Why did Jeffrey Epstein's Elon Musk's company delete three years of evidence from Twitter and change its name to X? What's got the world's richest man so paranoid other than drugs? What does he need to hide and from whom?

ELON MUSK, DONALD TRUMP, AND TWITTER'S SAUDI ROYALS NAMED AS AFFILIATES OF CHILD KIDNAPPER, CHILD SEX TRAFFICKER, AND CHILD RAPISTS JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL

After Jeffrey Epstein was convicted for prostitution with a minor, Elon Musk met with the child kidnapper, child sex trafficker, and child rapist Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell, per Business Insider.[11]

Per Business Insider, Jeffrey Epstein's Ghislaine Maxwell met with Jeffrey Epstein's Elon Musk and asked him to "destroy the internet", which is important because after that Jeffrey Epstein's Saudi royal family helped Jeffrey Epstein's Elon Musk destroy access to three years of evidence on Twitter (2011-2014 only).[13] 

The butler of Jeffrey Epstein copied the following and provided the same to its is presumed Robert Mueller III's FBI regarding the clients and associates of Epstein, and where Mueller didn't prosecute Trump then, and/or nor did Mueller prosecute Trump when he investigated Trump and Russia, and where Mueller was a member at one of Trump's golf clubs before he was tasked to investigate Trump and Russia.[12]

JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ELON MUSK WAS SUBPOENAED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U.S.V.I. ONE MONTH BEFORE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ELON MUSK'S AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S SAUDI ROYALS' TWITTER CHANGED ITS NAME, AND/OR DELETED THREE YEARS OF EVIDENCE FROM TWITTER (2011-2014)

The Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands subpoenaed Jeffrey Epstein's and Ghislaine Maxwell's Elon Musk and/or his company a month before Jeffrey Epstein's Elon Musk and/or Jeffrey Epstein's Saudi royal family changed their Twitter company named to X, "The U.S. Virgin Islands has subpoenaed Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) CEO Elon Musk for documents in its lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) of helping enable sexual abuses by late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The subpoena, issued on April 28, came to light on Monday in a request by the Virgin Islands to serve Musk by alternative means because it had been unable to locate and serve him.".[10]

JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ELON MUSK, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA'S TWITTER, AND/OR X WAS FINED $350K FOR CONTEMPT, FOR AIDING, COMFORTING, AND/OR ADHERING TO A U.S. ENEMY -- JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S DONALD TRUMP -- AND/OR OBSTRUCTING A SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION

As reported by MSN and Politico -- Jeffrey Epstein's Elon Musk, Jeffrey Epstein's Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's Twitter, and/or X was fined $350K for excessive delay in providing Special Counsel Jack Smith Trump's Twitter communications for Jeffrey Epstein's Trump's seditious conspiracy and insurrection against the United States, and where Judge Howell asked Twitter's California-based defense team "Is it because [Elon Musk] wants to cozy up with the former president?".[2] 

JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ELON MUSK, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA'S TWITTER, AND/OR X DELETED ACCESS TO THREE SPECIFIC YEARS OF CONTENT (2011-2014), IS SCREAMING "LOOK AT ME"

As reported by Empty Wheel -- Jeffrey Epstein's Elon Musk, Jeffrey Epstein's Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's Twitter, and/or X deleted access to only three specific years of content from Twitter, between 2011-2014, during the Special Counsel investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump.[3]

The same is like an emergency beacon to all investigators looking into Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump's crimes and/or Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate's crimes, screaming "look over here, there is something Jeffrey Epstein's orbit, Elon Musk, and/or Donald Trump don't want you to find evidence for, which happened between 2011 and 2014".

But what happened in 2014 or before 2014 that Jeffrey Epstein's orbit doesn't want prosecutors or investigators to find? Whose communications in 2014, and/or before in 2013, or earlier, need to be concealed by Jeffrey Epstein's orbit in this manner? What happened in 2014, 2013, or earlier, which Jeffrey Epstein's orbit needs others not to find is a reasonable question or inference?

TWITTER HID HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE EVENTS REGARDING THE 2016 ELECTIONS THAT RUSSIA "ENGINEERED", AND IN DOING SO OBSTRUCTED, AIDED, COMFORTED, AND/OR ADHERED TO ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA, THE GOP, TRUMP, AND/OR OTHERS, WHO NEEDED THOSE COMMUNICATIONS CONCEALED. IS THIS OVERT FURTHERANCE?

