1) 40% of Republicans are open to a primary candidate besides Trump.
2) This fall's chief DC topic will be impeachment; Trump will likely be impeached. Whether there'll be a Senate trial is unclear.
3) By December, the GOP field could be:
Kasich
Sanford
Trump
Walsh
Weld
NOTE/ I'm not saying Trump won't be the GOP nominee. I'm saying an impeached Trump in the midst of a Senate trial that airs his crimes is a *damaged* Trump. There may well be a number of Republicans who make the case that the GOP can't afford the risk of a post-impeachment Trump.
NOTE2/ Mitch McConnell refusing to hold a Senate trial after Trump is impeached by the House is, to be clear, *illegal*. Moreover, the moment impeachment occurs Chief Justice John Roberts is the judge in the case; the House might well be able to successfully petition for a trial.
NOTE3/ Right now 40% of Republicans are open to a new primary candidate. Imagine the optics if impeachment and a Senate trial push that over 50% due to anxiety over whether Trump can win. The moment a *majority* of Republicans are open to a new candidate, many things will change.
NOTE4/ A vulnerable, post-impeachment Trump could widen the GOP field even more than we expect, perhaps even forcing televised debates; at any such event, GOP voters would *finally* see how easy it'll be to demolish Trump over his disloyalty to the country and gross incompetence.
NOTE5/ I've no doubt that Trump would refuse to debate, as he's fundamentally a grotesque coward; *and* I've no doubt Ronna Romney McDaniel and the RNC would refuse to in *any* way make room for primary challengers, as the RNC is enabling a criminal and has been for 3+ years now.
NOTE6/ But there's a question about what CNN/MSNBC would do if they saw the following field of high-profile Republicans attempting to challenge Trump and wanting a televised debate (even one Trump wouldn't attend):
NOTE7/ All this is hypothetical. The names in the prior tweet have all publicly proven themselves to be cowards in the face of Trump's autocratic nightmare. The question is whether impeachment, a trial and cable's willingness to televise debates without Trump could change things.
NOTE8/ But here's another way to look at it: the more candidates who join the GOP primary, the more likely it is that new candidates join because it begins to seem like a real primary, with a chance that donors open their purses and that cable news gives coverage to challengers.
NOTE9/ Now add another wrinkle: increasing signs of a coming recession. I think we underestimate how vulnerable Trump may come to seem to many viable Republican presidential candidates in the 120 days to come. But it's media that determines whether this story ever really emerges.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.”
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.