(QUESTION OF THE DAY) Can *anyone* explain the series of events below to me? Wexner just retained a criminal defense attorney; Rybolovlev is a former employer of Joel Zamel, the Israeli who says he [illegally] aided the Trump campaign with Saudi and Emirati money pre-election...
1/ It seems to me that if Epstein really did underwrite Mar-a-Lago/1125 S. Ocean Blvd.—as he's claimed—he'd have been livid if Trump's sister basically gave it back to him in 2004 to help him purchase a home (Wexner's old home) that *Epstein* wanted. That'd explain a falling out.
2/ Just so, if Epstein had some sort of a financial claim on Trump that he was liable to push after being cheated out of a home he wanted to live in in 2004, one could easily imagine Trump dropping a dime on Epstein regarding behaviors he'd long known about (and even spoken of).
3/ But the home Trump outbid Epstein for was a bad investment Trump overpaid for out of anger with Epstein. So say Epstein—who has close ties to the Israeli and Saudi governments—wants to get back in Trump's good graces while the Israelis and Saudis are courting Russia over Iran.
4/ It's well known that Putin directs his oligarchs to do things he needs them to do. Was Rybolovlev ordered to overpay Trump by $55M as part of a rapprochement with Epstein? We certainly know Rybolovlev lied—repeatedly—about why he bought the property. (See PROOF OF CONSPIRACY.)
5/ Sometime after Trump makes maybe his biggest real estate killing ever—a $55M profit in 48 months—he and Epstein, per Epstein, become close again, with Epstein advising Trump on foreign policy, per Epstein. Everyone knows you can get back into Trump's good graces by paying him.
6/ Meanwhile, Rybolovlev has bought access to Trump significant enough he can meet him twice pre-election—as Putin is aiding Trump—and at Epstein's home/Mar-a-Lago in December '17, the latter meetup possibly with Deripaska, who was in Miami and is Suspect #1 in Russian collusion.
7/ I don't know if any of that is correct; I'm not even saying it is. I'm just trying to figure out what "theory of the case" an investigator would compose—on the strength of these fully confirmed facts—that'd make them make any sense at all. Clearly these individuals have ties.
8/ When asked what the basis for his falling out with Epstein was, Trump lied: first he said he caught Epstein harassing a masseuse at Mar-a-Lago, and then, when reports came out that it was actually a business deal, he switched to saying to media, "Frankly, it doesn't matter..."
9/ When Trump tells you that the basis for his falling out with Epstein "doesn't matter," you know—you know for *certain*, if you've ever covered this president as a journalist—that it's something that *definitely* matters. So a "theory of the case" on this is vitally important.
10/ 1985 and 2004 are 19 years apart. There's no chance it's coincidence that Epstein effectively says Trump owes him money for a 1985 purchase—then Trump does a squirrelly '04 deal with his sister for *that* property—then they're fighting *that year* over who gets Wexner's home.
11/ Moreover, Epstein had been with young girls—and publicly—for *15+ years* by the time of the auction on the old Wexner home. And you're telling me that just *20 days later* an anonymous person drops a dime on Epstein? When Trump is known to snitch on people? Not a coincidence.
12/ There's no doubt having had to overpay for Wexner's old property would've chafed Trump, particularly if he had to do it to outbid a man he was in an angry "failed business arrangement" with. So a Russian oligarch swoops in and overpays him by...*$55 million*? Not coincidence.
13/ But what does Epstein have to do with anything after the "falling out" in 2004? That's where Epstein insisting to a journalist there was a rapprochement between him and Trump after 2004 comes into play. What did Epstein have had to arrange to get back in Trump's good graces?
14/ So what, besides blackmail, did Epstein have to flash to get back into Trump's trust? Money, obviously—but what deal was he involved with? Rybolovlev? If only there were a "grand bargain" Russia was working on with two governments Epstein was tied to: Israel and Saudi Arabia.
15/ My point is this: Epstein appears to have been a money manager for MBS. MBS offered the Trump campaign illegal pre-election assistance. Epstein ends up advising Trump pre-election. Sources for all this? Epstein himself and the NYT. So could all this explain the rapprochement?
