Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) had a brutal week, and it could get a lot worse. Last Monday, Homeland Security Investigations agents raided her home in the Washington, D.C., area as part of what Fox News described as a criminal fraud investigation into her immigration status.

The left freaked out, naturally. But the outrage machine has a problem. A Democrat judge approved the raid, and the investigation itself began under Joe Biden. Omar nevertheless insists the whole thing is political payback.

Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor, has spent the past week walking through what comes next, and Omar won't like any of it.

Asked which of the many Omar controversies matters most, Turley says to look to the paperwork. "I think that we should focus on the immigration side of the investigation because that's the one that has reached the point of an actual search of her residence," he said.

Grand jury subpoenas have also reportedly gone out to members of Omar's family. "I think that these family members very likely are related to the immigration side of this," Turley added.

Recommended
Where Are the Gendarmes? Stephen Green The Morning Briefing: The Burqafication of France Is Nearly Complete Stephen Kruiser

"The immigration laws are very clear," he said. "When you're accused of illegally procuring citizenship or naturalization, it is not a defense that, 'I was innocent in all of this.'"

"The U.S. government's position has always been that if you have information there that is untrue, where you would not have been made a citizen, then you can be denaturalized," Turley continued. He acknowledged that the government faces a high standard of proof in denaturalization cases, but the path exists, and the government has used it before.

Recommended: Here's Why the GOP May Have a Much Better Midterm Election Than Expected

Omar's true age sits at the center of it all. As my PJ Media colleague Robert Spencer reported last week, her staff requested that public records change her birth year from 1981 to 1982 in May 2019, fueling questions about whether she was really under 18 when her father naturalized in 2000. If she was, she’d have been eligible to derive citizenship through him. If not, which now appears likely, she wouldn’t have been.

"There's also question as to the stated age of Representative Omar, which allowed her to basically piggyback on the process of her father, instead of having to file a separate effort, filing for naturalization," Turley said.

Turley has also noted that Omar's father "filled out much of the paperwork that may be the subject of this search. He had a record as a colonel in a really brutal regime, and there may be questions as to those original papers." He also spelled out why the age question carries so much weight. "By saying that she was 17, she did not have to file for her own citizenship," Turley said.

Turley returned to the subject Sunday on Fox News Sunday, where he explained why Omar's time in office makes her situation even more precarious.

"And part of the problem with Representative Omar is that as a candidate, as a member of Congress, she has to continually file papers that may be repeating something that is false that she may know is false," Turley said. "The civil case does not have a statute of limitations, and the position of the government has been that even innocent errors, if they would have prevented you from becoming a citizen, can be the basis of denaturalization."

"And this administration, before the Omar case, had a dramatic increase in denaturalization cases," he added. "They have really sort of breathed life into this process, and they're being very tough on this."

For years, Omar got away with treating every question about her past as bigotry, and a friendly press happily played along. Those days look numbered. Very numbered.