President Donald Trump has his favorite riffs during campaign rallies. He’s recently complimented the physique of Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio. He still calls out former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

But in recent weeks, the president spun Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., into heavy rotation on his playlist. The Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department are now probing Omar for alleged immigration fraud and financial disclosure reports.

"What she did was use a fake name and other things that are fake," the president groused about Omar. "She used the fake name to be sworn in. I assume she must immediately resign from Congress."

Trump argued that Democrats "just conceded her seat." They didn’t.

And the president declared that "she will not be legally allowed to be a member of that august body of politicians." Not accurate.

The president doesn’t decide who gets to sit in Congress. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants that power to the House and Senate. It charges both bodies with authority to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." The Constitution goes on to say that the House and Senate may "punish its Members for Disorderly Behavior; and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." We bring up those responsibilities because it’s possible that the House may need to tangle with the "qualifications" of Omar. Especially since the New York Times reported that the Minnesota Democrat faced scrutiny by the Obama-era Justice Department in 2016. Moreover, that inquiry says the feds found evidence that she may have entered into a fraudulent marriage.

If that’s the case, there could be questions about Omar’s citizenship. And thus, whether she’s even permitted to serve in Congress. Especially if it’s found she was naturalized as a citizen via bogus means.

Republicans have been after Omar for years. Across the aisle, Democrats are concerned this could be a distracting headache. Especially if they seize control of the House after the midterms next week.

The inquiry into Omar began in 2016 when she ran for the state legislature. Former President Barack Obama was in office. The investigation continued into the Biden administration. The feds terminated the inquiry in 2021.

After the Trump administration raided Omar’s home in October — seizing electronics and documents — Obama defended the congresswoman.

"It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say," the former president said. "But that’s exactly what the Trump administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar."

Obama said the current inquiry flipped her life "upside down" and characterized it as an effort to "intimidate someone." Controversial influencer and livestreamer Hasan Piker asked Omar about how her week was going amid the investigation.

"It tracks for me," replied Omar. "That’s kind of what I’m used to."

A spokeswoman for Omar said that she "has repeatedly and unequivocally denied this baseless, disgusting conspiracy theory." But indications that Omar faced scrutiny ten years ago make it harder to characterize this as wild, right-wing conjecture emanating from the blogosphere.

"Who ordered [the investigation] closed?" asked Fox contributor Paul Mauro. "Reportedly, both administrations had opened cases into this. We now know how much smoke there is." Omar campaigned for the state legislature in 2016. Her campaign released a letter from the U.S. attorney saying it "wasn’t investigating" nor requesting an inquiry into Omar. So was she cleared? Or does word of the old probe pour petrol on the flames?

"Omar will talk about and say, ‘They've looked into this. Nothing came about it,’" said University of Minnesota political science professor Kathryn Pearson. "But I think it's also a talking point that Republicans will use. So I think sort of both sides will try to use that to their advantage." John Nagel is Omar’s Republican opponent on the ballot next week. Nagel views the new investigation as a political wedge.

"With the raid on her home, people should keep this in mind. It's a very serious accusation," Nagel said. "As far as I'm concerned, Somalia comes first in her life. And we are nothing more than a piggy bank for her." At least one Republican is ready to bounce Omar from the House.

"If the evidence shows that she is not an American, she has to be removed immediately and probably put in prison," said Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla. "I think the idea that a foreigner might be actually serving in Congress should be terrifying to Americans." But another House Republican urges caution.

"We just need all the facts," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. "I hope that the investigation is thorough, fair, and absolutely aboveboard." And then there is the question of due process. "The Ethics Committee should commence an investigation.

It takes two-thirds of the House to expel a sitting Member. I would highly doubt the Democrats would agree. And certainly not without findings," Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., told Fox. "I think at a minimum, the Ethics Committee should move forward with an investigation immediately upon our return." This could develop into a real hornet’s nest for the House when lawmakers descend on Washington after the midterms.

That’s to say nothing of questions about seating Omar when the new Congress starts in January. If Democrats win the House, would House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. — perhaps as speaker — be forced to grapple with the question of seating Omar if Republicans move to exclude her?

In fact, such a motion to exclude comes right before the new speaker swears in the entire House on Jan. 3. The speaker would swear in 434 members. Then takes votes related to the potential member in question. If Democrats win the House, new, moderate House Democrats might take their first formal floor vote on whether to seat Omar.

Voting against Omar might be good for some of these new members, considering the political nature of their battleground districts. But would the Democratic brass pressure new members to vote with the caucus on such a nettlesome issue?

Democrats who vote to seat Omar give Republicans an immediate opportunity to build a case against newly-christened members representing swing districts. A vote to exclude or expel Omar would go down as one of the most important roll calls of the entire two-year Congress.

We haven’t even explored how progressives and Democratic Socialists — new to the House — might rage at moderate Democrats for not supporting their colleague. That could produce a serious schism among Democrats.

This isn’t going away. Omar is a lightning rod. The GOP believes it can continue to milk this. President Trump has his favorite riffs about Omar. And it’s possible that House Republicans may as well.