16/ And *all* of this happens in the context of Trump fighting—harder than he's fought *anything* else, and for years, across dozens of lies to American voters—to *hide his tax returns* from citizens, federal investigators, and Congress.
What business deals does he need to hide?
17/ If THE NEW YORK TIMES is right that Trump and Epstein fell out over a "failed business arrangement," and if—per his pattern—Trump saying the nature of that arrangement doesn't matter means that it very much does, might not tax returns help us uncover the Trump-Epstein secret?
18/ Note: 1125 S Ocean Blvd is adjacent to Mar-a-Lago; one could imagine that—if Epstein underwrote (gave Trump the money for, given he needed $30M and would *lose* $50M in 1985)—one/both purchases, he might've felt he had a claim whereas Trump would've seen it all as Mar-a-Lago.
19/ Most already know this, but remember that the home Epstein's rep says Trump met Epstein in on December 23-24, 2017 is in Palm Beach—so Rybolovlev (and Deripaska!) having their private jets in Miami *on those days* means they were "in town" during such a Trump-Epstein meeting.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(1) Trump and Epstein became friends in 1987, not 1990. The New York Times inexplicably cuts 3 years off their 17-plus-year friendship.
(2) Their friendship did *not* end because Epstein was a creep. It ended over a Florida real estate deal. nytimes.com/2025/07/19/us/…
To the credit of the NYT, it does eventually clarify Point #2 in the report.
I do wish it spent more time on the fact that an anonymous person dimed out Epstein after Trump got angry at Epstein over the real estate deal in 2004—and that Trump has a history of diming people out.
That question alone could change everything.
If in fact Trump extended his long history of being a disgusting snitch only when it personally benefits him by reporting Epstein to the police in 2004—or having an agent do it—it would confirm he knew exactly what Epstein was up to.
Everyone in America needs to read this FREE—I’ve gifted it below—report from the conservative WALL STREET JOURNAL about Trump and Epstein.
Apparently the president has now threatened to sue the WSJ over this 100% accurate report due to how damaging it is. wsj.com/politics/trump…
Holy actual literal shit OMG
By the way, the answer to the riddle in the note (in effect, “What do you get for men [Trump and Epstein] who have everything?”) is “You get them something one isn’t *allowed* to have.”
Trump then writes that he and Epstein have the thing they want in common—and it “never ages.”
Can I make the blindingly obvious observation that now that we know Trump and his crew doctored the Epstein video we can't possibly trust that anything else they release will be all they actually have?
Wouldn't you just assume documents are being *burned and shredded* right now?
Like aren't we actually past the point of no return here? The second we learned that they cut out 3 minutes from the Epstein video and tried to pass it off as a legitimate piece of evidence, wasn't that pretty much the end of any Epstein credibility for the whole administration?
You don't have to be a former federal investigator to know that every moment between the release of that fake video and the inevitable future decision by Trump to release "everything" was a moment that Trump goons at DOJ/FBI spent destroying evidence that didn't center Democrats
What would Trump do if this song went viral today?
WARNING: This song goes hard and makes no apologies.
LYRICS:
Gather round and I'll tell you of two Florida men
Who for twenty or so years were the best of friends
One of them ended up mysteriously dead
While the other one sleeps in a White House bed
I have no difficulty saying that Trump and Musk caused some of the 50+ flood deaths in Texas.
And here's why: these two men with no expertise in disaster preparedness were told not to cut the positions they cut, and were told people would die if they did.
And then people died.
Moreover, Democrats are never going to start winning elections again until they're willing to call a thing just what it is.
Texas Democrats should be clear and persistent in saying that public service cuts overseen by non-experts desperate for billionaire tax cuts killed people.
And if Republicans respond by saying that Democrats are politicizing these deaths, the Democrats should respond: THAT'S BECAUSE THE DEATHS ARE POLITICAL. POLITICIANS CAUSED THEM.
1/ If I had to rank by how annoying they are the false narratives I hear folks who don't study these men professionally advancing, the claim that the Feud is fake would easily rank #1.
There's *no evidence whatsoever* substantiating the claim that any part of the Feud is fake.
2/ #2 would be the claim that Trump isn't the most powerful man alive. I've spent more time and words arguing that Trump is beholden to foreign business associates than anyone anywhere—and even I understand that when you control Earth’s most powerful military, it means something.