Ex FBI Officials Surrender Over Hunter Laptop; SCOTUS Restores ID Rule; CA Voter Fight Escalates

Hello, all you freedom-loving people. The Supreme Court restored New Hampshire's student ID voting ban. The DOJ says its California voter roll review could grow by thousands as the fight moves to the appeals court. Two former senior FBI officials surrendered on charges of lying to Congress about Hunter Biden's laptop. So, what could happen if Tesla and SpaceX merge? Okay, let's get into it. The Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday evening in favor of New Hampshire Republicans. Citing the Purcell principle, the Supreme Court ruled that New Hampshire state officials may no longer accept student IDs as valid forms of identification for voting. Earlier this year, New Hampshire passed a law, HB 323, prohibiting voters from using student ID cards as valid identification when voting. but a group called the Coalition for Open Democracy filed a legal challenge against this state law. Earlier this month, District Court Judge Joseph LaPlante denied the group's motion to block the enforcement of HB 323. However, he also prohibited Secretary of State David Scanlon from instructing election officials that student IDs must not be accepted under any circumstances. And a few days later, the judge further expanded the scope of the order, which meant that election officials must still accept student IDs as a valid form of alternative identification. But in its emergency petition to the Supreme Court, New Hampshire argued that the district court's order was issued just 32 days before the general election, which violates several of the Supreme Court's past rulings. the Purcell principle is designed to prevent changes to election rules as election day approaches. So the Supreme Court justices ruled to stay the execution of LaPlante's order. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The DOJ has released the results from its verification of California's voter registration rolls. Bill Asaily, the first assistant U.S. attorney for California's Central District, said federal investigators have verified that none of the 20,000 individuals they identified on the state's electoral register as potential non-citizens are U.S. citizens. He said that every person on the current 20,000 name list was individually reviewed by a federal employee at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security investigations. But California refused to provide additional identification information, including driver's license numbers and social security numbers, so the federal investigators could not cross-check it against government databases. Asaily said, they're forcing us to do it the hard way, which we're willing to do because this is very important. He also mentioned that there are more non-citizens on the voter rolls. He said, we believe it is a minimum of 20,000. That's the floor, not the ceiling. He stated that the potential ceiling is much larger and thousands more names are expected to be added in the coming days. Earlier this week, Asaily got into a social media spat with Governor Gavin Newsom. He argued that California is allowing people without citizenship onto the voter rolls. Newsom said that the state follows all relevant federal law that govern the integrity of elections. California election officials said that sequestering ballots from people on the DOJ list is impossible in cases where the ballots have already been processed. Once a ballot signature is verified, it is removed from its identifying envelope and processed alongside other ballots, meaning that it can no longer be traced back to the individual voter. Asaily said, that is true. That's why we're getting an emergency court order requiring them to put those ballots aside. On Wednesday, the DOJ made a stronger plea for the court to step in immediately, asking the judge to make a decision on its emergency request by 12 p.m. the following day. But District Judge David O. Carter did not rule by the following day deadline, which was yesterday. Instead, Judge Carter scheduled a hearing for next week, but the DOJ wants immediate action and does not want to wait. So yesterday, the DOJ asked the Circuit Court of Appeals to step in. The DOJ viewed Judge Carter's silence as a constructive denial of their request. Judge Carter is the same judge who, in a separate case in January, called the Justice Department's demands for California's voter rolls unprecedented and illegal and threw out that lawsuit. California, meanwhile, is pushing back in court and has asked Judge Carter to dismiss the DOJ's current case. At a news conference yesterday, Asaily said that with every minute that passes, the votes of American citizens in California are being diluted. According to DOJ court statements, 5.9 million ballots have already been mailed out and 331,000 return ballots have already been processed, which DOJ lawyers say underscores the emergency. On the other hand, Democratic groups sued the Trump administration, accusing it of using unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud to influence how states run elections. The groups say that the administration is issuing a stream of threats to intimidate and bully both voters and election officials. They asked the judge to rule that the government's actions were unlawful and to prevent it from further interfering in the election. The lawsuit condemned the Trump administration for targeting state voter registration rolls and requiring local officials to review lists that were compiled by the federal government. The suit also alleges that the administration is improperly demanding that states deny ballots to registered voters based on those federal lists. The lawsuit cited the case in which the DOJ requested that California refused to issue ballots to more than 20,000 voters on the grounds that these individuals are potentially ineligible to vote. Axios reported that a preliminary investigation by Los Angeles County investigators found that more than 25% of those flagged listed a U.S. birthplace and others already had their voter registrations