As a thought, one possible reason for not publishing the leaked material would be if the story that Iran is behind it is shaky if not outright BS. What if the leak is from the campaign? Wouldn’t further scrutiny be called for before jumping on the story?
That’s why Trump is claiming it is Iran…but he didn’t mind Russia hacking Hillary…so does that mean he thinks Iran is our enemy but Vladimir Putin is not?
Democrats decried the Russian hacks in 2016 and Trump cheered them semi-jokingly soliciting them publicly. The information was asked about on every interview Fox News did for a month span.
The Democrats have denounced this attack allegedly by Iran in 2024 behaving as they should. Therefore, if this information is published it is both fair and again highlights the discrepancies between the two parties.
Suggest that we have a new national holiday, October Surprise Day.
On Oct 1 of every election year. Families can plan potlucks so that everyone can gather around their smartphones for the latest injection of limbic-busting irrelevance.
It's certainly true that back in '16 we were treated to all of the inanities, and maybe a little sniping at Sanders, from the publication of the DNC hack. To not also publish the hack from the right would be an unfairness without a justification. The DNC hack didn't have anything earth shattering, so this baloney about the right's hack not being news is simply news media choosing to be blatantly political about it, and benefit one side over the other. Time to cancel subscriptions if so. They show themselves not to be impartial with the news, and therefore untrustworthy.
Just a note on the Hunter Biden laptop. Everyone was right NOT to publish anything from that. Doing so would have been journalistic malpractice of the highest order, especially if it was later discovered to be a fake.
Whether it ultimately was real, at the time, and until much later, the authenticity of it was VERY much in doubt, and the details surrounding it had every hallmark of being a Russian plant. Also, it bears repeating for the umpteenth time, Hunter was and is a private citizen who was never involved in the Obama or Biden administration. Nothing apparently found on the laptop or any other evidence since has implicated Joe Biden in providing direct assistance to his son.
If Hunter was trading in the family name to get favors, that was his business. However, the personal information of a PRIVATE CITIZEN who never worked for the government is not newsworthy just because of his last name. And not to go down the whataboutism rabbit hole, but more than half of Trump's family was part of his administration and openly used their position to personally enrich themselves.
No, No, No, a thousand times no. They should NOT publish just because they can. Buzzfeed was extremely irresponsible to publish the so-called Steele dossier. Assange was irresponsible. They need to act responsibly. Project Veritas was irresponsible. The benefit to society needs to far outweigh the strange allure of negativity, gossip and reputational damage.
" if they ultimately decide not to publish the material, it would be a mistake on its face. It would defy longstanding journalist principles and feed conspiracy theories about pro-Trump media bias. And it glaringly conflicts with past practice. In 2016, all three publications were among the media organizations that published information hacked by Russian agents about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. " No, past practice was THE mistake. It is glaringly stupid to argue that repetition of "past practice" mistakes is justified simply because we did it before.
Good for the goose and good for the gander is not enough reason. Satisfaction of voyeurism DOES NOT make an item "newsworthy." Whether the laptop was "real" or not, NONE of it should have been published. To paraphrase Walz, much of the information being discussed in this article is/was none of our damn business.
A big difference between Hunter's laptop and a campaign's internal research. One was a private citizen whose private laptop was exposed. The Trump campaign materials are not personal, they are political and should be fair game.
(1) As Marc notes, the outlets holding the documents have not forsworn publication. That gives them the advantage of timing.
(2) The Times, Post, and Politico may be thinking ahead about possible downsides of publication if trump becomes president. His campaign has already floated the warning of "aid and comfort to the enemy," Iran. This could become a pretext for moving against the platforms on national-security grounds if trump wins, potentially setting in motion a crack-down on the media, as Orban has done in Hungary. With his SCOTUS-conferred immunity for official acts, trump would have a free hand for a personal/political vendetta against disfavored news outlets. The chilling effect of presidential immunity that SCOTUS was warned about before its ruling may already have come to pass.
