INDICTING THE RUSSIANS: IN PRAISE OF ROBERT MUELLER

   Robert Mueller. (photo: James Berglie/TNS)

Friday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced the indictment of 12 Russians, one American, and three organizations on charges of interfering in the 2016 presidential election.  We encourage every American who cares about democracy to read Mueller’s 37 pages.  It’s easy to find  and reads, in the words of one cable news host, like a Tom Clancy novel.  

    

The details grab and terrify.  They are riveting and chilling because they describe a vile attack on the United States.  We will resist the temptation to compare this to Pearl Harbor or September 11 – tragedies involving massive loss of life.  We understand the danger in such comparisons.  We find, however, Mueller’s indictment no less significant because it describes an attack by foreign agents aimed at destroying American democracy.

First things first

A few fundamentals help in understanding the indictment’s importance.  First, President Trump has branded the Mueller investigation a hoax.  His supporters have suggested there’s no underlying crime.  Friday’s indictment destroyed both claims.  Mueller painstakingly demonstrated the criminal violations of American law the Defendants committed. They “conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of [governmental agencies] in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.”  Translation: it’s against our law for foreigners to interfere in certain American activities, particularly elections, and anyone who participates has committed a crime.

Second, the indictment spelled out, conceptually and in detail, what the Russians did and how they did it.  Broadly speaking, they sought to conduct what they themselves called, “information warfare” against the United States with a goal of “spreading distrust towards candidates and the political system in general.”  The conspirators bought social media ads, organized and staged political rallies, and spent millions of dollars on helping elect Trump.  “They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

Target: Black People   

The conspirators aimed some of the “information warfare” at minority voters in a directed, admitted attempt to suppress that vote.  On an Instagram account named “Woke Blacks” they posted, “[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary.  We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.” An Instagram post on an account called “Blacktivist” said, “Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein.  Trust me, it’s not a wasted vote.”

African-American community members didn’t post these statements. Russians who’d set up accounts, sometimes using fake identities designed to look like real Americans or real grassroots organizations, put them out.  The Special Counsel probably knows, but hasn’t yet said, if Trump operatives cooperated with these efforts.  Regardless, the indictment spells out the illegal activities, how they were done, and the real objectives.

                       
 

More to come

Many questions remain in the indictment’s aftermath.  What happens next?  Obviously, we don’t know but many credible legal analysts believe other shoes will drop soon with the Special Counsel indicting people in Trump’s circle for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, or both.  What about the President himself?  Trump claimed exoneration because the Russians started their program before he announced for President, proving he hadn’t colluded with Russia.  Newsweek columnist and NBC/MSNBC analyst Jonathan Alter, author of “The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope”, found Trump’s tepid response to the allegation that Russia “waged war” on American democracy ridiculous.  It was, he said, like Franklin Roosevelt saying after Pearl Harbor “he hadn’t colluded with Japan.”  How should the Commander-in–Chief respond when presented with a discovery that a foreign power attacked America?  Will Trump now impose congressionally approved sanctions on Russia?  Will he ask for new authority to combat the continuing threat?  Just what will he do now to protect America?   

The indictment’s stunning detail and riveting narrative quality lead us to two observations.  First, it represents magnificent intelligence work and brilliant lawyering we believe leaves no room for credibly questioning if Russian interference in our election occurred.  The indictment described the organizational structure of the Russian operation down to the jobs individuals held, the street address in St. Petersburg of the office out of which many of the defendants worked, and the U.S. states Russian operatives visited before they set up the operation.  Intelligence professionals suggested the United States (or an ally) infiltrated the operation because electronic intelligence won’t pick up some kinds of information contained in the indictment.

Second, this indictment could represent a turning point in how the country views the investigation.  Perhaps now, with the details presented so starkly, more Americans will accept that the Russians did attack us in 2016 and realize if we don’t act, it will happen again and again.  Earlier in the week, the nation’s top intelligence officials told Congress the Russians are still at it and will grow bolder in this year’s mid-terms.  Mueller’s work, if nothing else, tells Vladimir Putin some grownups in the United States know what he’s up to and won’t take it lying down.

We previously expressed our frustration that more Americans weren’t outraged about Russia. Does this change your mind?   

