突發：希拉蕊·柯林頓即將就愛潑斯坦案接受閉門質詢之際，她發表了一份措辭強硬的開場白，明確表示自己對愛潑斯坦一無所知，並抨擊共和黨人不允許她公開作證。
以下是她的完整未刪節聲明：
柯林頓國務卿的開場白
主席先生、各位資深委員、各位委員會成員……身為一名前參議員，我尊重立法監督，並期望它像美國人民一樣，在追求真相和問責的過程中秉持原則、無所畏懼。
然而，眾所周知，國會調查常常淪為黨派政治作秀，這是對職責的背棄，也是對美國人民的侮辱。
委員會以我掌握有關傑弗裡·愛潑斯坦和吉斯萊恩·麥克斯韋犯罪活動調查的資訊為由，向我發出傳票。在此，我要明確指出，我並不掌握任何資訊。
正如我在1月13日的宣誓聲明中所述，我對他們的犯罪一無所知。我不記得曾見過愛潑斯坦先生。我從未搭乘過他的飛機，也從未去過他的島嶼、住所或辦公室。我對此無可補充。
和所有正直的人一樣，我對我們所了解的他們的罪行感到震驚。令人難以置信的是，愛潑斯坦先生在2008年最初只受到了輕微的懲罰，這使他得以繼續其掠奪性行為長達十年之久。
主席先生，您的調查旨在評估聯邦政府對愛潑斯坦及其犯罪行為的調查和起訴的處理情況。您傳喚了八名執法官員，他們都曾在愛潑斯坦的犯罪行為被調查和起訴時擔任司法部部長或聯邦調查局局長。這八人中，只有一人出席了委員會的聽證會。六位前司法部長中有五位被允許提交簡短聲明，表示他們沒有任何資訊可以提供。
你從未舉行過任何公開聽證會，拒絕媒體參加，包括今天，儘管你曾數十次公開宣稱需要透明度。
你幾乎沒有努力傳喚在愛潑斯坦案卷中最突出的人。即使你傳喚了，也沒有共和黨議員出席萊斯·韋克斯納的證詞。
這種制度性失職旨在保護某個政黨和某位公職人員，而不是為受害者、倖存者以及同樣希望找出真相的公眾尋求真相和正義。我為倖存者感到心碎，也為她們感到憤怒。
我畢生致力於維護婦女和女孩的權益。我努力製止許多婦女和女孩在世界各地遭受的種種可怕虐待，包括人口販運、強迫勞動和性奴役。長期以來，這些罪行要不是不為人知，就是根本不被視為犯罪。但倖存者是真實存在的，她們理應得到更好的待遇。
在東南亞，我遇過年僅十二歲就被迫賣淫並遭到反覆強暴的女孩。有些女孩死於愛滋病。在東歐，我遇過一些母親，她們告訴我女兒被拐賣，卻不知所措。在世界各地，我遇到許多倖存者，他們努力重建生活，並幫助解救其他受害者——然而，當權者卻鮮少提供支持，他們往往視而不見，冷漠無情。
如果您對這個問題還不了解，我想告訴您：傑弗裡·愛潑斯坦是一個罪大惡極的人，但他絕非孤例。這並非一次性的八卦新聞或政治醜聞。
這是一個全球性的禍害，造成了難以想像的傷亡。
我打擊性販賣的工作可以追溯到我擔任第一夫人時期。我努力推動通過了第一部聯邦反人口販賣法案，並為我的丈夫簽署《人口販賣受害者保護法》而感到自豪。該法案增加了對倖存者的支持，並賦予檢察官更好的工具來打擊人口販賣者。
作為國務卿，我任命了前聯邦檢察官盧·德巴卡（Lou deBaca）來加強我們在全球範圍內的反人口販運工作。我負責監督70個國家的近170個反人口販運項目，並直接敦促外國領導人打擊本國的人口販運網絡。我們每年都會發布一份全球報告，揭露各種侵犯人權的行為。
這些報告的調查結果會觸發對未能取得進展的國家的製裁，因此它們成為推動採取具體行動的有力外交工具。
2011年，我堅持要求美國首次被納入這份報告。因為我們不僅要以與世界其他國家相同的標準要求自己，更要以更高的標準要求自己。性販運和現代奴隸制在美國絕對不容許存在。絕對不能容忍。
令人憤慨的是，川普政府大幅削減了國務院的人口販運辦公室，裁掉了70%以上為防止人口販運而辛勤工作的職業公務員和外交官專家。
BREAKING: As Hillary Clinton heads into a closed-door deposition related to the Epstein investigation, she released a pointed opening statement, making clear she knew nothing about Epstein and slamming the Republicans for not allowing her to testify in public.
