Lost among the tsunami of headlines associated with Trump taking office this past week, was isolated reporting that seemed to have escaped the eye of most of today’s most trusted media. A brief mention here and there, sandwiched among other news items. And certainly no follow-up, at least none that’s apparent. The item in question was Trump’s seeming admission, at a rally last Sunday, that First-buddy Elon Musk deserved praise for his involvement with “vote counting machines” in Pennsylvania in the recent election.
American historian Heather Cox Richardson drew attention to the issue on Inauguration day, mentioning it in her daily essay, Letters from an American, as follows (emphasis mine):
At a rally Sunday night at the Capital One Arena in Washington, Trump highlighted the performance side of his public persona. He teased the next day’s events and let his audience in on a secret that echoed the “neokayfabe” of professional wrestling by leaving people wondering if it was true or a lie. After praising Elon Musk, he told the crowd “He was very effective. He knows those computers better than anybody. Those vote counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide. So it was pretty good…. Thank you to Elon.”
There’s much to unpack here, but as background, let’s recall that in the weeks leading up to the November 2024 election, Trump ceaselessly proclaimed, without any evidence, that that there was going to be “massive cheating” — in the swing state of Pennsylvania specifically. Of course, his accusations of a rigged election were squarely directed at the evil Democrats and anyone else daring enough to question his “inevitable” win in Pennsylvania.
What’s important to note here is that predictably, as has been the case throughout Trump’s career, he and his allies always preemptively accuse the opposition of whatever nefarious activity they themselves either intend to pursue, or are already doing. In this way, he puts his adversaries in a position where they cannot accuse him of the same wrongdoing without first having to defend themselves against the same charge, and then looking like copy-cats by accusing Trump of that same thing — just another tit-for-tat political retribution with no merit.
So now, with that in mind, let’s look again at what Trump actually said, or perhaps gloated about, as he is prone to do. His comments verbatim, praising Elon Musk:
“…He was very effective. He knows those computers better than anybody. Those vote counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide. So it was pretty good…. Thank you to Elon.”
Here are the obvious follow-up questions that Trump’s brag begs to be asked, if not fully investigated:
1 - What exactly was Musk “very effective” at, specifically?
2 - Since Trump directly calls out “vote counting computers” that Musk “knows better than anybody,” one might wonder why he would say this? But he seems to answer the question himself in the same breath, when he segues to bragging about “winning Pennsylvania in a landslide.” So, is Musk’s expertise with “vote counting computers” the key to Trump winning Pennsylvania? How would that happen? Who would have given Musk access to said computers? Trump’s comments certainly imply that someone did. Is this not worth further attention?
3 - Why in the world is Trump thanking Elon Musk? What is he thanking him for, if not for doing something with “vote counting computers” that delivered the so-called “landslide" victory in Pennsylvania? This despite the fact that as of election day, the aggregate of polls showed Harris ahead by 2 percentage points in Pennsylvania.
4 - If Musk did somehow muster his tech expertise and endless resources to deliver Pennsylvania to Trump on election day, who’s to say he didn’t do the same in other battleground states? That might explain the almost inexplicable way that Trump defied the odds, the polls and the widespread expectations. Musk’s expertise in all things tech is not in question. His motivations to help Trump win were summed up by Musk’s own widely-reported pre-election quip that “…if Trump loses, I’m fucked!”
Trump’s GOP minions would reflexively argue that his comments thanking Musk for delivering Pennsylvania have other, completely benign explanations. The most predictable of these would be that he was simply thanking “Leon” for making sure that the Democrats didn’t cheat in Pennsylvania. Which immediately begs the question: Why, in the first place, would Musk even be involved intimately enough in Pennsylvania vote counting to have any influence over voting security?
Another dismissive explanation from his handmaidens might be that Trump’s comments are simply “Trump being Trump.” There’s some truth to this statement, but Trump being Trump means him wanting to project invincibility. This could easily allow his inflated state of hubris to override any good judgement that might otherwise prevent him from making such a telling statement, publicly no less.
Being the star of his post-election rally, and feeling free to publicly suggest that Musk helped him skew Pennsylvania’s vote into a victory, is exactly the kind of brag designed to poke the eyes of his perceived enemies — a “joke" based in truth, admitted for the purpose of rubbing his stink into the psyche of anyone not yet convinced that he is truly the most powerful person on the planet, and beyond the reach of any consequences. Hubris on steroids. Trump being Trump.
It doesn’t take a genius to know what would have happened if Harris instead of Trump had won Pennsylvania (and the general election), and then she publicly thanked Musk for delivering an important swing state via personal expertise and direct involvement with “vote counting computers.”
In this hypothetical scenario, MAGA would already be calling for civil war, torches and pitchforks in hand, demanding the election results be thrown out, and insisting on immediate investigations to get to the bottom of how the world’s richest man might have been motivated to help Harris thwart the will of the people. They would be screaming for a new election, buoyed by news media covering the controversy 24/7.
But mainstream news is currently in a downward dog posture, waiting to see if Trump can be persuaded to spare the rod and instead let them in on the power grab. Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post is indeed wallowing in the very darkness that it refers to in its slogan “Democracy Dies In Darkness.” Same with Meta/Facebook, where Zuckerberg sees a path to future emperorship himself, as he abandons any META fact-checking that might cause Trump the slightest consternation going forward. Twitter/X at this point goes without saying. Almost anywhere you look, what seems to be missing is journalistic follow-up on what could be the story of the century — how Musk may have help Trump win by cheating in swing states.
Maybe the most plausible reason for this is the sheer ongoing deluge of outrageous developments at the hands of Trump and his MAGA supporters in Congress. It is practically impossible to keep up with the multitude of horrible Executive Actions, unhinged threats and very real existential risks to our country and to humanity itself — unleashed by Trump every day, 24/7. It overwhelms most people, including journalists.
Having just released from prison most all of the January 6th criminals with a waive of his tiny hand, Trump’s violent team of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys are already arming up and presumably “standing by” to attack those individuals and institutions singled out by Trump for violent retribution. Certainly a chilling effect on journalists everywhere. So perhaps relegating Trump’s possible admission of cheating to the “maybe later” file is understandable. That would leave yet another vital news story hiding in plain sight, its implications too troublesome to pursue. Did he actually cheat in swing states? Did Musk help him do it? Or are his statements just performance art?
We may never know whether Trump’s rally comments are a Cheshire cat’s admission of guilt, or just another example of him blurting out the truth in order to have it quickly absorbed into a larger ocean of outrageous declarations. News cycles are fast. His comments will likely soon be dismissed and/or forgotten.
Regardless, Trump said what he said and Musk did whatever it is he actually did (or did not do). Let’s hope that one way or the other, the question gets some serious looking into.
(This article also appears on Richard Lang’s Substack, along with other musings)