A smattering of announcements followed the press release. In late July, the NSA announced a Russia Small Group to deal with cyberattacks but hastened to add that it was in line with previous activities and not a marked change in strategy. In August 2018, the FBI announced its Foreign Influence Task Force. Political campaigns have reported no systematic contact from it or from any law enforcement officials. There is no “sign that law enforcement is playing a proactive role to protect campaigns from meddling on a day-to-day basis,” according to the New York Times.
Finally, in late September 2018, President Trump announced a new process for imposing sanctions in the event of future election interference. Many non-Democratic groups criticized the process as a Band-Aid. “Trump is way late to the game. The only reason this is happening is the tremendous amount of publicity and pressure he’s now feeling about elections,” Patrick Eddington, a national security analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization, told Wired magazine. “This isn’t a serious policy initiative. If they were serious about trying to harden election defenses, this would have come the first week Trump got sworn into office and they would have coordinated with folks on the Hill and the congressional committee chairs.”
Congressional responses to the ongoing threats have met with continuous opposition from President Trump. For example, until March 2018 he ignored a congressional mandate to impose sanctions on Russia, acting only after pressure from European allies and in response to the poisoning of a British resident. In imposing the sanctions, Trump himself never mentioned Russian election interference. Interference with our elections wasn’t serious enough to impose a penalty on Russia.
President Trump has resisted Congress about more than sanctions. In early August 2018, the Secure Elections Act, crafted by Republican senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, was poised for passage a few weeks later. It would have granted state election officials security clearances for easier access to critical intelligence and required that states conduct election result audits, a vital tool for ensuring accurate outcomes and detecting interference. The White House opposed the bill, and it died. In hearings of the Senate Banking and Foreign Relations Committees that month, senators repeatedly asked administration officials for policy or legal recommendations on dealing with the ongoing threat of Russian interference in the midterm elections. They got none. Another example involves the National Defense Authorization Act, which primarily governs the yearly budget of the Defense Department. It requires that the secretary of defense prepare a “military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activity carried out against the United States or a United States person by a foreign power.” The secretary cannot conduct the operation without authorization, however, and President Trump has not granted it.
Congress’s 2018 version of the act added two provisions dealing with “malign foreign influence operations and campaigns.” One required that the president appoint someone on the National Security Council to “be responsible for the coordination of the interagency process for combating malign foreign influence operations and campaigns.” The other required that person to brief Congress at least twice a year on his or her activities. President Trump signed the bill into law but indicated he would not comply with the requirements, citing executive privilege. He’d done the same the previous year, when Congress had conditioned certain funding on the president’s developing and reporting to Congress on “a national policy for the United States relating to cyberspace, cybersecurity, and cyber warfare.” Even as he signed it into law, President Trump indicated that he would not comply with it, saying he “strongly object[ed]” to it.
In addition, the president has failed to take care that a host of other laws be properly enforced and executed, from computer crime and anti-hacking provisions (18 U.S.C. § 1030, 2701), to economic espionage laws (18 U.S.C. § 1831), to laws barring campaign contributions or donations by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. § 30121).
The foregoing describes a pattern of behavior—the wholesale abandonment of a core presidential duty. More than a year and a half into his administration, President Trump has reacted to the Russian attacks of 2016 and the continuing attacks with a unique blend of appeasement, ineptitude, inaction, efforts to undermine others’ attempts to counter the assault—and with public deception.
Russian Interference Has Not Stopped
In August 2018, Facebook found a new Russia-based influence operation of more than 30 fake accounts, with at least 9,500 posts and 150 ads for an audience of 290,000 followers. This new operation tried to help arrange both a white supremacist rally in Washington, DC, and counterprotests to the rally. It had already organized more than twenty-five events. A Russia-backed website that had previously attempted to start a June rally in front of the White House was linked to Facebook and Twitter accounts and had also posted videos on a YouTube account. A report from McClatchy publications indicated that, as with almost all the Russia-backed social media operations, it carried content intended to “foment racial division, harden feelings over immigration, gun control and police brutality, and undermine social cohesion.”
“After Election Day, the Russian government stepped on the gas,” John Kelly, the CEO of Graphika, a social media intelligence firm, told National Public Radio. “Today the automated accounts of the far left and far right extremes of the American political spectrum produce as many as 25–30 times the number of messages per day on average as genuine political accounts across the mainstream. The extremes are screaming while the majority whispers.”
