The Alabama duo—Mo Brooks and Tommy Tuberville—is one I suspect the FBI will want to investigate. At all stages of the insurrection it seems Trump was working with two Alabama Republicans to ensure the insurrection and the opposition to Biden's certification worked hand-in-glove.
(PS) Mo Brooks was the first Republican to say he'd challenge Biden's certification; was at Trump's rally talking about "kicking ass"; was allegedly conspiring with Akbar. His Alabama GOP delegation peer, Tuberville, was Trump's Senate man, contacted by Giuliani mid-insurrection.
(PS2) A lot of people will be asking about conversations that may have occurred between/amongst Trump, Giuliani, Brooks, Biggs, Gosar, Tuberville, and Akbar as to how the insurrection would be timed and how it would dovetail with Brooks'/Tuberville's actions inside the Capitol.
(PS3) We now know both Trump and Giuliani contacted Tuberville as the insurrection was happening to get him to artificially elongate his objections to Biden's win. These exhortations would've had the effect—and appear to have been intended to—give the insurrectionists more time.
(PS4) I say "appear to have been intended to" because we now have numerous major-media reports establishing that Trump was "excited," "pleased," and "enthusiastic" as the insurrection unfolded. This was the same period of time he tried to *elongate* GOP objections to Biden's win.
(PS5) It was also during this period that Trump was rebuffing attempts to call up the Guard. So we know what Trump, his lawyer, and their allies at the Capitol were doing as the insurrection was unfolding—and we know what they weren't doing—and there seems to be a clear pattern.
(PS6) What I'm saying is that we're in the first few days of a federal investigation that may take a year or more, but one early theory of the case is that Trump didn't just incite insurrection—he and his team helped plan it many days in advance, and coordinate it as it unfolded.
(PS7) There's been such focus on Trump's January 6 words that I think there's been a lack of investigative attention to his actions on that date and before. When the Stop the Steal rally was set for January 6 on December 19, Trump knew of it and tweeted about it instantaneously.
(PS8) Why did Trump say the rally would be "wild"? How did he know before his January 6 speech that there was going to be a march on the Capitol, such that he could detail that plan of action in mid-speech? Why were he/Giuliani directing agents at the Capitol in mid-insurrection?
(PS9) Giuliani implies that him using the phrase "trial by combat" was coincidence. Brooks implies the phrase "kicking ass" was coincidence. Trump implies that him directing his people to march on the Capitol was coincidence.
Investigators will see this as too many coincidences.
(PS10) For those who missed it (it was in another thread) here's the organizer of the Stop the Steal rally saying that the march on the Capitol was a scheme coordinated with Trump allies Biggs, Gosar and Brooks—the last of whom was with Trump at the rally.
(PHOTO) For what it's worth, here's a picture of Trump with Ali Alexander (called "Akbar" earlier in this thread because he previously went by the name "Ali Akbar," but it appears he now uses "Alexander," so I will use that going forward).
• • •
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.