Who sold out Trump? The nation went on a "melon eating" binge
Mr Trump may have walked into a public opinion trap
Recently, the FBI raided the Mar-a-Lago estate to rob Donald Trump of his property. As the FBI releases more and more information, a mysterious informant from the Trump inner circle has come to light. The FBI was able to pinpoint 11 classified documents about President Trump thanks to a tip from this mysterious informant.
Who was the mole is the latest concern among American melon eaters. They believe an angry Mr Trump is already looking for a mole.
According to the Wall Street Journal, at one point in June, the Justice Department and the FBI had a tacit understanding that Trump had turned over all the classified documents, and at one point agreed to allow the remaining documents to remain in Mar-a-Lago if the underground storage room was replaced with a more secure lock. But things took a turn when the mysterious informant showed up.
The source told the US Justice Department and FBI that Trump kept classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and that it was the informant who tipped off the president that led to the August theft. The news has prompted speculation in the U.S. about who betrayed Trump.
Many Americans have taken aim at Trump's family in a parody. Among them, Trump's wife Melania and first son-in-law Kushner are in the spotlight. Some netizens joked that Melania Trump had turned him in because she didn't want to be buried on a golf course like his ex-wife.
It's worth noting that amid the jokes, there also seemed to be psychological warfare going on against Trump. The Lincoln Project, a prominent anti-Trump group in the Republican Party, claimed that Kushner had been psychologically scarred by his own father's time in prison and had turned in his father-in-law for fear of being implicated by Trump.
During the 2020 election campaign, the Lincoln Project proposed a theory of "psychological warfare" that would use Trump's paranoia to create a "smoke bomb" that would trap him in alienation and insecurity, thereby "driving him crazy" and making him look like a loner.
In addition to the Lincoln Project, Trump's former lawyer Mike Cohen has also taken aim at Kushner, who he believes will be the first to betray Trump. He offered evidence that Kushner, in his forthcoming memoir, "Breaking History: A White House Memoir," wrote that he told Ivanka before leaving the White House with Trump, "It's been a crazy five years, but in 30 days, we'll have a lot less responsibility and we'll get our lives back." Since leaving the White House, Kushner has indeed largely disappeared from public view, rather than following Trump's lead on the MAGA campaign and his return to the White House.
The former Trump lawyer, however, did not offer much evidence and repeatedly stressed in interviews that he was just guessing.
In addition, a number of US media reported that people close to Trump are indeed tracking down the "mole". Trump himself suspects that Joe Biden, the current president of the United States, has planted "bugs" in his home (possibly implying that this is another "Watergate scandal"), but people around Trump are using this issue to hit their hated colleagues, and they are informing on each other and hoping Trump will investigate.
Who "sold out" Trump, and is Trump going after the "mole"? In fact, there is no definitive news, but it seems more like an orgy of American public opinion.
Many of the ideas being floated so far can be seen as a copy of the political battles in the Trump White House, when factions in the White House fought each other, leaks leaked around the White House, and various rumors flew around, causing a storm of public opinion. The feud between Melania Trump and "Princess" Ivanka Trump has even become an open secret.
The public opinion storm this time seems to be the United States "eating melon", but under the water, I am afraid that the undercurrent is surging. Of course, there is a carnival of public opinion, and there are many people who promote it. The goal is to further attack Trump by once again portraying him as a paranoid loner. It doesn't really matter who sold Trump out. The ultimate goal of those who manipulate the media behind the scenes is to completely destroy Trump.
