The past ten days have brought to surface a list of revelations
about, and statements from, President-elect Donald Trump. These realities force
Americans to inquire as to motivations of Trump and his staff in the
Administration’s stance toward Russia. But more importantly, they force each of
us to examine exactly how a large swath of voters allowed themselves to be
swayed by foreign actors during the election itself.
To start, a briefing from leaders of US intelligence
agencies and the release
of an unclassified report found that Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election represented “a significant escalation in directness,
level of activity, and scope of effort beyond previous election-related
espionage.” Afterward, the Trump team begrudgingly admitted
that Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the
Hillary Clinton campaign. Despite the continued and months-long stream of
condemnations of the election interference from both
sides of the political aisle, Trump himself seemingly never speaks ill of
Russia or her president, Vladimir Putin. Notably, Putin does
not appear on the New York Times’ running list of people or things Trump
has insulted, while civil rights leader and Congressman John Lewis, General Colin
Powell, Chief Justice John Roberts, Senator John McCain, NATO, the UN, and the
Broadway musical Hamilton have all
caught the President-elect’s ire. In fact, Trump often praises Putin, most
recently for Russia’s response to increased US sanctions, perhaps due to Trump’s
documented
relationship with the man, which goes back to at least 2013.
Early last week Buzzfeed published an admittedly unsubstantiated
report that Russia has substantial Kompromat on Trump: compromising
material which includes evidence of legal, financial, or moral misdeeds for the
purpose of blackmail, influence, or control. The material allegedly stems from
Trump’s 2013 visit to Moscow during his Miss Universe pageant held just outside
that city. Importantly, allegations in that report include
a continuing relationship between Trump campaign officials and the Russian
government. A Trump aide later confirmed that Trump's national security
adviser, Michael Flynn, has been in frequent
contact with Russia’s ambassador to the US in recent weeks. The FBI has
since confirmed
that Russia hacked the Republican National Committee during the election, as
well, but did not leak whatever information was obtained.
Later in the week we learned that top US intelligence
agencies expressed
“high confidence” that Putin himself ordered electoral interference at the
expense of Clinton, and that the CIA and FBI are investigating
whether Russia financially contributed to the Trump campaign. Despite this
news, Trump later expressed
the possibility that he may remove sanctions the US has placed on Russia in
2014 after the annexation of Crimea and extended after the meddling in the 2016
election. Further, Trump advisers have stated
that the President-elect’s first foreign policy trip will be to Iceland to meet
with Putin within weeks of his Inauguration. Trump has still not released his
tax returns, but we know he has
continuously tried to do business in Russia in the past.
In sum, there is reason to believe
that Russian officials, acting on the orders of Vladimir Putin, may have used
their ability to blackmail
Trump, both with the material in the dossier published by Buzzfeed and any
information obtained from hacking the RNC, as leverage to gain influence with
his campaign, which may include financial contributions, in order to undermine
the Clinton campaign and convince the American people to elect Trump. As further
evidence, since his victory, Trump has expressed his intention to re-evaluate
US sanctions on Russia, his top aides continue frequent contact with Russian
officials, and once sworn in he plans on immediately meeting Putin in person.
Under relevant federal law, an
organization or individual, which agrees or consents to be indirectly
supervised, directed, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a
foreign government or political party is an agent of a foreign principal,
and must register as such with the Department of Justice. Further, public
officials who act as agents of a foreign principal would be in violation of 18 US 219 and are subject
to fines or imprisonment.
Whether the President-elect or any
or his organizations, appointments, or advisors meet the legal standard to
qualify as agents of a foreign principal requires more evidence beyond what is
publicly available. The law requires more than a mere confluence of interests
between foreign and domestic actors, but actual direction or supervision of
foreign actors over domestic actors. The possession of blackmail material would
be key to establishing this link. However, our intelligence agencies may
plausibly corroborate the existing allegations and may yet uncover further
connections between Trump, his staff, and Russia. This reality brings America
to the three following questions:
First, how did we allow so many of
our individual political judgments to be influenced by a foreign power? No
public information implies that Russia infiltrated US election software.
Instead, in November only Americans voted, but too many of us were
insufficiently critical in both how we discerned factual articles from
inaccurate or purposely misleading ones and how we weighed the value of the
factual information, which was available. As much as we may point fingers at
Trump or Putin, we too must look inward for both blame and solutions. Russia
and other adversarial actors may be emboldened by the results of the 2016 election
interference and seek further influence in 2020 and beyond. We the people must
change if the results are to, as well.
Second, how do we convince Speaker
Paul Ryan and Republicans on the Hill to use the threat of impeachment to
obtain sufficient financial and other information from Trump and his staff for
a proper investigation into potential coordination with Moscow? Luckily Trump’s
affinity toward Russia and propensity to insult even allies have made him
unpopular among his own party leaders. Nonetheless, broad and sustained
political mobilization will be required to convince Congressional Republicans
that impeaching a Republican president is politically advantageous for them
individually and as a party.
Third, how do we prevent foreign
powers from influencing our elections again? Neither our Constitution nor our
laws can prevent a sufficiently large number of Americans from making gravely
poor decisions. However, strengthened required financial disclosures for
candidates and appointments or other transparency and ethics legislation may
constrain our future potential lapses in judgment.
Irrespective of any potential forthcoming
revelations or allegations regarding relationships between an adversarial
country and the man who will be our president before week’s end, our country
has already ventured into uncharted waters, guided by a minority of voters who
allowed themselves to be steered by a foreign power. Is the American ship
seaworthy? How we act now, with Republican leaders at the helm, can only answer
this question.
