Bill Glahn:
So, we are left with the questions of “what is evidence?” and “what is proof?” I suspect anything short of a written, signed, notarized and authenticated confession from both the bride and groom would be deemed “lacking.”
Equally displaced is the debate over motive. A close reading of the record suggests the marriage was undertaken to either (1) improve Elmi’s immigration standing or (2) to lower the cost of their mutual attendance at North Dakota State University, or both.
But given Omar’s lifelong history of poor decision making, attributing an intelligent and fully-thought-out rationalization for the marriage seems beside the point. At the time (2009), Omar was a private citizen with a political career still many years beyond the horizon. For brother deniers, the focus on motive is akin to the more extreme examples where the media downplay the carnage of terrorist attacks because the underlying motive remains “unclear.”
The deed was done, who cares “why?”
Absent DNA testing on the principals, or the emergence of new evidence acceptable to her supporters, we are left with a matter of belief. Either you believe the cumulative clues that point to Omar’s marriage to a close relative, or you stick to the belief that she would never commit such an unnatural act.
Scott Johnson:
I’ve been on her case now nearly ten years. I documented the story in its early stages for City Journal in the September 2016 column “The curious case of Ilhan Omar.” Today I return to the scene of the crime with a first-person account in the Washington Free Beacon column “Yes, Ilhan Omar married her brother.”
Ed Morrissey:
Indeed it would be, as long as the defamation lawyer could be certain that it is a defamatory claim. The problem is that Scott — himself an attorney — has compiled compelling evidence that the claims are true. Any lawsuit would force Omar to account for that evidence and to provide some compelling evidence to the contrary. It's true, as Turley points out, that it's difficult to prove a negative in theory, and that defendants (or more accurately in civil law, respondents) should not be forced into that position.
However, a defamation claim would put Omar into the position of proving that not only are the allegations false, but obviously false enough to overcome Sullivan. That would force Omar to essentially prove that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is not her brother as a threshold to receive a judgment in her favor, and would force Omar to participate in a discovery process that she will not enjoy for a single moment.
# posted by Ranger @ 12:34 PM
