[T]hat opinion is based on the premise that either Russia or Ukraine interfered. It could not have been both. And the critics . . . appeared to suggest that Republicans, echoing the Kremlin, are somehow denying the fact of Russian interference. . . . In reality, what Republicans were saying is that it appears that both Russia and Ukraine interfered, although not on the same scale.The problem here is that, whatever Congressional Republicans may have been saying, Donald Trump has definitely been saying that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that was behind the DNC hack.* In an effort to stay on the right side of both Trump and reality, Republicans cite five instances of alleged Ukrainian "interference."
One: The current Ukrainian interior minister and a former prime minister said nasty things about candidate Trump on Facebook (in Ukranian). The author acknowledges that the Ukrainians' hostility toward Trump was somewhat understandable, given that they were being invaded by Russia and that Trump was running on a pro-Russian platform, even to the extent of allowing Russia to annex Ukrainian territory. In any event, it is not illegal foreign government officials to say mean things about US candidates on Facebook. It is illegal to hack servers and distribute private, hacked e-mails.
Two: The Ukrainian ambassador to the US published an editorial in The Hill strongly critical of Trump's pro-Russian stance. That is not illegal either.
The Facebook posts and the editorial are examples of white propaganda, i.e., material intended to persuade, with an acknowledged author. White propaganda is usually considered the least dangerous kind because the author is known, can be exposed as biased, and can be held accountable. The reason political ads identify who is paying for them is because of campaign finance laws requiring our political advertising to stay in the realm of white propaganda. And in any event, neither editorials nor Facebook posts are covered by campaign finance laws.
Three: Ukrainian journalist and member of parliament Serhei Leshchenko published a "black ledger" of payoffs by Ukraine's former pro-Russian government to various persons, including Trump's then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Apparently Republicans recognize that it is going a bit far to ask Ukrainians to refrain from publishing a list of payoffs in their own domestic newspapers, lest it affect the US election. The main argument, therefore, is that the black ledger may not be genuine. The main evidence that it is not genuine is that the Mueller investigation did not charge Manafort for the payoffs listed in the ledger.
In any event, if this account of Leshchenko's publications are accurate, that, too, fits in the category of white propaganda. Leschchenko, it should be noted, disputes this account. According to Leshchenko, he received and published 22 pages of the black ledger (out of 400 to 800 total), none of which mentioned Manafort. He first learned that Manafort was named in the black ledger from an August 15, 2016 article in the New York Times. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) confirmed the story a few days later, and it is fairly clear from the article that NABU was the source. So, a Ukrainian government bureau leaked information to the New York Times about payoffs to Manafort. This fits in the category of "gray propaganda," i.e., material intended to persuade, from an unknown author. That is somewhat more troubling than white propaganda. But the use of anonymous leakers is routine in journalism and there are no laws against publishing material from foreign leakers.
The Russian troll farm, by contrast, was black propaganda, i.e., material that actively conceals its source.
Four: Leshchenko was reported a source for Fusion GPS doing opposition research on Trump and family's foreign business dealings. More accurately, Nellie Ohr (wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr) mentioned that her bosses at Fusion GPS mentioned Leshchenko as a source. Leshchenko has denied any contact with anyone from Fusion GPS and speculates they may have been referring to his public speeches or interviews. Nellie Ohr also stated that her research was based on open sources, and that there was abundant work by Leshchenko available from open sources. In short, Leshchenko's work was probably a source for opposition research and might have been incorporated into gray propaganda if Fusion GPS's work ever became public, which it did not.
Five: Alexandra Chalupa. This is based mostly on a story in Politico that Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American Democratic consultant, researched Paul Manafort and had extensive sources, some in Ukraine. In the process, she may have coordinated with both the DNC and the Ukrainian embassy in violation of laws against foreign interference in elections. So at last we have something that might constitute illegal foreign meddling, although we still know very little about it, and it was certainly nothing so direct as the e-mail Donald Trump, Jr. received telling him that the Russian government was going to share damaging information on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." Chalupa, for what it is worth, has declared herself eager to testify and clear her name.
So, mean Facebook posts, a hostile editorial, release of documents damaging to Paul Manafort, and possible assistance in researching Manafort. Not only is this rather weak tea, it raises an obvious question. If this is election "interference," just how common is it. Is Ukraine truly the only government ever to criticize a US candidate for president, or to release possibly damaging information?
And the answer, or course, is that Ukraine's actions are by no means unique. The most obvious example Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minster of Israel who made not secret in 2012 that he wanted Obama to lose. Netanyahu denounced Obama's Iran policy on Sunday talk shows, warmly welcomed Mitt Romney to Israel, and even ran an ad saying, "The world needs American strength, not apologies." This looked very much like "interference" in the US election -- albeit legal and limited to white propaganda. And in fairness to Netanyahu, the US had often returned the favor.
Election "interference" of this kind is perfectly legal and requires no investigation. It is generally considered ill-advised, for two reasons. One reason is that most people resent foreign meddling in their elections and too close an association with a foreign leader is more likely to harm than help a candidate. The other reason is that if a country's favored candidate loses, it puts the country on a bad footing with the winner.
But personal hostility is not usually enough to overcome national interest. Obama's personal relationship with Netanyahu was frosty after the 2012 election. Obama continued to pursue a more conciliatory policy toward Iran than Netanyahu cared for, and he continued to pressure Israel on West Bank settlements. But the basic strategic partnership between the US and Israel remained, and certainly Obama never withheld funding from Israel's Iron Dome defense to protect it from Hamas rockets.**
And plenty of other governments made hostile comments about candidate Trump in 2016, but without the same sort of retaliation. Fiona Hill's testimony in that regard is revealing:
I also mentioned in my deposition of October 14th that in fact many officials from many countries including Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They believe that Secretary Clinton, former Senator Clinton, former First Lady Clinton was going to win. And many said some pretty disparaging and hurtful thing about President Trump. But I can't blame him for feeling aggrieved about them. And when we were setting up Head of State visits, remember I have a portfolio of 50 plus countries plus NATO and the European Union, we thought it prudent to collect as much as possible about comments that people might have said about the President during the campaign when he was either one of the candidates to be the nominee for the Republican party or when he was actually the candidate running against Hillary Clinton. And I'm sorry to say that awful lot and perhaps I shouldn't name them here because it will have conscience an awful lot of Senior Officials in many Goverance (ph) including our Allied Governments said some pretty hurtful things about The President.
And I would also personally take offense at some the things that were said if I were The President. Now the difference here however is that that hasn't had any major impact on his feelings towards those countries. Not that I have seen. But I've heard The President say, and he said it in public so I'm not revealing any kind of executive privilege here that Ukraine tried to take me down. What (ph) I have seen is this ill advised Ukrainian Officials, Ambassador Charlie been removed as being the Ambassador from here. Made some pretty unpleasant statements and above all some ill advised opeds. But I could list a whole host of Ambassadors from allied countries who tweeted out, who had public comments about The President as well. And it did not affect security assistance having meetings with them. If it would there been a lot of people he wouldn't have met with.That is an important point that no one else at the hearings seems to have made, and one that Republicans should answer if they are going to claim Ukrainian "interference."
__________________________________________
*Or, perhaps, that there was no hack, but that Seth Rich stole the e-mails and then Ukraine framed Russia for a non-existent hack.
**That is actually not a bad analogy. If Obama had withheld funding from Israel's Iron Dome in an effort to pressure a new Israeli government to "investigate" Netanyahu's actions in the 2012 election, that would have been a scandal of the highest order.
No comments:
Post a Comment