Omar Probe Started Under Obama Then Came The Biden Twist; 41,000 DHS Workers Exposed; Next Justice?

Hello all you freedom-loving people. Reportedly, Obama's FBI and DHS opened an Ilhan Omar marriage fraud probe back in 2016, but now 175 House Democrats want the renewed investigation stopped. The DOJ is sending 1,000 election monitors to the voting polls, but FBI and ICE agents won't be among them. California billionaires have spent $293 million fighting Proposition 40, and hackers claim that 41,000 DHS employees were exposed. Okay, let's get into it. New reporting shows that the federal investigation into whether Representative Ilhan Omar married her brother actually began under former President Obama. Today, the New York Times first reported that Obama's FBI and Department of Homeland Security opened the probe in the summer of 2016, and Fox News has confirmed this. At the time, officials found some evidence that Omar's 2009 marriage was fraudulent. But the case ended after officials decided that the potential felony was past the statute of limitations. Then a Minnesota attorney that was appointed by President Biden eventually shut the probe down in 2021. But now the issue is back in the spotlight through a new federal investigation, part of which centers on whether Omar or her father committed fraud on her citizenship application. Previously, Fox News reported that Ilhan Omar's real name is Ilhan Nur Saeed Elmi. A federal court document calls her Ilhan Omar Nur Saeed Elmi, also known as Ilhan Omar. In 2009, Omar married a man with that same surname. She married Ahmed Nur Saeed Elmi, and the two officially split in 2017. But Omar has repeatedly called the claim that she married her brother a conspiracy theory. This morning, her spokesperson called the current investigation a political vendetta against one of President Trump's most visible critics. The spokesperson also said that the 2016 probe was rejected for lack of evidence, which contradicts the New York Times report that the investigation was closed because of the statute of limitations. And Democrats are also pushing back against the current investigation. More than 100 Democratic members of the House of Representatives have called for an end to the federal government's investigation into Ilhan Omar, arguing that it could affect her re-election campaign in the midterm elections next month. These 175 Democratic members of Congress accused the DOJ and DHS of weaponizing law enforcement actions against their colleagues from Minnesota. Calling the move unprecedented and unacceptable, Omar is seeking re-election in Minnesota's 5th Congressional District. In a letter dated October 26th, Democratic representatives said that the DOJ has long followed a policy to not take investigative steps relating to a candidate this close to an election if delaying the action will not jeopardize a criminal investigation. The lawmakers pointed out that the news of the search warrant that was executed on her Washington apartment by DHS agents on October 12th, whether properly predicated or not, could affect voters' decisions at the polls on November 3rd. They said the move strips Minnesotans of their right to a free and fair election guaranteed to them under the Constitution. In the letter, the Democrats also disputed the basis for the investigation, namely that Omar's now deceased father lied about her age on immigration papers to get her citizenship after the family fled Somalia in the 1990s amid a civil war. The lawmakers said, we demand you refrain from taking any further action that could affect the outcome of the upcoming election. And Omar said recently that following the raid, she had received death threats and would therefore have to move out of her apartment. She has maintained that she didn't do anything wrong and that the current investigation into her is politically motivated. Yesterday, the DOJ confirmed that it is planning to send 1,000 election monitors and observers to polling locations around the country ahead of midterm elections. The DOJ spokeswoman, Kirsten Pelz, characterized the action as routine and something that has occurred for decades. Her statement reads, Every monitor will merely observe and report any potential violation of federal law to the department, which will be reviewed after election day. She added that they cannot interfere with voting at polling locations during the November 3rd elections. For years, the Department of Justice has deployed monitors to polling sites for both federal and non-federal elections to watch for violations of federal laws such as the Voting Rights Act. The role of the monitors will be to observe whether there are potential violations of federal law and report concerns to the department, which the department will review after election day and act where appropriate. The official, Eric Neff, who is the acting chief of the voting section in the department's civil rights division, said those employees will be prohibited from carrying guns and will be barred from taking any action beyond normal civil division monitoring conduct, Thank such as observing polling locations and taking notes. He wrote thus, While monitoring, the monitors will not be acting as law enforcement personnel, you a law enforcement officer, or a law enforcement agent as commonly understood. very Monitors have