With the chorus of calls for an “independent counsel” or “special prosecutor” to investigate the Russian hacking scandal, there has been one element that remains rather ambiguous: what is the specific crime to be investigated? Clearly there is the hacking but that crime is well-known and was committed by Russians who are unlikely to be subject to any real investigation. A special counsel, as opposed to a bipartisan commission, would require the articulation of a crime and the basis for the investigation. I am all in favor of independent investigations of this and other issues. However, if we are going to move beyond a special commission to special counsel we need to have more evidence and a notion of what we are investigating. That may come but we are not there yet. Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the subject — and the moral outrage over hacking.
In a time of virtually complete political polarization, there is one point upon which both parties appear to agree: moral outrage at the notion of Russian attempts to influence our election.
There are bipartisan demands for a special prosecutor and a full criminal investigation. However, while the outrage is most evident, the alleged crime is more difficult to discern. Before we order a massive independent investigation, it might be useful to examine both the basis for the self-evident outrage and the less-than-evident crime.
Moral outrage as political necessity
As our politicians went on the air to vent their disgust over Russians trying to influence our election, there was an interesting study published this month on moral outrage in an academic journal, Motivation and Emotion. The researchers found that moral outrage is rooted, not in altruism, but self-interest — often to affirm one’s own status and avoiding responsibilities or guilt.
“Individuals,” the study notes, “respond to reminders of their group’s moral culpability with feelings of outrage at third-party harm-doing.” The most astonishing aspect of this study is that it was not done entirely on Capitol Hill.
Many other countries can be forgiven if they are a bit confused by the expressions of outrage at the notion that Russia hacked emails or tried to influence our election. The United States objecting to hacking or influencing elections is akin to Bernie Sanders expressing disgust over accounting irregularities.
The United States has not only extensively engaged in surveillance in other countries but hacked the accounts of our closest allies, including the personal communications of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Moreover, our country has a long history of direct interference in foreign elections from overthrowing governments to funding opposition movements.
One study found 81 different instances of the United States interfering with the elections of other countries between 1946 and 2000. We learned from the best; foreign interference in our country goes back to 1700s when France and Britain actively sought to influence our early governments.
Democratic leadership have a particular interest in expressing moral outrage over the election. The extent to which the election becomes an example of “third-party harm-doing,” the less attention will be drawn toward the party establishment which virtually anointed Hillary Clinton as their candidate despite polls showing that voters wanted someone outside of the establishment.
Not only did they select the single greatest establishment figure, but someone with record negative polling. “The Russians did it” is a much better narrative.
Of course, the Russians did not “hack the election.” No votes were fabricated. Indeed, there is no proof of emails being fabricated (despite the claims of some Democratic leaders like Donna Brazile at the time). The reason the public has not risen up in anger is that it is hard to get the public outraged over being shown the duplicitous and dishonest character of their leaders — even if the release was clearly one-sided against Democrats.
The public has every right to be outraged, but the outrage of our government officials would make Claude Rains blush.
Moral outrage in search of a crime
In the end, Russian attempts to influence our election should be a matter of national concern and investigation, though we would be in a far superior position if we acknowledged our own checkered past in such efforts. However, the call for a “Special Counsel” or “independent prosecutor” seems a bit premature since we do not have a clear crime other than the hacking itself (which has already been confirmed).
Clearly the Russians hacked DNC emails but we do not need a special counsel to confirm extensive hacking operations by a host of different countries. It is like complaining about the weather.
Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (and the acting deputy attorney general), could determine that an investigation by the Justice Department would still present a conflict of interest even after the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The process for the appointment of special counsels through the courts lapsed in 1999. Thus, the current standard would involve Boente determining that the “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” and must be done outside of the Department. But what is the crime under investigation?
The suggestions that Sessions committed perjury are far-fetched and unsupported.
