Elon Musk accuses rival billionaire of trying to ‘destroy' Trump to stop ‘Epstein List' from coming out
Elon Musk made wild accusations about 'known clients' of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein during an appearance on Joe Rogan's right-wing podcast, claiming former President Bill Clinton, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman were all worried about being named in the so-called 'Epstein List.'
Additionally, the world's richest man and Donald Trump's 'first buddy' claimed Hoffman was 'so intent on destroying Trump' during the 2024 presidential election, specifically to keep the 'list from coming out.'
Musk taped his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, which was released on Friday afternoon, just after Attorney General Pam Bondi released the 'first phase' of the 'Epstein files' to a cadre of MAGA influencers on Thursday. Despite hyping the release of the supposedly secret FBI documents as a bombshell, the binders Bondi delivered to Trump supporters turned out to contain very little new information about Epstein's criminal cases.
Instead, the roughly 200 pages of documents mainly consisted of flight logs on Epstein's planes and some contact information of his hundreds of associates, including Donald Trump, as well as an inventory of some of the items found in the homes that the FBI raided.
What wasn't included, though, was any fresh allegations about Epstein or any other associates, prompting the MAGA faithful to rage about the lack of new evidence while alleging a 'Deep State' conspiracy.
Sensing the anger from the right, who have long used the Epstein case to fuel other conspiracy theories, Bondi instructed New York's FBI field office to turn over 'all records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained' by Friday morning.
Midway through their three-hour-long chat, Rogan cited the criminal cases against Trump as part of a Democratic-led 'lawfare' campaign to prevent him from running for office again. Musk, meanwhile, noted that Hoffman helped back columnist E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against Trump, which found the president liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
'That lawsuit was funded by Reid Hoffman, who is a major Dem donor and also an Epstein client,' the DOGE chief alleged.
'The plot thickens!' Rogan responded. 'Jesus Christ, it's just so blatant. It's like so obvious. The SpaceX lawsuit, the Trump stuff, it's just so obvious.'
With the conspiracy-peddling podcaster setting the stage, Musk then accused Hoffman of trying to keep Trump from returning to the White House in order to prevent FBI evidence against Epstein and possibly others from being made public.
'Known Epstein clients who are obviously extremely powerful – powerful politically and very wealthy – are Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and Reid Hoffman,' Musk alleged. 'And some others, too. But those three.'
While a stunned-looking Rogan let out an exasperated sigh, Musk added: 'Why was Reid Hoffman so intent on destroying Trump?'
After Rogan asked if 'they were worried about the list coming out,' the X (formerly Twitter) owner flatly replied: 'Yeah.'
The two would go on to express their frustration about 'sitting in the situation where the list isn't coming out,' with Rogan complaining that Thursday's document dump had 'nothing in it that's new.'
Musk, on the other hand, reiterated that Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel are now the 'captain of a ship with a hostile crew,' suggesting that they are the victims of a coverup by career officials working for them.
This isn't the first time that Musk has pushed baseless claims about Hoffman as it relates to his relationship with Epstein.
During an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in October, the SpaceX CEO said Hoffman was one of the 'billionaires behind Kamala' Harris who were 'terrified' over the prospect of Epstein's client list becoming public. Additionally, Musk approvingly retweeted a post that claimed the billionaire was 'TERRIFIED about Trump releasing the Epstein client list after all his visits to Epstein Island.'
In an interview with The Sunday Times in December, Hoffman said Musk had made a 'conviction with no evidence' that he had a close relationship with Epstein and partied with the disgraced financier – who committed suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial over sex crimes.
Hoffman added that he also had received threats of violence and had to hire security due to Musk's conspiracy theories about him.
Hoffman said in 2019 that he regretted helping to 'repair' Epstein's reputation by introducing him to tech moguls in prior years while he sought donations to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He claimed that Epstein had passed MIT's 'vetting process' at the time, adding: 'My lesson is I should go do my own research.'
At the same time, Hoffman claimed that he 'went to no Epstein parties' and wasn't really familiar with the financier's sullied reputation at the time.
Adding that he didn't associate with Epstein after 2015, he speculated that Musk's sordid claims about him were 'seeded when he invited his old friend to an MIT fundraising dinner that was also attended by Epstein in 2015.'
