Mistrustful

This is a classic case of elite incestuous self-dealing dressed up in progressive "gender equity" drag. Let me walk you through the whole grift, piece by piece. 🏠 The $9.1 Million "Pritzker Discount" Mansion In November 2024, the Newsoms acquired a 5,600-square-foot, six-bedroom midcentury modern estate at 224 Woodland Road in Kentfield, Marin County — one of the wealthiest enclaves in America. The seller: Daniel Pritzker, billionaire heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune. The price: $9.1 million — which was actually $600,000 over the final asking price of $8.5 million. The property had originally been listed at $10.75 million, then dropped to $9.5 million, then to $8.5 million. Somehow the Newsoms swooped in and paid more than what the market was demanding. Curious. The vehicle: The home was purchased through MHBD Farms LLC — an entity created just two days before the transaction closed on November 14, 2024. The LLC is named after the Newsoms' four children. Jennifer Siebel Newsom was later listed as the manager of that LLC as of May 2025. This is the second time the Newsoms have used a mysterious LLC to acquire real estate. In 2018–2019, an LLC registered to Newsom's cousin and PlumpJack business partner Jeremy Scherer bought a $3.7 million Fair Oaks estate in cash, then "gifted" it to the Newsoms — conveniently avoiding the transfer tax. 💰 The Pritzker Connection — It's Deeper Than Real Estate This wasn't some arm's-length transaction between strangers. The Pritzker family were Gavin Newsom's first-ever political donors when he launched his career. That's not a coincidence — that's a long-term patronage relationship. The Pritzker family — through their various entities and foundations — contributed roughly $572,000 to the California Partners Project, Jennifer Siebel Newsom's "gender equity" nonprofit. Let's sit with that: the family that sold the Newsoms a mansion also shoveled over half a million into the First Partner's charity. And that charity is where the real action is. 🎭 The "Nonprofit" Industrial Complex Jennifer Siebel Newsom runs a multi-layered financial ecosystem that blurs every line between charity, personal enrichment, political influence, and taxpayer funding. The Three-Headed Beast: View the second image in the first comment below. 💸 The Numbers — Follow the Money The Representation Project (2011–2024): •$1.8 million paid directly to Jennifer Siebel Newsom in salary (per IRS filings) •$1.6+ million paid to her for-profit company Girls Club Entertainment for "writer/producer/director" fees •Combined total from the nonprofit to her and her company: roughly $3.4 million over roughly 13 years •Annual take: approximately $300,000 (salary + GCE payments) — roughly a third of the nonprofit's total annual income in recent years •Her 2024 salary was $161,250; GCE received an identical $161,250 The California Partners Project (2020–present): •Gavin Newsom has solicited $4.8 million in behested payments for this nonprofit •$1.8 million of that came from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (the casino tribe — more on that below) •$572,000 from the Pritzker family •Other donors include Silicon Valley Bank ($100K), Blue Shield of California ($50K), and the New Venture Fund ($100K) The Office of the First Partner (taxpayer-funded): •Created by Gavin Newsom in 2019 as a division of the governor's office •Armed with roughly $5 million in cumulative taxpayer funding •Staffed by nine employees with an annual budget of over $1.1 million as of 2023 •This government office openly "shares resources" with the California Partners Project to launch advocacy campaigns •Siebel Newsom used this platform to push for billions in school mental health funding — while her nonprofit sells the curricula and films to those same schools 🎰 The Graton Rancheria Quid Pro Quo This is the most brazen piece. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, which operates the Graton Resort & Casino in Sonoma County, donated $1 million to the California Partners Project at Gavin Newsom's personal solicitation. Around that same time, Newsom used his office to block the Koi Nation, a smaller tribe, from building a competing casino near Graton's operation. Ethics watchdogs — including Michael Chamberlain of Protect the Public's Trust — flagged this as a potential violation of California conflict-of-interest law requiring officials to recuse themselves from matters involving entities that have donated to their family's charities. The timeline screams quid pro quo: 1. Newsom asks tribe for donation to wife's charity 2. Tribe writes check 3. Newsom blocks tribe's competitor That's not governance. That's a protection racket with better branding. 🏫 The School Pipeline — Taxpayer Dollars Into Her Pocket The California Board of Education adopted guidance recommending Siebel Newsom's films and curricula for classroom use the same year Gavin became governor. The Representation Project licenses these films to school districts at roughly $270 per district. By her own boast, 2.6 million students have seen the films nationwide. The films include titles like Miss Representation, The Mask You Live In, The Great American Lie, and Fair Play — all pushing radical gender ideology. The Office of the First Partner used its taxpayer-funded platform to advocate for $5 billion in youth mental health spending and 10,000 new school counselors — who were then positioned to purchase her materials. Corporate donors to The Representation Project include PG&E, AT&T, Comcast, and Kaiser Permanente — all entities with massive business before the governor's office. Kaiser alone has received state contracts exceeding $35 million during Newsom's tenure. PG&E donated $25,000 to a Representation Project fundraiser a week after Newsom's 2018 election, while facing government scrutiny for its role in California wildfires. 🔍 The Federal Investigation As of June 2026, the DOJ is actively investigating the Newsoms' finances — including Jennifer Siebel Newsom's taxes, her nonprofits, and the flow of money between them. Federal investigators have been contacting donors, former and current employees, and board members connected to her organizations. Gavin Newsom is, predictably, framing this as political retaliation from the Trump administration. But the paper trail — the behested payments, the LLC shell games, the self-dealing between her nonprofit and her for-profit company, the donor-to-policy pipeline — was all out in the open long before any federal probe. 🎯 The Bottom Line What you're looking at is a closed-loop influence-peddling system: •Billionaire family (Pritzker) donates to wife's charity and sells the couple a mansion •Governor solicits millions for wife's nonprofit from entities with business before the state •Wife draws salary from her own nonprofit while her private company gets paid by that same nonprofit •Taxpayers fund her government office, which promotes the agenda her films sell •Schools buy her licensed content with money her husband's policies allocated •Donors get favorable treatment, blocked competition, and no-bid contracts The $9.1 million Pritzker mansion isn't just a house. It's a monument to how the political class converts public trust into private wealth — all while lecturing the rest of us about equity and justice.

