RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "elon musk"

Elon Musk issues dark prediction about Steve Bannon as explosive new Epstein photos drop

Billionaire Elon Musk had an ominous prediction about MAGA strategist Steve Bannon on Friday after a newly released batch of photos showed President Donald Trump's former senior aide with the late financier and convicted child offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Musk responded to an X post from user Shadow of Ezra, suggesting that Bannon was apparently meeting with Epstein to advise him on how to "rehabilitate his public image" at his office where a "trafficking victim's photo" appeared to sit on Epstein's desk, alleging that Epstein took photos of his victims, which "were viewed by many as 'trophies' or a form of leverage."

Musk had a chilling response to the post:

"Only a matter of time before Bannon goes back to prison," Musk wrote.

Musk did not elaborate further in his post.

Bannon has previously served time in prison for refusing to submit to a congressional subpoena related to his role as a top aide to Trump during his first term.

Musk and Bannon have had a rocky relationship in the past, including public spats over MAGA strategies and Musk's interest in a proposed third party.

After the images were released on Friday, lawmakers have signaled that they are investigating the more than 90,000 images released by the Epstein estate to the House Oversight Committee and have "pictures of people engaged in sexual acts." It's unclear who or which people are in the photos.

The images released Friday were just 20 or so of the thousands of images the committee was investigating and now congressional leaders have questions for many of the people in the photos, including the ones who have not been identified.

Trump admin eyes yanking visas of Musk critics: report

The Trump administration has considered revoking visas of two prominent critics of billionaire Elon Musk — a once close ally of President Donald Trump — and his X social platform, according to a new Zeteo report on Thursday.

New documentation viewed by Zeteo indicated that high-level talks were underway among top government officials to decide whether to make the decision.

"Per a draft for an action memo outlining options for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the administration is weighing a move to revoke the visas of former European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton and Imran Ahmed, CEO and founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate," according to the outlet.

It could be the first attempt for the Trump administration to revoke visas of people it deems are censoring Americans.

"Just last week, the State Department reportedly directed officials to screen out applicants for skilled worker visas who have previously worked to combat online misinformation and disinformation," Zeteo reported.

The news comes as the Trump administration on Wednesday signaled it would begin a new Department of Homeland Security policy that would require visitors to undergo social media inspections. Under the new rule, international travelers would have to provide their social media history over the last five years.

One key issue shows inequality is out of control under Trump — it's time to fix it

As you know by now, I don’t like raising big problems without offering big potential solutions.

The big problem I want to talk about today is that CEO pay has become utterly untethered from reality.

When I was a young man in the 1960s and ’70s, CEOs typically made 20 to 30 times the pay of their workers. That was enough to reward leadership, but not so much as to distort the entire economy and alienate workers who could still aspire to the American Dream.

Today, the gap between CEO pay and the pay of average workers has exploded. The average CEO at a major corporation now takes home nearly 300 times what their employees earn.

In some cases, the disparity is so grotesque it defies belief. For example:

  • Walmart’s CEO raked in $27.4 million last year — 930 times the median Walmart worker’s $29,469 salary.
  • Coca-Cola’s CEO made $28 million — nearly 2,000 times what the average Coke worker earned ($14,144).
  • Starbucks’ CEO pocketed $95.8 million in 2024 — almost 3,000 times the typical barista salary of $32,000. (By the way, I urge you to boycott Starbucks until they agree to a first contract with their striking baristas.)
  • Tesla just approved a nearly $1 trillion pay package for Elon Musk — the world’s richest man (except for on Sept. 10, 2025, when Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s net worth briefly surpassed his). This pay package would make Musk the first trillionaire in history.

The problem isn’t just these ridiculous sums. It’s also what’s happening to ordinary workers.

Undervaluing their labor while overvaluing the labor of CEOs has fueled resentment, anger, disillusionment, and fear — creating conditions ripe for a demagogue to exploit. This is what helped give rise to Trump.

The yawning gap between the wealth of executives and the everyday people who generate that wealth is beyond obscene. The American people agree: A staggering 62 percent support setting caps on CEO pay relative to worker pay.