Sexual Harrassment: Beyond Being Against It

Few issues have stirred up politics, business, entertainment, or general culture like sexual harassment has recently.  The #MeToo movement sprang up after sexual misconduct revelations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.  Allegations followed against television hosts Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose, Minnesota Senator Al Franken, Michigan Congressman John Conyers, and Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore.  Two Presidential aides, speechwriter David Sorensen and Staff Secretary Rob Porter, departed the White House after their former wives charged them with domestic violence.  Meantime, #MeToo gathered momentum as actresses wore black to events like the Golden Globe Awards ceremony in support of the movement, which encourages women to come forward and report incidents of sexual harassment.

No woman or man should have to endure unwanted sexual advances to get a part in a film, work in a bakery or a congressional office, pursue an educational opportunity, or serve in the military.  Hopefully, we can agree on that basic premise.  We state unequivocally our intolerance for any form of sexual harassment.  

Anything past that simple statement, however, puts us in line for sociological, political, and legal debates about (1) the definition of sexual harassment; (2) the appropriate forums for sexual harassment victims, that is where do we decide the fate of alleged harassers; (3) what differences do or don’t exist between sexual bad acts; and (4) due process rights for alleged perpetrators.  Despite the complexity, we’ll dive briefly into each topic as a prelude to further discussion in coming weeks and months. 

What is it, anyway?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines workplace sexual harassment as “unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.” The Commission notes that unlawful conduct creates “an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”  Some sexual harassment claims turn on proving a quid pro quo in which continued employment, career path, and/or pay depended on willingness to submit to sexual demands.   

The EEOC scheme is good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t cover every situation.  Men who make unwanted advances on dates, for example, may not have job-related power over women.  The Catholic Church’s sex scandals involving priests and children don’t fit into the EEOC paradigm.  The workplace definition doesn’t work in all instances, the reason Henry argues we should focus on sexual misconduct.  Sexual harassment, for example, seems too tame a term for the allegations against Moore.  Though he denied the charges, many voters apparently believed the assertion he molested young women, some mere children when he allegedly initiated intimate contact with them.

Who decides?    

In the Rob Porter case, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly privately encouraged Porter to ride out the storm and even issued a public statement declaring him a “man of integrity.” Kelly, however, likely knew of the allegations for more than a year.  Only after photos surfaced showing one of Porter’s alleged victims with a black eye did Kelly back off support for Porter.  Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, apparently without knowledge of the facts, contended Porter shouldn’t quit and labeled his accusers “morally bankrupt.”

The Porter, Moore, and Franken cases raise the question of how to resolve sexual harassment complaints involving office holders.  Is the voting booth enough, as in Moore’s case?  What role should disciplinary mechanisms of legislative bodies play?  That might have been the vehicle in Franken’s case until he resigned under pressure from some of his Democratic colleagues perhaps seeking political advantage in the public relations war.  How much does it matter if the alleged transgressions occurred before being elected to office, as in the case of President Trump?  How do we balance the rights of the alleged victim and the electorate’s freedom to elect who it wants, despite harassment allegations? Right now, like most people sorting this out, we have more questions than answers. 
             

Are all Sexual Bad Acts Equally Bad?

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a Senate leader on sexual harassment issues, recently declined to distinguish between sexual harassment and sexual assault saying, a line must be drawn and “none of it is okay.”  The implications of her view led Bill Maher, host of "Real Time with Bill Maher" to push back.  He said, “Justice requires weighing things.  That’s why Lady Justice is holding a scale and not a sawed-off shotgun,” adding, “I’m down with #MeToo.  I’m not down with #MeMcCarthryism.”

Senator Gillibrand’s position appears to make any number of sexist acts someone finds offensive worthy of scorn.  She said, “None of it is okay.” In the interest of not trying to take on too much right now, we’ll let Gillibrand and Maher speak for themselves, but recognize that their conflict marks an important flashpoint in the debate.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent or Just Guilty

Related to the pushback point remains the question of what happens to people accused of sexual harassment?  Is the mere accusation of sexual harassment a death sentence for the alleged harasser’s professional life?  In the interest of encouraging women to come forward with their stories without fear of being disbelieved, should a presumption of guilt attach?  Or, do we follow the traditional presumption of innocence until proven guilty, as in every other criminal or quasi criminal matter? What process is due in sexual harassment situations?  What is fair?  
   

