Trump didn’t just scold Greene — he warned her that exposing Epstein files would “hurt people he knows.” That’s not about justice — it’s a transparent defense of power, reputation, and protecting elites. When transparency threatens the powerful, they don’t deny truth — they try to bury it. #AccountabilityMatters
i also find it an interesting choice of hers to give the nytimes the interview. i think she knows that is the “newspaper” that trump respects the most. it felt intentional.
Steph, I think you’re right...and it feels deliberate.
Greene didn’t take this to a friendly outlet or a conservative echo chamber. She chose The New York Times...which Trump may attack publicly but still treats as the paper that confers legitimacy. He reacts to it. He cares what it records.
Putting this story there makes it harder to dismiss as noise. It forces it into the historical record Trump actually respects...not just the media ecosystem he performs for.
If this were just about venting...she had easier options. Choosing the Times signals she wanted the claim to land...not just circulate.
Drumpf is not worried about hurting people he knows ...He's projecting to the damage that this will do to him .... he won't be able to control the conversation. This could possibly be a tipping point. If he looses control he will really explode in ways we have not seen
When Trump talks about “hurting people he knows,” he’s almost certainly projecting. The real threat isn’t their pain...it’s his loss of control. Control of the narrative...control of loyalty...control of what can and can’t be said.
That’s the consistent through-line with him. He can survive scandal. He can survive exposure. What he cannot tolerate...is not being the one steering the conversation.
If the Epstein material escapes his ability to frame...delay...or redirect it...that’s when things get dangerous ...not legally at first...but psychologically. Loss of narrative control...is where his behavior historically destabilizes.
And...yes, that’s why this could be a tipping point. When control slips...restraint goes with it.
When I read that line, and the fact that trump was shouting so loud others in her office could hear him, I knew what he was really afraid of - losing access to people with the power to change the course of history.
I read a short news item that said Jamie Dimon has lawyered up. A guy like him does not lawyer up unless he's very afraid. I hope every one of them wakes up in a cold sweat multiple times a night wondering when the evil they've done will come to light.
I keep thinking about John Gotti: he was the Teflon Don, beat how many indictments, acted with impunity, killed and ordered people to be killed because they wounded his ego, and just assumed it would always be so...until Sammy Gravano decided to sell him out. Perhaps right now someone is deciding to "make a deal" and bring the whole thing crashing down. It'd be a hellava start to the new year.
Stephanie...that read makes sense...and it cuts closer to the core fear than “protecting friends” ever did.
What Trump was reacting to wasn’t just exposure...it was loss of access.
Access to people who matter. People with leverage. People whose quiet cooperation lets history bend instead of snap. When that access goes...he’s no longer a broker of outcomes...he’s just another loud man...yelling from the outside.
And...you’re right about the lawyered-up signal. Someone like Jamie Dimon doesn’t do that casually. People at that level don’t panic over headlines...they panic over process: subpoenas...timelines...discovery...who might talk first. That kind of fear is anticipatory... not reactive.
The Gotti parallel is apt for one reason in particular...the illusion of permanence.
Power like that...always convinces itself it’s untouchable...until someone inside decides self-preservation beats loyalty. It’s never the noise that brings the structure down. It’s ONE quiet defection.
Whether that’s happening now...no one knows. But moments like this...raised voices...warnings overheard...sudden lawyering up...are exactly what you see before cracks become visible...and the shit is hitting the fan.
And...yes...if something like that were to break...it wouldn’t be the end of a story.
It would be the beginning....of a very DIFFERENT one.
Exactly, Nancy...because if his friends are exposed...he is exposed by association...by proximity...by judgment.
Trump’s power has always depended on a closed loop: loyalty...silence...and the ability to control what stays peripheral. Once people around him start becoming liabilities instead of shields...the whole structure destabilizes.
That’s why this isn’t really about protecting “friends.” It’s about preventing the kind of exposure...that collapses plausible deniability all at once. If that happens...the story stops being containable...and that’s when everything unravels...fast!
In his own mind, Coco? Yes...Trump absolutely sees himself in that role. Not the disciplined Godfather...but the myth of one: the boss whose power comes from fear...favors...and silence...rather than institutions or law.
He believes warnings...loyalty tests...and implied consequences still work the way they once did.
What’s different...and what he may not have fully adjusted to...is that the fear is no longer universal.
