Election Denier Kathy Griffin Doesn’t Think Trump Won in 2024, Calls Elon Musk a ‘Professional Nazi’ (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Mike LaChance

Ah, the joys of political discourse in 2025, where not even the most outrageous claims could quite shock us anymore. Kathy Griffin, in her latest escapade, has taken the stage, throwing around terms like “election denier” and “professional Nazi” without a shred of hesitation. But aren’t we all just a little tired of political hyperbole?

During a recent segment of her YouTube show, Talk Your Head Off, Griffin boldly asserted that Elon Musk’s supposed brilliance is, in her view, more of a façade. She declares, “He isn’t smart; he’s just a professional Nazi.” One must wonder, if she continues down this path, will Musk retaliate with a lawsuit, plunging her into financial despair? Now wouldn’t that be a plot twist?

NewsBusters reports:

‘Very Suspicious’: Kathy Griffin Goes Full Election Denier

On her October 16th episode, Griffin dove headfirst into a whirlpool of conspiracy, suggesting that Musk’s ties to Trump involve an illegal bribery scheme. Her claim? “I don’t think he won in a free and fair election. You heard that right. I don’t mind if that makes me look crazy.” One might need a seatbelt for this rollercoaster of reasoning.

She elaborated, “Musk, who many deem a genius, is a fake genius—more like a Nazi in my humble opinion.” About the alleged electoral shenanigans, she exclaimed, “Remember how Musk was handing out million-dollar checks to get people to vote for Trump? That’s illegal! And the fact that Trump swept all seven swing states? Something feels fishy.”

Here’s the clip for your viewing pleasure:

On her Talk Your Head Off with Kathy Griffin podcast, Griffin accuses Trump of not winning the last election, saying “it’s because @ElonMusk, this other Nazi guy running around town.” pic.twitter.com/bhC2hSPsJN

— Brent Baker (@BrentHBaker) October 16, 2025

Interestingly, the financial incentives Musk provided were associated with signing a pledge supporting free speech, rather than any nefarious election-related motives. It begs the question: has Griffin confused charity with coercion?

At what point does her rhetoric cross the line from spirited debate into territory threatening the very democracy she claims to defend? Sure, celebrities are entitled to their opinions, but where is the accountability?