Russia and the Election: Unpacking the Hacking
by Krishna Hammond
Any conversation about Donald Trump inevitably takes on the frenzied, surreal quality of the constant media firestorm that surrounds him. Criticism becomes slander to his supporters; praise becomes collusion to his many detractors. Nonetheless, Donald Trump now commands the world’s largest military, and leads (albeit reluctantly) the coalition of powers that resisted the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He holds the dubious distinction of being the first leader of said coalition who is also under suspicion of being aided, abetted, and blackmailed during the 2016 presidential campaign by Vladimir Putin, the strongman leader of Russia. Not only is the integrity of our democracy threatened, our ability to litigate it in the public sphere is now in question as well. Our greatest weapon against these threats is the mortar that holds our society together–trust. Our trust in the idea of facts — not the “alternative facts” issued from the White House press office, nor dogma repeated until it rings in the same key as the truth, but facts formed by evidence forged in scrutiny and investigation — is key to the liberal democratic order Americans have worked hard to create. We deserve a presidency that is trusted — but before we trust, we must verify what is presented to us.
In this case, most of the information on the allegations of Russian interference comes from two primary sources — an Intelligence report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), edited for redacted classified material, and an allegedly leaked dossier from an anonymous former British intelligence officer released by Buzzfeed News.
The DNI report was built around three primary components — Context, Evidence, and Findings. In terms of context, the report gives a history of Russian attempts to subvert American democracy — the legal means through which a Kremlin-backed news agency was able to operate in the United States, the political sentiments of the leadership (Margarita Simonovna Simonyan, editor in chief of RT, who, among other shocking admissions, wrote in Kommersant: “[when] the Ministry of Defense was at war with Georgia…[RT was] waging an information war against the entire Western world.”), and, most powerfully, its attempts to influence the 2012 presidential election. This campaign entailed the use of paid commenters and agitators on videos and articles, as well as a media blitz intended to delegitimize the election, stir dissent, and amplify suspicions of voter fraud. In terms of evidence, the report builds on this context by defining the confidence scale used to determine judgements of likelihood, as well as laying out concrete events supporting the report’s conclusions.
The report establishes significant motive for Putin himself to engage in a strategy to block Clinton, based on his public and private feud with her. It goes on to mention public condemnations of Hillary Clinton by Vladmir Putin. Such condemnations include his claim that she was responsible for protests against his re-election in 2012, as well as his blame of the United States for high-profile leaks connecting him to the controversial Panama Papers. The report also analyzes language issued by the Kremlin, noting the delicacy with which the Kremlin avoids praising Trump directly, as well as sources stating Putin preferred working with leaders with business interests that could be benefited by dealing with Russia. Similarly, networks of Pro-Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign called #DemocracyRIP for election night in an attempt to delegitimize a possible Clinton win.
This evidence, taken in connection with the context provided, is persuasive. Not only does Russia have a known propaganda agency (RT/RT America) with the stated goal of providing an “alternative worldview” (which bears haunting similarity to the idea of “alternative facts”), but there is a longstanding pattern of behavior on the part of the Russians attempting to influence or monitor American elections. In addition to the influence campaign in 2012 detailed in the context section, in 2014 Russian intelligence was detected attempting to access elements of “multiple state or local electoral boards.” Fortunately, the DHS found that the systems being observed were not related to vote tallying. That means that while Russians have influenced and closely monitored the election (even the elements not apparent to the public), they have not been successful in truly manipulating the voting process itself. In addition to this disclosure, there is significant, sophisticated, and plausibly deniable co-operation between each constituent piece of the puzzle: RT stated they were they were “the only Russian media company” to partner with WikiLeaks and that they had received access to “new leaks of secret information.” Kremlin-linked actors began openly supporting Trump partway through the primary, as did RT and Sputnik (a government funded radio outlet), specifically in “media aimed at English speaking audiences.” In addition, Russian intelligence sources accessed “US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015 Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.”
With this extensive provision of means, motive, and opportunity, the report ultimately concludes with high confidence that the Russian government ordered interference in the 2016 campaign with the intent to elect Donald Trump. What remains then is the so-called Buzzfeed Dossier, released on January 10 by popular American media site Buzzfeed. It is important to note that this dossier is entirely unsubstantiated, and therefore its claims must be treated as such.
