete a federal environmental review before moving forward and says officials have not provided requested information about the project's possible effects on things like water, power, traffic, and emergency services. ICE has already awarded a $17.3 million contract to renovate the warehouse, but the city is asking a judge to pause that work until the review is completed.

Starting point is 00:21:01 New York City officials have reached a deal to phase out horse-drawn carriage rides in Central Park by 2008. The latest push came after an 18-year-old tourist died. in June after jumping from a runaway carriage. The bill would require the city to create a transition plan for carriage drivers and would require the horses to be retired or otherwise placed in a humane way, though the carriage driver's union opposes the proposal and argues it would eliminate workers' livelihoods without providing enough financial support. Mayor Momdoni and City Council Speaker Julie Menon say the proposal has enough support to pass the council. A team of researchers is now searching a remote island in the Pacific for evidence.

Starting point is 00:21:40 that Amelia Earhart and navigator friend Noonan may have landed there after disappearing in 1937. The team arrived on the island earlier this week and has now started an underwater survey of the so-called Teraya object. This is an anomaly seen in satellite images that researchers think could potentially be part of Earhart's Lockheed Electra aircraft. Previous expeditions have found artifacts on the remote island that supporters of the theory say could be connected to Earhart, but none of the artifacts or evidence has conclusively proven she landed there. The expedition is expected to spend several days investigating the site before researchers determine whether the object is in fact aircraft wreckage. A 19-year-old Illinois man has been charged after police say they uncovered an alleged plan for a mass

Starting point is 00:22:28 shooting that might have targeted a Hindu place of worship near Aurora. Authorities say Alexandros Paparacas had shared a document outlining an attack, along with images of a rifle, ammunition, body armor, and tactical equipment, and police later recovered those types of items from his home. Investigators also say they found writings referencing violence against people of South Asian and Indian descent. Police believe he may have been planning an attack for October 11th, although they haven't confirmed the specific intended target. Poparakas has been charged with making a terroristic threats and unlawful possession of a short-barreled rifle. A federal appeals court is hearing arguments over whether President Trump

Starting point is 00:23:06 can continue deploying National Guard troops in D.C. Trump first sent these guard troops into the city in August 2025, and about 2,900 troops were still deployed as of last week. A federal judge ruled last year that the deployment illegally interfered with D.C.'s authority over local law enforcement, but the appeals court put that ruling on hold while the case continued. The Trump administration argues that the president has broad authority over the D.C. National Guard and can use troops to protect federal functions and property. D.C., though, argues the deployment amounts to an unlawful use of the military for domestic law enforcement. The appeals court is now considering whether the deployment can remain in place. And President Trump says the United States is still sharing intelligence

Starting point is 00:23:51 with Ukraine as the war with Russia continues. Trump told reporters the U.S. is continuing to help Ukraine with intelligence while also working with both Kyiv and Moscow to try to end the war. He said both President Putin and President Zelenskyy want to end the war, but said that deep hostility between the two sides is making a deal difficult. Trump's comments come amid questions about how much military and intelligence support the U.S. is providing to Ukraine while his administration pushes for negotiations. Meanwhile, Zelensky said today Ukraine will resume its strikes on Russia oil refineries because Russia has continued its strikes on Ukraine. And that, of course, comes just days after Trump announced that energy ceasefire. And now it's time for rumor has it. My weekly segment where I addressed

Starting point is 00:24:33 recent rumors submitted by all of you and do my best to confirm. them, dispel them, and or add context. Today we have two. First one, rumor has it that James Tala Rico checked into a mental health facility during his recent absence from the campaign trail. So we're going to add some context here. This all started because on September 30th, Tala Rico was supposed to appear in person at an event. He instead appeared on a video call and told the people in attendance that he had started feeling sick a few days earlier. He went to an urgent care clinic in Dallas the night before, and he was diagnosed with the flu. After that, though, he wasn't seen publicly for another nine days. And because this was happening, obviously, just a few

Starting point is 00:25:13 weeks before Election Day and one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country, people started asking questions about where he was. His Republican opponent, Ken Paxton, described him as quote, missing and said his campaign wanted, quote, proof of life, end quote. Trump similarly posted that Talariko was, quote, missing in action, end quote, and asked, where is he? What's wrong with him? Then on October 9th, Spencer Pratt chimed into the conversation and wrote on X, in part, quote, My sources are telling me Talariko is in a mental health facility. His campaign has stopped actively planning events in the vital home stretch of the campaign. As much as I don't want Tala RICO anywhere near government, I also don't wish him harm.