As reported by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, "As part of evidence to a US Senate inquiry [sic], the company admitted that their systems "detected and hid" several hundred thousand tweets relating to the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak.^[574]"[4][5]

Because Jeffrey Epstein's, Russia's, and the GOP's Donald Trump solicited U.S. enemy Russia to engage in espionage/spying, cyberwarfare, and/or cyberterrorism against the United States's and political candidate Hillary Clinton and/or the Democratic National Committee -- to give aid, comfort, and/or to adhere to an established U.S. enemy, Russia -- in Trump's circa July 2016 solicitation for Russia to join a conspiracy with him to do the same, Trump specified "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press" -- then Twitter hiding evidence related to the same aided U.S. enemies and agents of enemies of the U.S. -- Jeffrey Epstein's Trump, Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate's financed GOP, child trafficker Putin's Russia, and/or others.[6]

This treason, espionage, sedition, elections fraud, RICO, obstruction, and/or terrorism "engineering" solicitation by Jeffrey Epstein's Trump, to child trafficker Putin's Russia, was approved by child trafficker Putin by January 2016, after Felix Sater pitched some to all of the same to Michael Cohen by email November 2015, and was overtly furthered April 27, 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel by Jeffrey Epstein's Trump, Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate's financed GOP, child trafficker Putin's Russia, Jared Kushner (married to Jeffrey Epstein's Ivanka Trump), and then overtly furthered some more from Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, where child trafficker Putin's Russia(n) lawyer, Jeffrey Epstein's GOP's Trump Campaign, and/or Jeffrey Epstein's Trump family conspired some more, resulting in Jeffrey Epstein's, Russia's, and the GOP's Donald Trump overtly furthering the same by asking U.S. enemy Russia to engage in espionage/spying, cyberwarfare, and/or cyberterrorism against the United States' communications infrastructure, circa 2016, which Russia did.[8]

Accordingly, Twitter joined that complex ongoing conspiracy to "engineer" enemies of the United States, Trump and the GOP, by concealing communications related to an attack on the communications infrastructure of the United States, to aid these and other enemies of the United States, including Russia, making Twitter an enemy of the United States also -- a reasonable inference.[8]

TRUMP'S AND THE GOP'S SCOTUS AIDED, COMFORTED, AND/OR ADHERED TO ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY TRUMP, THE GOP, RUSSIA, TWITTER, AND/OR OTHERS BY OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE FOR THEIR PROSECUTION FOR TERRORISM, TREASON, SEDITION, RICO, OBSTRUCTION, ELECTIONS FRAUD, AND/OR OTHER ORGANIZED CRIMES, WHICH WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE NULLIFIED THE GOP SCOTUS MAJORITY, MAKING SCOTUS JUSTICES ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES ALSO, AND IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFYING THEM IN A SELF-EXECUTING MANNER, FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT, WHICH TRUMP WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO APPOINT HAVING IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF PRIOR TO THE 2016 ELECTIONS, AND THUS BEFORE HE COULD ILLEGITIMATELY INSTALL A SCOTUS MAJORITY

"Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh, alongside Gonzalez v. Google, were heard by the United States Supreme Court during its 2022–2023 term. Both cases dealt with Internet content providers and whether they are liable for terrorism-related information posted by their users. In the case of Twitter v. Taamneh, the case asked if Twitter and other social media services are liable for user-generated terrorism content under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and are beyond their Section 230 protections. The court ruled in May 2023 that the charges brought against Twitter and other companies were not permissible under the Antiterrorism Act, and did not address the Section 230 question. This decision also supported the Court's per curiam decision in Gonzalez returning that case to the lower court for review in light of the Twitter decision.^[597][598]"[5] 

Here, this isn't a constitutional crisis, because the Constitution is clear, per a year-long constitutional investigation by Jeffrey Epstein's David Koch's Federalist Society's constitutional scholars (in the context the Federalist Society is who hand-picked 6/9 GOP SCOTUS justices), specifically, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, who specified that the constitution has "self-executing" laws that no court can hear, including but not limited to the 14th Amendment Section 3.[7]

"The key to all of this is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "No person shall … hold any office, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."[7]

Trump took that oath at his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017.[7]

But before the election engaged in treason with Russia, "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."[9]

Trump is an American, and as an American has previously pledged allegiance to the United States, as has every American.

Trump asked an enemy of the United States, Russia (who was under sanctions and who had separately attacked the Pentagon, the US military, Department of Defense, NASA, and/or other U.S. military agencies prior to Trump asking for cyberware, terrorism, and espionage attacks against U.S. and its citizens), to attack and spy on and/or within the United States by employing a cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism attack against the communications infrastructure of the United States to alter or "engineer" himself into office in an ongoing conspiracy with an enemy of the United States, and Russia, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and/or others conspired to the do the same, along with the Trump family. 

There was no other way for Russia to "find" the 30,000 emails Trump solicited U.S. enemy Russia to find, than for this enemy to wage cyber'war'fare and cyberterrorism against the United States' communications infrastructure, is a reasonable inference.

Accordingly, before Trump "took" office, he wasn't eligible for the same.

