We’re publishing the supposed Iran-hacked document. Here’s why.

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.

…

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.

    • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      10 days ago

      Good bot. We’ll need your vigilance more and more these next several weeks, friend. 😅🙇🏽‍♂️

  • ultranaut@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days ago

    Calling the Steele dossier “fraudulent and discredited” is not really accurate. It never purported to be anything beyond mostly unverified oppo research, and I don’t think it was ever actually completed before it got leaked. It also did in fact contain things that turned out to be correct or largely correct, although obviously the most famous alleged event was never proven, and it also contained things that turned out to not be correct. Being a compilation of mostly unverified oppo research when it was leaked it obviously was going to contain both true and untrue claims, that it did does not discredit it or mean it was fraudulent.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days ago

    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 . . .

    First of all, no - the Steele Dossier was not “fraudulent” or discredited - unless you’re a right-wing fan of redstate, breitbart, talk radio, et. al. Every contention of that document that was able to be proven so far has been. That we haven’t seen the most lurid and debauched example from it yet does not disprove it. (Nor does it prove it, obvs.) It was also “intelligently written” (wtf is that supposed to mean, anyway. Has he even read the Steele dossier?)

    Secondly, the context-free quote from Steven “ball gargler” Cheung makes me question the rest of this presentation.

    Perhaps no corporate media covered the vetting doc in detail because it’s full of no-shit already-covered boring crap that made no difference either way?

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      0·
      10 days ago

      Thanks, I was just going to say that about the Steele dossier.

      I could be wrong since it’s been years now, but if I recall, nothing from that dossier has been disproven. Not everything has necessarily been confirmed as true (though quite a bit of it has), but my understanding was it has not been discredited in any meaningful way.

      Just checked the wiki real quick and that seems to confirm.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days ago

    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 . . .

    First of all, no - the Steele Dossier was not “fraudulent” or discredited - unless you’re a right-wing fan of redstate, breitbart, talk radio, et. al. Every contention of that document that was able to be proven so far has been. That we haven’t seen the most lurid and debauched example from it yet does not disprove it. (Nor does it prove it, obvs.) It was also “intelligently written” (wtf is that supposed to mean, anyway. Has he even read the Steele dossier?)

    Secondly, the context-free quote from Steven “ball gargler” Cheung makes me question the rest of this presentation.

    Perhaps no corporate media covered the vetting doc in detail because it’s full of no-shit already-covered boring crap that made no difference either way?

  • jontree255@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    I skimmed through it this morning and it’s another example of how much the GOP is just Trump’s cult. Most of the vetting on the first few pages is highlighting how much Vance didn’t gargle Trump’s balls until around 2020. Very little about his actual policy stances. Also shows that Vance is your typical opportunist. No principles or morals. Willing to do whatever grants himself power.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days ago

    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 . . .

    First of all, no - the Steele Dossier was not “fraudulent” or discredited - unless you’re a right-wing fan of redstate, breitbart, talk radio, et. al. Every contention of that document that was able to be proven so far has been. That we haven’t seen the most lurid and debauched example from it yet does not disprove it. (Nor does it prove it, obvs.) It was also “intelligently written” (wtf is that supposed to mean, anyway. Has he even read the Steele dossier?)

    Secondly, the context-free quote from Steven “ball gargler” Cheung makes me question the rest of this presentation.

    Perhaps no corporate media covered the vetting doc in detail because it’s full of no-shit already-covered boring crap that made no difference either way?