And yes… the fact that Greene is willing to cross him publicly...and do it in a venue he takes seriously...tells you something has shifted. Whether you call it courage...calculation...or self-preservation...it’s a sign that the old intimidation model isn’t holding the way it used to.
When people stop acting afraid...the “Godfather” illusion starts to crack. The cracks are widening.
Here’s the clean...short version...focused on MOVES...not drama.
Trump: if control is slipping...he floods the zone. Expect distractions...loyalty tests...and attacks on messengers rather than evidence. Chaos is how he recenters himself.
Greene: if she’s serious...she keeps speaking...but carefully, in legacy venues and formal settings. If she goes quiet...pressure worked.
Congress: the only move that matters is forcing timelines and paper trails. Hearings ...without deadlines...are just delay dressed up as accountability.
DOJ (the danger zone): not overt obstruction...but slow-walking...over-redaction...and procedural fog. Everything looks legal. Nothing moves.
What matters: sustained...BORING pressure. Watch who urges “moving on” or “this isn’t the right time.” That’s where the resistance actually is.
Thus, why so many resist resisting...without even realizing it. Boring actions feel very similar to no actions...and are easy to drift away from. Boring, here...is the best friend of democracy. Taking the steps...over, and over...and over again.
JFC.. the psychology behind ALL of this is fucking insane.. and accurate.. corner the MFKR and he’ll be a rabid dog.. how the Fvck do we get rid of this Orange Shitstain Virus??
Morgan, you're damn sure not wrong about the psychology...and here’s the crucial part to keep straight: cornered doesn’t mean defeated...and it definitely doesn’t mean you “flush him out” with force or spectacle.
That’s exactly the terrain where he’s most dangerous.
You don’t get rid of a figure like this by confrontation.
You get rid of him by containment and attrition.
Here’s what actually works:
Starve him of NARRATIVE oxygen. He THRIVES on reaction. BORING process is kryptonite.
Force him into systems he can’t dominate...courts...timelines...documents...sworn testimony. No rallies. No vibes. Just paper.
Let allies peel off quietly. That’s how these things end...not with mobs...but with self-preservation.
Keep pressure institutional...not emotional. Every time it becomes emotional...he regains footing.
The “rabid dog” instinct is real...but the answer isn’t charging it.
It’s closing the exits...and waiting.
These personalities don’t fall because someone beats them.
it feels to me like it’s more dangerous for our country if trump croaked tomorrow and we are stuck with vance- who many may find less benign and harmful but in my mind, is almost more dangerous. just my thoughts! i know nothing!!
Trump is chaotic and obvious...which makes him dangerous but also legible. Institutions know how to brace for him....because he telegraphs EVERYTHING.
Someone like Vance is different...more disciplined...more ideological..more comfortable operating inside systems. That can be more dangerous...long-term...because it triggers fewer alarms and moves more quietly.
The risk shifts from explosive...to corrosive. And history shows the quieter successors... often do more lasting damage...than the chaotic figure who came first.
My question is just who are his friends? Did he use the word friends or just people he knows? Knowing what we know about him, he doesn't really have any friends. And anyone who is naive enough to believe he's a "friend" is too stupid to draw breath. So if he's talking about his inner circle, we know any one of them at any time could find him or herself sucking bus exhaust. So yes, he has everything to hide, and his wording makes us sit up and take notice. Excellent, Jack.
Jan, that distinction you’re making is exactly the right one... because with Trump...language is never casual.
You’re right...he doesn’t really have “friends” in the normal human sense. He has utility relationships...people who are valuable...until they aren’t. So when he uses a word like friends (or even gestures toward it), it’s not emotional. It’s positional.
That’s what makes it revealing.
He’s not talking about people he likes.
He’s talking about people whose exposure would collapse the ecosystem...that keeps him protected; financiers...fixers...intermediaries...people whose power runs parallel to his.
And...you’re also right about the inner circle dynamic: anyone in it knows loyalty only runs ONE way. Which means fear isn’t abstract...it’s CONSTANT. That’s why defection is always the real risk. NOT enemies. Insiders...who decide survival beats silence.
That’s why his wording matters. It’s the kind of slip that makes you sit up...because it points not to sentiment...but to structure.
And once you see the structure...you can’t unsee it.
Appreciate the read...you’re tracking this exactly the way it needs to be tracked!
Could “paying supporters” be substituted or implied by the word “friends”? Of course, it seems that the implication most likely extends beyond the boundaries of our country.
Yes, JP...that’s a very plausible reading...and it’s exactly how someone like Trump uses language.