In the past year, Russian bots flooded Twitter with hashtags and tweets designed to magnify extreme opinions or spread fake stories. Russian attacks started after mass shootings in 2017 in Las Vegas and Texas; after NFL players began taking a knee during the national anthem to protest treatment of African Americans; after Senator Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct and subsequently resigned; after seventeen people were killed in a Parkland, Florida, high school in February 2018. Throughout, the Russia-backed trolls have also flooded Twitter with messages discrediting the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Russia is also continuing to attack politicians. Microsoft reported in the summer of 2018 that it had shut down a “sophisticated” effort to hack the email accounts of three candidates for Congress. Senators Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, both Democrats, later disclosed that their offices were two of the three targets. In August 2018, Microsoft reported new Russian hacking efforts, this time aimed at the Senate and at Republican think tanks.
In March 2018, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI reported that the Russian government cyber targeted and infiltrated critical infrastructure, including “energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors.” It went on to detail “a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks. After obtaining access, the Russian government cyber actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally, and collected information pertaining to Industrial Control Systems.”
In the summer of 2018, the DHS provided more details about these efforts made in 2017–18. It said that Russia’s military intelligence had gained access to the control rooms of power plants throughout the nation, enabling it to take over parts of the power grid if it wanted to. According to sources interviewed by the New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security understated the threat: “[I]t is possible that Russian hackers are holding their fire until closer to Election Day in November.”
And as with the 2016 Russian efforts, President Trump has denied the assaults. When asked in July 2018 by a reporter whether Russia was “still targeting the US,” President Trump responded: “No.” The White House quickly attempted to backtrack, explaining that his “no” was his way of declining to answer the question—echoing his would/wouldn’t
the day after Helsinki. At best, he is refusing to discuss or provide a clear message about ongoing cyberassaults. At worst, he is deliberately and repeatedly deceiving the American people about a major danger to our country from a foreign power.
His own intelligence heads, however, have warned us about the current assaults. “I believe that President Putin has clearly come to the conclusion that there’s little price to pay and that therefore, ‘I can continue this activity,’” former NSA head Rogers told Congress in February 2018.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2018: “Frankly, the US is under attack. … There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 US midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations.” On July 13, 2018, Coats stepped up his warnings: “It was in the months prior to September 2001 when, according to then-CIA Director George Tenet, the system was blinking red. And here we are nearly two decades later, and I’m here to say the warning lights are blinking red again. Today, the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack.”
Despite these warnings and the history of past Russian attacks, the president has been disturbingly passive and deceptive about them.
The Case for Impeachment
The first article of impeachment against Richard Nixon charged him with “making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the American people”—his claims that a full investigation of the Watergate cover-up had taken place and that no one in the White House was involved. The deceptions were part of Nixon’s effort to cover up the burglary—and keep his responsibility for it hidden—and to remove pressure for a fuller investigation.
President Trump’s deceptions are designed to cover up or muddy the fact of Russia’s election interference and thereby remove pressure for him to act against Russia.
President Nixon’s use of presidential powers to effectuate a cover-up of the Watergate break-in, to wiretap journalists, to direct audits of an enemies list of his political opponents, and to carry out other nefarious activities was motivated by personal and political goals that had nothing to do with the welfare of the country. In impeding lawful investigations into the break-in, he aimed, initially, to ensure his reelection in 1972 and, afterward, to avoid his own or his aides’ prosecution. This was central to the second article of impeachment.
President Trump’s refusal to acknowledge Russian interference and develop a feasible plan to protect our electoral system has nothing to do with our country’s well-being. He has never articulated any reason for refusing to act that relates to America’s interests. In fact, some on his staff suggest he is unable in his mind to separate Russian interference from the legitimacy of his election. There are other possible explanations for his passivity: Perhaps Russia has some hold over him, such as the salacious kompromat described in the so-called Steele dossier, compiled in 2016 by Christopher Steele, former head of the Russia desk for the British foreign intelligence agency MI6. (Putin was careful at Helsinki to leave that possibility open.) Is President Trump laying the groundwork for expanded business activities in Russia after his presidency ends? Or is he simply grateful for Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election and hoping to receive it again in the elections of 2018 and 2020? All of these would be impermissible rationales—particularly given the grave consequences of his inaction—and could make President Trump liable for impeachment.
