(UPDATE) WASHINGTON POST and MOTHER JONES articles confirm that Trump Jr. had *two* encounters with the Butina/Torshin team at the 2016 NRA conference in Louisville.
(UPDATE2) On May 19, 2016, Butina was a "last-minute" addition as a speaker at an offsite dinner, the Heroes for Freedom and Liberty Dinner—cocktails at 5PM, dinner at 7PM. She spoke for only 5 minutes—which is odd.
(UPDATE3) The reason that Maria Butina appearing for only 5 minutes at the May 19, 2016 offsite dinner is so odd is that it was this *very dinner* that Alexander Torshin had invited Donald Trump Sr. to (via two separate communications) two weeks earlier. nytimes.com/2017/11/17/us/…
(UPDATE4) Flight data for Trump Sr.'s plane, obtained via FOIA, confirms that Trump Sr. didn't arrive in Louisville until Friday, May 20, 2016, the day after his son dined with Torshin *onsite* (at the conference), i.e. Thursday, May 19. That same night, Butina spoke *offsite*.
(UPDATE5)
1) Butina didn't meet Jr. when Torshin did (onsite, May 19). 2) Torshin invited Jr. to an offsite event on May 19. 3) Butina appeared instead as a "last-minute" add. 4) The event began at 5. 5) Butina told Byrne she brought Jr. to a second site at 2PM the day they met.
(UPDATE6) There are many ways this could have played out, and one *is* that Butina met Jr. separately from Torshin, but only briefly.
But the timeline is also consistent with Butina bringing Jr. to an offsite location the afternoon of his *onsite* dinner meeting with Torshin.
(UPDATE7) So why, when they were mentor/mentee, would Torshin/Butina have met Jr. at different times and/or locations? Why not at the same time/location? Our assumption would be "same"; Butina told Byrne "different" and indeed events confirm Butina and Torshin split up on May 19.
(UPDATE8) So Byrne's story accords with the facts in a way that seems prescient and isn't what one would've assumed were one spitballing. Butina told Byrne she met Jr. offsite—and lo and behold, she went offsite "last-minute" and indeed did *not* meet Jr. when Torshin did onsite.
(UPDATE9) So Torshin invited the Trump campaign to send someone to meet him at a dinner he (Torshin) ultimately *skipped*. Instead, Torshin changed his plans and went to the dinner Jr. was at. How did he know to do that? Butina meeting Jr. that afternoon at 2PM would explain it.
(UPDATE10) It'd also explain Butina being a "last-minute" add to a dinner *she and Torshin had been planning to go to for weeks*. Once she got Jr. offsite at 2PM she wasn't sure—post-meet—which of the dinners she'd go to. Torshin sent her to the original one—as he met Jr. onsite.
(UPDATE11) I want to make sure everyone follows:
1/ Putin tells Torshin to meet Trump in Louisville. 2/ Torshin invites Trump to a specific dinner—twice. 3/ Torshin says he'll give Trump a gift for Melania at the dinner. 4/ Torshin skips the dinner. 5/ But ends up where Jr. is.
(UPDATE12)
6/ Butina tells Byrne she met Jr. in Louisville. 7/ Articles confirm. 8/ Torshin/Jr. say Butina wasn't at their meetup. 9/ Articles confirm a second (Butina-Jr.) meetup. 10/ Butina says she met Jr. offsite. 11/ Butina was offsite. 12/ But oddly unsure of her schedule.
(UPDATE13) Nearly every Trump-Russia suspect has had a lawyer lie for them. Butina's lawyer now says "no second meeting"—which if true (but it *isn't*), would mean either Butina was at the Torshin-Jr. meeting (and they lied) or she lied about meeting Jr. *and* the news lied, too.
(UPDATE14) When you consider that Butina is a convicted Kremlin agent, Torshin has fled the country, Jr. repeatedly lied to Congress, and Trump-Russia suspects' lawyers have lied front to back, we have to go by the news and things people said when they didn't know it'd be public.
(UPDATE15) *Well before* she knew she was going to get in trouble, Butina told her boyfriend she'd met Jr. offsite. Articles confirm she met Jr. and was offsite.
Torshin, Jr., and Butina's lawyers now say Butina never met Jr. and there was no second meeting.
Oh, who to believe!
(PS) There's nothing about Torshin/Butina in the Mueller Report. Mueller sent the case to another prosecutor—which kept it from being shut down if he was fired—and referred all counterintelligence info (which includes all info he got on Butina/Torshin) to FBI counterintelligence.
(PS2) So if you're wondering, "Why haven't we heard more about May '16?" the answer is that a) it was addressed in another case, b) even in that case, any information about Trump campaign-Russian collusion *not attached to a criminal statute* would've gone to counterintelligence.
(PS3) You'll note I haven't called a secret Butina-Jr. meeting illegal. I've said what would be illegal would be Jr. thereafter lying about a meeting—as he's lied about other items—under circumstances in which lying is a crime. That no one will investigate it doesn't change that.
(PS4) That said, if Jr. did at the meeting what his conduct thereafter almost guarantees he would've done—asked for Russian aid, which is a crime—*then* you'd have a crime (as well as the necessary evidence of "concealment" from authorities that suggests a criminal mens rea).
(PS5) As ever, this feed is a public cri de coeur for Congress to launch a full Trump-Russia investigation and for FBI Counterintelligence to release the report it's still withholding—to a large extent—even from Congress. But there's little here I/we can say we "know" for *sure*.
• • •
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.