Beware of JD Vance’s Duplicity

I write to express my grave concern regarding the recent actions and associations of Vice President JD Vance, which suggest a troubling pattern of duplicity that could undermine your leadership and the movement you lead. While Vice President Vance is known for his aggressive online defense of you, he has been remarkably quiet during the recent public feud between you and Elon Musk. His public comments have been terse and lawyerly,and he has conspicuously avoided mentioning Musk by name. This is uncharacteristic for an online warrior who previously launched diatribes in your defense. Elon Musk has publicly indicated his desire for JD Vance to replace you as president, responding "Yes" to a tweet suggesting your impeachment and Vance as your successor. Vance has long-standing and significant connections to tech billionaires, including Elon Musk, David Sacks, and Peter Thiel, who are associated with the "PayPal mafia". These individuals were instrumental in his rise, with Peter Thiel heavily funding Vance's Senate campaign to the tune of $15 million and reportedly introducing Vance to you. Musk, Sacks, and Thiel were instrumental in convincing you to choose Vance as your running mate, viewing him as an "ideological ally" who could "one day take over as president". Vance has been dogged by rumors of dual loyalties between these tech billionaires who fueled his rise and your presidency. Some have even gone so far as to call him a "Manchurian Candidate for the tech elite". Vice President Vance was once "vehemently opposed" to you but later radically changed course to stand by your side. His current silence during the Musk-Trump feud is described as an "interesting — and calculated — choice," as his path to the White House would inevitably require the support of Musk. It is suggested that he stands to benefit the most from the chaos unleashed by the feud. I urge you to be fully aware of these concerning facts and to consider the implications of Vice President Vance's actions and affiliations. I believe this pattern demonstrates a potential duplicity that could be a significant risk to your administration and the movement you lead.