Serious question Mark… Was this an intentional leak on the emails/docs? Put that out in the open and you aren’t left with any other choice than boot Vance. Clearly a drag on this ticket and worsened with taking on Biden instead of Harris, even more when you put Vance vs Walz. DJT has gotta have major buyers remorse but he’d have to justify it. It’s also a big win because it demonstrates to his base just how scared Iran is of him. It would not be outside the realm of possibility that this was the entire platform for them. They look strong, striking fear into the hearts of all things Iran and it’s people, which is they foundation of their brand and the get a do-over when they are left with no choice but to kill off Vance. Nobody can say that this is beyond the pale for MAGA and its adherents, a move like this has Wiles & LaCavita all over it.
OK, but can we please, PLEASE avoid flogging these materials under the banner of "the Vance dossier"? Yes, seriously. The use of "dossier" is so conspicuous, and the association in this particular context is so inevitably to the Steele dossier, that the use of the term immediately throws the Vance document's credibility into doubt. There may well be reasons to question its accuracy--and there well may not--but until it's known to deserve the comparison, it just seems that you might more thoughtfully use some other term.
It seems like there is a double-standard here, especially for old-school, legacy media. Considering the NYT's history about Clinton emails, they should've been rushing to get that story out, along with all the content they received at maximum pace. After all, they are neutral arbitrators of the news that we need, right? If we needed all those stories about Clinton's hacked email, then by all means, we ought to be getting the same for Trump's hacked emails.
Of course, none of the campaigns that were hacked previously had threatened or would have threatened to jail journalists.
As a thought, one possible reason for not publishing the leaked material would be if the story that Iran is behind it is shaky if not outright BS. What if the leak is from the campaign? Wouldn’t further scrutiny be called for before jumping on the story?
That’s why Trump is claiming it is Iran…but he didn’t mind Russia hacking Hillary…so does that mean he thinks Iran is our enemy but Vladimir Putin is not?
Democrats decried the Russian hacks in 2016 and Trump cheered them semi-jokingly soliciting them publicly. The information was asked about on every interview Fox News did for a month span.
The Democrats have denounced this attack allegedly by Iran in 2024 behaving as they should. Therefore, if this information is published it is both fair and again highlights the discrepancies between the two parties.
They have to protect/redact the identities of all the various couches and sofas listed throughout the dossier.
Of course, there's always the chance that they aren't posting the Vance dossier because it is terminally boring.
I’d love to see more Tim/Sam/Marc pods please. I had forgotten how to laugh about politics.
Yeah, they were pretty funny and lots of laughter...they make a good team
Suggest that we have a new national holiday, October Surprise Day.
On Oct 1 of every election year. Families can plan potlucks so that everyone can gather around their smartphones for the latest injection of limbic-busting irrelevance.
It's certainly true that back in '16 we were treated to all of the inanities, and maybe a little sniping at Sanders, from the publication of the DNC hack. To not also publish the hack from the right would be an unfairness without a justification. The DNC hack didn't have anything earth shattering, so this baloney about the right's hack not being news is simply news media choosing to be blatantly political about it, and benefit one side over the other. Time to cancel subscriptions if so. They show themselves not to be impartial with the news, and therefore untrustworthy.
Turnabout fair play is not a justification.
Just a note on the Hunter Biden laptop. Everyone was right NOT to publish anything from that. Doing so would have been journalistic malpractice of the highest order, especially if it was later discovered to be a fake.
Whether it ultimately was real, at the time, and until much later, the authenticity of it was VERY much in doubt, and the details surrounding it had every hallmark of being a Russian plant. Also, it bears repeating for the umpteenth time, Hunter was and is a private citizen who was never involved in the Obama or Biden administration. Nothing apparently found on the laptop or any other evidence since has implicated Joe Biden in providing direct assistance to his son.
