Read the Leaked Rubio Dossier
Trump camp details “lightweight” Marco Rubio’s liabilities
Behold, the Rubio dossier. The 551-page VP vetting document produced by the Trump campaign was offered to major media outlets this summer. All refused to publish it, not over questions about its authenticity, but because the media thinks it is an arm of the national security state, complying with U.S. government’s warnings that because the document came from Iran, the American people shouldn’t see it.
With Florida Senator Marco Rubio all over the news as Donald Trump’s pick to be Secretary of State, the document is the definition of newsworthy.
I understand why the major media passes on stories like these. When I published the J.D. Vance Dossier — provided to me by the same Iranian government-linked source who went by the name “Robert” — I was smeared as a dupe. In their telling, I had taken the “bait,” a silly word for it since I was fully aware and transparent that it was part of a hack-and-leak influence operation by the Iranian government. (The same, by the way, is true of the Rubio dossier.)
Per NBC’s Kevin Collier:
“No outlets took the bait. But on Thursday, reporter Ken Klippenstein, who self-publishes[*] on Substack after he left The Intercept this year, published one of the files.”
*This is factually untrue: all of my articles are edited by longtime national security expert and analyst William M. Arkin (who, ironically, worked for NBC for 20 years!). But this is the kind of media bitchiness you’re subjected to if you violate their dictates.
Per The Washington Post:
“The hackers shopped the briefing book around, finding few takers. Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein bit, however, publishing the document on his website.”
These news outlets cannot accept that someone might simply disagree with their assumption that obviously newsworthy materials should be withheld from the public just because it came from unsavory characters doing unsavory things.
Or perhaps they’re worried about the FBI, which paid me a visit after I published the Vance dossier. Reuters subsequently reported (to their credit) that it had received its own notification from the FBI that they were victims of “foreign” interference. I’m told other news organizations received notifications as well, though they’ve declined to alert the public to this obvious pressure campaign. Even in the Reuters story, the reporters’ own employer refused to acknowledge the FBI meddling, a spokesperson telling them: "We cannot comment on our interactions, if any, with law enforcement.” These corporate media outlets always have some excuse for not informing the public.
The Rubio dossier that is supposedly too dangerous for publication amounts to an overview and analysis of Rubio’s voting record and public statements. The Steele Dossier it is not: there are no salacious details, or really anything that can’t be publicly verified.
What is most interesting about it is what it reveals about the dossier is the Trump campaign’s perception of the political liabilities associated with Rubio — who Trump himself once ridiculed as a “lightweight” (an epithet reiterated by the dossier.)
The dossier is authentic and there are no signs it was altered, something spokespersons for both the Trump campaign and Rubio did not deny when I contacted them for comment and provided them with copies of the dossier.
Here are some of the highlights. They shed light on Rubio’s various (and highly contradictory beliefs) about foreign affairs and Donald Trump. All of what follows appears verbatim in the dossier, prepared by the Trump campaign.
Russian collusion in 2016: “In 2018, Rubio underscored that Putin interfered in the 2016 election, developed a preference for Trump, and should be punished for having done so.”
“In 2017, Rubio backed Robert Mueller’s investigation and contended “that he believes the prosecutor will carry out his investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 Presidential Campaign “in a fair and balanced way’”.”
The 2020 Election: “On inauguration day, in January 2021, Rubio acknowledges Biden as “our new President” and calls him a “man of tremendous empathy.””
Trump as President: “In 2016, Rubio contended that Trump was dangerous and could not be trusted with America’s nuclear codes – a position he continued to hold even after dropping out of the 2016 GOP primary.”
9/11: “in 2015, Rubio criticized Trump’s criticism of Bush over 9/11 and claimed Trump “doesn't have a fundamental understanding of what caused 9/11.””
Russia: “In 2022, Rubio said it was “unfortunate” Trump was using language in seeming praise of Putin and called on Trump to be more “careful” with his wording.”
NATO: “In 2016, Rubio disagreed “with Donald Trump’s suggestion that the United States shouldn’t automatically come to the defense of fellow NATO members if they are attacked”.”
“In 2019, Rubio joined a bipartisan group of Senators sponsoring legislation “that would prevent the president from withdrawing from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) without Senate approval”.”
North Korea: In 2019, Rubio “also said he’s skeptical that ongoing negotiations between Trump and North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un would lead the Asian country to give up its nuclear weapons”.”
Free Trade: “In 2011, Rubio noted “I think one of the great things that will help us grow our economy in the years to come is further free trade”; Rubio further noted his support for free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.”
China: “in 2015: “as President, I would respond not through aggressive retaliation, which would hurt the U.S. as much as China, but by greater commitment and firmer insistence on free markets and free trade. This means immediately moving forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements”.
Border and Immigration: “In 2024, Rubio blamed the lack of a Congressional border security measure on ‘crazy… MAGA people’.”
“In 2019, Rubio criticized Trump’s efforts to declare a national emergency to build his proposed southern border wall noting “we have a crisis at our southern border, but no crisis justifies violating the constitution”.”
“In 2015, Rubio condemned Trump’s comments on Mexican immigrants noting “Trump’s comments are not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive.””
Iran: “Rubio has indicated he supports potential military intervention in Iran.”
Second Iraq war: “Rubio defended and argued in favor of the Iraq war.”
Withdrawal from Syria: “Rubio generally supported military intervention in Syria. In 2019, Rubio criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw troops for Northeast Syria noting “if reports about us retreat in #Syria are accurate, the Trump administration has made a grave mistake that will have implications far beyond Syria”.”
— Edited by William M. Arkin
It's not like I'm not aware of all the stories they choose to ignore, or the insane amount of spin on others. It's the way they hold themselves up as arbiters of what "real" journalism is in their editorial pages while agreeing to be silent whenever they get a call from the feds. They're failing spectacularly at their job of informing their readers and they're not very good toadies either. They do nothing well except deflect blame from their corporate offices and lay off the journalists they've forced into writing propaganda who complied because they want to keep their jobs. No one is getting to keep their journalism job in those places. Hang on to your integrity instead.
Rubio knows empathy when he sees it in genocide Joe. I’m sure he will follow that same “empathy” in his decision making! These people are real freaks.