After All the Trouble He's Caused, Where Has Elon Musk Been Hiding?
Has anyone seen Elon Musk these days? What's he been up to? Because Musk (really, his money) was part of the reason Donald Trump won the presidency. In the run up to the election, the South African billionaire donated close to $300 million to the Republican presidential campaign.
For this, it seems like Trump gave Musk carte blanche to recreate the U.S. Government in his (extremely scary) image. But now...? We aren't hearing much about Musk as we head into the summer. So, let's look into it.
When President Trump took office, one of the first things he did was create the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) and placed Musk in charge of it. With this newfound power, Musk went on a rampage.
He terminated over 100,000 government employees by either forcing them to take buyouts or outright firing them. He is responsible for ending contracts for programs related to climate change, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, environmental protection, international aid, and science research.
Musk was so active and visible in the President's first few months in office, that it inspired TIME to put him behind the Resolute Desk on the cover of one of its magazines.
Just a few months ago, it seemed like Musk was everywhere. He gave a huge speech when Trump was inaugurated. (And did what still feels like a Nazi salute.) He had his kid playing in the Oval Office while talking to the media. He gave interview after interview to the media. But now he is nowhere to be seen.
It seems like my man just dropped off the face of the Earth. No one seems to know what happened to him. But it is clear what's going on.
In Wisconsin, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a long-time judge on the state's Supreme Court, retired opening the door for an election. Susan Crawford, a liberal, faced off against Brad Schimel, a conservative.
This would have not been a notable race, but Musk took an interest in the race because he wanted to turn this liberal leaning court into a conservative one. So he sunk millions into the campaign for the conservative thinking he could influence the outcome of the election.
He did not. Well, on second thought, he did. Just not the way Musk wanted.
Voters found Musk's attempt to buy the election distasteful. Those who opposed him mounted a campaign entitled 'People Vs. Musk' and defeated the candidate he supported by 10 percentage points. If you think Kamala Harris got mollywhopped by Trump, then this would be the political equivalent of what Homey the Clown used to do on In Living Color.
After that, Musk got quiet. He was not talking to the media anymore. He was not trying to influence elections like he once was. Now, seven weeks after that embarrassing defeat, he has announced that he will step away from political spending. Saying, 'I've done enough.'
Good riddance. Dude can kick rocks. One less white nationalist leaning billionaire to worry about.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Ken Martin privately expressed doubt about ability to lead DNC, blaming David Hogg
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin told party leaders in a recent private conversation that he's unsure about his ability to lead the party because of infighting created by Vice Chair David Hogg. 'I'll be very honest with you, for the first time in my 100 days on this job … the other night I said to myself for the first time, I don't know if I wanna do this anymore,' he said in a May 15 Zoom meeting of DNC officers, according to a recording obtained by POLITICO. In the recording, an emotional Martin describes being deeply frustrated by the fallout over Hogg, who has ignited a firestorm in the party by vowing to spend $20 million in safe-blue primaries to oust incumbent Democrats he believes are ineffective. Martin paused twice while appearing to choke up. The intraparty feud, Martin said on the recording, is making it more difficult for the party to do its work — and had ruined his ability to demonstrate leadership. 'No one knows who the hell I am, right? I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to to put ourselves in a position to win,' Martin said, addressing Hogg. 'And again, I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to. So it's really frustrating.' It was an extraordinary admission from the chair of the Democratic Party, just a few months after being elected to lead the party through its post-2024 crisis. The nearly two-minute clip does not include the entire conversation, including how Hogg and others may have responded to Martin. Asked for an interview, Martin, 51, sent a statement through a spokesperson. In it, he said, 'I'm not going anywhere.' 'I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats,' he added. 