These points only scratch the surface on this issue.  We’ll have more to say later. Perhaps you have thoughts now – do share!

A Little Light Reading: Our Top Three Books on Understanding Race in America

The three of us read a lot because (1) we each enjoy it, (2) we think it essential to being informed citizens, and (3) it’s crucial to this enterprise.

Because we read as much as we do and because we spend so much time interacting with people about the things we care and write about here, friends and readers sometimes ask us what books we think will increase their understanding of the topics we discuss with them, especially race. We thought we’d offer some reading suggestions – a Top Three, if you will – recognizing our list isn’t gospel and others might present lists that would impart as much or more knowledge.

What Missed The List?

We’ll start by recognizing some great works that didn’t make our top three.

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander garnered a great deal of attention during the 2016 campaign for its focus on mass incarceration.

James Baldwin’s Go Tell It on the Mountain and Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man retain their places as classics, essential to understanding this issue.

Taylor Branch’s epic trilogy America in the King Years would make many such lists.

Master of the Senate, the third book in Robert Caro’s The Years of Lyndon Johnson series presents an excellent account of early legislative efforts on civil rights.

One friend reminded us that Colored People by Henry Louis Gates offers rare insight into the culture of black America outside the South as the civil rights era dawned.

The same friend extolled the virtues of Days of Grace, Arthur Ashe’s wonderful memoir about his experience as a black athlete in a white sport and as a black man in America.     

But, we have our favorites – three books we regard as critical to understanding where we stand with race in America today and how we got here.

Our Top Three

1. We suggest starting with The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration by Isabel Wilkerson.

Wilkerson, an African American woman, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and it shows in her compelling narrative about the twentieth-century African-American migration out of the Jim Crow South to the North and West. She gives us the story through the experiences of real people: a Florida orange picker who finds a new life in New York, yet still must cope with returning regularly to the segregated South in his job as a railroad porter; a Mississippi sharecropping family that moved to the Midwest only to confront the restrictive ethnic zoning rampant in the urban politics of Chicago and Milwaukee. A doctor from Louisiana who drove across the desert to resettle in California. The black exodus from the South makes up an important part of American history and Wilkerson tells the story with verve and compassion.

2. The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward Baptist

The Half Has Never Been Told explains the role slavery played in America’s development as a commercial powerhouse in the world economy. Along the way, it explodes many myths, most significant among them the idea the United States became a significant player on the world economic stage after the civil war ended slavery.

In this exhaustively researched book, Baptist, a white son of the South, shows how slavery and the cotton-based southern economy made the United States a world commercial player well before the war. Warning: While the book is profoundly informative, it is not comfortable to read. Baptist, a Cornell University professor, comes at this topic with data and analysis. Narrative takes a back seat.

Getting through The Half Has Never Been Told requires a certain level of compassion and willingness to vicariously experience human suffering. It also requires a strong stomach. Baptist details many of slavery’s horrors. Few “benevolent” slaveholders, if any lived, made the cut in this book. We can’t overestimate the importance of The Half Has Never Been Told to understanding the real history of slavery in America. Rob saw it as significant enough to give a copy to each of his children with the admonition that they read it, “even if you don’t get to it until you’re on your death bed.”

3. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein.

Anyone clinging to the notion that the economic inequality plaguing America based on race occurred by accident must confront some unpleasant, but documented, truths in this book. Relying on government documents and independent studies, Rothstein, a senior fellow at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Haas Institute at University of California, Berkeley, details how court decisions, legislative actions, executive branch policies, and administrative actions drove blacks into segregated neighborhoods, kept white neighborhoods white, and in the process, assured that black wealth would not grow through homeownership, a major way other Americans accumulated assets. This book doesn’t make for comfortable reading either, largely because of the offensiveness of the deliberate acts of racial discrimination it describes.

As we said, there are other books. We think these three present a good starting place.

What are some of your suggestions?

An American Political Agenda for 2018 and 2020: Six Suggestions for the Upcoming Election Cycles: Part 6

We come now to the final point in our list of six issues (read parts one, two, three, four, and five) we want congressional and presidential candidates to focus on in 2018 and 2020: an aggressive push for social justice.