Below is her full, unedited statement:
SECRETARY CLINTON'S OPENING STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee... as a former Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability.
As we all know, however, too often Congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an abdication of duty and an insult to the American people.
The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.
As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.
Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It's unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.
Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government's handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein's crimes were investigated and prosecuted. Of those eight, only one appeared before the Committee. Five of the six former attorneys general were allowed to submit brief statements stating they had no information to provide.
You have held zero public hearings, refused to allow the media to attend them, including today, despite espousing the need for transparency on dozens of occasions.
You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files. And when you did, not a single Republican Member showed up for Les Wexner's deposition.
This institutional failure is designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors, as well as the public who also want to get to the bottom of this matter. My heart breaks for the survivors. And I am furious on their behalf.
I have spent my life advocating for women and girls. I have worked hard to stop the terrible abuses so many women and girls face here and around the world, including human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual slavery. For too long, these have been largely invisible crimes or not treated as crimes at all. But the survivors are real and they are entitled to better.
In Southeast Asia, I met girls as young as twelve years old who were forced into prostitution and raped repeatedly. Some were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe, I met mothers who told me how they lost daughters to trafficking and did not know where to turn. In settings around the world, I met survivors trying to rebuild their lives and help rescue others — with little support from people in power, who too often turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder.
If you are new to this issue, let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein was a heinous individual, but he's far from alone. This is not a one-off tabloid sensation or a political scandal.
It's a global scourge with an unimaginable human toll.
My work combatting sex trafficking goes back to my days as First Lady. I worked to pass the first federal legislation against trafficking and was proud that my husband signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which increased support for survivors and gave prosecutors better tools for going after traffickers.
As Secretary of State, I appointed a former federal prosecutor, Lou deBaca, to ramp up our global antitrafficking efforts. I oversaw nearly 170 anti-trafficking programs in 70 nations and directly pressed foreign leaders to crack down on trafficking networks in their countries. Every year we published a global report to shine a light on abuses.
The findings of those reports triggered sanctions on countries failing to make progress, so they became a powerful diplomatic tool to drive concrete action.
I insisted that the United States be included in the report for the first time ever in 2011. Because we must hold ourselves not just to the same standard as the rest of the world but to an even higher one. Sex trafficking and modern slavery should have no place in America. None.
Infuriatingly, the Trump Administration gutted the Trafficking in Persons Office at the State Department, cutting more than 70 percent of the career civil and foreign service experts who worked so hard to prevent trafficking crimes. The annual trafficking report, required by law, was delayed for months. The message from the Trump Administration to the American people and the world could not be clearer: combatting human trafficking is no longer an American priority under the Trump White House.
That is a tragedy. It's a scandal. It deserves vigorous investigation and oversight.
A committee endeavoring to stop human trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes in 2008.
A committee run by elected officials with a commitment to transparency would ensure the full release of all the files.
It would ensure that the lawful redactions of those files protected the victims and survivors, not powerful men and political allies.
It would get to the bottom of reports that DOJ withheld FBI interviews in which a survivor accuses President Trump of heinous crimes.
It would subpoena anyone who asked on which night there would be the "wildest party" on Epstein's island.
It would demand testimony from prosecutors in Florida and New York about why they gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and chose not to pursue others who may have been implicated.
It would demand that Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Bondi testify about why this administration is abandoning survivors and playing into the hands of traffickers.