CEOs aren’t worth nearly what they’re raking in. They get these pay packages because they’ve rigged their boards to award them.

They’ve also linked their pay to their corporations’ stock prices — and they cash in when their corporations buy back their stock to pump up share prices.

It’s immoral. Even Pope Leo has noted these concerns: “CEOs that 60 years ago might have been making four to six times more than what workers receive, the last figure I saw, it’s 600 times more.”

Referring to Musk, the Pope continued: “What does that mean and what’s that about? If that is the only thing that has value anymore, then we’re in big trouble.”

So, what do we do about this? How can outrageous CEO pay be stopped?

The best idea I’ve heard comes from Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who have introduced the “Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act.”

Under it, companies would pay higher taxes when the ratio of the pay of their CEO to their typical worker exceeds 50-to-1.

  • If it exceeds 50-to-1, the corporation pays an additional 0.5 percent tax
  • If it exceeds 100-to-1, the corporation pays an additional 1 percent tax
  • If more than 200-to-1, a 2 percent tax
  • If more than 300-to-1, a 3 percent tax
  • If more than 400-to-1, a 4 percent tax
  • If more than 500-to-1, a 5 percent tax

So, if Tesla’s board approves Musk’s staggering $975 billion pay package, Tesla would owe up to $100 billion more in taxes over the next decade.

It won’t be easy to get this idea implemented, given all the corporate and CEO money now polluting our politics. But if my guess is correct, we’re about to witness a giant backlash against Big Money in politics. If so, this idea has a chance, especially after the midterm elections.

Don’t wait. Please call your members of Congress today and tell them to support the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act. (To reach Congress via the Capitol Switchboard, dial (202) 224-3121, and ask the operator to connect you to your specific Representative’s or Senator’s office, by name or office.)

Thanks for demanding an economy that works for working people — and not just the wealthy few at the top.

'Give me money': Elon Musk offers financial advice to people with $1,000

Billionaire Elon Musk, the world's richest man, offered financial advice to people with $1,000, suggesting they give the money to him.

In an interview this week, right-wing podcast host Katie Miller asked Musk how he would "start from scratch today with only $1,000."

"At this point, I have a lot of knowledge," Musk replied. "I mean, it would take Armageddon, which hopefully that doesn't happen. Like Ragnarok next level, and I lost... It's impossible for me, for someone to have that amount of knowledge, drop down to a low resource amount."

"Because the reality is that either something truly catastrophic has happened, like civilization has melted, or I will be able to ask people to just give me money and with the promise that I will have a high return, which is what I'm able to do right now," he continued. "Like if you give me a dollar, you will get back much more than a dollar."

"So this is, it's somewhat of an impossible dichotomy because civilization would have had to have destroyed or something. In which case, $1,000 is not going to solve your problems."

But if civilization had not been destroyed, Musk insisted the answer would be for people to "give me money."

'We live in a crazy world': Elon Musk dogpiled on his own app for anti-immigrant remarks

Tesla CEO and ally to President Donald Trump Elon Musk was dogpiled Wednesday after complaining about immigrants voting in American elections, with many critics pointing to the billionaires’ own status as an immigrant of apartheid South Africa.

“Isn't this freak an immigrant from South Africa who overstayed his visa and has taken billions of dollars from the government?” wrote Wajahat Ali, a journalist who runs The Left Hook Substack, in a social media post on X Tuesday night.

Musk did, in fact, immigrate to the United States from South Africa – and did so illegally, according to The Washington Post, which reported that he entered on a student visa but never enrolled in school.

Musk’s remarks were made during an appearance on “The Katie Miller Podcast,” a podcast hosted by the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Published Tuesday, the interview shows Musk warning that the United States could turn into a “communist hell” should immigration trends continue, which he argued have shaped several elections.

Given Musk’s enormous influence on the 2024 election, where he spent more than $275 million backing Trump, critics couldn’t help but be stunned by the irony of Musk’s complaints.