@NickJFreitas Regrettably, they are taking their politics with them and will ruin their destinations by voting their feelings. See, e.g., WA, ME, CT, CO, VA.

To the New Yorkers fleeing NYC, a couple things… 1. You are fleeing policies. Those policies are a result of a leftist worldview, that in many ways you supported, donated to or assisted, even if it was with just your silence or apathy. 2. The places you are fleeing to, have done a much better job protecting their society and environment from that worldview than you did. So you need to learn from them, not try to lead them. 3. You may be rich and powerful and very intelligent in your respective field, but none of that power stopped the inevitable takeover of your beloved city, most likely because you thought you could placate or compromise with the left. You were wrong. 4. Respectfully, the lesson that needs to be learned from this, is not that the left went “too far” but that there is no such thing as “far enough” for the left. They can't be negotiated with, they need to be defeated. You can either help with that, or you can keep fleeing from place to place until there is no place left.

@SenWarren Here’s an idea, @elonmusk: if the US government imposes a wealth tax stop carrying their payloads. Or offset the amount of the tax by an increase in payload charges.

Our system is rigged so that one man becomes a trillionaire while millions of Americans can't afford a trip to the doctor. Wealth is funneled to the wealthy while everyone else is hanging on by their fingernails. My wealth tax would level the playing field. Let's get it done.

@TroyTempes41010 @Keir_Starmer Isn’t that for parents to manage by removing apps from the phones they own and pay for? Why is this something for government to mandate through means that also serve surveillance purposes?

@Keir_Starmer I hate Starmer, & don't trust his motives for a second, but bizarrely I find myself in total agreement with his idea of disconnecting under 16's from their phones. These fools walk around with devices glued to their ears, damaging their education health, concentration levels etc

We are banning social media access for under 16s. These days kids must find their feet in a world where technology intrudes into every area of their life. I just can’t let that go on anymore. So we’re giving children their childhoods back.

@elonmusk What is stopping parents deleting the apps on their children’s phones? If the parents are concerned, they can address the concerns with a couple of clicks.

They always use defensible excuses for the indefensible

@GovPritzker You are advocating that they have immunity from investigation? May it be above the law?

This attack on Gov. Newsom represents a dangerous escalation by Trump. The President frequently calls for the jailing of his perceived enemies, but his playbook of weaponizing the Department of Justice as a personal attack dog is another level of corruption. This must stop.

This censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.