canceled. The suit was brought by Democratic organizations, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic leaders and a voter. And the suit names President Trump, the Department of Justice and Homeland Security and their respective heads as defendants. A White House spokesperson told Axios that while Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud, the Trump administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections, including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion. Today, two former senior FBI officials surrendered after being charged with lying to Congress about their roles in the Bureau's investigation into Hunter Biden. The two former senior FBI officials, Nikki Cole-Flores of Virginia and Bradley Benavides of South Carolina, turned themselves in on arrest warrants that were issued after a criminal complaint. Each of them is charged with making false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. The charges were announced by FBI Director Kash Patel and by Janine Pirro, the attorney for the District of Columbia. The case stems from an ongoing investigation into the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. That task force has since been dissolved, but it led the FBI's alleged efforts to try and protect the 2020 election from foreign malign influence. And Flores led that task force as a deputy assistant director from mid-2019 through mid-2022. And Benavides served as its section chief from mid-2019 through the 2020 election. According to the Justice Department, the FBI had several investigations into Hunter Biden in the lead up to the 2020 election, and the task force participated in them. In 2023, the House Judiciary Committee interviewed both officials about the task force role in those investigations. And each of these former FBI officials was then warned at the time that lying to Congress is a crime. And now reportedly, the charges stem from transcribed interviews that the two former FBI officials gave the committee in July and September of 2023. Both former FBI officials testified that the task force was not involved in the Hunter Biden investigations. Flores told the committee that she took part in no discussions about Hunter Biden while she was at the task force. And Benavides testified that he only learned that the FBI had Hunter Biden's laptop after reading a Wikipedia article in 2023. But according to an affidavit that was filed with the complaint, documentary evidence, Communications from that time and witness accounts all contradict what the two former officials told Congress. Prosecutors say that evidence shows that Flores routinely discussed the Hunter Biden investigations for more than a year, both within the task force and with others at the FBI. Prosecutors also say that contrary to his Wikipedia claim, Benavides regularly discussed the laptop with FBI officials in the lead up to the 2020 election. Pirro says that the two allegedly lied, despite evidence showing that they helped shape the public narrative about Hunter Biden's laptop right before the election. Attorney General Todd Blanche said that public servants, including federal law enforcement officials, cannot lie to Congress and get away with him. Kash Patel went further and said Flores is also on record privately claiming to be running a shadow government during the 2020 election in her role on the FITF. In response, Flores' attorneys say that she is a patriot who served as a dedicated FBI intelligence officer for nearly 20 years. They say that the Justice Department has falsely accused her of a crime that is based on what politicians said, not on the facts. Her attorneys also questioned the timing of the charges, arguing that the administration is pushing a false narrative to score political points. Meanwhile, Ron Safer, an attorney for Benevides, says that the government has had this information for years. Both former officials appeared in federal court in Washington this morning before Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqi. The judge noted that both have strong backgrounds in federal law enforcement and long careers in public service. They are due back in court on Tuesday for a preliminary hearing. In early November, California will hold a referendum on Proposition 40, also known as the California Wealth Tax. Proposition 40 proposes a one-time five percent wealth tax on California residents with net worth exceeding one billion dollars the tax may be paid in installments over five years and eligibility is determined based on residency status as of January 1st 2026 Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear to the company board of directors that he intends to move his primary residence out of California otherwise he could face a potential tax bill of over 10 billion dollars. According to estimates by the Daily Telegraph and others, if the bill passes, Zuckerberg personally could face a tax bill of between 11.45 billion dollars and 12 billion dollars. In order to keep the CEO in California and to reduce the company's governance risks, the board of directors promptly reached an agreement with him. The board approved a new class of non-voting common stock that he can sell to raise cash to pay the wealth tax if voters approve it without diluting his control over Meta. In the new regulatory filing to the SEC on Wednesday, Meta said that Zuckerberg's presence near the company's Menlo Park, California headquarters is critically important to its success. The filing reads, any listing of his residential real estate in California on the market would be public and inevitably noted and commented upon by company employees and accordingly raised questions for management of the company going forward. So the company took the unusual step to creating a new stock class. The company claims that the non-voting class C common stock isn't only designed to keep Zuckerberg near Meta's headquarters, it is also intended in part to boost the company's ability to raise capital for AI infrastructure investments. It will also use the new stock to raise capital to compensate employees, to make