“Friends” doesn’t have to mean personal relationships. It can just as easily mean people who’ve paid...backed...covered...or facilitated...financially...politically...or otherwise. In his world...money...loyalty...and protection blur together. Support...is friendship.
And you’re right about the boundary issue. When he’s worried about exposure at that level...it almost certainly isn’t confined to domestic politics. Networks like this don’t respect borders...money...influence...and kompromat travel far more easily than laws do.
So when he warns about “friends” getting hurt...the implication isn’t sentimental. It’s structural.
It points to a web of relationships...that extends well beyond him...and possibly well beyond the country; the kind where transparency doesn’t just embarrass people...it DESTABILIZES arrangements that were never meant to be visible in the first place.
That’s why the word lands the way it does. It’s vague on purpose... and that vagueness is doing a LOT of work.
My guess is he has one, and only one, friend. Himself. With the exception of Epstein, he has likely never had a friend. He doesn’t care if others are hurt, he only cares if his one and only remaining friend gets hurt. Himself. Who knows what danger he and his family will be in if he is removed from his current executive position and thus becomes useless to his handlers, to those who have financed him for decades, not out of friendship, not out of respect, solely because he’s a patsy, he’s their patsy, on his best day.
Mary E...I think the core psychological read you’re making is solid...with one important adjustment in how it’s framed.
Trump doesn’t operate with friendships as most people understand them. The only stable attachment is to self-preservation. Everyone else...exists on a sliding scale of USEFULNESS.
When usefulness ends...so does concern. So when he talks about “friends,” it’s almost certainly shorthand for extensions of himself; people...arrangements...and protections that keep him insulated.
Where I’d be careful is not to drift into thinking this is about affection or even loyalty at all.
It isn’t. It’s about utility and exposure. Money...influence...kompromat...mutual silence ...those aren’t friendships...they’re STRUCTURES. And...if those structures fail...the risk isn’t emotional loss...it’s loss of PROTECTION.
That’s why the fear spikes when control weakens. Not because he worries about others getting hurt...but because once he’s no longer useful...he’s no longer PROTECTED...and that’s the terror...for Donald... that sits underneath all of this: becoming irrelevant... exposed...and alone...inside systems...that NEVER cared about him to begin with.
Seen that way...your instinct lands in a psychologically coherent place...stripped of sentiment...stripped of romance...and focused on survival.
Excellent article Jack. I understand what you’re saying but I have just one question. Do you think he thought Marjorie would keep this to herself? Did it cross his mind that she might give an interview or did he even care? Had he lost control at that point and didn’t consider how his words would hit if she made them public? I know, more than one question but then again, not really.
Thank you. That’s a fair question, Susan....and it really is just one.
I don’t think he calculated her reaction at ALL. This doesn’t read like a strategic warning delivered with contingencies in mind. It reads like a moment where emotional control slipped...before narrative control could catch up.
In those moments...Trump tends to ASSUME two things at once:
That loyalty will hold...and
that even if it doesn’t...he can always overpower the fallout later.
That’s usually been true for him...which is why he keeps making the same dumb ass mistake.
So...yes...it’s very possible he didn’t seriously consider that she’d go public...or...didn’t believe it would matter if she did.
That’s what losing control looks like for him: speaking AS IF the old rules still apply...even when they no longer do.
It’s INTERNATIONAL. It’s the most influential, powerful people in the world. I’m just stunned, that knowing how 🍊💩 loves to “ I know something you don’t know “ speak, it hasn’t actually let slip anything of real consequence.
Mo, that reaction makes sense...and the reason he hasn’t slipped something truly consequential is revealing in itself.
Trump loves the “I know something you don’t know” posture...but notice how carefully he keeps it content-free. He hints...he teases...he blusters...but he almost never names, documents...or specifies in ways that can’t be walked back. That’s not discipline. That’s FEAR.
When the stakes are international...and involve people with real power...real money...and real reach...bravado stops being a game. At that level...there are NDAs...mutual exposure... legal tripwires...and consequences that don’t play out on cable news.
Even HE understands that some lines can’t be crossed...without triggering forces he can’t bully or outshout.
So the silence isn’t accidental. It’s containment.
He postures where it’s SAFE...and clamps down where it isn’t.
That contrast is one of the strongest signals we have...about how big this actually is.