“Elon Musk, a South African immigrant born in Africa who votes in Texas, is annoyed that Somali immigrants born in Africa get to vote in Minnesota,” wrote former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan in a social media post on X. “There's only one thing he doesn't have in common with his fellow African immigrants in Minnesota… Elon Musk, according to his brother Kimbal, came to this country as an ‘illegal’ immigrant.”

Others, like Smajo Bešo, a Bosnian author living in the United Kingdom, were simply baffled with Musk’s remarks.

“We live in a crazy world,” they wrote in a social media post on X. “An illegal immigrant from South Africa because he overstayed his visa, has taken billions of dollars from the U.S. government, is upset that other immigrants are able to vote. You really couldn’t make this up.”


Trump's festering resentment blamed for visa crackdown

A columnist Tuesday described why President Donald Trump's crackdown on factchecker visas was actually "personal, as everything with him tends to be."

The Guardian's Margaret Sullivan recounted how Trump's urge to "control the message," and a festering resentment from the past, has driven him to pull the visas and target international applicants who work on content moderation.

In early 2021, after Trump posted his claims about a "stolen election" that provoked the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter decided to permanently suspend him.

"That evidently hurt. For years, Twitter had been his favorite place for bluster, bombast and straight-up lies," Sullivan wrote. "Other major social-media platforms locked him out too, at least for a while, and there were unsubstantiated charges that the platforms were colluding with Democrats."

Trump developed a disdain for people "who try to make the internet safer, to point out lies and misinformation," Sullivan explained.

That changed with Elon Musk, who purchased Twitter and renamed it X. Musk pushed out many workers on the content moderation team and Trump had conveniently formed his own social platform: Truth Social.

"But the pain of being barred has clearly lingered," Sullivan wrote.

And although Trump has claimed he was a victim of content moderation, "retribution lies at the heart of this crackdown."

"Thus, Trump’s special animus toward content moderators, trust and safety teams, and fact-checkers. It seems he didn’t forget the sting," she added.

Elon Musk's company hit with $139 million fine despite 'garbage' tough talk from JD Vance

Elon Musk's X, formerly known as Twitter, has received a $139 million fine by the European Commission.

The penalty is the first-ever issued under the content moderation laws and was issued today (December 5) to the social media site, Politico confirmed. Plans to fine X were aired earlier this year, which prompted vice president JD Vance to suggest the EU should not follow through with a "garbage" notion of fining "free speech".

The EU Commission confirmed that X was in breach of their transparency obligations, with the fine sent to X because of a "deceptive" change of how blue check verification worked. The European Commission’s Executive Vice President for Tech Sovereignty Henna Virkkunen said it was not about the highest fines possible, but about making sure appropriate changes were considered and made.

Virkkunen said, "We’re not here to impose the highest fines, we’re here to make sure that our digital legislation is enforced. If you comply with our rules, you don’t get a fine." They added the fine was "proportionate" to the value of the company, with DSA regulations meaning a maximum fine of 6% of a company's worth can be issued.

While the fine may not come as a surprise to X, vice president JD Vance warned the EU Commission that they should not be taking aim at Musk's website, something the tech billionaire made clear he did not appreciate.

Vance wrote, "Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage." Musk replied, "Much appreciated."

Virkkunen would respond to Vance's comments, saying, "The DSA is having not to do with censorship, this decision is about the transparency of X. On this subject, we have agreed to disagree with the way that some people in the U.S. look at our legislation."

"It's not about censorship, and we have repeated several times from this podium, so on this we really agree to disagree on how it is perceived."

Here's how we supercharge attempts to hold Elon Musk to account

I’ve been struggling to imagine Elon Musk might do if he gets his trillion-dollar payday. He could spend a million dollars a day for 3,000 years. Or, more realistically, $100 million a day for 30 years. He could spend the $290 million he invested in Donald Trump’s re-election and do it 3,400 times, wherever and whenever he pleases. Or buy more media properties, spending up to 20 times the $44 billion it took to buy Twitter and make it into a misinformation swamp, key to Trump’s success.

But the money the Tesla board just handed Musk isn’t guaranteed. He has to meet goals like delivering 20 million Tesla vehicles and dramatically increasing Tesla’s stock price.

