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!