Jack, your message is so true, and it is imperative that everyone know and understand. I hope everyone has many ways to share the truth, that everyone will stand up for the truth being exposed and accountability being held, and that steps will be taken immediately to protect innocent people and honest people from threats being made out of fear of exposure and loss of power, no matter who is making the threats.
Making the work of the files come to the bringing of accountability would be a huge and is a needed gift to the world. If people who can make the difference stand up in the ways each and every one of them should and must stand up with proper action, many people will be much safer in this world, and standing up to do exactly what is right is the only thing to do if our government and position and word of any office holder is to mean anything. Our government office holders have it in their hands to do what is right and to expose the truth while insisting on accountability in full without exception. Party affiliations and friendships must not prevail over right versus wrong, over justice versus ignoring of the truth.
Thank you for this, JP...and you’re naming the stakes exactly as they are.
This really is the dividing line: whether truth and accountability still mean something independent of power. If they don’t...then offices become costumes...and law...becomes performance.
If they do...then moments like this matter FAR beyond the people involved.
You’re also right to center protection. Whenever exposure threatens entrenched power... the first reflex is intimidation; against witnesses...against messengers...against anyone perceived as weaker.
That’s why accountability has to be institutional...public...and collective...not heroic or isolated. Safety comes from sunlight PLUS structure.
And the point you make about officeholders is the quiet heart of it...authority only retains legitimacy...if it’s willing to act against its OWN convenience. Party...loyalty...proximity... NONE of those can outrank right versus wrong without hollowing the whole system out.
If people who can act...choose to do so now...deliberately...lawfully...and without exception ...it wouldn’t just resolve one case. It would reassert the idea that truth still has standing.
Trump didn’t just scold Greene — he warned her that exposing Epstein files would “hurt people he knows.” That’s not about justice — it’s a transparent defense of power, reputation, and protecting elites. When transparency threatens the powerful, they don’t deny truth — they try to bury it. #AccountabilityMatters
i also find it an interesting choice of hers to give the nytimes the interview. i think she knows that is the “newspaper” that trump respects the most. it felt intentional.
Steph, I think you’re right...and it feels deliberate.
Greene didn’t take this to a friendly outlet or a conservative echo chamber. She chose The New York Times...which Trump may attack publicly but still treats as the paper that confers legitimacy. He reacts to it. He cares what it records.
Putting this story there makes it harder to dismiss as noise. It forces it into the historical record Trump actually respects...not just the media ecosystem he performs for.
If this were just about venting...she had easier options. Choosing the Times signals she wanted the claim to land...not just circulate.
-Jack
Drumpf is not worried about hurting people he knows ...He's projecting to the damage that this will do to him .... he won't be able to control the conversation. This could possibly be a tipping point. If he looses control he will really explode in ways we have not seen
Yes, Teri...and this is an important refinement.
When Trump talks about “hurting people he knows,” he’s almost certainly projecting. The real threat isn’t their pain...it’s his loss of control. Control of the narrative...control of loyalty...control of what can and can’t be said.
That’s the consistent through-line with him. He can survive scandal. He can survive exposure. What he cannot tolerate...is not being the one steering the conversation.
If the Epstein material escapes his ability to frame...delay...or redirect it...that’s when things get dangerous ...not legally at first...but psychologically. Loss of narrative control...is where his behavior historically destabilizes.
And...yes, that’s why this could be a tipping point. When control slips...restraint goes with it.
-Jack
When I read that line, and the fact that trump was shouting so loud others in her office could hear him, I knew what he was really afraid of - losing access to people with the power to change the course of history.
I read a short news item that said Jamie Dimon has lawyered up. A guy like him does not lawyer up unless he's very afraid. I hope every one of them wakes up in a cold sweat multiple times a night wondering when the evil they've done will come to light.
I keep thinking about John Gotti: he was the Teflon Don, beat how many indictments, acted with impunity, killed and ordered people to be killed because they wounded his ego, and just assumed it would always be so...until Sammy Gravano decided to sell him out. Perhaps right now someone is deciding to "make a deal" and bring the whole thing crashing down. It'd be a hellava start to the new year.
Stephanie...that read makes sense...and it cuts closer to the core fear than “protecting friends” ever did.
What Trump was reacting to wasn’t just exposure...it was loss of access.
Access to people who matter. People with leverage. People whose quiet cooperation lets history bend instead of snap. When that access goes...he’s no longer a broker of outcomes...he’s just another loud man...yelling from the outside.