'As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda. That's the work that I will continue to do every day.' Hogg, 25, did not respond to a request for comment. The Zoom meeting took place a few days after a DNC panel recommended holding new elections for the seats held by Hogg and another vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta, on procedural grounds. DNC members will decide whether to do so in a vote set to begin on Monday. Roughly 10 people attended the May 15 Zoom meeting, including DNC officers and staff, according to two people familiar with the call who were granted anonymity to describe the private conversation. Asked for comment, party leaders rallied behind Martin, expressing confidence in his leadership. In a statement, DNC Associate Chair Shasti Conrad, who attended the Zoom meeting and was briefly mentioned on it, said Martin 'showed vulnerability in a private conversation' and 'stood up' for the Democratic Party. 'He shows up with authenticity. Always,' she said. 'That's what you'll hear on the tape.' Jane Kleeb, president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, was on the call and said she was 'proud of' Martin and the work the party is doing. Kenyatta, who was also at the meeting, similarly stood by Martin: 'Breaking news: a human being had a frustrating day at work. That's all Ken expressed on that call.' After POLITICO reached out to Martin and the DNC, three party officers who were on the call but not contacted by POLITICO sent statements of support for Martin: DNC Associate Chair Stuart Appelbaum, DNC Secretary Jason Rae and Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), a DNC associate chair and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Martin, who won a contested election to be DNC chair in February, formerly led the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party for about 14 years. He was also previously president of the Association of State Democratic Committees. When Martin campaigned for the DNC post, he called for a 'massive narrative and branding project' to boost the party's image. As chair, he has traveled the country for canvassing, fundraisers and other events to rally Democrats, including on Saturday in New Jersey. But that work has been overshadowed in recent months by the intraparty dispute that Hogg and Martin have been locked in. Many Democrats said party officers shouldn't take sides in primaries, and Martin proposed requiring party leaders to remain neutral in them. Hogg had pitched a compromise, suggesting an internal 'firewall' that would bar him from access to sensitive information in primaries his group, Leaders We Deserve, were involved with. But Martin rejected that deal. 'Party officers have one job: to be fair stewards of a process that invites every Democrat to the table — regardless of personal views or allegiances,' Martin said, urging Hogg to stay neutral. As the controversy played out, Hogg's position in the party was separately challenged by Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who filed a complaint in February that Hogg's and Kenyatta's election in February didn't follow DNC rules and made it harder for a woman to be elected vice chair. After the DNC panel's vote in support of another election, Hogg said in a statement that it is 'impossible to ignore the broader context of my work to reform the party which loomed large over this vote' and that the 'DNC has pledged to remove me, and this vote has provided an avenue to fast-track that effort.' The tension within the DNC comes as Democrats grapple with the best way to regroup after devastating electoral losses in November. Hogg, a survivor of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, frames his efforts as a way to reinvigorate the party. Hogg previously told POLITICO 'we have a culture of seniority politics that has created a litmus test of who deserves to be here' and 'we need people, regardless of their age, that are here to fight.' He has won some influential supporters, including longtime Democratic strategist James Carville and radio host Charlamagne tha God. But an intense backlash from other Democrats has accused Hogg of hurting, not helping, the party. Several of the Democratic Party officers leveled that criticism at Hogg in their statements supporting Martin. 'Instead of helping to rebuild the party he's supposed to serve, he's attacking it for personal gain,' said Kleeb. 'That might boost his PAC's fundraising, but it erodes trust in the very institution we're trying to reform and strengthen.' Others emphasized that Hogg is an outlier among party officials, and both Appelbaum and Beatty used the word 'distraction' in their statements. 'The stakes are so high right now that we can't afford distractions like the ones that David is creating,' Appelbaum said. In the Zoom meeting, Martin appeared to acknowledge complaints some had with how the party had operated, but told Hogg the 'fight' was getting in the way. 'It has plenty of warts, and we're all trying to change those, for sure, but the longer we continue this fight, the harder it is for us to actually do what we all want to do, which is make a difference in this country again,' he said in the recording. 'I deeply respect you, David. I, too, was looking forward to working with you, but this has created a situation.'
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
American presidents have long used autopens. Just ask Trump.
