TRUMP THREATENED ELON! Musk Accuses Trump of Being in Epstein Files & Should Be Impeached!
PDS Published 06/05/2025
-
It looks like Elon Musk and Donald Trump are out of their honeymoon phase, with the two now openly arguing with each other over economic policies in the US.
It really boils down to the fact that Musk is NOT happy about Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill and how much it’ll increase America’s debt.
Right, some estimates claim it’ll go up by $3 trillion, leading Musk to write things like:
I actually am just giving you a small sample of what he’s written because he is apparently sitting on his phone posting about this for the past 24 hours.
And it’s clearly getting under Trump’s skin, with him saying things like:
“You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk. Even with a black eye. I said, do you want a little makeup? He said, 'No, I don't think so,' which is interesting ... Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore." []
He went on to add: @0:24-0:45
[paraphrase: says Elon helped a lot campaigning in places like Pennsylvania but they would have won it anyways.]
Elon actually replied to this, writing that without him Trump would have lost the election.
Trump went on to claim that Musk was only mad about the bill because EV spending was cut and that would cost him billions.
To which Musk replied: [read]
“Whatever.
Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.
In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!
Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill.
Slim and beautiful is the way.” []
Trump also claimed that none of this should have been a surprise to Musk because:
“He knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody. And he never had a problem until he left.” @1:19
However Musk denies knowing anything about the bill and pointed out that it was released and passed so fast that even members of Congress didn’t read it.
And now we’re at the stage of Musk being a little bit petty, because he’s been digging up old tweets and reposting others where Trump criticized large spending bills and writing things like:
And in classic Musk fashion we now have a poll about whether to start a new political party that represents the “80% in the middle.”
So who knows, maybe he abides by the results of the poll and we’ll see some serious spending happen -- although I’m not even sure that Musk’s vast wealth can break the two party system in the US.
Not to mention that many issues for both people on the right and left are just fundamental opposites so it would be hard to get a party with a unified platform that actually represents “80%” of Americans.
(Think all the major social issues: abortion, gay marriage, etc).
Until then we’ll wait and see, but this feels like when you see a toxic relationship and you are just relieved when they finally break up.
-
In breaking news, we finally learned the motivation behind Luigi Mangione’s assassintion of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
You’re probably confused because wasn’t his motive already SUPER clear?
Right, the released manifesto was already leaked by a single journalist and unconfirmed.
And in it we saw things like him claiming that this was all pretty trivial to plan out and involved some “basic social engineering.”
But now New York prosecutors have released notes Mangione wrote that make his motive even less in doubt and longer than what was initially leaked, with Mangione apparently writing stuff like:
"So say you want to rebel against the deadly, greed fueled health insurance cartel. Do you bomb the HQ? No. Bombs=terrorism.”
He went on to state that he definitely wanted to do the killing at “the annual parasitic bean-counter convention” and went on to add:
"It's targeted, precise, and doesn't risk innocents. Most importantly, the point is self-evident. The point is made in the news headline 'Insurance CEO killed at annual investors conference.'"
“Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming.”
“To the feds: it had to be done.”
The feds feel writings like this help their case A LOT.
Right, it’s essentially a self-snitch by Mangione if this writing actually are his, which is why the prosecutors have come out and said:
"If ever there were an open and shut case pointing to defendant’s guilty, this case is that case.”
“Simply put, one would be hard pressed to find a case with such overwhelming evidence of guilt as to the identity of the murderer and premeditated nature of the assassination."[]
They went on to add that Thompson was solely chosen because he was a symbol of what Mangione allegedly considered a “deadly greed-fueled cartel.”
In some ways Mangione did succeed in his mission.
And I mean beyond just killing a man.
Right, after the assassination, there’s been a much more frank and open discussion about Health Insurance in the US.
And as we’ve seen, Mangione has garnered a lot of sympathy because the reality is that almost every American has had a frustrating experience with Health Insurance.
(not saying that’s a reason to go kill a man, but it resonates).
Another place you can see that is in United Healthcare’s stock.
Despite their CEO being the victim of an assassination, they’re still the ones getting backlash from the attack,
And their stock has taken a beating since then as the leadership there continues to wobble back and forth with various resignations.
So much so that over the past six months value of United Healthcare Group -- which is the parent company -- is now down over 40%.[]
That’s an insane drop over that timeframe especially when you consider that at the time of Thompson’s death the company was making record profits.
But it’s slowed down since then and back in April leadership told investors that growth was going to slow down -- leading to a massive 22% drop in the stock price and wiping out $100 billion in value.
So with all that said:
Mangione might be screwed here if the writings are true since they’re a clear admission.
But if so that was kinda the point all along… So is Mangione really losing here?
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order and returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes!
-
The New York mayoral Democratic primary debate happened last night, and uh, well, just take a look.
[Clip, 01:19:39 - 01:19:48]
So there were nine Democrats up on stage, but really you could argue it was Andrew Cuomo versus everyone else.
Right, because the former governor’s enjoyed a double-digit lead over all the other candidates in nearly every poll so far, and wealthy donors have poured millions of dollars into his campaign.