Ordinary citizens can prevent that, but we need to take our efforts to another level.

The global Tesla Takedown campaign has spearheaded the challenges to Musk with protests at showrooms and charging stations. So signs, chants, music, inflatable animals, and a clear message that driving a Tesla means supporting all that Trump and Musk have done. They brought people out who’d never participated before and, as people have followed their lead globally, helped:

  • Drop European Tesla sales nearly 40 percent in a year.
  • Drop US sales 19 percent from two years ago, despite lowering prices and margins.
  • Despite EV sales increasing overall, drive Tesla’s US share to an eight-year low,.
  • Led Cybertrucks to sell just 16,000 in the US through September, despite Musk saying they’d sell 250,000 and having his other companies buy them.
  • Drop Tesla’s stock price to 71 percent from its January high, before rebounding in part due to third quarter sales, when people grabbed EV’s of all kinds to buy them before Trump’s tax bill ended the $7,500 tax credits.

The campaign did lose some momentum after DOGE, and as Musk left the White House and feuded with Trump. Musk became less visible and maybe seemed less toxic.

But he just joined fellow tech lords at a lavish White House dinner for Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman, bone saws optional. And he’s continued promoting ultra-right wing parties globally, like the German Alternative für Deutschland, while his Grokipedia praises White Supremacists and French Grok promotes Holocaust denial. Add to that an estimated 400,000 children and 200,000 adults who’ve died because of DOGE’s USAID cuts.

Whether Musk gains or loses power remains hugely consequential.

Tesla showroom protests remain a powerful way for citizens everywhere to push back. But they need to put more energy into engaging America’s 2 million existing Tesla drivers as allies, by asking them to display anti-Musk stickers, magnets, or vinyl decals. Without them, Teslas on the street function as de facto advertisements. People see the cars. It’s the EV brand people have heard of most and their owners seem content. Their presence seems uncontroversial, and they do have a great charging network, so why not buy one if you’re considering an EV.

But when Teslas display anti-Elon statements, this changes the message.

“I BOUGHT THIS BEFORE ELON WENT CRAZY.”

“HERE FOR THE CLIMATE, NOT ELON.”

“ANTI-ELON TESLA CLUB.”

“FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS BUY NEW TESLAS.”

Such stickers proclaim clearly that drivers bought the cars to help address climate change, not to promote would-be dictators. When most bought their cars, Musk really was an environmental hero, particularly when Tesla also bought the leading rooftop solar installer, Solar City.

The bumper stickers, magnets and decals make clear that the drivers won’t buy a Tesla again, and neither should others. They become rolling advertisements against purchasing the car.

Tesla Takedown has sometimes linked to particularly clever stickers. But their prime push for existing Tesla owners is to pressure them to sell their cars to undercut new sales.

That’s fine when it happens. But especially with Trump killing EV credits, switching to a new equivalent EV, like replacing any car, is costly. Like $5,000-10,000 costly, despite all the great new EVs on the market. Most Tesla owners won’t switch just to make the political point, and that cuts them off as potential participants in the campaign. The bumper sticker approach invites them in.

If the anti-Tesla campaign and its volunteers want to enlist more existing Tesla owners, they could:

  • Highlight links to inexpensive stickers, magnets, and decals that anti-Tesla activists could send to or give to friends with Teslas. They can even ask vendors to add Tesla Takedown QR codes.
  • Post template letters and emails that people can send friends and neighbors who own Teslas. Or, where legal, put them under Tesla windshields.
  • Publicize alternatives. We bought a Chevy Bolt for $20,000 after the $7,500 tax credits that Musk has now helped kill, and it’s been great.
  • Press companies and municipalities not cancel Tesla fleet orders, boycott Starlink, support alternatives to Tesla high speed charging stations, and to have their pension funds divest from the company. The latter might also ell pay off financially — even Peter Thiel just sold three-quarters of his holdings.

