Twice yesterday on the Sunday talk shows, Donald Trump’s defense lawyer Rudy Giuliani claimed there was nothing wrong with getting information from Russians. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Chuck Todd asked Giuliani, “Why did the president think it was ethical to essentially trumpet what WikiLeaks was doing?” His response:
Well, if I’m, if I’m — even in law enforcement, if I’m running an investigation and all of a sudden evidence is given to me about the criminality of the person I’m investigating, even if it comes from a, from a questionable source, I’m going to use that information. And there was nothing, nothing to suggest that this was manufactured evidence.
On CNN’s State of the Union, Giuliani was more direct telling Jake Tapper, “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”
I actually agree with the now-disgraced Trump sycophant. There would be nothing wrong with taking information from Russians, IF AND ONLY IF, it is attributed to Russians. For instance, if Tass, Pravda or the GRU (the main intelligence directorate of the Russian army) had published the fact they had hacked into the DNC email server and shared the information and the Trump campaign had prefaced their use of the information by noting it appeared in Russian media, I would not be happy, but I would be okay with it. A rebuttal would have been easy. The Russian government and its mouthpieces are openly supporting Donald Trump including using illegal activities. Why? Are voters really okay with that?
But that is not what happened in this case. Russians disseminated the information as though it was coming from Americans. And when this became apparent to the U.S. intelligence community they informed the sitting president Barack Obama. And when Obama went to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell in hopes of making a bipartisan appeal to both campaigns to reject such overtures, the titular head of the Republican party turned his back. And that was wrong. As have been the plethora of lies and misdirection by Trump and his allies to the overt and systematic nature of Kremlin activities in support of their White House ally.
The episode reminds me of a second instance in which the false narrative of transparency has undermined the electoral process. In the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in the 2010 Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy (yes, the same justice who abruptly resigned to make room for Brett Kavanaugh) wrote:
With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.
In a 2015 interview with Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow, Kennedy admitted he may have wrongly assessed this rationale. “You live in this cyber age. A report can be done in 24 hours. But disclosure is not working the way it should.” Which is why I am skeptical any legislative remedy to redress the 2016 problem will not work as long as the perpetrators of deceptive activities are not under the direct control of the candidate or the campaign. And as long as there is no readily enforced, punitive remedy for violating the law.
In the absence of a loophole-free regimen, the best defense is a skeptical and inquisitive voting population backed up by a free press.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP