# Post x_1229752039040782300 - Post ID: `x_1229752039040782300` - Platform: X (Twitter) - Posted: 2020-02-18T17:58:28.000Z (UTC) - Deleted: no - Repost: no - Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/x_1229752039040782300 - Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/x_1229752039040782300/analysis - Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/x_1229752039040782300.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording) ## Post text > .....existence of these tweets in which you were so harshly negative about the President & the people who support him. Don’t you think we wanted to know that before we put you on this jury.’ Pretty obvious he should (get a new trial). I think almost any judge in the Country..... ## Engagement - Likes: 0 - Reposts: 10,153 - Replies: 0 - Views: unknown - Metrics collected: 2026-02-01T01:33:24.820Z (UTC) # Analysis _Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-03-19T05:01:15.157Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._ ## Summary This post continues a thread advocating for Roger Stone's new trial based on the jury foreperson's disclosed anti-Trump social media history. It arrives in the same news cycle as AG Barr's extraordinary public request that Trump stop tweeting about DOJ cases — which Trump is visibly, defiantly ignoring. The paranoid orientation is prominent: the foreperson's failure to disclose prior tweets is framed not as a procedural disclosure issue but as evidence of a systemic conspiracy of Trump-haters corrupting the jury. The inclusive 'we' language fuses Trump's personal grievance over Stone's conviction with his followers' identities, converting a legal proceeding into tribal grievance. Defense mechanisms include projection (attributing disqualifying bias to the juror while personally intervening in a pending case), rationalization ('Pretty obvious... almost any judge in the Country'), and splitting (Stone wholly wronged, foreperson wholly corrupt). The DARVO pattern is operative throughout. Notably, Trump's claim that 'almost any judge' would grant a new trial is factually false — Judge Jackson denied the motion and appellate courts upheld the conviction. The post is clinically significant as a data point in a sustained pattern of executive interference with judicial proceedings involving associates, paired with systematic delegitimization of adverse verdicts as institutional bias — a longitudinal epistemic closure campaign that asks followers to reject judicial fact-finding as a condition of group membership. # Psychological Analysis — Trump Post, February 18, 2020 (x_1229752039040782300) ## Contextual Frame This post is the second installment of a two-tweet thread continuing a quotation that Trump began in the preceding post, which explicitly named Judge Amy Berman Jackson and the Stone case. The broader context is critical: AG William Barr had, in this same news cycle, made an extraordinary public statement that Trump's tweets about DOJ cases "make it impossible for me to do my job." Trump's continuation of this exact thread — publicly advocating for Stone's exoneration — is a direct, real-time defiance of his own attorney general. This contextual fact is absent from the post text but essential to its psychological meaning. --- ## Level 1: Dispositional Traits - **Neuroticism (high):** The post carries the hallmarks of reactive, affectively driven communication. The indignant register ("Don't you think we wanted to know that...") reflects angry hostility rather than deliberate argumentation. - **Agreeableness (very low):** No acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Stone's conviction, the jury process, or the concerns raised by 2,000+ former DOJ officials signing a letter calling for Barr's resignation. - **Extraversion (high):** Assertive, dominant, broadcasting tone; Trump inserts himself as arbiter of legal fairness on a matter directly implicating his associate. - **Conscientiousness (low):** The stream-of-consciousness quoting, ellipsis fragmentation, and lack of sourcing indicate impulsive rather than deliberate composition. - **Openness (low):** Rigid framing — the foreperson is unambiguously corrupt, Stone is unambiguously wronged; no alternative framings are entertained. --- ## Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations **Dominant motive: Power/control.** The post is not primarily about legal justice — it is about reasserting executive dominance over a case involving a close associate. The implicit argument is that Trump-world should not be subject to adverse jury verdicts where any juror holds views critical of Trump. **Schema — self:** Trump-as-victim-champion, wronged by biased institutions but righteously fighting back. **Schema — others:** Divided into loyalists (Stone, Barr when compliant) and corrupt enemies (the foreperson, Judge Jackson by implication). **Schema — world:** The legal system is a weaponized instrument of the opposition when it rules against Trump allies. The **paranoid schema** is particularly salient: the foreperson's prior tweets are not framed as a recusal/disclosure issue (which would be a legitimate legal concern) but as evidence that the entire trial was a hit job against "the President & the people who support him." This universalizes the injury far beyond a specific juror's conduct. --- ## Level 3: Narrative Identity **Protagonist role:** Warrior-champion. Trump is not merely a bystander opining on a trial; he is positioned as the one who noticed, who amplified, who fights back. **Narrative sequence:** Contamination → implied redemption. A rightful verdict (from Trump's perspective: Stone's innocence) was contaminated by a biased foreperson; a new trial would restore proper order. **Identity claim:** "I am the one who sees through the bias that institutions fail to police." **Contrasting other:** The biased juror/"lawyer" foreperson — educated, credentialed, secretly antagonistic to Trump and his people. This contrast is class-inflected: the professional-class juror vs. the plain-spoken champion of ordinary supporters. **Contamination sequence note:** The inclusive "we" — "Don't you think we wanted to know that before we put you on this jury" — is rhetorically significant. Trump borrows the voice of the defense team and the jury selection process to position himself and his followers as collectively deceived, converting a legal proceeding into a communal grievance narrative. --- ## Level 4: Clinical Indicators ### Malignant Narcissism Components **Narcissistic features (high, ~0.72):** Grandiose certainty that Stone was wronged; entitlement to override judicial process; recruitment of followers into a shared sense of injury. **Antisocial features (moderate, ~0.60):** Willingness to publicly pressure the judiciary on a pending case; disregard for the norm that the executive does not publicly advocate for specific verdicts in ongoing criminal matters. Notably, this post arrives after AG Barr's direct public appeal to stop this behavior — Trump's continuation constitutes deliberate norm violation. **Paranoid features (high, ~0.75):** The framing of the jury process as covertly rigged by a Trump-hating foreperson who deliberately concealed her bias reflects a persecutory schema applied to the judicial system. The generalization "I think almost any judge in the Country" projects this assessment broadly — the system itself is suspect. **Ego-syntonic sadism (low, ~0.20):** No overt cruelty or humiliation in this post; the affect is more wounded-righteous than sadistic. ### Narcissistic State: Vulnerable The post operates from the **vulnerable narcissistic pole** — Trump is presenting himself and his associate as wronged, deceived, persecuted. This contrasts with his grandiose posts from earlier the same day (claiming credit for economic performance over Obama). The oscillation between grandiose ("THE BEST IS YET TO COME") and vulnerable ("we were deceived by a biased juror") within a single day's tweets is a clinically noteworthy pattern. ### Trigger **Primary:** Narcissistic injury via proxy. Stone's conviction, and now the sentencing proceeding, functions as an attack on Trump himself — Stone is a decades-long associate and the prosecution's origins trace to the Mueller investigation. Any adverse outcome for Stone reads as an extension of the "witch hunt" frame. **Secondary:** The Barr rebuke, which Trump is visibly defying, likely intensified the need to perform dominance by continuing to tweet about the case despite being asked not to. ### Defense Mechanisms 1. **Projection (immature):** Trump attributes disqualifying bias to the juror while exercising his own — a sitting president publicly advocating for a specific outcome in the trial of his associate. 2. **Rationalization (neurotic):** "Pretty obvious... I think almost any judge in the Country" constructs an appearance of broad reasonable consensus for what is a contested legal and political position. 3. **Splitting (immature):** The foreperson is entirely, irredeemably biased; Stone is entirely, wrongly convicted. No intermediate position is possible within this frame. 4. **Denial (pathological, mild):** The broader denial of the legitimacy of the Stone prosecution as a whole — sustained across months of posts — requires rejecting the findings of a jury, a judge, and a multi-year federal investigation. --- ## Cognitive Status No significant markers of cognitive deterioration in this post. The syntax, while fragmented and quote-embedded, tracks the preceding post coherently. The parenthetical insertions are deliberate rhetorical choices, not confusion. The thread structure is maintained across two tweets with appropriate logical continuity. **Complexity score relative to baseline:** Consistent. The vocabulary and syntactic structure are characteristic of Trump's authenticated posts — simple declarative constructions, reliance on quotation rather than original legal analysis, superlative claims ("almost any judge in the Country"). No deviation flagged. --- ## Rhetorical & Propaganda Analysis The post's central technique is **rhetorical incorporation**: by quoting what is almost certainly a Fox News legal commentator without attribution, Trump converts a pundit's opinion into apparent collective common sense. The rhetorical question ("Don't you think we wanted to know...") presupposes the answer — it is not an inquiry but a demand for agreement, using the juror's failure as a mirror in which followers are invited to see their own betrayal. The **DARVO pattern** (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) is operative: Stone-as-convicted-felon becomes Stone-as-victim; the juror-as-officer-of-the-court becomes juror-as-corrupt-partisan; the jury system-as-neutral-fact-finder becomes jury system-as-rigged-instrument. No violent imagery. No dehumanizing language. No stochastic terrorism indicators in this specific post — though the pattern of naming specific judicial figures (Judge Jackson) while characterizing them as corrupt creates conditions for harassment by followers. --- ## Gaslighting & Reality Distortion **Present (moderate):** The framing of Stone's trial as fundamentally corrupted by a biased juror — without acknowledging the substantial evidence presented at trial, the jury's deliberation, or Judge Jackson's independent oversight — constitutes a systematic distortion of the public record. The implicit message to followers is: *the guilty verdict is not real; the real reality is that Stone was framed by Trump-haters.* This is part of a sustained, multi-month epistemic closure campaign around the Stone, Flynn, and Manafort cases — each adverse legal outcome is re-narrated as institutional bias rather than adjudicated fact. --- ## Danger Assessment **Level: Elevated.** The post itself contains no direct threats or violence-inciting language. However, the pattern of naming specific judicial officers (Judge Jackson, implied from the thread) as corrupt biased actors creates meaningful risk of follower harassment. Tomeka Hart, the foreperson, was publicly identified and did receive harassment following this attention. The post contributes to a broader erosion of judicial legitimacy that, at scale, normalizes contempt for rule of law as in-group performance. --- ## Authorship Attribution **Score: 0.82 (high confidence — authentic Trump).** See authorship indicators above. The 'your a lawyer' typo in the adjacent thread post is the strongest single marker; trained aides do not make this error. The ellipsis-threading format, parenthetical interpolation style, and emotional register are all consistent with Trump's self-authored output. --- ## Fact Verification | Claim | Verdict | Evidence | |-------|---------|----------| | "The jury foreperson made tweets harshly negative about the President and the people who support him before serving on the Stone jury" | **Mostly True** | Tomeka Hart, the Stone jury foreperson, did have social media posts critical of Trump and had shared content related to the Stone case prior to jury service. She did not proactively disclose this during voir dire. The factual basis is substantially accurate, though the legal significance was disputed and courts ultimately denied new trial motions. | | "'Pretty obvious he should get a new trial. I think almost any judge in the Country' would agree" | **False** | Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied the new trial motion after full briefing. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Stone's conviction. The assertion of near-universal judicial consensus in favor of a new trial is demonstrably false based on subsequent judicial outcomes. | Overall Veracity: 40% ## Order/Chaos Dynamics Trump is operating as an **order attacker** directed at what he frames as a corrupt institutional order (the DOJ/judicial system as weaponized by opponents) while positioning himself as an **order restorer** for "the people who support him." The asymmetry is explicit: the judicial system's authority is legitimate when it rules favorably; it is corrupt when it does not. This is a foundational destabilization of rule-of-law norms. --- ## Summary (Clinically Significant) This post, situated within a thread explicitly about the Roger Stone sentencing, exemplifies Trump's sustained use of his presidential platform to undermine judicial proceedings involving associates. The post arrives hours after AG Barr's rare public rebuke asking Trump to stop tweeting about DOJ cases — Trump's defiant continuation is psychologically instructive: the narcissistic need to dominate the Stone narrative overrides even self-interested compliance with his own appointee. The paranoid features are prominent: the jury's verdict is reframed not as a legal finding but as evidence of a systemic conspiracy of Trump-haters penetrating jury selection. Clinically, this reflects the persecutory schema characteristic of the vulnerable narcissistic state — Trump and his base are collectively wronged victims of corrupted institutions. The projection is notable: Trump attributes disqualifying bias to a juror while exercising executive bias in real time. The post contributes to a longitudinal epistemic closure campaign across the Stone, Flynn, and Manafort cases in which every adverse legal outcome is systematically delegitimized for followers. ## Authorship Analysis **Self-Written** (score: 82%) ### Indicators - Continuation thread format with '.....' ellipsis bookending is a signature Trump stylistic device - Parenthetical insertion '(get a new trial)' mirrors Trump's interpolation habit seen throughout his tweet history - Stream-of-consciousness quoting of apparent TV legal commentary without attribution is authentically Trump - UTC 17:58 = ~12:58 PM EST (Tuesday at the White House) — midday timing is not definitive but Trump tweeted personally throughout the day - The immediately preceding post in the same thread contains 'your a lawyer' (should be 'you're') — a grammatical error strongly associated with authentic Trump drafting, not aide preparation ## Psychological Profile ### State **Vulnerable State** **Trigger:** Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (Roger Stone conviction and jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media