Some have suggested violations of the Logan Act. However, that 1799 law concerns calls for the fine or imprisonment of private citizens who attempt to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a United States citizen and does not appear material to these allegations. If there were monetary payments to influence the election, that would constitute a crime but there has yet to be evidence such crimes.
Finally, there do appear to have been criminal leaks during and after the election. However, those are insular, conventional matters for investigation by the Justice Department.
We generally do not start special counsel investigations absent a clear articulated and supportable criminal allegation. There are a host of obvious political or policy concerns that could be the subject of an independent investigation by a commission or joint legislative/executive effort. There are real concerns over conflicts in the current administration given the focus on the presidential election.
Yet, we are simply likely to confirm much of what we know: we were hacked. We are also likely to confront what many do not want to discuss: we have hacked others for years.
Until there is more evidence of a crime by United States citizens, there is little reason for a special counsel as opposed to the current investigations. We should investigate the hacking and efforts to influence our elections, certainly. But our politicians may want to leave the moral outrage and hypocrisy behind.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
The Hill Newspaper March 3, 2017
Good article. It seems that after listening to Mark Levin, that the Russian thing went back as far as early 2016. It was used as a pretext to spy on Trump. My theory is that, knowing they would eventually be “outed”, they pushed and shoved the “Red Scare” meme out into the media so that when the spying was eventually released to the public, their original pretext would seem plausible.
I agree that the Obama administration would love to do anything in their power to make President Trump’s road as rocky as possible. That said, President Trump has the authority to declassify any and all intelligence related to the claim that President Trump was spied on. He can prove once and for all that either the DOJ or Obama directly had his campaign spied upon. But he doesn’t.
The fact that he does not go there at all suggests that he may be simply trying to start his own counter set of fake stories to put up against the fake stories of Russian Hacking by Obama, the CIA and team HIllary (and the DNC).
Believe it or not, a great many of us really are just left or right of center (or both) and would rather invest our energies in moving forward than in moral outrage. Our voices have been utterly and completely marginalized even though we are likely the majority.
Agreed James.
You’re not the majority. With Democratic office-holders and their staffs, it’s a business. As for academics, lawyers, and rank-and-file partisan Democrats, it has decayed into an exercise in self-congratulation and aggression. It has no value.
The 6 Corporations that run MSM will not let us move forward. They didn’t want a thinking Man in that position this time around.
This sounds like a column that should be in Psychology Today.
I am over the election. What I don’t like is the thought of the US being toppled by a foreign government and much worse an unbalanced leader in the OoP.
The Executive Branch reminds me of Medusa or Cerberus or a Lernaean Hydra. Congress can’t get anything done because of all of the antic of the Executive. The Executive Office wants the Newly crafted Immigration Ban to have its own moment. Pray tell how this will work.
I have never been more concerned about the international stability of the US as we have been golden. Today, I worry about the disrespect and disruption that the Executive has caused.
If you want to paint this as a sore loser. Then answer this, why is a winner acting this way?
WIB,
There is absolutely no evidence of the USGinc. being toppled by a foreign govt. There is evidence that Clinton and the DNC rigged the Democratic primary in Clinton’s favor. Their is evidence of vast sums of pay to play money from Saudi Arabia going into the Clinton campaign. So, if you’re really worried, there is actual evidence of foul play. Strangely, I don’t hear you speak of these things.
I wouldn’t say we’ve had a sane person in the WH for quite some time. Obama went to war with 7 nations and founded ISIS. Is this sanity? I can’t see how those actions did anything except make the US open to blowback.
Democrats think their own madwoman and madman is all good. That’s a mistake. Behavior matters, not party. I never heard you say anything concerning your own party’s people, people who did things which normally would be considered completely mad. It’s why your words about Trump’s madness and your concern about the US ring so hollow.
I didn’t vote for Clinton. So what is your beef with me?
Clinton is not president and NEVER will be so why waste so much time on her unless one wants to deflect from the current occupant’s activities.