So naturally, everyone ganged up on him.
[Clip, 16:41 - 16:54] Caption: “It’s not only that Andrew Cuomo lied to Congress, which is purgery. He also lied to the grieving families whose loved ones he sent into those nursing homes to protect his $5 million book deal.”
[Clip, 33:17 - 33:24] Caption: “The people who don’t feel safe are young women, mothers and grandmothers around Andrew Cuomo. That’s the greatest threat to public safety.”
[Clip, 08:05 - 08:10] Caption: “The billionaires and the profitable corporations that Mr Cuomo cares more about than working-class New Yorkers.”
[Clip, 09:41 - 09:45] Caption: “Not the luxury property developers that fund Andrew Cuomo’s campaign.”
But if one person did stick out from the herd, it’s gotta be Zohran Mamdani [Pronounce 00:31].
Right, he’s a New York State representative, but he’s carved out a reputation as the most progressive candidate in the race, even calling himself a socialist.
With AOC endorsing him today, telling the New York Times that he “has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack.” [Quote]
As well as adding that Cuomo “belongs to the hedge funds” and other wealthy interests. [Quote same link]
Now at first, Mamdani’s success seemed like a longshot, but he quickly shot to second place in the polls, largely thanks to an energetic social media campaign, support from young progressives, and an eye-catching policy platform.
Including stuff like raising taxes on the rich, making city buses free, opening city-run grocery stores, and freezing rents for some tenants, among other proposals.
So he and Cuomo got heated at many points in the two-hour debate, starting with the first topic: Donald Trump.
Right, because with the ICE raids on immigrants, the suspension of federal funds, and the attacks on Columbia University, not to mention the DoJ’s investigation into Cuomo, Trump’s presence loomed large over the debate stage.
So each candidate tried to make the case that they’re the best person to stand up to the president.
[Clip, 11:43 - 11:51] Caption: “I am the last person on this stage that Mr Trump wants to see as mayor.”
[Clip, 14:30 - 14:43] Caption: “I am Donald Trump’s worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in. The difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo is that my campaign is not funded by the very billionaires who put Trump in D.C.”
[Clip, 15:14 - 15:18, 15:21 - 15:26] Caption: “Donald Trump would go through Mr Mamdani like a hot knife through butter. … He’s passed three bills. That’s all he’s done. He has no experience with Washington.”
[Clip, 15:33 - 15:48] Caption: “Look, It’s true that I don’t have experience with corrupt Trump billionaires who are funding my campaign. I don’t have experience with party politics and insider consultants. I do have experience, however, winning $450 million in debt relief for thousands of working-class taxi drivers.”
But pretty quickly, the focus shifted onto Cuomo himself, and the myriad scandals he’s had to deal with over the years.
Starting with the accusation, leveled by Republicans and some Democrats, that his administration let Covid run rampant in nursing homes, then covered up the deaths.
[Clip, 18:59 - 19:09, 19:13 - 19:24]
Then, the moderator pinned him down on a report that his government released at the time that was accused of undercounting deaths.
[Clip, 19:43 - 20:00]
Next, he was pressed on the sexual harassment allegations that led to him resigning.
But instead of addressing them, he just talked about mental health and homelessness.
[Clip, 34:34 - 34:44]
And then finally, the moderator asked everyone if they have any personal regrets, and I emphasize personal because Cuomo took the opportunity to lament how the Democratic Party as a whole let Donald Trump get elected and created people like Zohran Mamdani.
[Clip, 54:46 - 55:07, 55:21 - 55:27]
But Cuomo wasn’t the only one taking a beating, because one of the other candidates went after Mamdani too.
[Clip, 24:46 - 25:11]
With Mamdani then defending himself.
[Same clip, 25:12 - 25:31]
And Cuomo jumping in to give his own position on police reform.
[Clip, 30:39 - 30:53]
Then, the moderator asked everyone where they would go for their first foreign visit as mayor, and people gave answers like Canada, Colombia, the Caribbean, but then Cuomo said Israel.
[Clip, 01:57:30 - 01:57:36]
So when Mamdani, as a critic of Israel, gave this rather unique answer,
[Clip, 01:48 - 01:57:54]
It naturally invited the moderator to press him on whether he would visit Israel, to which he said he would meet and support Jewish constituents here in New York, but then she got even more specific. [Continue B roll]
[Clip, 01:58:13 - 01:58:27]
But they also dug into more domestic issues, like public education, for example.
As well as the cost of living, particularly housing affordability.
[Clip, 01:36:42 - 01:36:49, 01:37:15 - 01:37:20, 01:37:26 - 01:37:35]
With Cuomo then responding:
[Clip, 01:37:59 - 01:38:19]
So in a nutshell, that was the mayoral primary debate; now the primary itself is coming up on June 24.
And then after that, once a nominee is picked, they’ll have to go up against Eric Adams in the general, since he’s running as an independent.
So don’t put your popcorn away just yet; there’s more fireworks coming.
