*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.
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I recognize that I often say this when I am speaking of extremely deep-dive curatorial research into Trump and two discrete topics—Jeffrey Epstein and January 6—but it is true: what is in this book will shock you even if you believe you cannot be shocked on these topics.
2/ I want to issue a warning to those with sensitivities surrounding the subject of sex crimes and pedophilia. It is almost certain that this epic work will be triggering for you so, do read with caution or decide whether it even makes sense for you to read this at all.
(🧵) Trump and his team are lying to MAGAs about what is going to happen with unhoused persons in DC—a thread.
1/ In case you doubted it, Karoline Leavitt confirmed today that the Trump administration knows nothing about unhoused persons or homelessness.
They don’t know how shelters work. They don’t understand mental health/addiction services intake.
They’re just going to jail everyone.
2/ She promised America unhoused persons would be given a choice: shelter, mental health/addiction services, or jail (apparently on a bogus charge that would lead to a long, unjustified pretrial incarceration at massive expense to taxpayers).
I studied Criminal Law at Harvard Law School under Alan Dershowitz and went on to be a criminal defense attorney.
The post below is one of the most ignorant posts I’ve ever seen about Criminal Justice and I only just now learned this man is faculty at Harvard Law.
How? No idea.
Crime is a key driver of public policy—almost always to the detriment of society—a fact that explains why everything tied to it is supposed to be described and defined in exact (and exacting) terms: e.g. statutes, crime data, Constitutional amendments as interpreted by precedent.
As it happens, I also have a background in Sociology—and even in the allegedly softer of the social sciences (including those, like Sociology, often affiliated with the study of Criminal Justice and the Law) the phrase “pervasive social disorder” would be considered preposterous.
This is the serial child rapist the Dear Leader is about to pardon to save himself.
Any MAGA providing rhetorical cover for Donald Trump as he seeks to cover up years of pimping teens—teens he'd fed booze and drugs—at the Plaza Hotel in the 1990s is as good as a pedo themselves.
Trump had his own teen rape victim procurer. He even turned his sex trafficking ring at the Plaza into a business that thereafter was accused of human rights violations by its workers—who deemed themselves slaves. What Epstein did in FL Trump not only allowed but mirrored in NYC.
All this is based on existing reporting. I've compiled hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of reliable major-media sources on these matters into PROOF OF DEVILRY, which will be published shortly as the seventh book in the NYT-bestselling Proof Series.
(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.”