'Elon's defamation makes me angry and sad,' he told the Times. 'Angry because it is an ugly assault. Sad because it comes from someone whose entrepreneurial achievements I continue to admire.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail
At second-annual CartCon conference in Napa Valley, CA, the tone was electric with anticipation but also laced with urgency. Billed as a summit for the company's expansive ecosystem of brands, vendors and strategists, the event served as both a product showcase and a pressure valve. Nowhere was that tension more visible than during one of the conference's hardest-hitting panels, a deep dive into the complexities of tariff policy and its ripple effects on global sourcing, consumer pricing and retail resilience. The panel consisted of three voices with rare insight into the collision of policy and commerce: Chris Smith, president of Summit Global Strategies; Tim Manning, former White House supply chain coordinator under President Joe Biden; and Nick Stachel, logistics strategy adviser at Izba Consulting. What followed was not a high-level overview, but a granular exploration of the legal, political and operational forces shaping how, and where, products are made, moved and sold. From globalization to geo-economics Smith opened the discussion by tracing the historical arc of U.S. trade policy. For decades following World War II, American trade strategy revolved around multilateralism. The U.S. saw global trade not just as an economic imperative but as a geopolitical tool, creating allies, raising standards of living and preventing conflict. But in 2016, that long-standing consensus fractured. The bipartisan abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership signaled a sharp pivot. As Smith explained, the political center collapsed under the weight of the 'China Shock,' a term describing the decimation of American manufacturing towns due to offshoring. Smith described President Donald Trump's tariff policy as a psychological reset. Before Trump, U.S. tariffs averaged around 2%. Within months, they jumped to 18% in key categories. This wasn't just an economic strategy, it was anchoring. 'It's like burger sizes,' Smith said, relating back to Wendy's psychological marketing strategies. 'Before Trump, we had singles and doubles. Now the triple is on the menu, and everything else looks small by comparison.' Tariffs, he added, have become Trump's 'cat toy' — a provocative distraction wielded without consistent strategy. Even if future administrations soften tariff policy, Smith warned, the structure of global trade has already shifted. Retailers and manufacturers alike are building permanent workarounds. Inflation, particularly in consumer goods, is the slow-burning consequence. While Smith provided the philosophical backdrop, Manning broke down the legal tools underpinning today's tariff landscape. The real disruption, Manning emphasized, has come through the use, and misuse, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Originally designed as a tool for national security sanctions, IEEPA has been repurposed by the Trump administration to enact sweeping tariffs with little congressional oversight. Manning described the legal and logistical chaos for businesses from these tactics. In just six weeks, the Trump administration issued 17 executive orders using IEEPA authority, stripping trade policy of its usual predictability and process. For businesses, this has been catastrophic. Sourcing strategies built over years have unraveled in days. 'We're in a volatile environment,' Manning said. The cost of doing business now includes factoring in the potential for abrupt, unexplained swings in tariff exposure. Long-term investments have become high-risk bets, and in many cases, they're simply not being made. On-the-ground retail strategy Bringing the policy talk down to the warehouse floor, Stachel outlined how brands are actually coping with this new reality. In the short term, some are fast-tracking inventory from China before new tariffs hit, relying on expedited ocean freight and cross-docking at West Coast ports to minimize delays and avoid customs bottlenecks. Others are making subtler moves — like holding prices steady on high-visibility products – say, a gaming console – while raising prices on accessories and add-ons to recoup margin. Stachel noted that many brands have moved beyond the now-familiar 'China Plus One' strategy, opting instead for a 'China Plus Three' approach. They are spreading risk across Vietnam, India and Mexico, often working with global manufacturing giants like Foxconn that can seamlessly shift production across borders without retooling or retraining labor. In essence, brands are outsourcing flexibility itself. For those planning beyond the current election cycle, geographic diversification is no longer enough. Brands are factoring in port access, transportation infrastructure, exposure to natural disasters and local workforce stability. Some are eyeing countries like Morocco, Colombia and Thailand as next-generation sourcing hubs. Nearshoring to Mexico has particular appeal, not just because of its proximity to U.S. consumers, but because of the downstream economic benefits. 'We're still benefiting from a cross border perspective, from a transportation trucking perspective, from a warehousing perspective, as these border towns are growing, the economies in the small border towns are growing as well,' said Stachel. These sourcing shifts are backed by hard data prepared by Stachel. According to a comparative analysis of emerging manufacturing markets, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are increasingly viable alternatives to China, not only in terms of labor costs but also port infrastructure and U.S.-bound vessel frequency. Vietnam, for instance, operates nearly 50 seaports, including Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phong, both of which have multiple sailings to the U.S. each week. Indonesia boasts over 100 ports, including Tanjung Priok in Jakarta. Even Cambodia, though limited in scale, has weekly direct sailings from both Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville. These figures underscore the importance of transportation fluidity and market access in sourcing decisions. As Stachel emphasized, brands are no longer optimizing solely for cost, they're optimizing for resilience. Both Smith and Manning cautioned that the real reckoning may be ahead. While tariff impacts are already being priced in at the retail level, the broader inflationary wave has yet to crest. Smith called inflation the 'other shoe,' likely to drop later this summer as new tariffs pass through the supply chain and collide with already fragile consumer sentiment. Uncertainty, they agreed, has become the greatest tax of all. With businesses unable to predict future policy, many are frozen. Manning advised attendees to monitor key macroeconomic signals, including treasury bond activity, consumer confidence indices and safety stock drawdowns. Executive orders posted on he added, are the best early indicators of a sudden policy shift. What retailers are saying – and doing The audience at CartCon also offered candid perspectives. Through real-time polling, attendees offered a rare window into how brands are navigating the chaos. Asked what recent policy had most affected their supply chains, 68% cited China tariffs, with an additional 24% naming de minimis