And...you’re right about the lawyered-up signal. Someone like Jamie Dimon doesn’t do that casually. People at that level don’t panic over headlines...they panic over process: subpoenas...timelines...discovery...who might talk first. That kind of fear is anticipatory... not reactive.
The Gotti parallel is apt for one reason in particular...the illusion of permanence.
Power like that...always convinces itself it’s untouchable...until someone inside decides self-preservation beats loyalty. It’s never the noise that brings the structure down. It’s ONE quiet defection.
Whether that’s happening now...no one knows. But moments like this...raised voices...warnings overheard...sudden lawyering up...are exactly what you see before cracks become visible...and the shit is hitting the fan.
And...yes...if something like that were to break...it wouldn’t be the end of a story.
It would be the beginning....of a very DIFFERENT one.
-Jack
If his friends are exposed, he’s a goner.
Exactly, Nancy...because if his friends are exposed...he is exposed by association...by proximity...by judgment.
Trump’s power has always depended on a closed loop: loyalty...silence...and the ability to control what stays peripheral. Once people around him start becoming liabilities instead of shields...the whole structure destabilizes.
That’s why this isn’t really about protecting “friends.” It’s about preventing the kind of exposure...that collapses plausible deniability all at once. If that happens...the story stops being containable...and that’s when everything unravels...fast!
-Jack
Does Donold really think he is The Godfather?
And worse...Marge has balls?
In his own mind, Coco? Yes...Trump absolutely sees himself in that role. Not the disciplined Godfather...but the myth of one: the boss whose power comes from fear...favors...and silence...rather than institutions or law.
He believes warnings...loyalty tests...and implied consequences still work the way they once did.
What’s different...and what he may not have fully adjusted to...is that the fear is no longer universal.
And yes… the fact that Greene is willing to cross him publicly...and do it in a venue he takes seriously...tells you something has shifted. Whether you call it courage...calculation...or self-preservation...it’s a sign that the old intimidation model isn’t holding the way it used to.
When people stop acting afraid...the “Godfather” illusion starts to crack. The cracks are widening.
-Jack
Suggest next steps. Who does what to whom? What do we do? What does Congress do? More dangerously, what does the frump doj cabal do?
Barry...glad you asked.
Here’s the clean...short version...focused on MOVES...not drama.
Trump: if control is slipping...he floods the zone. Expect distractions...loyalty tests...and attacks on messengers rather than evidence. Chaos is how he recenters himself.
Greene: if she’s serious...she keeps speaking...but carefully, in legacy venues and formal settings. If she goes quiet...pressure worked.
Congress: the only move that matters is forcing timelines and paper trails. Hearings ...without deadlines...are just delay dressed up as accountability.
DOJ (the danger zone): not overt obstruction...but slow-walking...over-redaction...and procedural fog. Everything looks legal. Nothing moves.
What matters: sustained...BORING pressure. Watch who urges “moving on” or “this isn’t the right time.” That’s where the resistance actually is.
Thus, why so many resist resisting...without even realizing it. Boring actions feel very similar to no actions...and are easy to drift away from. Boring, here...is the best friend of democracy. Taking the steps...over, and over...and over again.
-Jack
in case anyone missed it-
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/magazine/marjorie-taylor-greene-trump-maga-split.html?unlocked_article_code=1.AlA.0Iv1.vFhhxxHeXgKe&smid=nytcore-ios-share
JFC.. the psychology behind ALL of this is fucking insane.. and accurate.. corner the MFKR and he’ll be a rabid dog.. how the Fvck do we get rid of this Orange Shitstain Virus??
Morgan, you're damn sure not wrong about the psychology...and here’s the crucial part to keep straight: cornered doesn’t mean defeated...and it definitely doesn’t mean you “flush him out” with force or spectacle.
That’s exactly the terrain where he’s most dangerous.
You don’t get rid of a figure like this by confrontation.
You get rid of him by containment and attrition.
Here’s what actually works:
Starve him of NARRATIVE oxygen. He THRIVES on reaction. BORING process is kryptonite.
Force him into systems he can’t dominate...courts...timelines...documents...sworn testimony. No rallies. No vibes. Just paper.
Let allies peel off quietly. That’s how these things end...not with mobs...but with self-preservation.
Keep pressure institutional...not emotional. Every time it becomes emotional...he regains footing.
The “rabid dog” instinct is real...but the answer isn’t charging it.
It’s closing the exits...and waiting.
These personalities don’t fall because someone beats them.