acquisitions, and for other general corporate purposes. As a result, Zuckerberg has told Meta that he will continue to remain a California resident for eight years. But if Meta moves its headquarters to another state, Zuckerberg will move to that jurisdiction. On Tuesday, during SpaceX's third quarter earnings call, Musk publicly stated that he believes a merger between SpaceX and Tesla is a good idea. He said that he sees a lot of merit to combining the companies. Both SpaceX and Tesla have formed special committees to discuss this idea at the request of shareholders, and these special committees consist of independent directors. However, Musk himself cannot participate in the special committee's discussions because he serves as CEO of both companies, creating a conflict of interest. He also emphasized that the merger is not a done deal. The terms of the deal have not yet been finalized, and shareholder approval will ultimately be required. In the case of Tesla in particular, approval from half of all shareholders is required, which is a fairly high threshold. A merger between SpaceX and Tesla would naturally have many benefits. However, this potential deal would draw the attention of the Chinese Communist Party, and it could also spark a political showdown between President Trump and the Democrats. Let's start with the benefits of the merger. Musk believes that a merger between Tesla and SpaceX would be a win-win solution. In Tuesday's earnings call Musk said there's a lot to be gained from cooperating on developing super intelligent software chip design the Terafab obviously robotics mass to orbit with the Star mind constellation electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla and rocket company SpaceX have always been viewed as essentially independent entities but now as Musk expands into the fields of AI robotics advanced manufacturing, satellite communications, and computing infrastructure, the boundaries between the two companies' businesses have gradually become more blurred. One obvious benefit of a merger is that it simplifies the decision-making process and it centralizes resources and influence. Currently, many of Musk's ambitious projects require separate approval from different boards of directors and shareholders before they can be implemented. Following the merger, executives can more freely allocate funds, engineering talent, and infrastructure to the areas that are most urgent and offer the greatest opportunities for growth. Musk himself could also exert greater influence over Tesla. Currently, he only holds about one-fifth of Tesla's shares. However, he holds voting control over SpaceX. Musk himself could also, if the merger goes through, undoubtedly hold a larger percentage of voting rights in the new company than he currently does at Tesla. Of course, in the eyes of the special committee, this may not necessarily be a benefit. It could also be a factor to consider. The transaction itself will not increase Musk's wealth, but it will concentrate his wealth more heavily in a single stock. The merger would likely be valued at close to $5 trillion. The combined company will be one of the most valuable in the world, rivaling that of the most highly valued businesses like chipmaker Nvidia or Apple. Another benefit of the merger is that the two companies' businesses are complementary. For example, SpaceX's Starlink could provide communication connectivity for Tesla's driverless taxis, autonomous driving systems, and Optimus humanoid robots. At the same time, Tesla's battery and energy storage products can help meet SpaceX's growing electricity needs, including power for future data centers. According to a Reuters analysis, the biggest challenge to the merger of the two companies stem from geopolitical and regulatory factors. In terms of regulation, Musk's close ties to President Trump and the Republican Party, coupled with the current U.S. administration's backing of U.S. companies that are seeking to dominate the technology and advanced manufacturing sector, suggests that U.S. regulatory bodies are unlikely to block this deal. However, challenges may arise outside the United States. Foreign regulatory authorities are likely to scrutinize whether the merged company would gain an unfair competitive advantage by integrating technologies from the automotive, artificial intelligence, and aerospace sectors. Antitrust experts, on the other hand, believe that because the two companies primarily operate in different markets, there is limited scope for competition concerns. The biggest obstacle may come from the political arena. First, SpaceX is one of the U.S. government's most important aerospace and defense contractors. SpaceX has racked up at least $6.78 billion in federal work so far through October 1st this year, according to FedScoop. And this is nearly twice its total for all of 2024. SpaceX's Starlink service has played a key role in several conflicts, including the war in Ukraine. And Tesla, meanwhile, is a major U.S. manufacturer with significant exposure to the Chinese market. It operates a large production facility in Shanghai, giving the Chinese Communist Party an opportunity to exert pressure on Musk's business empire. A Reuters report noted that the merger of these two companies would likely raise concerns in both Washington and Beijing regarding national security risks. While these concerns are unlikely to derail the deal, the merged company could find itself embroiled in years of political wrangling and face pressure from both sides of the Pacific. Analysts believe that Tesla's operations in China could become a bargaining chip for Beijing to exert influence over Musk in future disputes with Washington. On the other hand, if the Democrats regain a majority in the House of representatives in next month's midterm elections. This deal could face congressional investigations and political maneuverings. And that's a wrap for this episode. Thank you so much for your support of FrontPage. 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 FrontPage, 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.