It would seek out officers on the front lines of this fight and ask them what support they need.
It would put forth legislation to provide more resources and force this administration to act.
But that's not happening.
Instead, you have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump's actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.
If this Committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein's trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement; it would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files.
If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on fishing expeditions. There is too much that needs to be done.
What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover-up?
My challenge to you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, is the same challenge I put to myself throughout my long service to this nation. How to be worthy of the trust the American people have given you. They expect statesmanship, not gamesmanship. Leading, not grandstanding. They expect you to use your power to get to the truth and to do more to help survivors of Epstein's crimes as well as the millions more who are victims of sex trafficking.
美國前國務卿希拉里·克林頓（希拉蕊·柯林頓；Hillary Clinton）指控唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）政府在處理已故性犯罪者傑弗里·愛潑斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）相關檔案時進行了「掩蓋」。
白宮則回應稱，他們公佈了這些檔案，「為受害者所做的，比民主黨人以往所做的更多」。
當被問及安德魯·蒙巴頓-溫莎是否應該到國會委員會作證時，希拉里表示：「我認為凡是被要求作證的人都應該作證。」
出現在這些檔案中並不代表有不當行為。安德魯一直否認有任何不當行為。
The Clintons have not been accused of wrongdoing and deny having any knowledge of Epstein's crimes. Although their names appear in the files, it is not an indication of wrongdoing.
time.com
Clinton Accuses Trump Admin of Epstein Files 'Cover-Up'
Retail mogul’s name was this week unredacted from trove of files – how did he and his model town fuel Epstein’s rise?
Leslie Herbert Wexner is an American billionaire businessman and political activist. He is the co-founder and chair emeritus of Bath & Body Works, Inc. He has been the principal in Abercrombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret and La Senza, amongst several other retail corporations. Wexner is involved in politics.
WikipediaNet worth: 9.1 billion USD (2026) Forbes
【無怪乎有人問台灣男人無人乎！】在 Epstein Files 裡，有這麼個日本 IT 鉅子、校長、在自民黨具影響力：
檔案中顯示至少有三個日本名字，但其中
#伊藤穰一 與愛普斯坦的關係最為密切。伊藤穰一曾任 麻省理工學院媒體實驗室 (MIT Media Lab) 主任，現為
#千葉工業大學 校長。檔案中出現「Joi」或「Joy」次數高達 9,638 次 [01:33]。
.
3. 可疑的電子郵件與暗號「Dogs」 [01:42]
影片展示了一封伊藤寄給愛普斯坦的郵件，內容提及「Japan docs」（日本文件）或「Japan dogs」。作者對 「Dogs」 一詞提出質疑，認為這可能不是指寵物，而是某種暗號。...
.
郵件中還提到伊藤計畫帶人前往愛普斯坦的私人島嶼 [02:03]。
.
4. 過去的醜聞與辭職 [04:30]
.
2019 年，《日本經濟新聞》等媒體曾報導伊藤穰一因接受愛普斯坦的資助而從 MIT 辭職。據報導，MIT 曾收受愛普斯坦約 80 萬美元 的捐款，而伊藤個人也收受了資金。儘管伊藤當時道歉並聲稱未見過愛普斯坦的惡行，但作者質疑：在兩人有如此頻繁的聯繫（Skype、電子郵件、多次登島）的情況下，怎麼可能對其罪行毫不知情？ [06:01]
Despite Epstein’s Toxicity, Steve Bannon Stood by Him, Texts Indicate
Mr. Bannon, a MAGA podcaster, developed a seemingly chummy relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking. He said it was in the name of getting Mr. Epstein to open up.
