Vance dossier: On Thursday, X suspended the account of Ken Klippenstein, an independent journalist who formerly wrote for The Intercept, due to his sharing of the Donald Trump campaign’s vetting dossier on J.D. Vance.
The hefty document was allegedly obtained through an Iranian cyberattack/hack of the campaign’s confidential files. Last month, Microsoft reported “that Iran-backed hackers had targeted a high-ranking political campaign official via a spear-phishing email” (per Axios); it came to light that the high-ranking political campaign official was affiliated with Team Trump as the documents began to circulate to major publications.
The dossier published on Klippenstein’s Substack and shared to X contained what appears to be Vance’s home address and phone number. Sharing the dossier may violate X’s hacked materials policy, which was altered in October 2020 (following outcry related to Twitter suppressing the spread of the Hunter Biden laptop story, originally reported by the New York Post) but continues to prohibit sharing hacked materials that reveal personal information.
“Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance’s physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number,” said an X spokesman. But links to the dossier were also banned, contra X’s changed policy which says that links should be labeled as hacked materials but that they should not be banned outright. (“Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix,” wrote then-CEO Jack Dorsey in October 2020.) Some people who shared links to, or screenshots from, the Vance dossier—even parts which contained no sensitive information—were locked out of their accounts. Case in point:
My colleague @EricBoehm87 posted a single screen shot from the Vance dossier and was locked out of his account. pic.com/nhPuApgkry
— (Stephanie) Slade (@sladesr) September 26, 2024
And it was a good tweet, too:
One of the most damning descriptions you’ll read of JD Vance’s economic views comes from within the Trump campaign lol pic.com/kZIf3ZyE6A
— Eric Boehm (@EricBoehm87) September 26, 2024
Actually he’s right: In other news, Vance’s critics have dug up a clip of him talking about how car seats may affect birthrates, which the internet and our illustrious fact-checkers have decided to ridicule. Look, there are lots of things to ding Vance for—his economic populism, his callousness, his comfort spreading viral lies and rumors (Haitian pet-eating!) even when he knows they’re not true—but this ain’t it.
Vance was most likely referring to a 2020 study (covered at the time by Reason‘s Christian Britschgi) that examined car seat mandates and their effect on fertility, theorizing that most cars can’t fit three car seats in their back row, so having an additional third kid frequently necessitates the purchase of a larger car, which can put a financial damper on having three kids close in age. “We find that when a woman has two children below the car seat age, her chances of giving birth that year decline by 0.73 percentage points,” write the study’s authors. “This represents a large decline, as the probability of giving birth for a woman age 18-35 with two children already is 9.36 [percent] in our sample.”
Correlational studies have all kinds of problems, and there’s certainly a replication crisis in the social sciences, but Vance is in no way making this up, nor is he wrong to point to the many weird regulations and mandates that get piled on parents, ostensibly for the good of the children.
It gets better! In fact, Vance cited this during a March 2023 congressional hearing in which senators were weighing possible new Federal Aviation Administration mandates—promoted by the Association of Flight Attendants union!—that would do away with the longstanding practice of allowing lap infants and instead force parents to buy an extra seat for their babies and use an approved child restraint system (also known as a car seat) on planes.
“Look, if I take my kids from Cincinnati to visit their grandparents in San Diego, that’s five hours,” said Vance in the hearing. “I mean, try to keep a toddler or a baby in a car seat for five hours. That is torture for everybody, including the baby and certainly the passengers around the baby.”
This is possibly the least weird thing I have ever heard from a politician. It’s completely relatable and true. And he goes on.
“The second thing, of course, is that air traffic accidents are thankfully, thank God, so much less frequent and less common than car accidents are. And so, what I worry here is that in the name of safety improvements, and I don’t doubt that there are marginal safety improvements, we’re actually proposing a change that would make things much, much more miserable for parents for very little marginal improvement in safety,” finished Vance.
Very few people want to die on this hill, but I’ll let you in on a secret: Seatbelts on airplanes will not do anything if you’re actually in a severe aviation accident. They pretty much only protect against bumps and bruises in the event of severe turbulence or deceleration. The FAA’s regulations surrounding bringing babies on planes are infrequently based on sound science, as I’ve written about before.
As a parent who has accompanied my almost-2-year-old on 40 flights, I can confirm that Vance is considering the tradeoffs between safety and comfort in a way that only a parent, not a regulator, can truly understand. The balance between safety measures and the ease of travel is crucial for families with young children, and Vance’s perspective reflects a deep understanding of these challenges.
This moment with Vance is not about showcasing his achievements but rather about his ability to recognize the difficulties faced by families traveling with young kids. He articulates why it’s important not to impose unnecessary regulations that could further complicate the travel experience. This demonstrates Vance at his best, showing empathy and insight into the needs of parents and children.
Moving on to a different topic, Mayor Eric Adams is currently facing federal charges related to bribery, fraud, and soliciting illegal campaign donations. The allegations suggest that Adams accepted improper benefits, including luxury travel and accommodations, in exchange for favors. Despite the accusations, Adams has stated that he will not step down and plans to defend himself against these charges.
The indictment outlines Adams’ involvement in accepting benefits since 2014, with the Turks seeking favors in return. Adams’ decision to assist them with issues related to the New York Fire Department raises concerns about ethical conduct and misuse of power. The situation highlights the complexities of political figures and their interactions with external interests.
In conclusion, while the legal proceedings against Mayor Adams unfold, it’s essential to reflect on the impact of his actions and the implications for governance. The allegations raise questions about accountability and transparency in public office, underscoring the need for ethical leadership in political spheres. Please rephrase this sentence.
Source link
