OPINION:
Condemnation of Russia’s presumed cyberhacking, aimed at high-level figures suspected of abusing the latest presidential election campaign, has sprouted from every corner of Washington. There’s little mischief to anger Americans more than the idea that foreigners are manipulating the transferral of governing from one president to another.
For some, partisan mischief is the only possible explanation for the surprise election of Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton was the only legitimate candidate. But something is missing from the fanciful scenario. The facts. Until such facts come to light, no one can know where fake news ends and the real stuff begins.
Hillary loudly proclaimed in her final debate with the Donald that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that the Russians swiped emails of the Democratic National Committee and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, and gave them to WikiLeaks. In fact, the heads of only 2 agencies, not 17, actually said that. After the votes were counted on Nov. 8, President Obama couldn’t believe his eyes, and ordered the intelligence agencies to get to the bottom of the hacking and produce a final report by Jan. 20, his final day in office.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a preliminary report last week elaborating on the earlier claim, writing, “Russian civilian and military intelligence services … participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party.” The details of the cyber-activity, which the federal investigators code-named Grizzly Steppe, have been stretched to launch rumors that it was none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin who ordered the infiltration of the Democratic and Republican parties alike, but he withheld revelation of sensitive communications in order to help elect Mr. Trump.
Big talk of such magnitude far exceeds the facts. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, though not the most reliable source, has nevertheless repeatedly said that whoever pilfered the documents that were passed on to him didn’t get them from the Russian government. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama didn’t bother waiting for his agencies’ conclusive report when ordering official retaliation against Moscow last week, instituting economic sanctions, expelling 35 Russian diplomats and vowing other covert unspecified action.
Some U.S. senators urge a more thorough response, with Republican John McCain and Democrat Charles Schumer calling for a new select committee on cyberthreats to focus on the charges against Russia and other security suspects, such as China and Iran. For his part, Mr. Trump scoffs at the notion that Mr. Putin ordered the sabotage of Hillary’s campaign, and says he’s privy to information about the hackery that ordinary citizens don’t have. No doubt true. He has promised to share some of what he has, and considering the partisan uproar, the sooner the better.
Washington was built on swamps, and it’s from such dismal places that disinformation seeps and solidifies into conspiracy theories. None of Washington’s leading lights have presented an airtight case, or even a persuasive one, linking Russian officials with the cybercrime, yet the finger-pointing sharpens. It’s as if the Queen of Hearts from “Alice in Wonderland” is pacing up and down Pennsylvania Avenue demanding, “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.”
It’s not necessary to trust the Russians, and few Americans do, to restrain emotion and further judgment until mischief of the Russians — or any other bad actors — is demonstrated beyond doubt. When that happens, Americans can together condemn the guilty. But finding and identifying them is the first order of business.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.