儘管愛潑斯坦劣跡斑斑，但簡訊顯示，史蒂夫班農仍力挺他。
班農先生是一位「讓美國再次偉大」（MAGA）播客主持人，他與被控性交易的傑弗裡·愛潑斯坦建立了看似親密的關係。他聲稱，這樣做是為了讓愛潑斯坦敞開心扉。
隆馬斯克對廢話毫無耐心。如果你說的不是有價值的東西，他會直接走開──談話進行到一半就走，絕不道歉。這是「創智贏家」（Shark Tank）投資人凱文·奧利裡（Kevin O’Leary）的說法，他最近直言不諱地談到了馬斯克這種近乎執著的專注。
在上週發表於X網站的一篇文章中，奧利裡將馬斯克與另一位傳奇人物史蒂夫·喬布斯（Steve Jobs）進行了比較。他說，兩人的思考方式截然不同——他們都毫不留情地排除乾擾，效率至上。
奧利裡這樣解釋：「訊號」指的是用來推進目標的時間。 「噪音」指的是其他一切——幹擾、無用的會議、無聊的閒聊。在後者上浪費太多時間，你就輸了。就這麼簡單。
奧利裡認為，這兩位科技遠見家賈伯斯和馬斯克都掌握了這種平衡。
這並非針對個人，而是關乎效率。
奧利裡曾在蘋果與賈伯斯共事，他分享了一個故事來闡釋這種思維方式。每個季度，他和公司其他主管都會在蘋果總部開會。他說，賈伯斯做事極為專注。
「史蒂夫可不是個好人，」奧利裡回憶道。有一次會議上，一位負責「俄勒岡之旅」產品的產品經理建議花200萬美元做市場調查，以確定哪些產品功能最受歡迎。賈伯斯立刻否決了她的提議。
“蘋果不做市場調查，”賈伯斯告訴她，“沒有人知道自己想要什麼，除非我告訴他們想要什麼。然後他們就買了，因為我說了算。”
那位女士哭著離開了會議室。奧利裡震驚了。
“我告訴他，’史蒂夫，你真是個混蛋。’”
賈伯斯毫不在意。相反，他反駁道：“你們賺了很多錢嗎？我們的市場份額增長速度比任何人都快嗎？閉嘴，幹活去。”
奧利裡稱賈伯斯「85%是訊號，15%是噪音」——這意味著他仍然會允許一些幹擾因素進入工作。但結果如何呢？無人能及。
然後是馬斯克。奧利裡說，他從未見過比他更專注的人。
「還有一位百分之百專注於目標的人，我從未見過像他這樣的人，那就是伊隆馬斯克。沒有噪音，百分之百專注，」他說。
馬斯克不僅排除干擾──他徹底消除干擾。 「如果你在談話中讓他覺得無聊，他會直接走開，」奧利裡說。 “他根本不在乎。”
這種心態或許會顯得傲慢，但奧利裡卻有不同的看法：正是這種心態造就了馬斯克和賈伯斯的卓越。
他們都透過忽略干擾、撥開迷霧、以絕對的自信做出決策，打造了一家改變世界的公司。而對馬斯克來說，如果你跟不上他的步伐？他早就放棄了。
Elon Musk has no patience for nonsense. If you're not saying something valuable, he'll simply leave—mid-conversation, no apologies. That's according to "Shark Tank"
investor Kevin O'Leary, who recently shared his blunt take on Musk's relentless focus.
In a post on X last week, O'Leary compared Musk to another legendary figure: Steve Jobs. Both, he said, operate on a different wavelength—one where distractions are cut ruthlessly, and efficiency is king.
O'Leary broke it down like this: "Signal" is the time spent advancing your goals. "Noise" is everything else—distractions, useless meetings, pointless small talk. Waste too much time on the latter, and you lose. Simple as that.
According to O'Leary, both tech visionaries Jobs and Musk mastered this balance.
It's not personal. It's about efficiency.
O'Leary, who worked with Jobs at Apple, shared a story to illustrate this mindset. Every quarter, he and other executives would meet at Apple's headquarters. Jobs, he said, was brutally focused.
"Steve was not a nice guy," O'Leary recalled. During one meeting, a product manager working on "Oregon Trail" suggested spending $2 million on market research to determine which product features would be best. Jobs shut her down instantly.
"We don't do market research at Apple," Jobs told her. "Nobody knows what they want until I tell them what they want. Then they buy it because I said so."