Starting point is 00:25:55 And no political office is worth having a breakdown. His awful advisors are at fault for this. They pushed him to be something he isn't and it didn't work. I'm praying that this isn't true and he's okay. You want to win these fights on the battlefield of ideas, not the minefield of poor health. End quote. The following day, a former fundraiser for President Trump, Caroline Wren, posted flight tracking information that showed a private plane had flown from Austin, Texas to an airport in Hamilton, Ohio,

Starting point is 00:26:23 which she pointed out was about 20 minutes from a psychiatric hospital called the Linder. the Lindner Center of Hope. But Renn did not share any other evidence that connected Tala Rico to that specific plane. But the piece of evidence that really kind of made this rumor viral was this phone call that a conservative influencer named Ryan Amacher made to the Lindner Center. Now, initially Amaker called, it might be Amateur, honestly, I'm not entirely sure there. But he initially called this, this center. for Hope and pretended to be a cousin of Tala Rico. And the woman on the other end asked him for a

Starting point is 00:27:04 code. And she said, you need a code for me to give out information. He didn't have a code. So then he called back with this other conservative influencer named Nick Sorter. And they did manage to talk to someone at that center. Now, it's not clear how they made it that far because there's only 40 seconds of the call that's that's posted online and it's not the full call. So they called back and the portion of the call that did go viral is is this. Okay. So nothing for James Talarico? Um, yes, it looks, well, this is what it's today. It looks like just this, she was discharged this evening. That's why I don't have it. Oh, he was discharged then? Mm-hmm. Okay. And this is the Hope?

Starting point is 00:27:59 They should be. Okay. I'm sorry. This is, and let me try it the right, but this is Hope Linder. Yes. Uh-huh. Okay. And you're in Hamilton, Ohio? No, we're not in Hamilton. Oh. We're in Mason.

Starting point is 00:28:13 Okay. So that's why he's on a system. He's been recent. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. So obviously, as you heard in that clip, the woman on the phone seems to say that someone with the name Talarico had been discharged earlier that night. However, after, and I should note that that call was made on the night of October 10th. However, after that recording was posted, the Lindner Center itself, then issued a statement saying, quote, Representative James Talarico has never received treatment from the Lindner Center of Hope, end quote. Talarico reposted that statement

Starting point is 00:28:50 and wrote, quote, I've never even been to Ohio. And quote, instead, his campaign said he had been at home in Austin recovering from the flu. And in support of that, Tala Rico's campaign has provided reporters of various outlets with evidence proving that Tala RICO was home. So as an example, Tala RICO's campaign provided the New York Times

Starting point is 00:29:12 with timestamped pictures from Tala RICO's home security cameras, which the Times says shows Tala RICO outside of his Austin home and around its entrances between October 1st and October 8th. However, the campaign did not give the Times or any other outlet permission to publish these security camera images, citing security concerns. So the public doesn't have access to those. Now, the timing of the alleged hospital discharge, at least according to what the woman said on the phone, doesn't really work.

Starting point is 00:29:44 Because the call to the center was reportedly made the night of October 10th, like I said, the woman in the recording says that Tala Rico had been discharged this evening. But Tala Rico had already reappeared at the Austin City Limits Music Festival in Texas on October 9th. So that's one of the inconsistencies with the timeline. Then the latest update late last night, or I guess really early this morning, Rain Amaker posted to X, quote, my final statement regarding the James Talariko and Lindner Center of Hope Situation. I've made all the recordings publicly available on my X account so everyone can listen and draw their own conclusions.

Starting point is 00:30:18 Frankly, this entire situation has been blown completely out of portion. Here are the facts. I contacted the medical facility after receiving a tip, suggesting that Tala RICO might have been a patient there. During that conversation, I pressed an employee for information, and the employee ultimately stated that Tala RICO had been discharged from the facility within the previous 24 hours. Approximately 12 hours later, the Linder Center issued an official statement contradicting what its employee had told me, denying that Talariko had ever been a patient at the facility. That's where the facts stand. I reported what I was told, released the recordings in full, and acknowledged the facility's subsequent deny.

Starting point is 00:30:51 I have no independently verified evidence establishing that Talarico was ever a patient there. I'm not going to speculate beyond the information available or continue fueling a controversy based on an unverified claim. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed. End quote. So what do we know? We know a woman from the facility seemed to imply that Talariko had been there. We know the facility itself says Tala Riko was never a patient there. Talariko says he's never even been to Ohio. Time stamped security pictures reportedly placed him at his home during the dates in question that we don't have access to those pictures to see for ourselves, and the alleged discharge date conflicts with his public appearance on October 9th.