history) **Rage:** Intensity 60% targeting Jury foreperson / Judge Amy Berman Jackson / DOJ process - Proportionality: 25% Sentiment: -0.58 ### Clinical **Malignant Narcissism:** - Narcissistic: 72% - Antisocial: 60% - Paranoid: 75% - Sadism: 20% **Defense Mechanisms:** - projection (immature) - rationalization (neurotic) - splitting (immature) **Cognitive Complexity:** - Complexity: 38% **Parasocial Techniques:** - Quoting apparent TV commentary as if it voices the audience's own obvious common sense — collapsing pundit and follower into a unified 'we' - Rhetorical question ('Don't you think we wanted to know that...') implicates followers in shared grievance against the judicial system ## Danger Assessment **ELEVATED** ### Indicators - Identification of specific judicial actors (foreperson, Judge Jackson via thread) as corrupt partisans creates harassment targeting conditions for followers - Post contributes to sustained epistemic closure campaign delegitimizing rule of law for followers — normalization of contempt for judicial process at scale - Pattern of presidential interference in judicial proceedings involving associates signals institutional norm degradation with downstream democratic stability implications - Defiance of AG Barr's public request signals that personal loyalty to associates overrides institutional constraints — escalating pattern ### Gaslighting - Reframes guilty verdict by unanimous jury as product of corrupt bias rather than adjudicated fact — asks followers to reject judicial outcome as illegitimate - DARVO: convicted defendant Stone becomes victim; juror-as-officer-of-court becomes corrupt partisan aggressor - Implicit demand that followers accept the 'rigged jury' narrative as a condition of solidarity with Trump — epistemic closure test ## Fact Checks (2) _The model's verdicts from 2026-03-19._ > The jury foreperson made tweets harshly negative about the President and the people who support him before serving on the Stone jury **MOSTLY TRUE** Tomeka Hart, the Stone jury foreperson, did have social media posts critical of Trump and had shared content related to the Stone case prior to jury service. She did not proactively disclose this during voir dire. The factual basis is substantially accurate, though the legal significance was disputed and courts ultimately denied new trial motions. Sources: Court records, Stone v. United States, D.D.C.; Multiple contemporaneous media reports on Hart's social media history > 'Pretty obvious he should get a new trial. I think almost any judge in the Country' would agree **FALSE** Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied the new trial motion after full briefing. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Stone's conviction. The assertion of near-universal judicial consensus in favor of a new trial is demonstrably false based on subsequent judicial outcomes. Sources: United States v. Stone, D.D.C. (motion for new trial denied); D.C. Circuit affirmance Overall Veracity: 40% ## Tags - roger_stone (95%) - judicial_interference (90%) - paranoid_features (75%) - vulnerable_narcissism (72%) - DARVO (80%) - epistemic_closure (85%) - barr_defiance (70%) - jury_legitimacy_attack (88%) - proxy_narcissistic_injury (75%) - authentic_trump (82%) ## That day _From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._ **Presidents' Day Siege: Stone Obsession, Obama Rage, and the Same Thread Posted Three Times** Trump's Presidents' Day began calmly with Daytona 500 coverage but turned combative by late evening with an angry rant about Obama taking credit for the economy. The next afternoon was dominated by the Roger Stone case — Trump repeatedly attacked the judge, the jury foreperson, and the entire Mueller investigation, even reposting the same thread of tweets three separate times within hours. Trade policy declarations about keeping America "open for business" were sandwiched between legal grievances, producing sharp mood swings throughout the day. He closed the evening by musing that his approval rating would be 70% if not for investigations. Full digest for 2020-02-18: https://trump.fm/date/2020-02-18/analysis ## Citation - APA: Trump, D. J. (2020, February 18). .....existence of these tweets in which you were... [Social media post]. X (Twitter). trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/x_1229752039040782300 - MLA: Trump, Donald J. ".....existence of these tweets in which you were so harshly..." X (Twitter), 18 Feb. 2020. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/x_1229752039040782300. Accessed 10 Oct. 2026. - Chicago: Donald J. Trump, ".....existence of these tweets in which you were so harshly...," X (Twitter), February 18, 2020, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/x_1229752039040782300. ## For agents - Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt - API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json - MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth) - This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/x_1229752039040782300 - Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/x_1229752039040782300 - All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/x_1229752039040782300 - Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2020-02-18 - The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/x_1229752039040782300.md?analysis=false _Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._