America needs this, especially now, because the Trump years represent a 21st Century low point in the nation’s commitment to equality. We didn’t think, in our sunset years, fighting the civil rights battle all over would become necessary. 

That seems required now, given the ugly underbelly of America’s social fabric unearthed by Trump’s presidency. This underbelly consists of those who see America as the birthright of only white, English speaking Christians and those who do not believe the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection applies to people of other faiths (or no faith), women,  gays, transgender individuals, and people of color. The next president, with help from Congress, must reestablish the moral authority of the office on the issue of fundamental fairness to all Americans.

Racial Equity

Trump’s sins on race cover symbol and policy. Symbolically, we need only recall his statements equating white supremacists denouncing Jews with those protesting confederate monuments in Charlottesville, Virginia. Before Trump, we wouldn’t have imagined a modern-day American president doing such a thing. Candidates in 2018 and 2020 must make clear during their campaigns that won’t happen while he or she holds office. No room exists for hedging, compromising, or equivocating. America needs a president, and members of Congress, with zero tolerance for bigotry who understand no equivalency exists between anti-Semitic and racist chants and protests against monuments that romanticize America’s history of chattel slavery.

  Statue of Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate States Army, in Lee Park in Charlottesville, Virginia (credit: CVille Dog via Wikimedia Commons)

However, Trump’s bad acts go beyond intemperate public statements. Administratively, his government has pulled back on the federal commitment to enforcing anti-discrimination laws and signaled how it disfavors civil rights enforcement. The Justice Department, for example, stopped using consent decrees as a tool for enforcing civil rights laws. Government agencies now limit the data they collect on civil rights violations and have reduced the size of their anti-discrimination staffs. For example, instead of cutting back, the Justice Department should step up its efforts in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes, as there has been a spike in them since Trump’s election.

Civil rights enforcement isn’t part of Trump’s plan. He appears not to believe in it and acts as if it doesn’t serve his political interests. He thinks, probably accurately, his base doesn’t want civil rights laws enforced. The next president must make civil rights part of his or her agenda. Civil rights laws remain the law of the land and every president must vigorously enforce them.

Equity for Sexual Minorities

Racial minorities aren’t faring well in the Trump world. Sexual minorities may fare worse. Trump’s announcement on Twitter that he’d ban transgender individuals from the military demonstrated his attitude. Court rulings and the decision by military leaders to bury the plan in the Pentagon review process stopped the idea for the moment. Trump put out the suggestion for blatantly political reasons – a bone thrown to the Christian right he must feed to keep under his ever-shrinking tent. Eliminating transgender people from the armed forces, however, potentially harms national security by limiting the military’s ability to recruit individuals with particular skills and may damage units that depend on transgender troops.

 Trump's original tweet from July 26, 2017 announcing his ban on transgender individuals in the military (Twitter.com)

As with racial equity, candidates for Congress and the Presidency need to make clear their commitment to gender equality and equity for sexual minorities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. The force of American leadership in the world depends both on military and diplomatic strength and on moral authority as a democracy committed to equal rights for everyone. No room exists for fudging on this.  

Religious Pluralism

America, since its founding, has been a land of many religions and a land of many who profess allegiance to no religion. Our constitution assures the rights of all Americans to practice whatever religion they want or to practice no religion at all. With due respect to the principle of separation of church and state, we hope candidates for office in 2018 and 2020 will talk about and support religious pluralism. We hope they explicitly acknowledge that America recognizes no state religion and no religious test exists for holding office. We saw encouraging signs on this point in the 2017 off-year elections in which members of many religious groups won state and local races. Candidates can freely express their faith preference, as long as they recognize that every American enjoys the same right to practice their faith or to practice no faith at all.

So, there you have it – the six key issues we believe the 2018 and 2020 elections should turn on. As we commend them to you, we believe they’re worth repeating:

1. Restore the dignity of the office of President of the United States;

2. Reverse the toxic, divisive race and ethnicity baiting of the current president;

3. Address income inequality;

4. Develop a thoughtful, intelligent foreign policy that reflects American values 

and security interests and those of our allies;

5. Promote a domestic policy agenda that improves the lives of ordinary Americans; and

6. Renew the American commitment to social justice

It’s your turn – tell us what you think the focus of the 2018 and 2020 elections should be?