They fall...because no one protects them anymore.
That’s the only ending that actually sticks.
-Jack
it feels to me like it’s more dangerous for our country if trump croaked tomorrow and we are stuck with vance- who many may find less benign and harmful but in my mind, is almost more dangerous. just my thoughts! i know nothing!!
That instinct isn’t crazy at all, Steph.
Trump is chaotic and obvious...which makes him dangerous but also legible. Institutions know how to brace for him....because he telegraphs EVERYTHING.
Someone like Vance is different...more disciplined...more ideological..more comfortable operating inside systems. That can be more dangerous...long-term...because it triggers fewer alarms and moves more quietly.
The risk shifts from explosive...to corrosive. And history shows the quieter successors... often do more lasting damage...than the chaotic figure who came first.
-Jack
My question is just who are his friends? Did he use the word friends or just people he knows? Knowing what we know about him, he doesn't really have any friends. And anyone who is naive enough to believe he's a "friend" is too stupid to draw breath. So if he's talking about his inner circle, we know any one of them at any time could find him or herself sucking bus exhaust. So yes, he has everything to hide, and his wording makes us sit up and take notice. Excellent, Jack.
Jan, that distinction you’re making is exactly the right one... because with Trump...language is never casual.
You’re right...he doesn’t really have “friends” in the normal human sense. He has utility relationships...people who are valuable...until they aren’t. So when he uses a word like friends (or even gestures toward it), it’s not emotional. It’s positional.
That’s what makes it revealing.
He’s not talking about people he likes.
He’s talking about people whose exposure would collapse the ecosystem...that keeps him protected; financiers...fixers...intermediaries...people whose power runs parallel to his.
And...you’re also right about the inner circle dynamic: anyone in it knows loyalty only runs ONE way. Which means fear isn’t abstract...it’s CONSTANT. That’s why defection is always the real risk. NOT enemies. Insiders...who decide survival beats silence.
That’s why his wording matters. It’s the kind of slip that makes you sit up...because it points not to sentiment...but to structure.
And once you see the structure...you can’t unsee it.
Appreciate the read...you’re tracking this exactly the way it needs to be tracked!
-Jack
Could “paying supporters” be substituted or implied by the word “friends”? Of course, it seems that the implication most likely extends beyond the boundaries of our country.
#HOLDFAST
Yes, JP...that’s a very plausible reading...and it’s exactly how someone like Trump uses language.
“Friends” doesn’t have to mean personal relationships. It can just as easily mean people who’ve paid...backed...covered...or facilitated...financially...politically...or otherwise. In his world...money...loyalty...and protection blur together. Support...is friendship.
And you’re right about the boundary issue. When he’s worried about exposure at that level...it almost certainly isn’t confined to domestic politics. Networks like this don’t respect borders...money...influence...and kompromat travel far more easily than laws do.
So when he warns about “friends” getting hurt...the implication isn’t sentimental. It’s structural.
It points to a web of relationships...that extends well beyond him...and possibly well beyond the country; the kind where transparency doesn’t just embarrass people...it DESTABILIZES arrangements that were never meant to be visible in the first place.
That’s why the word lands the way it does. It’s vague on purpose... and that vagueness is doing a LOT of work.
-Jack
I’ve read both. 🤷🏼♀️
Yeah, me too.
My guess is he has one, and only one, friend. Himself. With the exception of Epstein, he has likely never had a friend. He doesn’t care if others are hurt, he only cares if his one and only remaining friend gets hurt. Himself. Who knows what danger he and his family will be in if he is removed from his current executive position and thus becomes useless to his handlers, to those who have financed him for decades, not out of friendship, not out of respect, solely because he’s a patsy, he’s their patsy, on his best day.
Mary E...I think the core psychological read you’re making is solid...with one important adjustment in how it’s framed.
Trump doesn’t operate with friendships as most people understand them. The only stable attachment is to self-preservation. Everyone else...exists on a sliding scale of USEFULNESS.
When usefulness ends...so does concern. So when he talks about “friends,” it’s almost certainly shorthand for extensions of himself; people...arrangements...and protections that keep him insulated.
Where I’d be careful is not to drift into thinking this is about affection or even loyalty at all.
It isn’t. It’s about utility and exposure. Money...influence...kompromat...mutual silence ...those aren’t friendships...they’re STRUCTURES. And...if those structures fail...the risk isn’t emotional loss...it’s loss of PROTECTION.