Starting point is 00:31:31 Second and final. Rumor has it that the new White House press secretary, Katie Zachariah, is not actually a licensed attorney despite repeatedly referring to herself as one. This one appears to be true, at least based on every licensing record we can verify right now. So this really started getting attention after Zachariah's first press briefing on Tuesday. later that morning she was standing with President Trump outside the White House as he was getting ready to board Marine 1 and a reporter shouted to Trump, what state did she pass the bar exam in? Trump turned toward Zachariah so she could answer for herself and over the sound of the helicopter, she appears to respond when I moved to China. Now, the audio is really difficult to hear, which is why I'm not playing it right now, but multiple reporters who were there heard when I moved to China.

Starting point is 00:32:18 Zachariah later told reporters that she, and I'll add there that I've watched this clip many, many times trying to figure out what she's saying. It does seem like she may at least say China, but I can't make out anything other than that. So that that's what I gathered from the clip. Zachariah told reporters later on that she, quote, practiced international transaction law with all the appropriate credentials, end quote. Now, here's what we know. We know she went to law school and we know she worked at a law firm in Beijing. after graduating from law school in 2011. However, that doesn't really answer the licensing question.

Starting point is 00:32:53 For one, China's rules require someone taking its national legal qualification exam to be a Chinese citizen. Zachariah's American, she couldn't have qualified as a Chinese attorney through that process. With that said, it's totally possible to work at a law firm without being a licensed attorney. You can do research. You can do consulting. You can, you know, there's transactional support. There's plenty of other legal adjacent work that you can do without actually being licensed.

Starting point is 00:33:16 So saying she worked at a law firm in China doesn't mean that she was licensed to practice. Now, Zachariah did graduate from law school. We know that. She got her JD from Pepperdine Caruso School of Law. But having a law degree and being a licensed attorney are two different things. Your JD is the degree that you receive, you know, once you graduate from law school. But to actually become a licensed attorney in a U.S. jurisdiction, you have to satisfy that jurisdiction's admission requirements and be admitted to its bar. So passing a bar exam alone doesn't necessarily make you an attorney either.

Starting point is 00:33:50 You still have to complete the other requirements for admission. This typically includes things like, you know, of course you have to pass the bar exam. You also have to complete a character and fitness review, satisfy any professional responsibility requirement, take the attorney's oath, things like that. But that is where the potential legal issue arises because Zachariah hasn't just said that she went to law school or that she worked in the legal field. She has repeatedly described herself as a lawyer. earlier this month during an interview she called herself a lawyer. She's gone on TV discussing legal issues while being referred to as an attorney.

Starting point is 00:34:24 Trump himself called her an attorney when he announced that she would become his new press secretary. Also, there's this other, so her resume says that she served as general counsel for an organization called Fix California from 2024 to 2025. And that's notable because general counsel is typically the lawyer for the organization. So if you saw general counsel on someone's resume, you would assume that person was working as an attorney. But Rick Grinnell, who founded Fix California, is now saying this all happened after all of these questions arose, now saying that Zachariah wasn't working there as a lawyer and says she was just serving in more of an advisory role. So her resume says general counsel, which is a legal position, but the founder of the organization says she wasn't working as a lawyer and, you know, just in an advisory role. and that just kind of adds questions about her status and whether she was ever licensed. So let's get to the actual licensing records.

Starting point is 00:35:21 The State Bar of California, where Katie lived, says it has, quote, no record of Kate Sharon Zachariah or Kate Sharon Black, Black is her maiden name, having been licensed to practice law in California. The Washington Post separately searched for an active or expired barred missions under both names and couldn't find one. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Zachariah did take the California Bar exam after graduating but didn't pass and therefore was never admitted to the bar. So far neither Zachariah nor the White House has specifically pointed to a U.S. jurisdiction where she was admitted to practice. Now, legally speaking, California law says that if someone who is not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law holds themselves out as someone who is entitled to practice law, that can be a misdemeanor.

