Date: July 18th, 2018 6:20 PM
Author: Odious swollen station
Cookie Notice
We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by closing this message box or continuing to use our site. To find out more, including how to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy
DOW JONES, A NEWS CORP COMPANY
DJIA25199.29 0.32%▲ S&P 5002815.62 0.22%▲ Nasdaq7854.44 -0.01%▼ U.S. 10 Yr-2/32 Yield2.873%▼ Crude Oil68.91 0.22%▲ Euro1.1644 0.03%▲
Subscribe NowSign In
The Wall Street Journal
U.S. Edition
July 18, 2018
Today's PaperVideo
Home
World
U.S.
Politics
Economy
Business
Tech
Markets
Opinion
Life & Arts
Real Estate
WSJ. Magazine
Search
Link copied…
OPINION COMMENTARY
The Russia Indictments: Why Now?
The point of the hacking appears to have been to hurt President Clinton, not elect President Trump.
Close
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., July 13.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., July 13. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
By Michael B. Mukasey
July 16, 2018 6:03 p.m. ET
576 COMMENTS
The indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents last week, on charges they hacked into Democratic National Committee and other servers during the 2016 campaign, raises questions about the timing of the announcement and the work of the hackers themselves. The news came on the eve of the Trump-Putin summit. Why then?
The president was told of the indictments before he traveled. Yet the plain effect of the announcement was to raise further doubts about the wisdom of the meeting—and perhaps to shape its agenda. Neither is the business of the special counsel or anyone else at the Justice Department. The department has a longstanding policy, not directly applicable here but at least analogous, that candidates should not be charged close to an election, absent urgent need, lest the charges themselves affect the outcome. The general principle would seem to apply: Prosecutors are supposed to consider the impact of their actions on significant events outside the criminal-justice system, and to act with due diffidence.
From a law-enforcement standpoint, there was nothing urgent about these indictments. All 12 defendants are in Russia; none are likely ever to see the inside of a U.S. courtroom.
Alternative strategies were available. In 2008 Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, known to law enforcement as the “Merchant of Death” and the defendant in a sealed indictment, was lured in a sting by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Thailand, where he was seized. The Thais, to their great credit, resisted heavy Russian pressure to release him. Instead they fulfilled their treaty obligations and granted a U.S. extradition request.
It has been argued that the objective of last week’s indictments was not to prosecute the defendants but to “name and shame” them. They were named, and even their military intelligence units disclosed—but shamed? In 2006 Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian defector to the U.K., was poisoned in London with polonium from a Russian nuclear facility. Litvinenko had charged that Vladimir Putin was directly responsible for bombing a Moscow apartment building in 1999, an event used as a pretext for the invasion of Chechnya.
Andrei Lugovoi, implicated in the assassination, fled the U.K. and returned to Russia. Not only did Moscow refuse a British extradition request, but Mr. Putin decorated Mr. Lugovoi for “services to the nation.” Mr. Lugovoi was given a seat in the Russian Parliament in 2007. On that record, the 12 indicted hackers are likelier to be lionized than ostracized.
Recall also that the only basis for appointing a special counsel under applicable regulations was the conflict of interest and special circumstance presented by a Justice Department investigation into possibly unlawful conduct by the president’s campaign. Thus the initial order appointing Robert Mueller directs him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. ” Thus far, numerous Russians have been charged with crimes related to the campaign, and several “individuals associated with the campaign” have been charged with crimes unrelated to the charges against the Russians or to the Trump campaign. No “links” or “coordination” has been charged or even suggested.
Turning to the crime charged, and assuming that the 12 current Russian defendants are guilty, why did they do what they did, in the way that they did?
Despite the wide-eyed, golly-Mr.-Science tone in much of the news coverage, the indictment doesn’t portray cutting-edge Russian intelligence capabilities. The defendants all are said to be members of GRU, Russia’s main military intelligence unit. It is comprised largely of former special-forces types who are looked down upon by their more sophisticated competitors in the SVR, successor to Mr. Putin’s alma mater, the KGB. Their acts, as portrayed in the indictment, obviously were detected—in exquisite detail—by U.S. intelligence services. GRU’s phishing venture, although widespread, was primitive compared with the SVR’s capabilities.