been trained to not interfere with voting or election officials and to only speak to voters after they have cast ballots. much. New York Attorney General Letitia James said this week that New Yorkers should not fear federal workers at polling stations. On the same day, a government official said, That FBI and ICE employees will not monitor voting locations during the upcoming midterm elections, even though the Trump administration is stepping up its investigation into non-citizen voting. Yesterday, the Fed announced that it would hold the interest rate steady. Fed policymakers voted 10 to 2 to leave the federal funds rate unchanged. The FOMC noted that economic activity is expanding at a strong pace with robust productivity, growth, and capital investment. Meanwhile, job growth has kept pace with the workforce and the unemployment rate has remained stable. Two officials expressed dissent, saying that they were in favor of raising interest rates. They are Lisa D. Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board, and Beth M. Hammock, the president of the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank. Both of them voted in favor of hiking interest rates by 25 basis points. Cook has been at the center of controversy lately. President Trump once tried to fire her for allegedly providing incorrect information on a mortgage application. Another hearing on the matter is scheduled for early November, and November 3rd is midterm elections, election day. Observers say that Federal Reserve officials do not want to raise interest rates so close to the election, even though the Fed chair said that politics played no role in the decision. The Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, offered an update on the FOMC's review of its meeting schedule. Starting next year, the FOMC will hold eight meetings per year. One of those meetings in 2027 will focus exclusively on board monetary policy strategy with neither a vote on the federal funds rate nor a policy statement anticipated. In 2028, he expects that the FOMC will have two meetings dedicated to strategy discussions with six related to policy decisions. With less than a week to go before the midterm elections, the latest polls released on Tuesday show that opponents of California's controversial Proposition 40, the Wealth Tax Act, have overturned the deficit and now lead supporters of the bill by six percentage points. A poll conducted last month by the California Public Policy Institute showed that among 1,103 likely voters, 52% said that they would support the measure. 42% said they oppose it and 2% were undecided. In the latest poll, though, that was conducted on October 16th to the 22nd among 1,728 California adults, opposition rose to 52% while support fell to 46%. By political affiliation, 64% of Democrats support the tax, while 40% of independents and 18% of Republicans support it. Proposition 40 imposes a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers with assets exceeding $1 billion. According to estimates by abillionairetracker.org, there are 261 billionaires in California with a combined net worth of $2.33 trillion, from which $105 billion in wealth tax revenue could be collected. Governor Newsom and two gubernatorial candidates, Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton, have also publicly opposed this wealth tax. Supporters of the wealth tax primarily include The Service Employees International Union, the United Healthcare Workers Western Federation, the California Democratic Party, and the California Labor Federation, among others. Tech giants in Silicon Valley have spent $293 million opposing Proposition 40. Contributors include Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who donated $102 million. Former Google CEO and California billionaire Eric Schmidt, who donated $40.2 million, and Ripple co-founder and executive chairman Chris Larsen, who donated $12.5 million. The majority of those billionaires made their fortunes in technology, but they span a range of industries from agriculture to real estate. And they span the political spectrum as well, ranging from long-standing Democratic megadonors to Republican allies and first-time donors. Frank Slootman, the billionaire board chair and former CEO of cloud data company Snowflake, said that he only had a moderate interest in politics despite giving $5 million to an anti-Proposition 40 group on the grounds that the measure erodes private property rights and the state's economic dynamism. He said, this upends the most basic assumptions we have about being a taxpayer and a resident of a state. The other half of billionaires spending this year came largely from Tom Steyer, a rare billionaire endorser of Proposition 40. But the billionaires who are opposing Proposition 40 are so well coordinated and have such vast financial resources that even veteran strategists who have worked for statewide candidates and who participated in California's costly ballot initiative battles have struggled to find a comparable historical precedent. Rob Stutzman, a Sacramento political consultant whose past campaigns have involved record-breaking ballot spending over sports betting, said that Silicon Valley leaders see Proposition 40 as an existential threat to tech in California and to the innovation that has taken root in the region