Because anon,
Democrats are calling for a war with Russia and the removal of a president for interference in the 2016 presidential election. If you are serious about interference in the 2016 election and foreign powers, look no further than Clinton and Saudi Arabia.
There’s no evidence for the Russian claim but there is documentation of Clinton and the DNC, along with Saudi Arabia interfering in the 2016 election. This is why it is difficult to take your or WIB concerns about foreign interference in the election seriously. You simply ignore known interference.
If you want to investigate the known interference as well as the speculative interference by Russia, I say go for it. If you are only concerned about the speculative interference then I don’t think you have a serious desire to understand what happened in the 2016 presidential election.
Democrats are calling for a war with Russia, news to me. Proof please.
No one wants a hot war because it would become nuclear quickly. As unsavory as the DNC affair was, how a party conducts its business in the primaries is not under the scope of federal election law as is the general. so there is nothing to prosecute there. What happened in the 2016 election is that Trump won. He is the president. Should he be removed I doubt it will be because of Russians meddling in the election but because of something to do with finances and influence peddling….. something about indebtedness to Russian oligarchs and banks and therefore owes favors.
anon and WIB,
Many are calling for a hot war. WIB, I think you are able to look this up for yourself!
anon, Primaries are not the sole province of the party. They are legal elections which are subject to law, not simply party procedures.
You continue to peddle the Russian claim without proof to back it up. You also continue to ignore proof of illegal interference in the 2016 presidential election by Clinton and the DNC as well as by foreign powers such as Saudi Arabia. You might want to care about that because this interference by Clinton and the DNC probably blew the chance for a Democrat to be president.
I know of not one democrat that wants a nuclear holocaust. I am more worried about North Korea and Trump’s environmental holocaust.
Just a quick search:
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/322002-dem-senator-we-should-determine-if-russian-election-hacking-was-act-of
I agree that there are many reasons to be worried about wars with various other nations. This nation has been blood thirsty for a very long time and now is no exception.
She went to far but did not say she wanted a nuclear war. 🙂
It’s hard to tell if you are being so litteral on purpose or if you actually miss the distinction, but let’s assume the latter.
When people talk about Asking for war with Russia it is almost invariably short hand for, “pushing the two countries ever closer to making war inevitable”, or something to that effect.
It goes without saying that neither Hillary nor the military industrial complex, nor any neoconservative on the right OR the left is going to explicitly ask for nuclear war. What they are really asking for is more sanctions, more military bases, ever more pressure, both physical (military) and particularly economic pressure being put on Russia. They are asking, almost explicitly, for a Cold War and many on the left and right are waking up and pointing out that such a Cold War can become a hot one by a single stupid mistake. That this has already almost happened in the last 50 years is without question, and Trump (or Hillary for that matter) are not the ones you want to have, finger on the button, during such times. Trump because he is proving himself hyper erratic and Hillary because she has a track record of recklessly starting wars and being militarily aggressive.
I said war and provided the link. You are the person who put in the modifier of “nuclear” war! (Not that BB doesn’t make a good case of how that could happen.) I have seen these types of disingenuous posts before.
I truly wish people could make honest arguments. So I will just have to correct the record here and hope you can be more honest in your presentations in the future.
State law and state party rules govern primaries. The feds could step in if there was a civil right violations surrounding something like voter id law.
Our new Energizer Bunny. Really an old one, just a new name.
You bet an anonymous name. Don’t take internet threats lightly.
In my opinion Trump, Bannon and Alex Jones would rather go to war with California than Russia. North Korea is the hot spot now but later on I think Trump would like to invade Iran.
What hack are we talking about? Wikileaks said they obtained the documents from someone who had lawful access to them. What is this Russian interference? Evidence please.
Like doglover, I’m happy to see a call for a legal proceeding as opposed to Democrats and other war mongers (McCain, Graham) screaming for war.