Why would Mr. Putin, an SVR alumnus, give GRU a mission meant to be highly covert? Was this a serious attempt to swing the election to Donald Trump?
At the time of the hacking, virtually no one gave Mr. Trump any chance of winning. Mr. Putin is a thug, but he is not reckless. It seems unlikely he would place a high-stakes bet on a sure loser. Rather, he likely sought to embarrass the person certain to be the new president, assuring that she took office as damaged goods.
Why leave fingerprints? If the only goal was to inflict damage, the new president would have been not only damaged, but also resentful. Even the person who happily posed with a mislabeled “reset” button in frothier days likely would have turned sour.
The point likely was not merely to inflict damage but also to send a warning. Consider the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized and vulnerable email server. It found that the bureau had concluded the server could well have been penetrated without detection. Recall also that some of the people hacked by GRU agents were aware of that server and mentioned it in messages they sent, so that the Russians too were aware of it. The SVR certainly was capable of an undetected hack.
There are some 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton did not turn over, on the claim that they were personal and involved such trivia as yoga routines and Chelsea’s wedding. If they instead contained damaging information—say, regarding Clinton Foundation fundraising—the new president would have taken office in the shadow of a sword dangling from a string held by the Russians.
As we watch the drama of an investigation into whether the president or those close to him committed crimes to help the Russian government, it seems useful to keep in mind not only the possibilities but also the plausibilities.
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and a U.S. district judge (1988-2006).
Appeared in the July 17, 2018, print edition.
Recommended Videos
https://m.wsj.net/video/20180718/071818haircut2/071818haircut2_115x65.jpg
How to Spot a High-End Men's Haircut
https://m.wsj.net/video/20180718/071818thailand002/071818thailand002_115x65.jpg
Thai Cave Rescue Boys Recount Their Ordeal
https://m.wsj.net/video/20180716/071618seib/071618seib_115x65.jpg
Why Didn't Trump Confront Putin Publicly?
https://m.wsj.net/video/20180717/071718trumpremarks1/071718trumpremarks1_115x65.jpg
Trump, in a Reversal, Says Russia Meddled in 2016 Election
https://m.wsj.net/video/20180715/071218lawncare/071218lawncare_115x65.jpg
One Man's Obsession With Lawn Care
Most Popular Articles
The Most Important Factors for a Comfortable Flight
The Most Important Factors for a Comfortable Flight
Vote Joe Crowley, for Working Families
Opinion: Vote Joe Crowley, for Working Families
Retirement Bills in Congress Could Alter 401(k) Plans
Retirement Bills in Congress Could Alter 401(k) Plans
EU’s Google Fine Threatens to Shake Mobile Industry
EU’s Google Fine Threatens to Shake Mobile Industry
Texas Instruments CEO Resigns After Ethics Violations
Texas Instruments CEO Resigns After Ethics Violations
SHOW COMMENTS
(576)
The Wall Street Journal
U.S. Edition
Subscribe NowSign In
BACK TO TOP «
WSJ Membership
WSJ+ Membership Benefits
Digital Subscription
Print Subscription
Print and Digital Subscription
Why Subscribe?
Corporate Subscriptions
Professor Journal
Student Journal
WSJ Amenity Program
Customer Service
Customer Center
Contact Us
Notice to Subscribers
Tools & Features
Emails & Alerts
Guides
My News
RSS Feeds
Topics
Video Center
Watchlist
Podcasts
Ads
Advertise
Advertise Locally
Commercial Real Estate Ads
Place a Classified Ad
Sell Your Business
Sell Your Home
Recruitment & Career Ads
More
Content Partnerships
Corrections
Jobs at WSJ
News Archive
Register for Free
Reprints
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
YouTube
Podcasts
Snapchat
Google Play
App Store
Dow Jones ProductsBarron'sBigChartsDJXDow Jones NewswiresFactivaFinancial NewsMansion GlobalMarketWatchPrivate Marketsrealtor.comRisk & ComplianceWSJ ConferenceWSJ Pro Central BankingWSJ VideoWSJ Wine
Privacy PolicyCookie PolicyCopyright PolicyData PolicySubscriber Agreement & Terms of UseYour Ad Choices
Copyright ©2018 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4029457&forum_id=2#36454888)