The Buzzfeed dossier alleges, primarily:
a) An effort by Putin to cultivate Trump as an asset with the intent to encourage “divisions in the Western alliance”.
b) Trump has been offered “sweetener” business deals (read: bribes) but has refused, choosing instead to accept a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin. This flow was supposedly gained through secret meetings through high level staffers such as Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.
c) Trump has been compromised through blackmail material in the form of images and video of sex acts performed by Trump in Russia.
Independent inquiries seem to point to the most probable source of the dossier being Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 agent whom sources like John Sipher, a former CIA official, note as a reliable source of information on Russia. In addition, the sudden death of an ex-KGB chief and associate of Steele has been speculated by some to be connected in some way, either as retribution or a cover-up to the dossier. On the other hand, those who were familiar with his career characterized him as extremely “meticulous”- yet there are scattering of misspellings throughout the alleged dossier. Reported attempts to independently verify the information contained in the dossier were not met with success, and Steele has apparently gone underground with his family.
Further compromising the integrity of the report is the fact that Steele was reportedly working on commission for Glenn R. Simpson, formerly of Fusion GPS, a Washington-based firm that works on opposition research. Bill Browder, the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act (which placed sanctions on Putin allies who were allegedly hiding money abroad) discussed the dossier’s creation on behalf of Fusion GPS during an interview with Slate’s Jacob Weisberg. It’s important to note the Magnitsky Act was established as a punitive measure in response to the torture and death of Sergei Magnitsky, who worked with Bill Browder to uncover widespread corruption and theft by the Putin regime. According to Browder, Simpson had been working not only to establish a dossier for opposition research against Trump, but to simultaneously cast doubt on the Magnitsky sanctions through offering journalists (false) reports that Magnitsky was actually a criminal. This whisper campaign was conducted using former press contacts accrued by Simpson while working for the Wall Street Journal- who then passed on the false claims to Browder for comment while attempting to verify them. Browder also notes the Kremlin has continued to harass him through intermediaries for his part in embarrassing Putin and pushing for sanctions. If these allegations are true (it is worth noting that Browder’s sources on the issue of the comments made to the press were off the record), they cast significant doubt on the veracity of the Buzzfeed Dossier.
However, there is no doubt there is a wealth of information within this dossier that is likely to be true, even if the document itself is unsubstantiated and its commissioner is suspect. In addition to much of the dossier echoing information from the DNI report, many of the allegations of Trump’s manipulation by the Kremlin are made more believable by the histories of his staff. Paul Manafort is an influential lobbyist who has worked throughout eastern Europe, and more specifically for Ukraine’s Russia-aligned President Yanukovych. Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page, in his role on the transition team, made statements suggesting possible sanctions relief for Russia. Carter Page in particular has given public speeches on his opposition to United States foreign policy regarding Russia, many of them criticizing sanctions on Russia such as the Magnitsky Act. However, the kinds of anonymous sources cited by the dossier are only credible if do they do indeed exist, which is only possible if this is indeed a Christopher Steele dossier rather than a red herring. In addition, these allegations are only reasonable if the conclusions were not doctored by Glenn R. Simpson or Russian collaborators. Given the fact that none of this is substantiated, much less confirmed, the dossier cannot reasonably be accepted as the truth.
It is without a doubt that our democratic republic has been subverted- there is a extremely high probability that Putin influenced the US election, and that such an influence will be replicated. If Putin is allowed to continue this behavior, he will not only influence our elections, but those of the former Eastern bloc as he attempts to piece back together some semblance of the old Russian Empire. It now falls to Congress and the American public to push for further investigation and, if necessary, prosecution. While several committees have begun investigations into the issue, it is imperative to maintain political pressure to gain more leverage over a Congress that is heavily incentivized to bury this issue. It is already apparent that the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are interested in sweeping this whole affair under the rug. It is our responsibility to ensure they do not succeed. Now is the time to make your voice heard. Call your senators and representatives. Demand the democracy you deserve.
