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
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Veterans slam Trump's ‘political' deployment of Marines and National Guard to LA: ‘Citizens are not enemy combatants'
Donald Trump 's deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles is a thinly veiled 'authoritarian' and politically motivated attempt to inflame protests and crush dissent, veterans and legal experts warn. Trump is relying on federal law that allows the president to call up the National Guard to respond to domestic unrest, an action known commonly as federalizing the normally state-authorized Guard. Even then, those troops have only a limited mission in supporting federal law enforcement agents and federal buildings at the center of protests against the administration's mass deportation agenda. But now, with his National Guard deployment combined with sending some 700 Marines to L.A., veterans groups, military law experts and Democratic officials fear the president is testing the limits of his authority to send active-duty military into American streets — and violating service members' commitments to stay out of domestic politics. 'When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath — not to a person, not to a party, but to the Constitution,' said Marine veteran Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, a national nonpartisan advocacy group. 'What we're seeing now is a deliberate effort to turn the military into a political prop,' she told The Independent. Trump is not deploying troops for national defense but 'domestic intimidation,' she added. 'That's not just just politicizing the military — it's crossing a dangerous line,' Goldbeck told The Independent. Trump's military threats are 'how authoritarian regimes take power' and signal the president's wider ambitions for 'the weaponization of the military for political gain,' according to veterans advocacy group Common Defense. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' Army veteran and Common Defense political director Naveed Shah said. 'The idea that Marines would be deployed to suppress the very people we're meant to protect is a disgrace. It's un-American,' Marine Corps veteran and Common Defense organizer Jojo Sweatt added. The last time a president federalized the National Guard against the will of a state governor was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon Johnson deployed troops to protect civil rights advocates marching from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery — two weeks after the violence of 'Bloody Sunday' on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Johnson did so after Alabama's segregationist Gov. George Wallace told the president that his state 'refuses to provide for the safety and welfare' of the marchers, according to Johnson's proclamation. But 60 years later, Trump is deploying troops not to defend civil rights activists but to protect law enforcement and federal property. Activating troops against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is bad for all Americans concerned about freedom of speech and states' rights,' retired Major Gen. Randy Manner said in a statement to Fox News. 'There are over a million badged and trained members of law enforcement in this country for the governor to ask for help if he needs it,' he added. 'While this is presently a legal order, it tramples the governor's rights and obligations to protect his people. This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' Trump's open-ended memo invoking military deployment does not single out Los Angeles or even California. It empowers the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'to employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary.' Carrie A. Lee, a former associate professor at the U.S. Army War College, called Trump's actions 'massive overreach' and 'crazy broad,' seemingly paving the way for the administration 'to use military force against protestors on American soil anywhere they want.' Invoking 'protective power' authority without any geographical limits effectively creates an unprecedented and 'dangerous' nationwide order, according to Lee. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, though the president and administration officials have repeatedly labeled protesters 'insurrectionists' and 'seditionists' — sparking fears that the president is laying the groundwork for mass deployment of military assets across the country. Instead, Trump is currently relying on a far more limited statute that taps his 'protective power' authority, which does not allow the military to conduct law enforcement activities — unlike the Insurrection Act, which is excluded from federal statute that bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. 'The public must be laser focused on seeing the extent to which Secretary Hegseth adheres to these historically recognized limitations,' according to University of Houston Law Center professor Chris Mirasola, a former attorney-advisor at the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel. If troops are pulled into violent confrontations, Trump could use those incidents to justify invoking the Insurrection Act, opening the door for active-duty military to face off against Americans not just in the streets of Los Angeles but across the country. 'This is an unnecessary, unprecedented and predictable misuse of military power against American citizens,' according to Army veteran Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. 'And Trump has now thrust our troops into the middle of the most explosive issue in America,' he added. 'And this is likely just the start. We could see a clash and crisis between Trump and governors and mayors across America like we've never seen.' A lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight called the deployment 'an opening salvo in a coordinated national strategy and not simply an isolated incident.' The lawsuit is seeking records from the Trump administration regarding the use of military assets in immigration enforcement and 'potential authorities his administration would invoke to authorize federalizing law enforcement.' 'Deploying the military to quash protests over the administration's inhumane and legally dubious immigration policies — especially over the objection of elected state leaders — is a dangerous, though unfortunately predictable, escalation by the Trump administration,' according to American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. 'If left unchecked, this abuse of power under thin legal pretense can be readily replicated across other states in the future,' he said in a statement. 'Americans have a right to know who authorized it, what rationale was offered, and not just whether the government crossed a line — but by how much that line has been obliterated.'
