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
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.”