Politico reports that it was sent communications from inside the Trump campaign, including Sen. J.D. Vance’s (R-OH) 271-page vetting file, allegedly by an Iranian hacker.

The outlet said that it has been receiving anonymous emails containing internal communications from the Trump campaign. The campaign acknowledged the authenticity of the communications on Saturday, accusing “foreign sources hostile to the United States,” for leaking them.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
126 points

The real story is not that Trump had a novel length document of everything wrong with Vance (we know he’s basically what you get if Oogy Boogy was filled with empty vapes and paternal disappointment instead of just bugs). No, the real story is that Trump picked him anyway.

permalink
report
reply
78 points

It’s not some big complex conspiracy.

He picked him to guarantee friendly financial backing.

Everyone knows 🪗-hands isn’t a real billionaire… so anyone who is that also offers him some cash can buy their way in. It’s how he’s always done “business.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Repubs are utterly corrupt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

When you “send your best” from a criminally corrupt pile of dogshit, you get the average republican!

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Maybe the conspiracy has something to do with why Thiel and Musk and others want Trump for president.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

Once the hamberders stop blood flow through his arteries they’ll have their personal puppet on the throne. The orange is unpredictable while JDV can be operated directly through the hand up his puppet hole

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points
*

As others have noted Peter Thiel money might have influenced the choice. Given Vance’s relationship to Project 2025 (he wrote the foreword to Kevin Roberts’s book, remember[1]) it’s also possible he was a strongly pushed Heritage Foundation plant - put in place to ensure the flailing incoherent mess that is Trump’s mind is actually implementing Project 2025 properly when elected.


  1. 1 ↩︎

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Was it just a copy of Hillbilly Elegy?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Vance had one job - do what Pence wouldn’t on Jan 6th.

Then, back in the fucking box.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Word!

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Trump can’t read so the briefing they gave him was all pictures

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

He was confused at seeing the Lovesac catalogue and said “sure! I already have a pillow guy!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Not enough of him or Ivanka clones so he just dozed off and farted

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Tbf all the other candidates are also republicans. I’d pay just to find out how big the dossier of the alternatives would get.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

But also opposition research is actually normal and prudent. Losing it is obviously not. But do we actually know how damaging the info is?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Pretty sure a vetting document would have both negatives and positives, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Correct

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m more interested in knowing what the Trump campaign considers a positive…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s my understanding that the length is fairly normal. The vetting process for VP is very intense and thorough. They will go through every tiny aspect of your entire life if they’re doing their job well.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 386K

    Comments