NBC News
28 minutes ago
- NBC News
Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni
Twenty four universities, including five Ivy League schools, and more than 12,000 alumni took measures to back Harvard University in its legal battle against the Trump administration, which has threatened it with slashing billions of dollars in grants. Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania, along with several other schools, filed an amicus brief on Monday in support of the nation's oldest university, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. Also on Monday, the group of 12,041 Harvard alumni filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions. 'The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,' the alumni said in the brief. 'We embrace our responsibility to stand up for our freedoms and values, to safeguard liberty and democracy, and to serve as bulwarks against these threats to the safety and well-being of all.' The amicus briefs aim to provide expertise or insight to the court, but the schools and individuals are not parties in the lawsuit itself. The filings come after Harvard in April rejected the government's list of 10 demands, including auditing viewpoints of the student body, a move that the administration says is aimed at addressing antisemitism on campus. After the government threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million 'in multi-year contract value,' Harvard hit back with a lawsuit. The brief filed by the universities included other prominent institutions like Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The only Ivy League schools missing were Cornell and Columbia universities. The schools argued that the partnership between the government and academia has long led to critical advancements, from the The Human Genome Project to the Covid-19 vaccine. And that funding cuts to one school could endanger research at others. Harvard, MIT and Princeton, for example, have received funding from the National Institutes of Health for a project that could potentially yield tools to treat Alzheimer's disease. 'The work cannot continue at individual sites; MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard,' the brief said. The universities said in the brief that the cuts would only cause more harm to the United States' ability to compete in science and academia. 'These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether it is a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all,' the brief said. Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, said in a letter to the school's community that it was critical to make a legal argument against the funding cuts. 'Although the value to the public of federally funded university research feels obvious to us at MIT, we felt compelled to make the case for its countless benefits to the court and, in effect, to the American people,' Kornbluth said. The Harvard alumni filed their brief in support of the school's motion for a summary judgement submitted last week. If granted, the summary judgment would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial. The alumni, which include comedian Conan O'Brien, author Margaret E. Atwood and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wrote in the brief that the administration's 'end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms.' The alumni also slammed the administration's concerns over antisemitism as rationale over the funding freeze. 'We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or anywhere else in our society,' the alumni said in its brief. 'Yet charges of antisemitism — particularly without due process and proper bases and findings by the Government — should not be used as a pretext for the illegal and unconstitutional punishment and takeover of an academic institution by the Government.' The government's demands on Harvard, the alumni said in the brief, 'have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism' or any other form of discrimination on campus. 'Rather, its demands stifle the very engagement, teaching, and research that bring communities together, heighten our understanding of one another, and advance solutions that directly benefit us all,' the brief said. The show of legal support comes amid a monthslong back-and-forth between the administration and Harvard University. Most recently, the school sued the administration after Trump issued a proclamation last week denying visas for foreign students trying to come to the U.S. to attend the prestigious school.
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump warns protests at Army parade will be met with 'very big force'
WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump warned people on Tuesday against protesting at the weekend military parade in Washington marking the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. "For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force," Trump told reporters in the White House's Oval Office. Law enforcement agencies are preparing for hundreds of thousands of people to attend Saturday's parade, U.S. Secret Service Special Agent in Charge Matt McCool said on Monday. McCool said thousands of agents, officers and specialists will be deployed from law enforcement agencies from across the country. The FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department have said there are no credible threats to the event. In unscheduled Oval Office remarks, Trump discussed his decision to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles after protests erupted in response to federal immigration raids at workplaces there. He defended his decision to take that rare step and said troops were necessary to contain the unrest, despite objections from local and state officials that they were needed.
