Thread by @SethAbramson

*Any* so-called "feud" between Trump and his longtime friend Thomas Barrack is ultimately about insulating Trump from what's going to happen to Barrack.

*Period*.

There's no feud otherwise. This is damage control. In 2016 and before, Trump and Barrack couldn't have been closer.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1163586456536965120

1/ When you read the piece, you learn that claims of a "feud" are coming *from the White House*. When Barrack's team was asked, they denied there'd been *any* change in the relationship. What I'd like to know is what actual story Politico traded this favor to the White House for.

2/ The piece is sourced to an anonymous "senior administration official"; Politico then does the solid of writing "the White House declined to comment"—giving the impression it had *no idea* its own team was claiming Trump and his self-described best friend had had a falling out.

3/ That the "senior administration official" has access to information about Trump's private communication habits, which are so guarded even some senior staff don't know who he's talking to with his unregulated third phone, confirms the White House was the original source, here.

4/ Moreover, if you've done a deep dive on who Trump communicates with (and when and how and with what safeguards against anyone finding out, research I had to do for Proof of Conspiracy), you know the only person who could confirm/deny any (non-speaking) "feud" is Trump himself.

5/ I'm trying to imagine the gall it'd take for a senior administration official to speak *out of turn* about one of the president's two closest friendships (the other being with Howard Lorber) and the truth is I can't imagine it. DC will assume Trump approved this [cover] story.

6/ Remember when Don Jr. lied to Congress re: knowing if his dad calls him from a blocked number, to avoid disclosing who he spoke to while negotiating the June '16 Trump-Russia meeting? Then we found he was speaking to [someone at the number of] Trump's best friend Lorber? I do.

7/ The lengths the Trumps go to to hide who they've spoken to includes criminal conduct. The lengths Trump goes to to maintain an unregulated extra phone are unprecedented. Politico shouldn't run any story on Trump's private calling habits unless it has Trump on the record, too.

8/ Tom Barrack (and Roger Stone) have long been two of Trump's most common private-adviser phone calls, and both were top advisers during the presidential election and in 2017. And Barrack says "nothing has changed." So the real story here is Trump's fear Barrack will be charged.

9/ One of the things readers of Proof of Conspiracy will learn is how *closely* Trump monitored the inaugural committee. The claim he didn't know where the money was going is false. Even the Wolkoff money secretly went in the direction of a man whose silence Trump wanted to buy.

10/ I mean, how do you write a story saying "current and former White House officials say" (as to a "feud") and then say, "the White House refused to comment"? It's outrageous. Frame it as "news" the White House wants out but that one of the two chief figures in the story denies.