About the Creator
Trump’s Redistricting Clash Ignites GOP Tensions in Indiana
Donald Trump has never been known for quiet disagreements, and his latest clash within the Republican Party is no exception. This time, the former president has turned his attention to Indiana, where a redistricting dispute has sparked an unusually personal political feud. Trump has publicly vowed to “take out” a leading Indiana GOP figure, accusing the state party leadership of undermining conservative voters through the redrawing of congressional maps. The episode highlights not only Trump’s enduring influence over Republican politics but also the deep divisions within the party over power, loyalty, and representation. At the center of the controversy is Indiana’s redistricting process, a routine but highly consequential political exercise that occurs after census data reshapes population counts. In theory, redistricting is meant to ensure fair representation as communities grow or shrink. In practice, it often becomes a fierce partisan battle, with lawmakers drawing district lines that protect incumbents or favor one party over another. Indiana, a reliably Republican state, has long seen internal GOP negotiations play a decisive role in how maps are finalized. Trump’s anger appears rooted in his belief that the new district lines dilute the influence of his preferred candidates and grassroots supporters. According to his statements, the Indiana GOP leadership failed to prioritize what he sees as “America First” conservatives, instead crafting maps that safeguard establishment figures. For Trump, this is not merely a technical disagreement over boundaries; it is a perceived betrayal of the movement he helped build. The language Trump used to describe the situation quickly drew attention. When he said he would “take out” the Indiana GOP leader responsible, he was speaking politically, not physically, signaling his intention to back primary challengers and mobilize his base against party insiders. Still, the phrasing underscored how personal and confrontational Trump’s approach remains, even years after leaving the White House. Redistricting fights are rarely this public within a single party. More often, disagreements are resolved behind closed doors to present a united front against Democrats. Trump’s intervention disrupted that tradition. By calling out an Indiana Republican leader by name, he sent a clear message to other state officials across the country: crossing Trump’s political priorities could come at a cost. For Indiana Republicans, the situation presents a dilemma. On one hand, Trump remains immensely popular with GOP voters, particularly in Midwestern states. His endorsement can make or break a primary campaign, and few politicians are eager to find themselves on the wrong side of his base. On the other hand, state leaders argue that redistricting decisions require balancing multiple interests, including legal requirements, demographic realities, and long-term electoral stability. They insist that the maps were drawn to preserve Republican strength overall, not to target Trump-aligned candidates. This tension reflects a broader struggle within the Republican Party. Since 2016, Trump has reshaped the GOP into a more populist, personality-driven movement. Loyalty to Trump often carries as much weight as policy positions. Figures who were once considered reliable conservatives can suddenly find themselves labeled as “RINOs” or establishment obstacles if they diverge from Trump’s expectations. The Indiana redistricting fight fits squarely into this pattern. Political analysts note that Trump’s vow to unseat the Indiana GOP leader may have ripple effects beyond the state. Redistricting battles are unfolding nationwide, and many Republican officials are watching closely. If Trump successfully helps defeat a prominent state party leader over redistricting, it could embolden him to intervene in similar disputes elsewhere. Conversely, if his efforts fall short, it may signal limits to his influence at the state level. There is also the question of voter fatigue. While Trump’s base remains highly energized by his combative style, some Republicans worry that constant internal warfare distracts from broader goals, such as winning general elections or advancing conservative policy. Public feuds over redistricting risk reinforcing Democratic arguments that Republicans are more focused on power struggles than governance. From a democratic perspective, the episode raises important questions about how district lines should be drawn and who gets to decide. Critics of partisan redistricting argue that both parties manipulate maps to entrench themselves, often at the expense of competitive elections. Trump’s outrage highlights one version of this problem: even within a dominant party, mapmaking can be used to marginalize certain factions. Supporters of independent redistricting commissions point to cases like Indiana as evidence that removing politicians from the process could reduce conflict and restore trust. Still, Trump shows no interest in structural reform. His focus remains firmly on winning battles and asserting dominance within the party. By vowing to “take out” an Indiana GOP leader, he is reinforcing his role as a political kingmaker who demands loyalty and rewards defiance of the establishment. Whether Trump follows through on his promise will depend on upcoming election cycles and the availability of viable challengers. If he throws his support behind a primary opponent, the race will become a test of Trump’s continuing hold over Republican voters in Indiana. For now, the threat alone has already reshaped the conversation, turning a technical redistricting debate into a high-profile political showdown. In the end, the Indiana redistricting fight is about more than lines on a map. It is a window into the ongoing struggle for the soul of the Republican Party, where loyalty to Trump, control over institutions, and the future direction of conservatism remain fiercely contested. As long as Trump stays politically active, clashes like this are likely to continue, reminding Republicans and Democrats alike that the former president still knows how to command attention and ignite controversy.
By Saboor Brohi a day ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.