THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?

SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do)

• Former Minnesota Democratic lawmaker Joe Radinovich says the longstanding marriage allegation about Ilhan Omar is “almost certainly true.”
• Radinovich has worked against Omar politically, but also has deep experience in Democratic campaigns.
• Omar denies the allegation, and no criminal charges have been filed against her in connection with it.

LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time)

For years, Rep. Ilhan Omar has portrayed questions about her marriage history as politically motivated Republican attacks.

So what happens when a Democrat starts asking the questions?

Meet Joe Radinovich.

The former Minnesota state legislator and Democratic political operative has publicly challenged Omar’s denials of longstanding allegations involving her former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

“Democrats should understand that the allegation is almost certainly true,” he wrote.

That’s quite a statement from someone who spent years working in Minnesota Democratic politics.

Radinovich served in the state legislature and has worked on campaigns for Democrats. He also worked in efforts opposed to Omar, an important fact for understanding his motives and political perspective. This isn’t an uninvolved Democratic ally suddenly wandering into the dispute.

But it is a public challenge from someone familiar with Minnesota’s Democratic establishment, not simply another Republican talking point on a Sunday show.

His remarks followed renewed reporting about earlier federal scrutiny of Omar’s history. Her campaign rejected Radinovich’s claims and criticized his political motives.

The familiar routine in these controversies is almost scripted. A Republican raises questions. Democrats accuse the questioner of prejudice. Cable news stages a shouting match. Then everyone moves on to the next outrage before anybody has read a document.

Radinovich has interrupted that rhythm by insisting Democrats should look at the substance of the allegations.

His comments aren’t a court verdict. They are an invitation to examine what the records do — and don’t — establish.

Omar is entitled to defend herself. Voters are entitled to scrutinize people holding federal office. Neither right should depend on which party asks the question.

The significant political development is that somebody on the Democratic side is publicly refusing to accept the standard defense.

Party loyalty usually survives a few awkward headlines. It gets interesting when a former colleague starts asking the sort of questions your opponents have been raising for years.

The public deserves documents and answers rather than another tribal loyalty test. Washington produces plenty of those already.

DBS WIRE SOURCES (I have all day)

• Fox News — Radinovich comments
• New York Post — intraparty criticism and campaign response
• Mediaite — remarks and context