We care about your data. See our privacy policy. Musk’s response has been to zoom out and argue on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the focus shouldn’t be on “some subset” of file releases, but on prosecutions and arrests. He’s also said he has never attended any Epstein parties and has repeatedly called for anyone who committed crimes connected to Epstein to be prosecuted. That part is simple enough; he’s denying involvement beyond contact, and he’s framing the document release as noise unless it leads directly to legal action. The problem for Musk isn’t just what’s in the emails—it’s the sudden pivot in posture. This is the same guy who previously demanded that Epstein-related files be released, publicly pressing for disclosure and arguing that the public deserved to see what was being kept under wraps. In other words, when “release the files” was a convenient talking point, he leaned into it. Now that the conversation includes messages tied to him, the release is being dismissed as “performative” and a “distraction.” That whiplash is why the “nothing to see here” angle isn’t landing cleanly. It comes off less like a principled position and more like a very specific kind of damage control: praise transparency in the abstract, then complain about the process the moment transparency produces headlines you don’t like. HipHopWired has a name for that type of act—Phony Starks behavior—because it’s the same playbook over and over: loud when it’s useful, irritated when the spotlight spins around. To keep it straight, here’s what the situation actually is. The documents being discussed reportedly include emails attributed to Musk in which he appears to be coordinating, at least in conversation, a potential visit and asking about parties. The same reporting says there is no evidence he actually visited the island. Musk denies attending Epstein parties and says prosecutions should be the priority. All of that can be true at the same time. But it’s also true that people are going to question why he’s calling the release a “distraction” when he’s previously pushed for the release of Epstein material. If the principle is “put everything on the table,” then the table doesn’t get flipped because your name is on a few pages. And that’s the part that keeps the story alive. Not because emails automatically equal crimes—they don’t—but because powerful people love to set the rules of a conversation until the rules apply to them. Musk can say the only thing that matters is arrests, and many will agree. But he doesn’t get to act confused that the public is side-eyeing the same documents he once said needed to come out. For now, Musk’s “distraction” framing is going to keep running into the same wall: the emails are real enough to require a response, and the pivot is obvious enough to raise questions. If the goal is accountability, transparency doesn’t become a problem only when it’s inconvenient. SEE ALSO: