In the past I and others have argued that Trump pushing unilaterally for an end to sanctions on Russia is a public effort to set a quid pro quo with Putin, with the expectation of illegal election aid. That's how you should read Trump's call yesterday for Russia to rejoin the G7.
Some apparently don't understand that when a nation commits a war crime and is punished for doing so, and then the leader of one of the nations that pushed for sanctions unilaterally says "nevermind," it means they feel they're getting something back. Sanctions drops aren't free.
It's outrageous that media didn't call Trump's unilateral push to end a key piece of the sanctions regime against Russia a public attempt to curry favor with a nation he well knows is about to help him win a presidential election. The time for us acting dumb on this is long over.
Just because Trump is willing to lie repeatedly about why Russia was dumped from the G7 does not mean that American media is relieved of its responsibility for asking Trump what America is getting back in exchange for dropping a piece of the sanctions it rightfully put on Russia.
The answer to "what *America* gets back if it unilaterally drops a piece of its sanctions on Russia by advocating for Putin's return to the G7" is *nothing*. Absolutely *nothing*. The answer to what *Trump* would be getting is "illegal election aid in 2020." We need to *wake up*.
The perversion of the 2020 election is happening *right now*. Trump has deliberately taken *no steps* to protect America's electoral infrastructure from Russia, even as he is being told Russia is still cyber-attacking us and even as he is *advocating for Russia to rejoin the G7*.
So the answer to the question, "Why does Trump keep telling lies about the basis for Russia being tossed from the G7?" is that if he tells the truth he'll be asked a question he can't answer: "Why, then, should we drop any sanctions on Russia? What do *we* get?"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(🚨) MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: Trump Personal Lawyers Bondi, Blanche, and Patel Hid From American Voters a *Minimum* of *95%* of All References to Donald Trump in the Epstein Files (950,000 of 1M+), Establishing the Largest Political Coverup in American History axios.com/2026/02/10/tru…
As a Trump biographer/presidential hisrorian who has written a book on Trump and Epstein establishing that the two operated distinct but mutually beneficial—sometimes interconnected—trafficking operations, I took guff for estimating Trump would appear in the Files 50,000+ times.
Critics said there was no way that was possible. So I want to do here what I know those critics won't and apologize. I low-balled how entwined Trump was with Epstein to a degree that is almost numerically difficult to express. They were even more joined at the hip than I thought.
Imagine being a 42 year-old pleading with a known pedophilic sex criminal to fly you to his island so you can party with girls he assures you will be 25 or younger.
Then imagine lying about it to hundreds of millions. Even after your lies are caught.
You don't hate Elon enough.
Instead of saying—as honor demands—"I made horrible mistakes for which there's no excuse, I'll take time away from public life to reflect on them," he's kept lying, attacked media, tried to distract, and obscenely said he worked harder than Epstein's victims to get the Files out.
Now imagine that this happens during the same 12-month period this man gleefully—without having any idea what he was doing, or even *caring* if he had any idea—cut a massive foreign aid program whose erasure is projected to cause *more than 10 million deaths* in the years ahead.
This major report on the Greg Bovino-to-Tom Homan handover in Minneapolis at once reveals that the Trump regime hasn’t changed its plans for ICE *and* serves as a primer on the many aspects of the criminal justice system Homan lied about today.
It can't be sufficiently emphasized that the Trump regime has at all points lied about every aspect of its immigration agenda, every aspect of how immigration enforcement works and every aspect of the justice system that touches upon immigration enforcement.
It's all a long con.
No one is saying that every American must understand the justice system.
That would be ideal, but it's impractical.
The problem is that our justice system lies at the center of our politics—which means ignorance about how it works is ripe for abuse by an authoritarian regime.
I shouldn't even have to say this, but precisely *no one* in the independent journalism sphere is saying that Trump can *legally* cancel the midterms.
So corporate media should put on its thinking cap and ask themselves what independent journalists *are* saying.
Yes.... *that*.
It's Month 1 of a 10-month plan and they're already illegally invading countries, illegally occupying U.S. cities, posting Nazi memes from government accounts almost daily, and publicly saying there should be no elections anymore. You think their plan is to do *anything* legally?
So I've no idea why corporate media keeps sanctimoniously reminding us of something we already know—that Trump can't *legally* cancel elections. Because that's not where the debate or mystery is now. The question is whether he thinks he can wait until 2028 to declare martial law.
The question media should be asking: if Minneapolis only needs 600 police officers to perform all general law enforcement activities in the city, why did Trump send 3,000 federal agents to execute a statutorily and constitutionally *much* smaller task?
Answer? He wanted a *war*.
Based on the size of the task and authority ICE actually has—merely executing judicial warrants for already-identified undocumented persons—we'd expect an ICE "surge" in Minneapolis to be about 100 agents.
Trump sent *30 times that*.
Because he wants to declare an insurrection.
So if you're an American paying only small attention to Minneapolis and wondering why things are crazy there, imagine *your* town being the target of an *unprecedented* federal op.
Big deal, right?
Now imagine the feds sending *30 times* too many men—most *virtually untrained*.
(🧵) THREAD: There’s no purpose in debating Trump supporters on Venezuela. They lack the background to participate in a coherent conversation. Do they know Trump is backing a socialist despot over a capitalist who won the 2024 election by 34 points? No.
It gets worse from there.
1/ People without principles, like MAGAs, desperately alight on random anecdotes to try to “prove” points—as they don’t know how to *actually* prove a point, make an argument, hold a consistent position, marshal evidence, or maintain logical throughlines across diverse scenarios.
2/ So for instance, they’ll tell you that the justness of what Trump did is “proven” by how some Venezuelans reacted to it. But these are the same folks whose political ideology has long been grounded in denying international law and the sovereignty or interests of other nations.