Leaked internal documents from former President Donald Trump’s campaign have caused a stir among several major news outlets. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico all received these leaked documents earlier this week. However, none of these outlets have published any information from the leaks, prompting criticism from Politico senior writer Marc A. Caputo.
In an essay for the Bulwark, Caputo argued that the leaked documents hold significant news value and should be reported on. While he admitted that he hasn’t personally seen the leaks and isn’t privy to his editors’ conversations about publishing them, Caputo emphasized the importance of exploring the Trump campaign’s vetting process for potential vice presidential nominee JD Vance. Specifically, he highlighted Vance’s controversial “childless cat ladies” comment and its potential impact on Trump’s chances of winning the White House in 2024.
Caputo expressed his confusion over the decision not to report on the leaks, stating that understanding a campaign’s perception of its own vice presidential candidate is inherently newsworthy. He also drew attention to the fact that the three outlets in question had actively covered the 2016 hack of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s internal emails, leaked by the Russian hacker Guccifer.
The leaked Trump campaign documents are believed to shed light on the campaign’s assessment of political liabilities and ideological concerns in the modern campaign climate. Caputo argued that publishing this information would provide insights into the campaign’s mindset and potentially uncover overlooked aspects of Vance’s background.
While the news outlets may be working to verify the leaked material and ensure its accuracy, Caputo criticized the lack of transparency in their decision not to publish. He warned that withholding the information could fuel conspiracy theories about pro-Trump media bias and go against longstanding journalistic principles.
In a separate development, nine states, including Montana and Kansas, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Joe Biden’s executive order that aims to enlist federal agencies in voter registration efforts. The states argue that the order undermines their authority to control elections and accuse the federal government of overstepping its boundaries. They claim that the order converts federal agencies into voter registration organizations, potentially favoring Democratic and left-leaning blocs.
The lawsuit contends that the executive order violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants states the power to oversee elections. The states also raise concerns about potential fraud and argue that the federal government’s vast resources could overwhelm their own election administration efforts.
The lawsuit names several federal agencies, including the U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Education, as defendants. The states assert that the order allows federal agencies to engage in voter registration activities that infringe on states’ constitutionally protected sovereign rights.
The lawsuit further claims that the executive order’s plans were motivated by a partisan desire to increase Democratic votes, suggesting a political agenda behind the order.
In Missouri, U.S. Senate rivals Josh Hawley and Lucas Kunce engaged in a heated confrontation at the Governor’s Ham Breakfast on the Missouri State Fairgrounds. The exchange, lasting approximately 20 minutes, involved personal jabs, disputes over campaign ads’ accuracy, and discussions about potential debates. Hawley accused Kunce of avoiding campaign events and relying solely on media appearances, while Kunce questioned Hawley’s behavior and called him “creepy.”
The two candidates have been at odds over the location and format of debates since Kunce won the Democratic nomination. Hawley proposed a “Lincoln-Douglas style” debate at the fairgrounds, which was rejected by the State Fair Commission. The Missouri Farm Bureau, which has endorsed Hawley, offered to host the debate at a location near the fairgrounds, but Kunce’s campaign argued that it would violate campaign finance laws.
The debate dispute remains unresolved, with both candidates expressing a willingness to participate in televised debates. However, the specific details and arrangements are yet to be determined.