JD Vance Dossier From Trump Campaign

[TheCount]

For the curious:

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/api/v1/file/fc39e78d-f510-4918-935b-95701be97310.pdf


From:
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/read-the-jd-vance-dossier

Behold the dossier.

It reportedly comes from an alleged Iranian government hack of the Trump campaign, and since June, the news media has been sitting on it (and other documents), declining to publish in fear of finding itself at odds with the government’s campaign against “foreign malign influence.”

I disagree. The dossier has been offered to me and I’ve decided to publish it because it’s of keen public interest in an election season. It’s a 271-page research paper the Trump campaign prepared to vet now vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance. As far as I can tell, it hasn’t been altered, but even if it was, its contents are publicly verifiable. I’ll let it speak for itself.

“The terror regime in Iran loves the weakness and stupidity of Kamala Harris, and is terrified of the strength and resolve of President Donald J. Trump,” Steven Cheung, communications director for the Trump campaign, responded when I asked him about the hack.

If the document had been hacked by some “anonymous” like hacker group, the news media would be all over it. I’m just not a believer of the news media as an arm of the government, doing its work combatting foreign influence. Nor should it be a gatekeeper of what the public should know.

 

[TheTexan]

Is there anything juicy I need deets give me that drama!!

 

[TheCount]

Aaaand it's banned.

X blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier

X is preventing users from posting links to a newsletter containing a hacked document that’s alleged to be the Trump campaign’s research into vice presidential candidate JD Vance. The journalist who wrote the newsletter, Ken Klippenstein, has been suspended from the platform. Searches for posts containing a link to the newsletter turn up nothing.

The document allegedly comes from an Iranian hack of the Trump campaign. Though other news outlets have received information from the hack, they declined to publish. Klippenstein says in his newsletter that a source called “Robert,” with an AOL email address, offered him the document. Contained in it are what appear to be Vance’s full name, addresses, and part of his social security number.

X said in a post on its safety account that Klippenstein was “temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information.” The company didn’t comment on why links to Klippenstein’s article are blocked.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24255298/elon-musk-x-blocks-jd-vance-dossier


The freest of speech.

 

[Matt4Liberty]

This is not the Steele Dossier of 2016, with its golden showers and anti-Trump fanfiction. Unlike the Steele Dossier, which was both fraudulent and discredited, the Vance Dossier is factual and intelligently written. No Jason Bourne style capers appear, and there’s no sleaze. Instead, the Vance Dossier enumerates pretty reasonable liabilities as a then-contender for VP nominee, including:

Doesn't really seem like there's much in here. Anyone that actually had the time to read it can prove otherwise, but it doesn't sound like anything we don't already know. The quote above pretty much supports that.

 

[jmdrake]

For the curious:

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/api/v1/file/fc39e78d-f510-4918-935b-95701be97310.pdf


From:
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/read-the-jd-vance-dossier

Is there anything juicy I need deets give me that drama!!

Aaaand it's banned.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24255298/elon-musk-x-blocks-jd-vance-dossier


The freest of speech.

Doesn't really seem like there's much in here. Anyone that actually had the time to read it can prove otherwise, but it doesn't sound like anything we don't already know. The quote above pretty much supports that.

The article seems like it's written for the express purpose of making sensible people like and want to vote for J.D. Vance. I can't find a J.D. Vance position allegedly from the dossier that I disagree with.

This is not the Steele Dossier of 2016, with its golden showers and anti-Trump fanfiction. Unlike the Steele Dossier, which was both fraudulent and discredited, the Vance Dossier is factual and intelligently written. No Jason Bourne style capers appear, and there’s no sleaze. Instead, the Vance Dossier enumerates pretty reasonable liabilities as a then-contender for VP nominee, including:

“Vance has been one of the chief obstructionists to U.S. efforts to providing [sic] assistance to Ukraine.”

“Vance criticized public health experts and elected officials for supporting Black Lives Matter protests while condemning anti-lockdown [Covid] protests.”

“Vance ‘embraced non-interventionism.’”

“In 2020, Vance criticized President Trump’s airstrike killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, worrying it would continue to bog down America in the Middle East to the advantage of China. Vance suggested that the country had been entangled in wars in the Middle East so ‘financial elites’ could profit from the rise of China.”