The campaign is pushing on those more institutional demands, but the more they existing Tesla owners they can bring in, the more impact they’ll have. If we want to limit Elon’s destructive power, the Tesla owners can play a key role

This sinister setup is essential to Trump's power. Here's how it ends

The richest man on earth owns X.

The family of the second-richest man owns Paramount, which owns CBS — and could soon own Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.

The third-richest man owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

The fourth-richest man owns The Washington Post and Amazon MGM Studios.

Another billionaire owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post.

Why are the ultra-rich buying up so much of the media? Vanity may play a part, but there’s a more pragmatic — some might say sinister — reason.

As vast wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, this small group of the ultra-wealthy may rationally fear that a majority of voters could try to confiscate their wealth — through, for example, a wealth tax.

If you’re a multibillionaire, in other words, you might view democracy as a potential threat to your net worth. New York real estate and oil tycoon John Catsimatidis, whose net worth is estimated at $4.5 billion, donated $2.4 million to support Trump and congressional Republicans in 2024 — nearly twice as much as he gave in 2016.

Why? “If you’re a billionaire, you want to stay a billionaire,” Catsimatidis told The Washington Post.

But rather than rely on Republicans, a more reliable means of stopping majorities from targeting your riches might be to control a significant share of the dwindling number of media outlets.

As a media mogul, you can effectively hedge against democracy by suppressing criticism of yourself and other plutocrats and discouraging any attempt to tax away your wealth.

And Trump has been ready to help you. In his second term of office, Trump has brazenly and illegally used the power of the presidency to punish his enemies and reward those who lavish him with praise and profits.

So it wasn’t surprising that the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos — the fourth-richest person — stopped the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris last year, as Trump rose in the polls. Or that, once Trump was elected, Bezos decreed that the Post’s opinion section must support “personal liberties and free markets.” And that he bought a proposed documentary about Melania Trump — for which she is the executive producer — for a whopping $40 million.

Bezos’s moves have led several of the Post’s top editors, journalists, and columnists to resign. Thousands of subscribers have cancelled. But the Post remains the biggest ongoing media presence in America’s capital city.

Bezos is a businessman first and foremost. His highest goal is not to inform the public but to make money. And he knows Trump can wreak havoc on his businesses by imposing unfriendly Federal Communications Commission rulings, or enforcing labor laws against him, or breaking up his companies with antitrust laws, or making it difficult for him to import what he sells.

On the other hand, Trump can also enrich Bezos — through lucrative government contracts or favorable FCC rulings or government subsidies.

It’s much the same with the family of Larry Ellison, the second-richest man.

Paramount’s CBS settled Trump’s frivolous $16 million lawsuit against CBS and canceled Stephen Colbert, much to Trump’s delight. Trump loyalist flak Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, then approved an $8 billion merger of Paramount Global, owner of CBS, and Skydance Media.

Larry Ellison’s son, David, became chief executive of the new media giant, Paramount Skydance.

In the run-up to the sale, some top brass at CBS News and its flagship Sixty Minutes resigned, presumably because they were pressured by Paramount not to air stories critical of Trump. No matter. Too much money was at stake.

I’m old enough to remember when CBS News would never have surrendered to a demagogic president. But that was when CBS News — the home of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite — was independent of the rest of CBS, and when the top management of CBS felt they had independent responsibilities to the American public.

Like Bezos, Larry Ellison is first and foremost a businessman who knows that Trump can help or hinder his businesses. In 2020, he hosted a fundraiser for Trump at his home. According to court records, after the 2020 election, Ellison participated in a phone call to discuss how Trump’s defeat could be contested. In June 2025, he and his firm, Oracle, were co-sponsors of Trump’s military parade in Washington.

After taking charge of CBS, David Ellison promised to gut DEI policies there, put right-wing hack Kenneth R. Weinstein into a new “ombudsman” role, and made anti-“woke” opinion journalist Bari Weiss editor-in-chief of CBS News, despite her lack of experience in either broadcasting or newsrooms.

The Guardian reports that Larry Ellison has told Trump that if Paramount gains control of Warner Bros. Discovery — which owns CNN — Paramount will fire CNN hosts whom Trump doesn’t like.