The psychologically analysis presented here is important. For example, we know that Clinton interfered in this election, along with the DNC. Democrats remain completely unconcerned with this theft of a primary. Yet this was an egregious interference in our presidential election. We will not get anywhere as a nation with the rank hypocrisy exhibited by too many of our citizens.
And yes, given the fact that USGinc. has actually killed other nation’s leaders and installed the person USGinc. wanted on the throne, it should be a time of soul searching on what kind of nation we have been and currently are. Who do we want to be? Right now, the answer is shameful and horrific. I want a nation commit ed to justice. We could be that nation but we will need to reckon with what is happening right now and in the past before that could ever happen.
Was there or was there not a FISA warrant for the Trump campaign headquarters? A FISA warrant would suggest there was probable cause for members of the campaign to be inappropriately involved with a foreign government. That’s the investigation that needs to continue. Unfortunately, once the Clinton’s were investigated by the special prosecutor, the law that created the special prosecutor was rescinded. Now Trump gets to name his own. We’re in looking glass world.
An independent commission like the 911 commission is preferred, bettykath. 🙂
FISA warrants do not require evidence of wrongdoing. They only require certification the foreign powers are involved.
We know (and the Democrats in Congress know) that Russia did not ‘interfere’ with our election because flat nothing conceivably attributable to Russian hacking (and Wikileaks has denied a Russian source) can be shown to have moved the needle at all. The most salient exposure was the Billy Bush tape, but that was NBC scamming around, not the Russians.
One study found 81 different instances of the United States interfering with the elections of other countries between 1946 and 2000.
You could double that number or extinguish it by fiddling with the definition of ‘interfere’. Do faculty have any standards at all anymore?
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/838732404688834560
Hopefully, the Senate Intelligence Committee will step up and do their job.
People have forgotten special prosecutors in the past tend to turn into witch hunts….
But the good news is that it’s better to indict and prosecute those who seem to have committed a crime, than to bomb and destroy several countries and cultures because twenty or so people may have committed a crime.
Has there been proof of Russian hacking the Podesta or DNC emails? I must have missed that…not a surprise if it is true.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dnc-hack-proof-russia-democrats (. “We realised that these actors were very well known to us,” Alperovitch says. This is because of a handful of small but significant tells: data exfiltrated to an IP address associated with the hackers; a misspelled URL; and time zones related to Moscow. “They were called FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR, and we could attribute them to the Russian government.”)
anon – they were never allowed to examine the DNC computers, so it would be hard to put a name to anybody.
? Crowdstrike did the work.
anon – and we should trust them because?
I think there is a crime, it is called phishing, and Podesta fell for it. Phishing can be done from anywhere, even Kenya.
This reminds me of the Red Chinese leader before Mao. His name was Who Flung Foo and he was married to a woman named She Pork and they had a kid named Tre Spots On Da Wall. When the Wall came down Who was forgotten about. It is time to bring him back into focus.
The name of the Committee should be named: Three Spots On The Wall by Who Flung Foo.
I wish the whole world could read this article.
Great article sir, thank you for taking of your time to post it. I am going to reblog this one for you.
“Clearly there is the hacking but that crime is well-known and was committed by Russians…”
I hope you have better evidence for that accusation than anything that has been presented by the US intelligence community. All they can tell us is that the software used to commit the hack was similar to software used by Russian intelligence. They cannot tell us specifically that it belonged to or was deployed by Russia, and they do not mention that it has been and is still being used by hundreds of other organizations and individuals.
I agree. Where is the proof that the Russians did the hacking? I have read that older, commercial available Ukrain software was used.DNC would not allow access to the FBI to the computers that were compromised. Why? So many unanswered questions about the hackings, even the most basic things.
The entire Russian-Trump connection seems concocted. Why hasn’t anyone investigated Uranium One/Clinton Foundation/HRC ot the Russian Reset/Skolkovo and the huge transfer of US technology to Russia? These latter activities threaten national security.