Accordingly, because he was not eligible for the same, he was not eligible to install a GOP SCOTUS majority.

As specified by Federalist Society members who helped install the GOP SCOTUS majority, these laws are self-executing, and so Trump and the GOP were immediately ineligible for office before (and after) the 2016 elections, every single time Trump, his family, the GOP, their representatives, their organizations GOP's Trump campaign, and/or others aided, comforted, and/or adhered to the conspiracy pitched by Felix Sater November 2015 to Michael Cohen, further by Mike Flynn in Russia with Putin December 2015, furthered by Putin January 2016, furthered by Trump, the GOP, the GOP Trump Campaign, the Trump family, their organizations by April 27, 2016 and June 9, 2016, and then again by Trump July 2016, but not limited to the same.

Accordingly, because Trump was immediately disqualified from office before the 2o16 elections, he was not in a position to legitimately nominate any SCOTUS justices for them to clear Twitter, Facebook, insurrectionists, Russians, Cambridge Analytica, the GOP, Trump, his family, nor any others of terrorism, nor for them to adhere, comfort, and/or aid any other enemy of the United States.

Furthermore, Neil Gorsuch took that oath of allegiance to the United States April 10, 2017. Brett Kavanaugh took that oath October 6, 2018. Amy Barrett took that oath October 27, 2020.

They adhered to, comforted, and aided enemies of the United States engaged in terrorism on Twitter and all social media sites therafter.

This immediately disqualified SCOTUS for giving aid, comfort, and aid to enemies of the United States operating on social media sites, and they had a conflict of interest in ruling in this manner, because they were indirectly ruling whether or not they were legitimately installed into public office, when they weren't. [8]

Accordingly, Trump and the GOP immediately disqualified themselves in a self-executing manner before the 2016 elections, and thus could not appoint, nominate, nor confirm any SCOTUS justices, and any evidence to the contrary is fruit from the poisonous tree. Any ruling these justices have made are illegitimate, and any evidence of the same fruit from the poisonous tree.

Accordingly, there is no constitutional crisis in removing Barret, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh from SCOTUS, because they were never legitimately installed as SCOTUS, and, their reported corruption, along with the reported corruption of other SCOTUS justices, have made these other SCOTUS justices immediately disqualified by self-executing law.

So there can be no constitutional crises removing SCOTUS justices, if they aren't legitimately appointed, nominated, and/or confirmed SCOTUS justices. Any evidence to the contrary is fruit from the poisonous tree.

Separately, the self-executing law is clear ""No person shall … hold any office, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".[5]

SCOTUS justices are person(s) and have offices under the United States, and they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (as lawyers), and/or generally as every American has to take the allegiance to the United States and its Constitution, and throughout their lives, including Trump, and the representatives of the GOP.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS FOR REMOVING TRUMP, THE GOP, AND THE SCOTUS GOP MAJORITY, IF TRUMP, THE GOP, AND/OR SCOTUS IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFIED THEMSELVES FROM PUBLIC OFFICES BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTIONS, AND/OR THEREAFTER, AND/OR APPOINTED, NOMINATED, AND/OR CONFIRMED OTHERS THEREAFTER, WHO WOULD NOT BE LEGITIMATELY INSTALLED

There is no constitutional crisis to remove those who were never eligible for public office in a self-executing manner from those offices, and there is no constitutional crisis to remove those installed into offices by those who were not eligible for office from those offices either.

There is no constitutional crisis if those who were not eligible for public office in either of these two scenarios have changed and/or will change the law to keep themselves and/or others in illegitimately-got public offices, and/or to allow themselves or others not eligible for public offices to seek future public offices.

There is no change that a person or persons can make to any operation of the government if that person or those persons immediately disqualified themselves for public office before hand, precisely because they were not qualified nor eligible to make any changes to how the government operates.

This includes, but is not limited to, becoming POTUS, becoming a member of Congress, becoming a SCOTUS judge, issuing pardons, clemency, executive orders, and this include exercise of executive privilege where there is none, and court stacking, and any other change to the government, none of which are based in law, if such a person doing so, immediately disqualified themselves from public office before making these changes, and where the law applies to "any person" in a self-executing manner, including SCOTUS judges, POTUS, and members of Congress and the judiciary like Judge Canon, but not limited to the same.

Any evidence to the contrary is fruit from a poisonous tree, and thus cannot be accepted as legitimate evidence. Accordingly, it doesn't matter if Trump, the GOP, or SCOTUS say or rule they are eligible, when they are not in a self-executing manner. No changes they made, make, or attempt to make to the government are legitimate as a matter of self-executing laws. 

As with all of the content from all of our published articles, this article and its content are subject to our general and specific disclaimer, below the sources and attributes, at the bottom of the page.