We already tax billionaires. What you’re proposing is to confiscate the money that people and governments all over the world ( including you, Mr. Blue Check) paid him for his goods and services, and for his management of their investments. You want him to result but you don’t want him to be rewarded for it. That’s communism.

We can also grow the pie by taxing billionaires. Done right, they can grow the pie for society (& thus create stronger consumers) & continue to grow their own wealth. McKenzie Scott started with $32 billion, has given away $26 billion so far, & is still worth between $32B & $42B

@RepMikeQuigley But he pays 11bn a year in federal income tax and his thousands of employees pay a lot more. Perhaps if you contributed what he does to our prosperity you’d be able to pay more too.

The world’s first trillionaire pays the same amount into Social Security as an American making $184,500.   Social Security is currently set to run out by 2032. We need to lift the cap on taxable income NOW and hold Elon Musk and the ultrarich accountable.

@theblaze But he loves Cuba? amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/new…

Robert De Niro: “I hate to say it, but loving our country is starting to sound like an abused spouse saying they love their abuser. I can’t love a country that’s led by a racist, misogynist, xenophobic tyrant.”

Precisely

@Handre This.

The moment someone tells you Elon Musk should solve world poverty with his wealth, you're listening to someone who fundamentally misunderstands both wealth and poverty. Musk's billions exist almost entirely as Tesla and SpaceX stock, not cash sitting in a vault waiting to be redistributed. The real issue runs deeper than liquidity. Poverty is fundamentally a productivity problem, not a resource shortage. If throwing money at poverty solved it, the $4.3 trillion the US government has spent on welfare programs since 1965 would have eliminated American poverty decades ago. Instead, the poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged since the War on Poverty began. You can't redistribute your way out of poverty because wealth isn't a fixed pie that rich people hoard. Musk created his fortune by building companies that produce electric vehicles, rockets, and satellite internet. His wealth represents the market's valuation of those productive assets. When politicians demand he liquidate those holdings to fund welfare programs, they're demanding he destroy the very capital that generates ongoing prosperity. The countries with the lowest poverty rates didn't achieve that through foreign aid or wealth transfers. South Korea went from Third World to First World status in two generations through property rights, free markets, and rule of law. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa has received over $1 trillion in foreign aid since 1960 and remains impoverished. Poverty reduction requires institutions that enable production, not redistribution schemes. Real poverty reduction happens when entrepreneurs like Musk build productive enterprises that create jobs, generate tax revenue, and drive down costs through innovation. But that requires you to understand that capitalism creates wealth rather than just moving it around.