The woman left the meeting in tears. O'Leary was stunned.
"I told him, ‘Steve, you're an a**hole.'"
Jobs didn't care. Instead, he fired back: "Are you making a boatload of money? Are we growing share faster than anybody else? Shut up and go to work."
O'Leary called Jobs "85% signal, 15% noise"—meaning he still let some distractions slip through. But the results? Unmatched.
Then there's Musk. O'Leary says he's never met anyone more laser-focused.
"One other guy that is 100% signal, and I've never met anybody like him, is Elon Musk. No noise. 100% signal," he said.
Musk doesn't just cut out distractions—he eliminates them entirely. "Walks away from you if you're boring him in a conversation," O'Leary said. "Doesn't give a sh*t."
That kind of mindset might come off as arrogant, but O'Leary sees it differently: It's what makes Musk and Jobs exceptional.
Both built world-changing companies by ignoring distractions, cutting through the noise, and making decisions with absolute confidence. And in Musk's case, if you can't keep up? He's already moved on.
【班農：白宮有「全盤計劃」繞過憲法 讓特朗普2028年連任】
前白宮首席策略師班農（Steve Bannon）在接受英國《經濟學人》雜誌訪談時，重申對總統特朗普的堅定支持，宣稱特朗普將於2028年競選並贏得第三屆總統任期，並強調美國需要特朗普來實現「偉大復興」。班農作為「讓美國再次偉大」（MAGA）運動的主要推動者，觀點引發廣泛爭議，特別是涉及美國憲法第22修正案對總統任期的限制。
英國《經濟學人》的Insider節目由總編輯Zanny Minton Beddoes和副總編輯Ed Carr主持，在班農的華盛頓寓所進行。訪談探討班農的民粹世界觀，與《經濟學人》奉行的古典自由主義立場形成對比。節目強調，儘管觀點分歧，但對話有助理解班農思想及特朗普支持者的看法。
班農在訪談中表示，特朗普是美國「不可或缺的人物」，並預測特朗普將於2029年1月20日再次宣誓就任總統。班農強調：「特朗普將競選第三屆任期，並且會當選。」當被問及憲法第22修正案（規定總統不得超過兩屆）時，班農回應稱，特朗普幕僚已有「全盤計劃」繞過此限制，雖然未透露細節，但暗示這是「美國人民的意志」。班農此前在其他訪談中也提及過類似觀點，如2025年5月接受英國《金融時報》採訪時，提及特朗普將使用「憲法繞道」實現第三任期。
班農的主張引發美國憲法危機。美國憲法第22修正案明確規定，任何人不得當選總統超過兩屆。法律專家指出，任何試圖繞過此規定的「計劃」均可能違憲，並需經國會或最高法院批准，特朗普本人尚未公開回應2028年競選，但其支持者中類似呼聲不絕於耳。
班農在訪談還提到，MAGA（讓美國再次偉大）運動將會重振美國經濟，吸引更多勞工階層支持，預測MAGA將在2026年中期選舉後擴大影響。但他警告，美國社會分裂嚴重，但特朗普領導可避免危機。
訪談發布後，各大社交媒體上討論激烈。部分用戶批評《經濟學人》為班農提供平台，稱其為「罪犯」並質疑其可信度。也有網民支持班農觀點，視特朗普為國家救星。
民主黨人士譴責此言論為威脅民主，呼籲警惕極右勢力。共和黨內部意見分歧，一些人視為邊緣觀點，另一些則視為戰略施壓。
班農曾任特朗普2016年競選團隊首席執行官及白宮首席策略師，後因分歧離職，但仍主持《戰室》（War Room）播客，影響數百萬MAGA支持者。他曾因藐視國會罪入獄，但獲特朗普特赦。