-
Donald Trump’s travel ban is back and it’s bigger than ever.
Right, with the White House banning travel to the U.S. for citizens of 12 countries –
As well as barring those from seven other countries from settling permanently, or even entering on tourist and student visas. []
And with that, the majority of these countries are in Africa and The Middle East – and the rest are in South America, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia. []
Many of them are wracked by conflict or ruled by repressive regimes – and more than half are Muslim-majority nations.
Right, which I’m pointing out, because the first time Trump tried something like this way back in 2017?
He banned travel exclusively from Muslim-majority countries – seven of them – with this being after he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” during his campaign.
And with that, of course, lawyers and activists immediately challenged the so-called “Muslim Ban” in court, some judges blocked them, the administration came out with a couple different versions, and ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the ban.
But then, of course, Joe Biden became president – quickly ending it and many of Trump’s other controversial immigration policies.
Which, of course, have returned in full force – and then some.
But while we’ve seen much of Trump’s current immigration agenda getting held up by judges, many experts claim the latest version of the travel ban is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny than during his first term.
With Stephen Vladeck (Steven Vlah-dick), a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, explaining:
“They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration.”
“But a lot will depend upon how it’s actually enforced — and whether it’s applied in ways that are themselves unlawful or even unconstitutional.” []
And with that, let’s get into some specifics.
Right, the presidential proclamation detailing the ban? It says it’s about protecting the US from “terrorist attacks and other national security or public-safety threats.”
And with that, it says the countries on the list lack sufficient vetting and screening processes to detect foreign nationals who may pose safety or terrorism threats to the U.S. []
Also claiming that a country’s information-sharing policies, the presence of terrorists, visa overstay rates, and whether citizens who are sent back are readily accepted are all factors that played into the decision-making process. []
Though, notably, some have raised questions about whether the countries were chosen for other reasons as well.
CNN, for example, saying “they’re mostly nations with frosty, adversarial or outwardly antagonistic relations with Washington.” []
And then the West Africa bureau chief for The New York Times, for example, asking:
“Why Chad, which at least held an election last year — albeit a highly scripted and disputed one — and not the three nearby countries ruled by military juntas, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger?” []
And which, I’ll add, also are dealing with terrorist groups.
And going even further, the White House actually released a video of Trump announcing the travel plan that started with him talking about what happened in Boulder, Colorado over the weekend –
When a man who yelled “Free Palestine” attacked a group gathered to raise attention for the hostages in Gaza with a makeshift flamethrower and molotov cocktails – injuring several, reportedly including a Holocaust survivor.
“The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas. We don’t want them.” (BYTE: 0:00-0:18)
Though, notably, the man charged in the assault is an Egyptian national – and Egypt isn’t named in the new travel ban.
And organizations like The Cato Institute have argued that even before this announcement that terrorism – as scary as it is – isn’t actually all that big of a threat in the US, at least statistically.
Right, with an analyst from the think tank now writing after the announcement:
“A single terrorist from [the countries on the list] murdered one person in an attack on U.S. soil…”
And adding: “The annual chance of being murdered by a terrorist from one of the banned countries from 1975 to the end of 2024 was about 1 in 13.9 billion per year.” []
But with that, the ban will go in effect on June 9th, with the administration saying no immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before that date will be revoked. []
And also, big thing, there are a number of exceptions – including, for example, U.S. permanent residents, dual citizens, and athletes traveling to attend major sporting events–
There’s also a carve-out for adoptions, diplomats and visiting officials, and even ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.
As well as immediate family members with “clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship” – with the administration providing DNA as the only example of what might constitute this kind of evidence. []
And notably, there, experts have said this raises concerns related to privacy and consent – not to mention, of course, not all families are biological.
And actually connected to that, ICE is reportedly now plans to start collecting and uploading the DNA information of migrants, including children, to a national criminal database –
Which one expert has said amounts to a “massive expansion of genetic surveillance.” []
And has of course led to rights groups absolutely slamming the plan as intrusive and privacy-violating –
Also expressing concern that this could be a way to separate children from non-parent adults who care for them. []
But getting back to the travel ban, one final key exception I should mention is for Afghan Special Immigrant Visas. []
Right, which are given to some of those who helped the U.S. government during the war in Afghanistan.
Though, notably, groups like Human Rights First claim “other at-risk Afghans will be impacted by this hateful ban” – saying:
“Many are at grave risk due to the deteriorating conditions in-country and many have been waiting for years to reunite with loved ones in the United States.” []
And with that, that sentiment’s been expressed by rights groups more broadly, with Amnesty International, for example, writing on social media:
“President Trump’s new travel ban is discriminatory, racist and downright cruel.” []
And then, the president of Oxfam America adding:
“This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States.” []
And finally, beyond that, we’ve also seen pushback from several Democrats.
Adam Schiff, for instance, saying:
“Bigotry is not a national security strategy.” []
But with that, I’d love to hear your opinion?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(999x0:1001x2)/luigi-mangione-060525-33562d1a53e34a9ba34f5f7394d84b65.jpg){kind=link}