SpaceX a clôturé son premier jour de cotation à 2 100 milliards de dollars, +19%. Tout le monde regarde le chiffre. Personne ne regarde ce qu'il price réellement. Laissez-moi vous dire ce que le marché vient d'acheter, et pourquoi je pense que cette boîte vaudra 30 à 50 trillions d'ici 5 ans. D'abord, le symbole. Cette IPO est un référendum. D'un côté, 20 ans de discours sur la décroissance, la sobriété, la redistribution, la fin de l'histoire gérée par des comités. De l'autre, un homme qui a dit "je vais rendre l'humanité multiplanétaire", que tout le monde a traité de clown, et qui vient de créer la plus grosse entreprise cotée de l'histoire en partant d'un entrepôt à El Segundo. Le marché a voté. Le wokisme avait des départements RH, SpaceX avait des fusées. Les fusées ont gagné. Ensuite, la mécanique économique, parce que c'est là que tout le monde se trompe. Les analystes valorisent SpaceX comme une entreprise de lancement plus Starlink. C'est comme valoriser Internet en 1995 sur le marché du fax. Starship ne réduit pas le coût du kilo en orbite de 20%, il le divise par 100. Et chaque fois dans l'histoire qu'un coût d'infrastructure est divisé par 100, ce n'est pas le marché existant qui grossit, ce sont des industries entières qui naissent. Le coût du calcul divisé par 100 a donné Internet, le smartphone, l'IA. Le coût de l'orbite divisé par 100 va donner une économie spatiale complète. Faisons la liste de ce qui devient rentable quand le kilo en orbite coûte le prix d'un billet d'avion. Les data centers orbitaux, avec énergie solaire continue et refroidissement gratuit, au moment exact où l'IA fait exploser la demande énergétique terrestre. La fabrication en microgravité de semi-conducteurs, de fibres optiques, d'organes imprimés impossibles à produire sous gravité. Le tourisme orbital de masse, puis les hôtels lunaires, qui passeront du fantasme au business plan exactement comme la croisière de luxe au 20ème siècle. Le transport point à point terrestre, Paris-Tokyo en 40 minutes. L'industrie minière des astéroïdes, dont un seul corps de classe M contient plus de métaux que tout ce que l'humanité a extrait depuis le néolithique. Et Mars en ligne de mire, pas comme destination touristique, mais comme le plus grand projet d'infrastructure jamais entrepris, avec tout ce que ça implique de demande en énergie, matériaux, robotique, IA. SpaceX ne participera pas à ces marchés. SpaceX possède le péage d'entrée de tous ces marchés. C'est AWS, mais pour la civilisation. Apple vaut 3 500 milliards en vendant des rectangles de verre sur une seule planète. Le premier monopole d'accès à une frontière infinie à 30 ou 50 trillions dans 5 ans, ce n'est pas de l'exubérance, c'est une simple règle de trois sur l'expansion du marché adressable. Et maintenant, la partie que je préfère. Ce futur n'a pas besoin de bureaucrates. Il n'y a pas de comité consultatif en orbite. Pas de commission Théodule sur Mars. Chaque dollar de cette nouvelle économie sera créé par des ingénieurs, des techniciens, des soudeurs, des pilotes, des entrepreneurs. Les diplômés en gestion de la norme vont devoir apprendre un métier utile, et franchement, c'est une excellente nouvelle pour eux aussi : construire est infiniment plus fun que contrôler. Parce que c'est ça, le vrai signal d'aujourd'hui. Pendant 50 ans on nous a vendu un futur rétréci : moins d'énergie, moins d'enfants, moins d'ambition, gérer le déclin proprement. Et là, d'un coup, le plus gros actif financier du monde est un pari sur l'abondance, l'expansion et l'aventure. Le pessimisme vient de passer en position vendeuse sur lui-même. Le futur sera méga fun. Il y aura des hôtels avec vue sur la Terre, des honeymoons en orbite, des gamins qui diront "papa, c'était comment avant les fusées réutilisables" comme on dit "c'était comment avant Internet". Et quelque part dans les années 2030, un humain marchera sur Mars en livestream devant 5 milliards de personnes, et ce jour-là plus personne ne se souviendra du nom d'un seul de ses détracteurs. Achetez de l'optimisme. C'est encore sous-valorisé.

@EdMarkey Confiscation? Full blown communism now?

Hate to break it to you, Mike. But it is our money. #TaxTheRich

@TaiigerBlue It’s not in his bank account. It’s in companies that are providing goods and services that people and governments are willing to pay lots of money for.

Why does Elon Musk need a trillion dollars to just sit in his bank account? Why doesn't he invest it into something useful? 🤔

The leftists don’t realize that Elon has so much money because so many people and governments have given it to him. They like the goods and services he offers enough to re-distribute their wealth to him. And they trust their savings to him as investments in the companies he manages. Those who don’t like it should start their own car companies, launch their own Internet, satellites, and launch their own rockets. But they can’t because they don’t know how. He does.

.@ScottJenningsKY just torched the liberal meltdown over Elon becoming the world's first trillionaire: “All day long, I've been listening to liberals, count and spend Elon's money for him. This envy, jealousy, hatred of success. Why is it immoral? Why is it wrong for somebody in our system, our capitalist system, in the greatest nation on earth, to go out and build a company, build companies, build technologies, go into space, aim to go put a colony on Mars, give internet to half the world, all the things he's doing? Why is any of this wrong or bad? Why would we want to discourage entrepreneurship? Why would we want to discourage anybody building anything?” Exactly. Success isn't a crime.

@SenLouiseLucas You didn’t mind taking millions from out of state interests for your gerrymandering project did you?

Can you imagine what any of those founding fathers on the walls would have said about taxing working people like factory workers, shipbuilders and farmers while campaigning for tax breaks for out of state tech companies worth trillions of dollars?

@ThomasSowell How would you do that? Forbid the purchase of Teslas? Ground rockets? Shut down Starlink Internet service? Or make those things free? And if you made those things free, what would happen to General Motors, blue origin, and Xfinity? Wouldn’t they go out of business?

Bill Maher on Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire: “Would it be crazy to have a law that says you can’t go above 1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)... you as one person because when John D. Rockefeller did that they did make laws.”