By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A State Department document revealed a proposed $400 million contract with Tesla for armored electric vehicles, a significant discrepancy from the Biden administration’s planned $483,000 EV expenditure. While the State Department claims the $400 million figure was an early estimate and the contract is on hold, a former White House official suggests the action was intentional. This proposed purchase, potentially involving thousands of Cybertrucks, raised concerns among security experts due to the vehicle’s suitability for diplomatic security and the potential for compromised range and durability when armored. The discrepancy and subsequent cancellation of the plan followed public attention and criticism.
Read the original article here
A new document has surfaced that directly contradicts the Trump administration’s repeated denials regarding a purported $400 million deal with Tesla for armored vehicles. This discrepancy is significant, highlighting a potential misuse of funds and raising serious questions about the administration’s transparency. The scale of the alleged deal – a staggering $400 million – is vastly disproportionate to any previously approved spending for electric vehicles by the State Department.
The initial claims of a Biden administration deal for less than $500,000 to procure standard, non-armored electric vehicles underscore the dramatic inflation of this figure under the Trump administration. This substantial increase, coupled with the specific designation of “Armored Teslas,” raises immediate red flags. The sheer magnitude of the difference is almost unbelievable; a thousand-fold increase suggests something far more than a simple budgetary adjustment.
This significant jump in funding raises profound questions. The sudden change from a small-scale purchase of light-duty EVs to a massive investment in armored Teslas points to a possible ulterior motive. It suggests a favoritism towards Tesla that seems unconnected to any rational procurement process. The complete lack of transparency surrounding this matter adds fuel to the fire, making it difficult to ignore suspicions of foul play.
Further fueling skepticism is the Trump administration’s consistent pattern of denial in the face of mounting evidence. This behavior, repeated across numerous instances, casts a significant shadow of doubt over their credibility. Every denial seems to act as a confirmation of underlying wrongdoing, suggesting a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth. The administration’s history of dubious dealings reinforces the need for a thorough investigation into this specific matter.
Adding further intrigue to this narrative is the reported elimination of EV charging ports at government facilities under the Trump administration. This seemingly contradictory action, combined with the exorbitant Tesla deal, paints a picture of inconsistency and questionable decision-making. The contrast between these actions raises questions about the administration’s overall commitment to sustainable energy initiatives and government efficiency.
The practicality of such a massive purchase of armored Teslas is also highly questionable. Their limited street legality in many parts of Europe renders a significant portion of the purchase potentially useless. The likelihood of these vehicles sitting unused in parking lots, ultimately ending up in landfills, suggests a reckless use of taxpayer money.
The timing of the purported deal’s emergence raises additional concerns. The significant increase in the proposed funding occurred between November and February, a period that conveniently overlaps with the Tesla CEO’s visits to the Oval Office. This temporal proximity naturally invites speculation regarding potential undue influence and quid pro quo arrangements.
Despite the obvious discrepancies and inconsistencies, it is unlikely that a significant portion of the population supporting the Trump administration will readily acknowledge the evidence. The concept of cognitive dissonance, and particularly the sunken cost fallacy, explains why many people are unlikely to admit they were misled, regardless of the overwhelming evidence presented. This entrenched belief system poses a significant challenge to those seeking to expose the truth about this matter.
The claim that the document in question was initially published in December, only to disappear from online archives and later reappear with edits, adds another layer of deception. This suggests a deliberate attempt to manipulate records to support the administration’s narrative. Such actions highlight a level of disregard for truth and accountability that is troubling. The ease with which such an alteration could be made underlines the vulnerabilities inherent in relying solely on online sources for factual information.
In conclusion, the newly uncovered document provides compelling evidence that directly contradicts the Trump administration’s claims. The sheer scale of the proposed Tesla deal, the administration’s history of dubious actions, and the questionable timing all contribute to a compelling case for a thorough and independent investigation. The failure to properly scrutinize such significant discrepancies represents a dereliction of duty by those charged with safeguarding taxpayer funds and ensuring government accountability. The implications of this affair extend beyond a simple procurement issue; it speaks to a larger pattern of deceit and the abuse of power. It is crucial to address this situation swiftly and transparently to restore trust in government processes and uphold the principles of fiscal responsibility.