By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following President Trump’s firing of the Department of Defense Inspector General, Robert Storch, questions remain regarding the status of an ongoing investigation into Elon Musk and SpaceX. The timing of the firing raises concerns that the probe, examining Musk’s lucrative government contracts, has been effectively terminated. Democrats are demanding answers from the Pentagon about the investigation’s fate, fearing its closure benefits Musk. The situation highlights a potential conflict between government oversight and the interests of a powerful contractor.
Read the original article here
Did Trump quietly kill a sensitive Pentagon probe into Elon Musk? The sheer audacity of the question itself hints at the answer. The very idea suggests a level of clandestine operation, a shadowy maneuver hidden from the public eye. Yet, the reality paints a far less subtle picture.
The notion of quiet action is immediately challenged by the sheer volume of alleged investigations into Musk, spanning multiple agencies and encompassing a vast array of potential infractions. From SpaceX’s skirmishes with the FAA and EPA, to the SEC’s repeated probes into Musk’s market manipulations and Twitter dealings, the picture is one of continuous scrutiny. These are not whispered concerns; they are highly publicized legal battles.
Furthermore, the alleged involvement of USAID in investigating Starlink and the FDA’s investigation into Neuralink’s animal testing further highlight the extensive nature of the scrutiny Musk faced. These aren’t isolated incidents; they paint a picture of a business empire operating under a cloud of ongoing, public investigations.
The suggestion of a “quiet” shutdown of a Pentagon investigation therefore feels strikingly out of place. Considering the sheer number of public investigations, the notion that one specifically tied to the Pentagon would be handled discreetly seems highly improbable. The very public nature of other investigations strongly suggests the opposite: any attempt to stifle such a probe would likely have been met with significant public backlash.
The claim that Trump acted to benefit his friends and circumvent the law is a serious allegation, and deserves careful consideration. While the motivations behind any potential actions taken regarding this alleged Pentagon investigation are difficult to definitively determine, the context of other actions and Trump’s overall public statements provide significant food for thought. The constant accusations of favoritism and disregard for legal norms add weight to the concern.
The overall tone of the discussions points to a conviction that Trump’s actions, whether quiet or loud, were primarily motivated by a desire to protect Musk. This narrative is further strengthened by the alleged links between Trump and Musk, the perceived corruption within the various agencies mentioned, and the feeling of impunity and arrogance displayed by those involved.
The idea of a “quiet” act also clashes with the broader context of alleged brazen disregard for established procedures and legal norms that characterises the discussion. The suggestion that this particular action would have been carried out subtly seems incongruent with the general perception of blatant power plays and disregard for institutional checks and balances.
Ultimately, the question itself is deeply flawed. To focus on the quietness of the alleged action obscures the more important concern – the alleged abuse of power and potential obstruction of justice. The supposed “quiet” nature of the act is less significant than the implications of the potential suppression of a legitimate investigation. The focus should be less on the method, and more on the intent and consequences. Regardless of whether the action was stealthy or overt, the larger question remains: was justice obstructed? And was this done to shield Elon Musk from scrutiny? These are the questions that truly matter.