enforcement, or stricter checks on duty-free, low-value imports. In a sign of just how volatile the environment has become, 64% said they revisit their sourcing strategies quarterly. And nearly half, 47%, have responded by raising prices. Twenty-nine percent have changed sourcing countries, while 18% are simply eating the cost. Looking ahead, most brands aren't betting on reshoring. Asked if they expect to source more from the U.S. in five years, 70% said their sourcing would remain about the same, and 30% expected an increase. No one expected to source less. It was a striking rebuke of the idea that domestic manufacturing is due for a renaissance, at least for the retail segment. Tariffs and uncertainty are already impacting consumer demand. Thirty percent of respondents said they expect a consumer slowdown by Q4 2025, while 45% said they're already feeling one. And yet, the vast majority, 82%, said they are not cutting marketing budgets in response. In today's environment, visibility is survival. In a forward-looking poll, 81% of respondents said online shopping will be the dominant channel in the next decade, compared to just 6% for stores. Even more striking, 75% believe direct-to-consumer models can still succeed, suggesting that agility, not abandonment, is the key to survival. The post CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail appeared first on FreightWaves. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
American Military News
9 minutes ago
- American Military News
700 Marines deployed to Los Angeles amid major riots
President Donald Trump's administration deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles and the surrounding area on Monday in response to the city's massive riots against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. In a Monday press release, U.S. Northern Command announced that it had activated the Marine infantry battalion that the Trump administration 'placed in an alert status over the weekend.' 'Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division will seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area,' U.S. Northern Command stated. 'The activation of the Marines is intended to provide Task Force 51 with adequate numbers of forces to provide continuous coverage of the area in support of the lead federal agency.' According to the press release, Task Force 51 includes 700 active-duty Marines and roughly 2,100 National Guardsmen in Title 10 status. Northern Command noted that members of Task Force 51 have been trained in 'de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.' 'Due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings, approximately 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order,' Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote in a statement on X, formerly Twitter. 'We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers – even if Gavin Newsom will not.' READ MORE: Videos: 500 Marines ready to deploy to Los Angeles amid major riots Northern Command confirmed in the press release that there were roughly 1,700 soldiers from the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Los Angeles and the surrounding area as of Monday. On Monday evening, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Sean Parnell tweeted, 'At the order of the President, the Department of Defense is mobilizing an additional 2,000 California National Guard to be called into federal service to support ICE & to enable federal law-enforcement officers to safely conduct their duties.' According to The Associated Press, Trump's authorization for the Department of Defense to deploy an additional 2,000 National Guardsmen in response to the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles brings the total number of National Guardsmen mobilized by the federal government in response to the riots to over 4,100. In a Tuesday morning statement on Truth Social, Trump said, 'If I didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. do to an incompetent Governor and Mayor.'
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's $1,000-per-baby investment accounts: What to know
President Trump has lauded the House-approved spending bill for the 'pro-family initiative' tucked inside the legislation, which creates investment accounts for newborn babies. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy,' Trump said at a Monday event at the White House that touted the accounts. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' lays out rules for the Trump accounts. To qualify, a child must be a U.S. citizen, born within the next four years to at least one parent with a Social Security number. The money could be withdrawn starting at age 18. Here's what you need to know about the proposed federal program: Under the current bill text, the program would be available to families of all income levels, with babies born after Dec. 31, 2024, and before Jan. 1, 2029. A one-time $1,000 contribution would be provided by the Treasury Department and deposited into a diversified U.S. stock index fund or its equivalent. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to contribute no more than $5,000 per year to the account. An estimated 7 percent return on the $1,000 would compound to roughly $3,570 over 18 years, according to the Associated Press. The legislation does not provide a limit on the amount of money a nonprofit or company can donate to a child's investment account within the $5,000 annual contribution limit. Several businesses, including Uber, Dell, Goldman Sachs and Altimeter have committed to setting aside billions to invest in the accounts of company employees who become new parents. 'It's not just an account; it's a launchpad. It puts the unstoppable engine of compounding to work for our kids, building a future for them from day one,' Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said about the initiative during a White House roundtable. Children enrolled in the investment program are eligible to withdraw half of the cash value amount between their 18th and 25th birthdays, according to CNN. Families and beneficiaries would pay a penalty for early withdrawal as there is no allowance for emergency use of the funds, the outlet reported. Funds withdrawn for anything other than 'qualified expenses,' including paying for higher education, buying a residence or starting a business, will be taxed. Researchers have said the investment accounts could widen America's wealth gap. 'Under the current proposal, every child starts with the same amount, and families can contribute up to $5,000 annually,' the Urban Institute, a think-tank focused on social policy, wrote in a late May report. 'But relatively few households hold substantial liquid wealth in the United States, meaning higher-income households are far more likely than their lower-income counterparts to have the means to contribute additional funds,' it continued. The study noted that Trump accounts are likely to only benefit those who have already maxed out existing tax-preferred savings opportunities, like 529 accounts. Instead, they suggested low income families with job insecurity are more likely to gravitate towards investing in traditional accounts that offer flexible guidelines. Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' still needs approval from the upper chamber. Senators considering potential changes or cuts to the legislation, hoping to pass the bill before July 4.