If Hunter was trading in the family name to get favors, that was his business. However, the personal information of a PRIVATE CITIZEN who never worked for the government is not newsworthy just because of his last name. And not to go down the whataboutism rabbit hole, but more than half of Trump's family was part of his administration and openly used their position to personally enrich themselves.
If pointing out the hypocrisy of ignoring the Trumps' crass opportunism is 'whataboutism,' then more 'whataboutism' is what's called for.
No, No, No, a thousand times no. They should NOT publish just because they can. Buzzfeed was extremely irresponsible to publish the so-called Steele dossier. Assange was irresponsible. They need to act responsibly. Project Veritas was irresponsible. The benefit to society needs to far outweigh the strange allure of negativity, gossip and reputational damage.
" if they ultimately decide not to publish the material, it would be a mistake on its face. It would defy longstanding journalist principles and feed conspiracy theories about pro-Trump media bias. And it glaringly conflicts with past practice. In 2016, all three publications were among the media organizations that published information hacked by Russian agents about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. " No, past practice was THE mistake. It is glaringly stupid to argue that repetition of "past practice" mistakes is justified simply because we did it before.
Good for the goose and good for the gander is not enough reason. Satisfaction of voyeurism DOES NOT make an item "newsworthy." Whether the laptop was "real" or not, NONE of it should have been published. To paraphrase Walz, much of the information being discussed in this article is/was none of our damn business.
A big difference between Hunter's laptop and a campaign's internal research. One was a private citizen whose private laptop was exposed. The Trump campaign materials are not personal, they are political and should be fair game.
If The Bulwark got its hands on these leaked documents, would it publish them?
By ll means, publish it … if only for nostalgia’s sake. AOL! Netscape! Bring back those pre-Y2K memories!
A couple of thoughts:
(1) As Marc notes, the outlets holding the documents have not forsworn publication. That gives them the advantage of timing.
(2) The Times, Post, and Politico may be thinking ahead about possible downsides of publication if trump becomes president. His campaign has already floated the warning of "aid and comfort to the enemy," Iran. This could become a pretext for moving against the platforms on national-security grounds if trump wins, potentially setting in motion a crack-down on the media, as Orban has done in Hungary. With his SCOTUS-conferred immunity for official acts, trump would have a free hand for a personal/political vendetta against disfavored news outlets. The chilling effect of presidential immunity that SCOTUS was warned about before its ruling may already have come to pass.
Serious question Mark… Was this an intentional leak on the emails/docs? Put that out in the open and you aren’t left with any other choice than boot Vance. Clearly a drag on this ticket and worsened with taking on Biden instead of Harris, even more when you put Vance vs Walz. DJT has gotta have major buyers remorse but he’d have to justify it. It’s also a big win because it demonstrates to his base just how scared Iran is of him. It would not be outside the realm of possibility that this was the entire platform for them. They look strong, striking fear into the hearts of all things Iran and it’s people, which is they foundation of their brand and the get a do-over when they are left with no choice but to kill off Vance. Nobody can say that this is beyond the pale for MAGA and its adherents, a move like this has Wiles & LaCavita all over it.
OK, but can we please, PLEASE avoid flogging these materials under the banner of "the Vance dossier"? Yes, seriously. The use of "dossier" is so conspicuous, and the association in this particular context is so inevitably to the Steele dossier, that the use of the term immediately throws the Vance document's credibility into doubt. There may well be reasons to question its accuracy--and there well may not--but until it's known to deserve the comparison, it just seems that you might more thoughtfully use some other term.
It seems like there is a double-standard here, especially for old-school, legacy media. Considering the NYT's history about Clinton emails, they should've been rushing to get that story out, along with all the content they received at maximum pace. After all, they are neutral arbitrators of the news that we need, right? If we needed all those stories about Clinton's hacked email, then by all means, we ought to be getting the same for Trump's hacked emails.
Or maybe it's about time they learned from their mistakes.