So the document is clearly newsworthy, providing Republican Party and conservative doctrine insight into what the Trump campaign perceives to be Vance’s liabilities and weaknesses. Those perceptions provide clues about what a campaign of remarkably little substance might actually think​

As for X being about "free speech" remember Elon bought the platform because he didn't like some jackass posting the real-time location of his private jet. And I'd find that creepy too. Free speech for real can only be found on platforms that nobody owns. (Hive.io, Mastedon,odessy.tv etc). That said, there is a world of difference between not allowing links to a document illegally hacked by a foreign government on your platform and actively suppressing a true story about a presidential candidate's son being careless with his laptop that had damning information on it.

 

[CaptUSA]

That said, there is a world of difference between not allowing links to a document illegally hacked by a foreign government on your platform and actively suppressing a true story about a presidential candidate's son being careless with his laptop that had damning information on it.

Ever feel like incidents like this are there to give some cover of "hypocrisy" while ignoring the nuances??

To be clear, I don't really have a problem with information like this being released. I actually wish it happened more often. Musk has community notes that can provide context - either on the veracity or how the docs were obtained. I understand he doesn't want his platform to be used for activities that are illegal (different from free speech), but the same "obtained illegally" cover could be used for the info released by Snowden or Assange.

 

[jmdrake]

Ever feel like incidents like this are there to give some cover of "hypocrisy" while ignoring the nuances??

To be clear, I don't really have a problem with information like this being released. I actually wish it happened more often. Musk has community notes that can provide context - either on the veracity or how the docs were obtained. I understand he doesn't want his platform to be used for activities that are illegal (different from free speech), but the same "obtained illegally" cover could be used for the info released by Snowden or Assange.

Spot on! Which is probably why you don't see the left covering this story even if it's potentially helpful for them politically. Of course all of these positions by Vance are public information anyway.

 

[TheTexan]

271 pages and no drama?

This is why I don't read books

 

[Occam's Banana]

CLIPS from SYSTEM UPDATE #342:

JD Vance "Dossier" REVEALED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ3RUzA_M20
{Glenn Greenwald | 27 September 2024}



Was JD Vance DOXXED?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V2RLPJkqIw
{Glenn Greenwald | 27 September 2024}


​

 

[Occam's Banana]

As for X being about "free speech" remember Elon bought the platform because he didn't like some jackass posting the real-time location of his private jet. And I'd find that creepy too.

If the term actually means anything, then "free speech" means being free to refuse to provide a soapbox for speech one doesn't like (for whatever reasons) at least as much as it means being free to say what one pleases.

[... T]here is a world of difference between not allowing links to a document illegally hacked by a foreign government on your platform and actively suppressing a true story about a presidential candidate's son being careless with his laptop that had damning information on it.

To be clear, I don't really have a problem with information like this being released. I actually wish it happened more often.

Ditto.

At worst, the "hacking" is the only "crime" here - not the publication of its fruits.

[... T]he same "obtained illegally" cover could be used for the info released by Snowden or Assange.

That was the whole basis of the bogus case against Assange.

Julian Assange did nothing wrong.

Neither did Snowden, as far as I'm concerned - but unlike Assange, at least he actually did do the "hacking" involved.

As for the whole "doxxing" angle - it's ridiculous. J.D. Vance was not "doxxed" in any meaningful sense (see the Greenwald SYSTEM UPDATE clip I posted earlier).

But even supposing he had been - so what?

Holding public office and exercising governmental authority over others is a privilege, not a right. Not only should it not be "wrong" to "doxx" politicians and other "public servants", they should actually be required to self-"doxx" - and if they don't, it ought to be done for them, whether they like it or not. So-called "public servants" who wield power over private citizens - for that very reason, and for as long as they are in such positions - should never be permitted to hide behind claims of "privacy". (File under "people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people".)

 

[dannno]

He has an investment in Rumble exceeding $100k

 

[jmdrake]

If the term actually means anything, then "free speech" means being free to refuse to provide a soapbox for speech one doesn't like (for whatever reasons) at least as much as it means being free to say what one pleases.

You shouldn't have to provide a soapbox but everyone should have the opportunity to put up their own soapbox and that's why public spaces that nobody actually owns are far superior for true free speech than privately owned platforms. And that can and has been done without government involvement. Mastodon has all of the functionality of Twitter but it's open source and designed such that your data isn't held captive. That's just one example.