Donald Trump has repeatedly slammed Joe Biden's use of an autopen during his presidency, going so far as to center its usage in a broad investigation Trump announced Wednesday into his predecessor. But politicians on both sides of the aisle are deeply familiar with the tool. The autopen — also referred to as the robot pen — replicates an individual's signature using a writing utensil, rather than a scanned and printed version of it. The tool, which resembles a small printer with a long arm that allows users to attach a pen to the center, has a long history of use in American politics. The device was first patented in 1803, according to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation, an independent research organization that collects original manuscripts and historical documents. Iterations of the autopen have been used by presidents as far back as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that 'I could not, now therefore, live without' the device he used to duplicate letters. 'The Autopen has long been a tool for the world's most influential leaders, allowing them to more effectively apply their time and attention to important issues without compromising the impact of personalized correspondence,' according to The Autopen Co., which sells the machines. U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle have used the autopen for decades — and have faced criticism for their use of the tool. During Lyndon Johnson's administration, the autopen was featured in The National Enquirer for an article headlined 'One of the Best Kept Secrets in Washington: The Robot That Sits In For The President.' Even Trump himself has said he used autopens, but 'only for very unimportant papers.' 'We may use it, as an example, to send some young person a letter because it's nice,' Trump said in March, according to The Associated Press. 'You know, we get thousands and thousands of letters, letters of support for young people, from people that aren't feeling well, etcetera. But to sign pardons and all of the things that he signed with an autopen is disgraceful.' In 2004, George W. Bush's secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, faced criticism from some veterans for using an autopen to sign condolence letters to families of troops killed in the Iraq War. In 2011, Barack Obama used an autopen to sign a Patriot Act extension — becoming the first known, apparent use of the tool by a president for legislation — and used it subsequently in his administration. The move resulted in Republicans questioning the constitutionality of Obama's decision, though Bush's Office of Legal Counsel, which is part of the Department of Justice, had already concluded the use of autopens was constitutional. 'The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law,' the office's 2005 ruling stated. 'Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President's signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.' There is no specific law governing a president's use of an autopen. But the ruling from the Department of Justice hasn't stopped Trump from accusing Biden and his team of illegally using the tool, alleging that Biden's team used an autopen to sign documents without Biden's permission or knowledge. Trump has also claimed that Biden's round of pardons — including 'preemptive pardons' of Jan. 6 investigators, his son Hunter Biden and Anthony Fauci — were illegal and are 'void' and 'vacant.' However, most legal scholars are in agreement that pardons cannot be overturned once granted. In 1869, a federal court ruled, 'The law undoubtedly is, that when a pardon is complete, there is no power to revoke it, any more than there is power to revoke any other completed act.' Biden has denied the claims that any decision was ever made or issued in his name without his approval or knowledge. Trump and other Republican accusers have provided no evidence that aides used an autopen without the former president's approval. 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,' Biden told POLITICO in a statement. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false. This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations.'
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
What's Harder? Planning Interest Rates, Or Harvard's Class Of 2029?
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS - JUNE 29: People walk through the gate on Harvard Yard at the Harvard ... More University campus on June 29, 2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Photo by) Regarding the makeup of Harvard's student body, President Trump thinks 15 percent is a more advisable number than 25 when it comes to international students. Quite reasonably Trump's critics, and surely many who are fans of Trump, are astounded by his conceit. How could the President effectively plan Harvard's student body? Also, since foreign students pay full tuition, it's entirely possible that their payments make it possible for needier Americans to secure spots at Harvard. Or maybe not. What's important with Harvard, and with all schools, is that Presidents, Senators, experts and agitators more broadly should stay out of their admission decisions. And for those who say that Harvard is 'unique' since so many federal dollars flow its way, please stop right there. The thinking is nonsensical. Precisely because the federal government is so large, and for being large operating well beyond its constitutionally limited scope, theoretically nearly every U.S. individual, business and non-profit university is getting something from the government. Let's not expand on the wrong of a federal government lacking boundaries through the excusal of even worse trespasses. Hands off individuals, businesses, and universities. Plus, the arrogance of it all! Harvard is easily one of the most difficult 'fat envelopes' in the world to attain, yet Trump thinks he can plan the class's demographic makeup? That's like the government planning U.S. imports or exports…Oh wait, they sometimes do that. Or try to. Ok, it's like the government attempting to plan the cost of credit to our alleged non-inflationary betterment…Oh wait, they presume to do that too. Interviewed recently by New York Times reporter Colby Smith about the direction of interest rates, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland president Beth Hammack seemingly wrung her hands as she told Smith, 'I legitimately do not know which way this is going to break.' Hammack added that she would 'rather wait and move quickly to play catch up if I really don't know what the right move is. And right now, I really don't know what the right move is based on all of the information and policies that we're responding to.' Some reading the above will conclude that Hammack was being modest, sober in making a difficult assessment about what's ahead, stuff like that. They would conclude incorrectly. The only correct answer from central bankers wouldn't be a professed willingness to delay blind stabs at market intervention, but to instead instruct Smith on the absurdity of the question. Lest everyone forget, people borrow money for what it can be exchanged for. In other words, the cost of credit is the cost of accessing exchange media that can be exchanged not for one market good, but for every market good in the world. Which is a reminder that other than perhaps the dollar that exists as the world's currency, the price of credit is easily the most important price in the world. And exactly because we're all so different now and in the future, there's an interest rate for every single person, business and university in the world, all arrived at through the relentless collision of infinite global inputs every millisecond of every day. Remember this as Hammack and central bankers like her oh so modestly tell Smith 'I legitimately do not know which way [what the Fed will do with 'interest rates'] this is going to break." Wrong answer, and wrong question. Hammack should have replied to Smith that a central banker planning something as complicated as the cost of credit would be as foolhardy as a president planning Harvard's class of 2029, multiplied by many millions.