His inaction violates the “take care” clause of the Constitution, his oath of office, and his responsibilities as commander in chief to protect our country from attack by a foreign power eager to exercise some deleterious influence over our political system. We are nearing another federal election and face ongoing Russian efforts to destabilize our democracy without a significant response by our president. In the absence of protection against manipulation, the 2018 results at the polls, particularly in close races, may be easily and successfully challenged, causing untold disruption, even chaos.
The danger cannot be overstated: Russia assaulted our election machinery and manipulated public opinion through social media to sow disruption and turmoil. Its actions may have affected the outcome of the 2016 elections. President Trump has been apprised of this by cabinet-level intelligence officers, many of his choosing, and has failed to address the attacks by developing a comprehensive plan that could rally the country behind him. President Trump’s refusal to act endangers the people’s right to free elections, a foundation of our democracy; is a “great and dangerous offense”; and subverts the Constitution. Impeachment is the remedy our Constitution provides for such misdeeds.
4
Preventing, Obstructing, Impeding, and Abusing the Administration of Justice
The first article of impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon charged him with impeding and obstructing the administration of justice. Simply stated, Article I dealt with Nixon’s cover-up of the Watergate break-in. It specified the many different actions he took to interfere with the criminal justice system and congressional inquiries in order to ensure his reelection, and then to protect his aides and himself from prosecution and prison. Aside from other non-Watergate matters, Article II charged Nixon with abusing the powers of his office when he interfered with the several investigations to cover up the break-in and protect the guilty, including himself.
A decidedly bipartisan House Judiciary Committee approved the two articles by slightly more than a two-thirds majority, deeply troubled by a president who had used his office to undermine the rule of law, under which individuals, regardless of status or connection, are held accountable for their crimes or misdeeds. Concluding that President Nixon had “acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,” it found his conduct “warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”
Our nation takes tampering with or thwarting the institutions of justice very seriously. The Declaration of Independence asserted that George III “obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.” Moreover, it charged, he had “obstruct[ed] the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners.” This kind of obstruction was one of the reasons our nation started an armed revolution. It is also a reason to impeach a president. I would know.
When presidents take the oath of office, they promise to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” The Constitution requires that a president “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice is an assault on the faith that binds the president to the people and that makes our representative democracy possible—the faith that the president acts for the benefit of the country as a whole and not for the president’s own benefit. It is an attack on a core democratic value when the tremendous power of the state is warped and corrupted for the president’s personal purposes.
But instead of keeping faith, President Trump has in fact unremittingly sought to manipulate our justice system to protect himself and his family and to punish his enemies—and has persistently tried to deceive the American people about his intentions and actions.
The Investigations into President Trump That He Attempted to Obstruct or Impede
President Trump, members of his family, and a number of his close associates have been at the center of a number of criminal investigations for much of the last two years. They are personally at risk of indictment and conviction, not to mention prison sentences, and their business interests are at risk as well. So the president’s incentive to use the power of his office to evade a thorough investigation and responsibility is very high.
The FBI opened its inquiry into connections between Russia and the Trump campaign four months before the 2016 election, prompted by the revelation that a Trump campaign fore
ign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, had boasted of dirt the Russians had on Hillary Clinton to the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom over drinks at a London bar. When stolen Democratic emails were leaked two months later, Australian officials alerted American law enforcement to the conversation, and the FBI opened its investigation in July. Through the summer and fall of 2016, the FBI learned of numerous contacts between the Trump campaign, Russians, and possible Russian agents, arousing suspicion that a Russian influence operation was under way. First reported by the New York Times in late October 2016, the FBI inquiry continued after the election.
At roughly the same time, the FBI and the Department of Justice began pursuing an investigation into one of the Trump campaign’s top national security advisers, General Michael T. Flynn. But this inquiry did not involve Russia; instead, the initial focus was on Flynn’s illegal work as a paid lobbyist for Turkey.
A third investigation was launched in early 2017, this time aimed at the illegal lobbying work on behalf of pro-Russian political elements in Ukraine by former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
By far the largest, most intensive investigation began on May 17, 2017, when the Department of Justice announced the appointment of special counsel Mueller “to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” Mueller was appointed to this post as a result of what has been viewed as one of the most imprudent and disgraceful acts of the Trump presidency, the firing of FBI director James Comey, a move discussed later in this chapter.
Mueller was specifically charged with looking into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and … any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” He also was authorized to “investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” Mueller also took over the inquiries into Flynn and Manafort.
The Case for Impeaching Trump Page 7