this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
288 points (98.6% liked)

politics

30069 readers
2684 users here now

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bampop@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

"Ever since I demolished half the supporting walls in my house with a sledgehammer, I keep noticing cracks appearing."

[–] The_Wumpus@lemmy.world 16 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This has been a bananas decade, dudes

[–] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

It has only been a year and a half. (This term)

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 23 points 8 hours ago

HMMMMM doesn't feel so nice having your privacy invaded, does it?! Having a device record conversions you expected to be private? Interesting...

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 29 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

The administration's inner circle is focusing solely on the possibility of recordings because the alternative -- that a person or people in those meetings personally spilled their guts to a couple NYT reporters -- is unimaginable to them.

Or to put it another way, a group of people who uniformly sold their souls for material gain and access to power is resolutely refusing to entertain the possibility that in their midst and under their noses, one of them is a person who also sold the rest of them out for material gain and access to power.

Having read the recent excerpt (gift link) and noting that JD Vance is now saying he will discuss his own 2028 plans after the midterms, I'm sure it's only coincidental that Vance comes out of that reporting smelling somewhat better than the rest.

I'm not saying it wasn't recorded. But if you're in that room and have plans of your own, why would you need to? You can just tell the story yourself.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 128 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

First rule of interacting with Trump: record everything.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 8 minutes ago

The story I've heard is that his own law team would make sure to have two people in the room with him when they needed to get some facts. Because if there was only one Trump would say 'that's not what I said.'

He's got a mental block against objective reality.

[–] Arancello@aussie.zone 62 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

Even hearing recorded conversations wouldn’t result in the usa media doing or saying anything.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 5 points 5 hours ago

Exactly. If it did then the "grab them by the pussy" tape would have been the end of it. Instead it was just the beginning.

[–] exaybachae@startrek.website 13 points 10 hours ago

Isn't a published book 'media saying something'?

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Even hearing recorded conversations wouldn’t result in the usa media doing or saying anything.

I think we're on the same post, yeah?

[–] gdog05@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago

Yes but no. What happens is, an actual journalist does their job and people get up in arms. Commercial media will slowly start to cover the topic. In this case, the audio will come out and the world is aghast. Commercial media will interview Trump or his cabinet and ask "how do you respond to the rumors of this audio?" As if the audio isn't real and as if we've not all heard it. Like it's an anomalous thing that he's accused of like a case of he said-she said between rival politicians. Like it's not obviously real and factual. That's how it gets covered.

[–] Arancello@aussie.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

i was thinking broadcast media. I suppose a book is media, but does it reach a broad audience?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 66 points 12 hours ago

TL;DR they think somebody taped their ridiculous incompetence huddles but no one has said anything and there’s no evidence.

Coincidentally, there’s a new book coming out.

[–] PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works 45 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

From the Axios article this one is based off;

**Reality check: Haberman and Swan didn't need audio recordings. Bob Woodward pioneered contemporary historical political journalism by including dialogue in his books that was reconstructed from the memories of people in the rooms where things happened.

**The big picture: Audio recordings or not, the speculation about them, and the extensive coverage of the book's juicy excerpts, mean more buzz, more book sales ... and the making of a classic.

It’s marketing

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 14 points 12 hours ago

The report, published on Sunday, paints a picture of a freakout going on behind the scenes at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., where top administration officials are bracing for the release later this month of Regime Change, the latest book from two of the most well-sourced reporters in Washington, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan.

[–] BonsaiBoo@lemmy.world 11 points 11 hours ago

Oh Lordy, there are tapes

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago

"We're afraid some of our most sensitive conversations were being recorded," an administration source told Axios. "And we have no idea which ones."

Can't be that hard... which ones involved Pete Hegseth? There you go!