To say nothing of the still-unsolved murder of Seth Rich, and subsequent assignment of a DNC handler to act as family spokesperson for his parents.
Furthermore, the assertion by Julian Assange that it was NOT the Russians and his personal offer of a substantial reward for finding the killer(s) of Seth Rich.
Considering the outrageous behaviour of the DNC towards Bernie Sanders, it is highly likely that the leaks were indeed internal, by disillusioned Sanders supporters.
Very good! I hope everyone starts thinking this way! There is nothing behind this hateful cloud of confusion other than politicians with their own agenda! People need to stop letting politicians and their associated pundits do their thinking for them. We are the only ones to lose in all of this–the moral outrage serves no one except the manufacturers of it!
Absolutely. Not clear how to get people to see that when they believe they are fighting dragons.
America is a Three-Ring-Circus. American politics resemble the last days of the Roman Republic, with back-stabbing senators, infighting, and populace outrage. Just more signs that America is a failed state and is sinking fast.
Yes, it’s a sad state when the ex President moves into the capital of our country with the sole purpose to continue their “social divide and conquer strategy,” sewing more blind hate to cause demonstrations and violence that lead to change. Once again, the empowered will be the only ones to benefit. The losers will be the people who participate. They will use the same model in DC they have in their “color revolutions”–well documented strategies of creating societal discord–just look at what NED and State Department people roped the people in Ukraine to do. And the people are worse off for it. So yes, I have to say, things aren’t looking so great. It is my hope (however illogical, especially from reading some of the comments on this blog over the years) that Americans will live up to their heritage, and turn their backs on these politicians and sewers of perpetual discontent.
His daughter needs to finish school. There’s no problem with him living in DC for an interim period.
He hasn’t practiced law over 20 years, and has had only 3-4 years so doing under his belt. He’d be incompetent. Investment banks and law firms commonly hire quondam politicians, of course (presumably for lobbying). Lehman Bros hired John Kasich to work in one of their regional offices and some other outfit hired Dan Quayle. Since he hasn’t been accountable to anyone in a work situation since 1996, he might find it something of an adjustment.
Sue – I agree. There is no proof the Russians did it. Wikileaks said they didn’t get their info from the Russians. What is this obsession with the Russians?
The obsessions with the Russians is derived from an effort to tell themselves they must have been denied office via dirty pool. Partisan Democrats never stop lying – to themselves or to anyone condemned to listen to them.
dds – Susan Sarandon did say the other day that she was not to blame for Hillary’s loss. 🙂 Currently, they have blamed everybody but themselves.
You would think their ethical standpoint of “My need gave me the right” and all the spiraling problems it has called would be wearing even their own party a little thin by now. I guess not for some.
Then-CIA Chief Daddy Bush and his then-buddy Manuel Noriega flourished in their thriving billion dollar drug cartel industry. Manuel decided to go it alone, to branch off without Daddy Bush. Daddy Bush said to Manuel, “Manuel, I’d like to introduce you to my friends, the US Marines!” Who promptly killed over 3000 innocent Columbia civilian non-combatants, in order to arrest Manuel, who now rots in prison. There’s a 360 degree image of Columbia, in which it appears the Marines had smoke coming from every window as far as the eye could see.
“From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,
We will fight our nation’s battles, on the land and on the sea….”
Joseph Jones….
-I think you mean Panama, not Columbia.
What do we really know? Russians hacking a US Computer. Apparently successful as the computer was unprotected (read email server etc.)
a. Two reason for being tlax
1. Stupidity
2. Intentional. which means it was set up as a way to pass information.
b. DNC hacks – same part one and part two.
c. We know that in Russia there is no such crime as hacking a foreign computer.
d. Inthe US there is not such crime as allowing one’s computer or server to be hacked
e. unless it’s government information with any level of security
f, Demo election committee qualifies in the same way as does DNC
h. RNC was never hacked.
