Hey @CNN: everything about this piece must be changed immediately. You give the impression DOJ has reopened a probe into *Clinton*—when Barr's lackeys confirmed the FBI was *right* to close that case. *This* is a probe into how the *FBI* handled that case. cnn.com/2020/09/24/pol…
PS/ Given that the fraudulent reopening of the Clinton case in October 2016—compelled by illegal extortionate threats by Trump's agents—swung the 2016 election, how dare CNN leave the impression, via image and text, *weeks before the 2020 vote*, that Clinton is under probe again?
PS2/ Here's the first paragraph of Chapter 6 of PROOF OF CORRUPTION. Anyone can readily confirm that John Huber found *nothing* amiss at the Clinton Foundation. If Barr wants to investigate how the FBI handled that case, OK. It has *nothing* to do with Clinton. Shame on you, CNN.
PS3/ Look at the headline: "Prosecutor tapped by Barr to investigate Russia probe is now looking into Clinton Foundation." CNN and the NYT just ran a political commercial for Trump that'll amp up his voters, as now they *wrongly* think the Clinton Foundation is under probe again.
PS4/ Instead of just reporting the news—"Barr Asks Durham to Compare Clinton and Trump Probes for Signs of Bias, Despite Prior Finding By DOJ IG Horowitz That No Such Bias Existed"—@CNN and @nytimes have falsely implied there are new facts to probe in the Clinton Foundation case.
PS5/ If you doubt what a solid CNN/the NYT just did for Trump *when they should be reporting on the Trump coup plot*, imagine the political impact it would've had if Barr had announced "We're investigating Clinton!" But he wouldn't have dared. CNN/the NYT just gave that to Trump.
PS6/ I'm so angry right now. John Huber—*under Barr*—*cleared* the Clinton Foundation. Want to know the first time Huber's name appears in the @nytimes article on Barr having Durham probe *FBI* actions in that case? *The second-to-last paragraph*. This is *terrible* journalism.
PS7/ Now "Clinton Foundation" is trending, everyone *wrongly* thinks Clinton is under investigation again, it's weeks before the 2020 election, these same errors cost Democrats the 2016 election, #TrumpCoupPlot should be everywhere and isn't, and all because the *NYT screwed up*.
PS8/ Meanwhile, anyone who read Proof of Corruption is—once again—ahead of the news, as readers of the Proof series *know* John Huber looked at the Clinton Foundation for years and found *nothing*. Want to know who wants this topic back in the news? You guessed it: the Kremlin.
PS9/ The Kremlin spent years spreading conspiracy theories about the Clinton Foundation, but after Sessions and Barr lackey Huber found *nothing*, the Kremlin thought that gambit was over. But NYT, CNN, and others just did Putin a solid by falsely reporting the issue an open one.
PS10/ All this on a day when the *only* news focused on should have been that Trump is plotting a coup of our government if he loses the election. Instead, we get "trending" what is effectively a Trump-Kremlin infomercial for Trump's re-election. Again: I am *so* angry right now.
• • •
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.