Other billionaire media owners have followed the same trajectory. Despite his sometimes contentious relationship with Trump, Elon Musk has turned X into a cesspool of right-wing propaganda. Rupert Murdoch continues to give Trump all the positive coverage imaginable. Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce and owner of Time magazine, has put Trump on the cover.

It is impossible to know the extent to which criticism of Trump and his administration has been chilled by these billionaires, or what fawning coverage has been elicited.

But we can say with some certainty that in an era when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who have bought up key media, and when a thin-skinned president is willing and able to violate laws and norms to punish or reward, there is a growing danger that the public will not be getting the truth it needs to function in this democracy.

What to do about this? Two important steps:

1. At the least, media outlets should inform their readers about any and all potential conflicts of interest, and media watchdogs and professional associations should ensure they do.

Recently, The Washington Post’s editorial board defended Trump’s razing of the East Wing of the White House to build his giant ballroom, without disclosing that Amazon is a major corporate contributor to the ballroom. The Post’s editorial board also applauded Trump’s Defense Department’s decision to obtain a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors but failed to mention Bezos’s stake in X-energy, a company that’s developing small nuclear reactors. And it criticized Washington, D.C.’s refusal to accept self-driving cars without disclosing that Amazon’s self-driving car company was trying to get into the Washington, D.C. market.
These breaches are inexcusable.

2. A second step — if and when America has a saner government — is for anti-monopoly authorities to block the purchase of a major media outlet by someone with extensive businesses that could pose conflicts of interest.

Acquisition of a media company should be treated differently from the acquisition of, say, a company developing self-driving cars or small nuclear reactors, because of the media’s central role in our democracy.

As The Washington Post’s slogan used to say, democracy dies in darkness. Today, darkness is closing in because a demagogue sits in the Oval Office and so much of America’s wealth and media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few people easily manipulated by that demagogue.

  • Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
  • Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

‘More radical than ever’: Elon Musk’s wrecking ball leaves behind awful legacy

Elon Musk's now shuttered Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has left a grim legacy with millions of deaths expected by 2030 and more than 200,000 jobs slashed, analysis shows.

DOGE's purge "has ended its reign of terror eight months earlier than mandated" after Musk took a wrecking ball to medical research, international aid and other life-saving programs, Salon's Heather Digby Parton wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday.

Musk's "pet project" hired a "collection of young nerds Musk imported from his other companies, led by a couple of trusted aides, and the first thing they did was dig into data the government collects on companies and individuals. (Why that access was so vital has never been fully explained)," Digby Parton wrote.

Some have suspected that Musk used this material to help build Grok, his artificial intelligence project, she added.

The cuts have had a cruel global impact.

"Foreign aid was of particular interest to Musk, who is originally from South Africa, so he immediately targeted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and programs that were keeping people alive around the world. They were abruptly halted," she wrote.

A Lancet study published in July projects that DOGE cuts could result in 14 million deaths by 2030 — four million of those deaths are expected to be children.

These cuts were proven have "negligible" benefit for American taxpayers. DOGE had claimed it would bring savings, but an August Politico analysis found it to be less than 5% of what it had promised.

"The story of the department’s dissolution is a testament to how dysfunctional it was — and how Musk’s supposed business genius is clearly overrated," she wrote.

The dramatic relationship between President Donald Trump and Musk has shifted from "bromance" to a dramatic falling out and now a "rapprochement."

"Like so many wealthy men — including Donald Trump and most of his Cabinet — he was convinced that because he had been successful at running a company and making money, he was a genius who could do anything. And like so many who erroneously believe that government should be run like a business, Musk failed to understand that it is a completely different animal, requiring political skills, coalition building and finding consensus," she wrote.

"Like most people who spend too much time on X, Musk has become more radical than ever," Digby Parton wrote. "His AI experiments get more bizarre by the day, and his SpaceX projects, which include driverless cybercabs, have been repeatedly delayed. Tesla shareholders just agreed to pay him a trillion dollars, but considering the stock price, maybe they should have taken a page from DOGE and cut their losses like Trump did."

Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.