MAGA運動強調貿易保護主義、驅逐非法移民，不談普世價值，只著重「美國利益優先」。
美國總統任期制度由憲法規定，自1951年第22修正案生效以來，明確限制總統不得當選超過兩屆。然而，在此之前，雖然喬治·華盛頓連任兩屆傳統，但並無法律強制。美國憲法最初並未限制總統任期次數。喬治·華盛頓於1789年至1797年擔任兩屆後自願退位，建立「兩屆傳統」，此後多數總統遵循此慣例，以避免被視為追求終身權力。19世紀及20世紀初，多位總統如托馬斯·傑斐遜（Thomas Jefferson）、詹姆斯·麥迪遜（James Madison）和伍德羅·威爾遜（Woodrow Wilson）曾考慮或嘗試第三屆，但均未成功。
美國建國250年歷史上，唯一一位當選超過兩屆的總統，是二戰特殊時期的「戰時總統」富蘭克林·D·羅斯福（Franklin D. Roosevelt），其於1932年、1936年、1940年及1944年當選四屆，並於1945年第四屆任期內逝世。除羅斯福外，美國歷史上並無其他總統成功連任三屆或更多屆。 富蘭克林·D·羅斯福的唯一例外，因為特殊歷史，其於「經濟大蕭條」及「第二次世界大戰」期間領導美國，憑藉強大民意支持，打破傳統當選四屆。羅斯福的連任原因包括：1930年代經濟危機需要持續領導、二戰爆發及美國參戰必須政策延續及強化其戰時總統形象，以及民主黨內缺乏強有力競爭者。羅斯福總計執政4,422天，為美國史上任期最長總統。
羅斯福逝世後，國會迅速通過第22修正案，於1951年正式生效，規定「任何人不得當選總統超過兩屆」，並考慮副總統接任情況下最多可達10年。此修正案旨在防止未來出現類似「終身總統」現象。
雖然無人成功連任三屆，但歷史上曾有總統試圖挑戰兩屆傳統：
• 尤利西斯·S·格蘭特（Ulysses S. Grant）：1876年考慮第三屆，但共和黨提名會議未支持他。
• 西奧多·羅斯福（Theodore Roosevelt）：1901年接任威廉·麥金萊（William McKinley）後，1904年當選一屆，1912年以進步黨候選人身份爭取第三屆，但敗給威爾遜。
• 伍德羅·威爾遜：1920年健康惡化下考慮第三屆，但黨內反對。
• 哈里·S·杜魯門（Harry S. Truman）：接任羅斯福後，1948年當選一屆，1952年考慮連任但退出初選。
• 林登·B·詹森（Lyndon B. Johnson）：1963年接任約翰·F·甘迺迪（John F. Kennedy）後，1964年當選一屆，1968年因越南戰爭壓力放棄連任。
此外，有推測如亞伯拉罕·林肯（Abraham Lincoln）若未遇刺，可能會爭取第三屆以監督戰後重建，但這僅為歷史假設，並無實證。
++++
美國人對馬斯克讓他們同意史蒂夫班農的觀點感到憤怒
華盛頓——據報道，週二，數百萬美國人對伊隆馬斯克感到憤怒，因為他讓他們陷入了同意史蒂夫班農觀點的噩夢境地。
在全國各地的訪談中，美國人在聽到班農稱馬斯克為「寄生非法移民」並驚恐地發現，自己也同意他的說法後，表達了從憤怒到厭惡的各種情緒。
俄亥俄州阿克倫的哈蘭德·多林森說：“埃隆·馬斯克做了很多可怕的事情，比如入侵政府電腦、竊取我們的個人數據以及解僱數千名技術員工。” 「但讓我同意班農的觀點？這是不可原諒的。
Americans Furious at Musk for Making Them Agree with Steve Bannon
WASHINGTON—Millions of Americans were reportedly furious at Elon Musk on Tuesday for putting them in the nightmarish position of agreeing with Steve Bannon.
In interviews across the country, Americans expressed emotions ranging from rage to disgust after hearing Bannon call Musk a “parasitic illegal immigrant” and finding, to their horror, that they concurred with him.
“Elon Musk has done a lot of terrible things, like hacking into government computers, stealing our personal data, and firing thousands of skilled employees,” said Harland Dorrinson of Akron, Ohio. “But making me agree with Bannon? That’s unforgivable.”
