Federal agents from Homeland Security Investigations very recently searched the Washington home of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) under a court-authorized warrant, seizing her phone, in a criminal investigation of alleged fraud in her family’s immigration paperwork. The next day, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro confirmed on national television that her office is also examining the congresswoman’s financial disclosures.
Within hours, the country split into two camps. To one, a powerful lawmaker was finally facing accountability. To the other, an administration was hunting a critic. Omar denies wrongdoing; her lawyers say agents ignored a judge’s restrictions, which the Justice Department denies. No charges have been filed. A search warrant is not an indictment, and a confirmation on cable news is not a finding of anything.
The same man cheered and cursed
None of this is new. In July 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend charges against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her private email server. Republicans were furious; Democrats were relieved. Eleven days before the election, he told Congress the bureau was reviewing newly discovered emails. Now Democrats were furious, and Republicans praised his integrity. When the inspector general later found Comey insubordinate but not driven by political bias, both parties quoted the parts they liked.
Democrats then spent years defending the department’s independence while special counsels investigated President Donald Trump, and they dismissed his complaints of selective prosecution. Then in 2024, President Joe Biden, who had pledged not to pardon his son, did exactly that, declaring that Hunter Biden had been selectively prosecuted. Republicans, who called the department weaponized, cheered its case against the younger Biden.
In 2025, the script flipped again. The department indicted Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after President Trump publicly pressed his attorney general to act. A federal judge dismissed both cases because the prosecutor who brought them had been unlawfully appointed. The department has appealed and has since indicted Comey a second time. Now Democrats cry persecution and Republicans insist the system be allowed to work.
The polls tell the story
Pew Research found in 2025 that Republican favorability toward the Justice Department rose 18 points in a single year to 51%, while Democratic favorability fell 27 points to just 28%. What changed was who controlled it. Americans are no longer rating an institution; they are rating a team.
Why the noise pays
Attention is the currency of modern politics. A dramatic investigation generates cable segments, viral clips, fundraising emails, and a ready-made story of heroes and villains. Here lies the catch-22: the more attention citizens pay to every raid and leak, the more politicians perform for them, and the more they perform, the more attention the story commands. Politicians will not break that loop, because it serves them. Networks will not, because it feeds them. Only the audience can.
My training as a scientist taught me that a single measurement proves nothing. A raid, a subpoena, or a press conference is a preliminary reading; the result arrives in a courtroom.
Restraint is not blind trust
None of this means trusting the department blindly. Watergate showed it can be abused. But scrutinizing the process differs from cheering outcomes. Was the prosecutor lawfully appointed? Did agents follow the judge’s conditions? Did investigators avoid dramatic steps on the eve of an election, the very norm Comey was faulted for breaking? Those questions protect everyone.
They also cut against officials who sensationalize their own work. The department has a long-standing policy of not confirming or denying pending investigations, a rule meant to protect people who may never be charged. Yet a U.S. attorney has discussed this inquiry on television, and border czar Tom Homan has said publicly that investigators have a “strong case.” That deserves skepticism whether the subject is a Democrat or a Republican, as does any politician who cries persecution the moment an investigation touches his side.
REVIEW — STARFLEET ACADEMY: WHERE NO PROGRESSIVE MIND HAS GONE BEFORE
Here is a simple test. Before reacting, imagine the same facts with the parties reversed. If your reaction would flip, you are responding to a jersey, not to evidence. Then wait.
If enough Americans adopted that habit, outrage would stop paying, and politicians would stop manufacturing it. The Justice Department belongs to all Americans. In a healthy republic, a federal investigation should be one of the dullest stories in the news.
Meda Parameswara Reddy is the director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking. A former research and development executive holding 30 U.S. patents, he has published 87 articles, appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, RealClear Markets, Science and Defense platforms; Washington Examiner, SpaceNews, the Fulcrum, the Humanist, American Thinker, and South Asia Monitor.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