That’s why the fear spikes when control weakens. Not because he worries about others getting hurt...but because once he’s no longer useful...he’s no longer PROTECTED...and that’s the terror...for Donald... that sits underneath all of this: becoming irrelevant... exposed...and alone...inside systems...that NEVER cared about him to begin with.
Seen that way...your instinct lands in a psychologically coherent place...stripped of sentiment...stripped of romance...and focused on survival.
-Jack
Mary E., your thoughts make so much sense. Thanks for sharing.
#HOLDFAST
Thank you, JPforM.
You’re welcome, Mary E.
Excellent article Jack. I understand what you’re saying but I have just one question. Do you think he thought Marjorie would keep this to herself? Did it cross his mind that she might give an interview or did he even care? Had he lost control at that point and didn’t consider how his words would hit if she made them public? I know, more than one question but then again, not really.
Thanks Jack!
#HOLDFAST
~Susan
Thank you. That’s a fair question, Susan....and it really is just one.
I don’t think he calculated her reaction at ALL. This doesn’t read like a strategic warning delivered with contingencies in mind. It reads like a moment where emotional control slipped...before narrative control could catch up.
In those moments...Trump tends to ASSUME two things at once:
That loyalty will hold...and
that even if it doesn’t...he can always overpower the fallout later.
That’s usually been true for him...which is why he keeps making the same dumb ass mistake.
So...yes...it’s very possible he didn’t seriously consider that she’d go public...or...didn’t believe it would matter if she did.
That’s what losing control looks like for him: speaking AS IF the old rules still apply...even when they no longer do.
And that’s why this moment...feels different.
-Jack
It’s INTERNATIONAL. It’s the most influential, powerful people in the world. I’m just stunned, that knowing how 🍊💩 loves to “ I know something you don’t know “ speak, it hasn’t actually let slip anything of real consequence.
Mo, that reaction makes sense...and the reason he hasn’t slipped something truly consequential is revealing in itself.
Trump loves the “I know something you don’t know” posture...but notice how carefully he keeps it content-free. He hints...he teases...he blusters...but he almost never names, documents...or specifies in ways that can’t be walked back. That’s not discipline. That’s FEAR.
When the stakes are international...and involve people with real power...real money...and real reach...bravado stops being a game. At that level...there are NDAs...mutual exposure... legal tripwires...and consequences that don’t play out on cable news.
Even HE understands that some lines can’t be crossed...without triggering forces he can’t bully or outshout.
So the silence isn’t accidental. It’s containment.
He postures where it’s SAFE...and clamps down where it isn’t.
That contrast is one of the strongest signals we have...about how big this actually is.
-Jack
PERFECT explanation Jack. It’s not going to survive otherwise!
Jack, your message is so true, and it is imperative that everyone know and understand. I hope everyone has many ways to share the truth, that everyone will stand up for the truth being exposed and accountability being held, and that steps will be taken immediately to protect innocent people and honest people from threats being made out of fear of exposure and loss of power, no matter who is making the threats.
Making the work of the files come to the bringing of accountability would be a huge and is a needed gift to the world. If people who can make the difference stand up in the ways each and every one of them should and must stand up with proper action, many people will be much safer in this world, and standing up to do exactly what is right is the only thing to do if our government and position and word of any office holder is to mean anything. Our government office holders have it in their hands to do what is right and to expose the truth while insisting on accountability in full without exception. Party affiliations and friendships must not prevail over right versus wrong, over justice versus ignoring of the truth.
#HOLDFAST
Thank you for this, JP...and you’re naming the stakes exactly as they are.
This really is the dividing line: whether truth and accountability still mean something independent of power. If they don’t...then offices become costumes...and law...becomes performance.
If they do...then moments like this matter FAR beyond the people involved.
You’re also right to center protection. Whenever exposure threatens entrenched power... the first reflex is intimidation; against witnesses...against messengers...against anyone perceived as weaker.
That’s why accountability has to be institutional...public...and collective...not heroic or isolated. Safety comes from sunlight PLUS structure.
And the point you make about officeholders is the quiet heart of it...authority only retains legitimacy...if it’s willing to act against its OWN convenience. Party...loyalty...proximity... NONE of those can outrank right versus wrong without hollowing the whole system out.
If people who can act...choose to do so now...deliberately...lawfully...and without exception ...it wouldn’t just resolve one case. It would reassert the idea that truth still has standing.
THAT...really would be a gift.
-Jack