End of what we know.
Other than if it Did interfere it interfered with the Democrat campaign – tough shitsky what you get for chronic stupidity.
like O’Dumbass returning to the scene of his crimes.
So the NSA never listened to the RNC
Phone calls and computers?
Someone missed the incredible Movie 🎥SNOWDEN.
……………………. DOJ needs a warrant to wiretap, NSA does not. NSA is under the executive. Obama could have requested the info from NSA.
“DOJ needs a warrant to wiretap, NSA does not. NSA is under the executive. Obama could have requested the info from NSA.”
How far are we from becoming a banana republic? This just seems very strange. I means seriously, what does it say about the condition of our rule of law when we can identify the “legal” means to carry out “unconstitutional” ends?
Patrice Lumumba? Hacking in the extreme! Ngo Dihn Diem? Believe he was hacked too! Short memories those Neocons, or maybe hacking emails is more horrific than blowing apart someones skull. Well yes we did that too.
“Neocon” is a six letter word for “Jew”.
Dick Cheney is a Jew? WOW, I had no idea! Thanks for enlightening me about his religion!!!!!
Richard Cheney is a common-and-garden Republican careerist, employed variously by Wm. Steiger, Gerald Ford, and George Bush the Elder. The term ‘neoconservative’ was coined by Peter Steinfels in 1979 to describe a discrete coterie of academics and opinion journalists which no longer exists. Cheney was never part of that coterie and was aligned with elements of the Republican Party (e.g. Brent Scowcroft) of which they were skeptical.
You are so full of it.
-Wikipedia
-Merriam Webster Dictionary
-Conservapedia
The term itself doesn’t even come from Steinfels, more from Wikipedia
links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative
http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism
Note: Peter Steinfels is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but not at all as one who coined or had anything what so ever to do with the term, neoconservative.
You are so full of it.
You’re quotation does not support your thesis, and you’ve incorporated erroneous information to boot, pumpkin.
Harrington and others in the circle of Irving Howe made references to ‘the new conservatives’ and what not (while George Nash referred to ‘right-wing liberals’), but the term was not current until Steinfels’ monograph on the subject published in 1979.
https://www.amazon.com/Neoconservatives-Men-Changing-Americas-Politics/dp/0671413848
Steinfels profiled Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Peter Berger. Moynihan remained a loyal Democrat and Berger’s never had much to say about topical political questions.
Again, Richard Cheney was an established Republican politician in 1979. He’d served in the Ford Administration, wherein foreign policy was in the hands of Henry Kissinger, an advocate of Realist interpretations of international relations (and foreign policy goals) in re which people in the Kristol-Podhoretz circle were quite skeptical. Other than a sojourn in graduate school ca. 1966, he’d never had much contact with intellectual life. His biography was completely dissimilar to the mode of the Kristol circle, the Podhoretz circle &c. He may or may not have had a membership card from the Committee on the Present Danger or the Committee on the Free World.
As it was, ‘neoconservatism’ was, in Kristol’s words a ‘persuasion’ and a generational one at that. The term has no legitimate use for the period after 1992.
You might graduate to merely being wrong, rather than being wrong and hurling accusations at people who know more than you do.
Nonsense. The articles speak for themselves. And your feint on the meaning of the term, not to mention the fact that Dick Cheney’s efforts were entirely consistent with the standard definition (not mine you idiot), of Websters, Wikipedia AND Conservapedia, can easily be seen for what it is. B.S.
PNAC which included the Jew, Dick Cheney and the actual Jew, William Kristol, was hoping to Christianize the middle east through bombing them back to the stone age and rebuilding them as christian, crony capitalist societies. There are pictures of our Jew soldiers wearing Christian crusader patches while working in Iraq! I guess them Jews just got confused!!!
Off topic, but everybody ought to read at least this review:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/books/review/interfaith-healer-the-surprising-role-of-jesus-in-islam.html