Starting point is 00:36:11 Holding yourself out means presenting yourself to other people as someone who has the legal authority to act as a lawyer. So that could look like offering legal services, representing clients, giving legal advice as an attorney, advertising yourself as a lawyer, taking on a job where you're functioning as the organization's lawyer, things like that. So Zachariah didn't automatically commit a crime just because she's called herself a lawyer on TV. Really, the legal question would be, what exactly was she representing herself at? as and what was she doing? Was she simply talking about the fact that she went to law school and

Starting point is 00:36:45 has worked in the legal field? Because that's one thing. Was she presenting herself as someone who was licensed and legally entitled to practice law in California? That's very different. So based on the information we have right now, this rumor appears to be true. Zachariah has a law degree, but we have no public record showing she's ever been admitted to practice law in the United States. California says she's never been licensed there. Searches of licensing databases haven't turned up in admission anywhere else. neither Zachariah nor the White House has identified a license or credential that would show she was admitted to practice. If they do, obviously that could change things. But as of right now,

Starting point is 00:37:19 we have not found one. Now, I want to add this piece about Democratic Michigan Senate candidate Abdul Al-Sahed because I know quite a few of you had questions about this. Republicans have criticized El-Sahed over the way he describes his professional background, right? So El-Syad has an MD from Columbia. He has a doctor in public health from Oxford. But he never completed a residency and he's never been licensed to practice medicine. So there's this pretty strong similarity between these two situations, right? Both El Saeed and Zachariah got the degree, but neither got the license to actually practice. Now, in El Saeed's case, there's a difference between him referring to himself as a doctor and him referring to himself as a physician. El Saeed can call himself a doctor

Starting point is 00:38:02 because he got his MD. The doctor title comes from the degree. But he's also called himself a physician, and that's where it gets a little murkier. Michigan law defines a physician as someone who is licensed or otherwise authorized to practice medicine. And Al-Saiyad has never been licensed. At the same time, there are some medical organizations like the American Medical Association that use a broader definition of position. And that broader definition includes someone who has an MD. So under that broader definition, he qualifies as a physician.

Starting point is 00:38:36 Under the definition used in Michigan law, he doesn't. Now with Zachariah, she got her JD, okay? And JD stands for Juris Doctor. So just like an MD is a doctor of medicine degree, a JD is a Juris Doctor degree. But here's the difference. Having an MD allows El Saya to use the title doctor because that title comes from the degree itself. Having a JD, on the other hand, doesn't automatically make someone a lawyer or attorney. So Zachariah can say she has a JD. She can say she's a jurist doctor. but she can't say just because she has that degree that she's a licensed lawyer or attorney. And that's why these two situations are, yes, similar, but not the same.

Starting point is 00:39:19 Okay, for today's critical thinking segment, let's go back to the Ilhan Omar story. First question is this. How should we analyze claims of political weaponization when an investigation predates the current administration, but becomes more aggressive under a president who has publicly. criticized the person being investigated. What facts might you need before you decide whether this is legitimate law enforcement or political retaliation? And what evidence might change your mind? If you think this is legitimate law enforcement, what evidence might change your mind that this is political retaliation? If you think this is political retaliation, what evidence might change your mind

Starting point is 00:39:59 and get you thinking this is legitimate law enforcement? And second, I guess really, this is like the fifth question at this point. But second, should the justice department ever delay an investigative step, assuming it's a legitimate law enforcement action, solely because an election is close. In other words, if investigators have, you know, probable cause to search a candidate's home, but that search takes place three weeks before election day, is delaying that search protecting the election from interference or might it be considered giving politicians a period of immunity that ordinary people don't get? That's what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here.

Starting point is 00:40:40 Don't forget, I will have that Cornell episode out for you either tomorrow evening or Saturday, potentially. Please don't forget to share this show with a friend, share this episode with a friend, leave me a review wherever you listen to podcasts and like and subscribe if you're watching on YouTube. All of those things really help, like I said, and I really, really appreciate you for it. Have a fantastic weekend. I will talk to you either tomorrow or Saturday and again on Monday.

Starting point is 00:41:04 You're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no, other than day one. How did Donald Trump turn the presidency into a king? Well, it didn't start with him. It was the goal of a decades-long master plan. When the president does it, it is not illegal. I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. Where they won't act, I will.

Starting point is 00:41:22 I'm David Sorota from The Lever. On our new season of the award-winning master plan podcast, we uncover the stealth plot to create an all-powerful president, or as some call it. The unitary executive. The unitary executive. The unitary executive. Our journalists reveal the hidden scheme to eliminate checks and balances, crush democracy, and turn government by the people into government by one man. I have the right to do whatever I want as president.

Starting point is 00:41:49 Check out masterplan season two, the kingmakers. Visit masterplanpodcast.com or search master plan in your podcast app to start listening right now.

UNBIASED - Ilhan Omar Investigation Explained: Why Her Home Was Searched | Is Katie Zacharia Actually a Lawyer? Did James Talarico Check Into a Facility?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.