for decades. He said, They're known for their pet issues that are hard to organize their peers around, but they can circle the wagons to protect themselves. There's nothing that focuses more these similar situated people. A hacker group claimed yesterday that an internal database with personal information identifying more than 41,000 employees at the DHS, including undercover immigration officers, was hacked and published online. A Homeland Security spokesperson said that the department was aware of the security breach. They said, we take all security threats against our employees and officers seriously, and we will work to ensure that all are properly protected. We will update the public when more information is available. Data captured by the hackers includes email addresses, phone numbers, field offices, and other work-related information for employees of several DHS departments, including ICE and HSI. According to a statement that was released by DDoS Secrets, an organization called the Department of Peace is suspected of carrying out this database hack and providing copies of the data to DDoS Secrets and to the Swiss hacker activist Maya Arson Crime W. According to DDoS Secrets, which is an online group that hosts leaked or hacked documents, CrimeW created an online search tool and it published the data on a database that is called IcePick. This recent hack appears to be a retaliation against the Trump administration's aggressive policy of deporting undocumented immigrants. A spokesperson for the Department said in a press release on July 17th. Secretary of Homeland Security Mark Wayne Mullen said he was turning up the heat. This is what happens to ICE when you do that. Emma Best of DDoS Secrets said that the data set identifies officials who are responsible for overseeing covert and undercover operations and key personnel in DHS's deportation programs. More than 21,000 Border Patrol personnel were included in the leak, along with nearly 6,600 ICE agents, according to the information listed on the ICE PIC site. There had been speculation that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito might choose to retire, so that President Trump could select a younger conservative successor. But Alito dispelled those rumors in August of this year. He clearly stated that he intends to remain in office at least until the end of the next term, thereby denying speculation that he would retire in the near future. But the public remains curious about who President Trump has in mind for the Supreme Court, especially since he appointed three justices during his first term. Many people are wondering whether President Trump might have the opportunity to appoint more Supreme Court justices during his second term. President Trump responded to everyone's curiosity with a touch of humor on Tuesday at a midterm election rally in Texas. He said that if a vacancy were to arise on the Supreme Court in the future, he would consider nominating Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz to fill the seat. At the rally, President Trump said, I have an answer to not being able to get it past Democrats or Republicans Together, I would pick Ted Cruz to be the next Supreme Court Justice. I wouldn't have to worry about it. I wouldn't have to make a phone call. President Trump said that Ted Cruz's nomination would be approved quickly because lawmakers from both parties want him out of Capitol Hill. He said the Democrats will 100% vote for it because they hate the guy and they want to get rid of him. And the Republicans would 100% vote for it because they can't stand him. They would like to get rid of him. So I'd get 100% of the vote and he would be a Supreme Court justice and he'd do a great job. Cruz laughed and smiled from his front row seat as President Trump made the pitch. Ted Cruz, who is 55, has an extensive background. He graduated from Harvard Law School and he served as a law clerk to then Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He served as Deputy Attorney General of Texas from 2003 to 2008, and he has argued cases on behalf of Texas before the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. However, Cruz has previously made it clear on several occasions that he has no interest in serving on the Supreme Court. In September, he said, I do not want to be a judge. But President Trump called Cruz a brilliant guy, brilliant lawyer. Since joining the Senate in 2013, Cruz has established a reputation as a hardline conservative lawmaker due to his early leadership in campaigns against Obamacare and other initiatives. He has turned into one of President Trump's strongest allies in the Senate after running against President Trump for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, and Cruz has has also made no secret about his interest in running for president in 2028. And that's a wrap for this episode. Thank you so much for your support of Front Page. Please remember to leave a comment below the video or just an American flag emoji. This is really helping us to be seen all around the world. The more people who watch Front Page, the more freedom loving people the world will have. And please hit the like button and hit the notification bell after subscribing. And please share this video with your friends and family because everybody deserves to know the truth.