Manafort Trial Not About Trump or Russian Interference in 2016 Election

The trial of Paul Manafort has been frequently in the news the past few weeks, and to listen to the mainstream media, it would appear that the trial is about Mr. Manafort's crimes on behalf of President Trump during his brief time with the Trump campaign in 2016.  But as Hans von Spakovsky pointed out, the trial has nothing to do with President Trump, the Trump campaign, or alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election:

But when it comes to the mandate given to Mueller on May 17, 2017, we’ve learned absolutely nothing. Mueller was charged with investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” 

But neither Gates nor any other witness at the Manafort trial has testified about the Russian election interference or any alleged collusion between the Trump campaign – or Trump himself – with the Russians. . . . All of the testimony at the Manafort trial has addressed events that occurred long before Manafort went to work for 2016 Trump campaign. The testimony has focused on Manafort’s and Gates’s activities as alleged “unregistered agents” representing the Ukrainian government starting in 2006. 

It would be absurd to argue that Manafort’s other clients in the 12 years since then are somehow to blame for any criminal activity he may have engaged in – and prosecutors aren’t even trying to point the finger at President Trump for these activities.

As Mr. von Spakovsky describes, the only connection between President Trump and Mr. Manafort's alleged misdeeds is how President Trump's opponents will try to attack him through his brief association with Mr. Manafort: 

If Manafort is found guilty of tax evasion and bank fraud, some will try to use his very brief association with the Trump campaign to tar the president. But such criticism would ignore two crucial facts. 

First, presidential campaigns are not law enforcement agencies. They have neither the capacity nor the resources to do detailed background investigations on the thousands of individuals who volunteer to work with a campaign. 

Second, Manafort appeared to be a successful, ethical businessman. Even the government – including the IRS, the FBI and our intelligence agencies – had no idea that he was allegedly engaging in any wrongdoing for a foreign government through an elaborate scheme of offshore bank accounts and shell companies, until Mueller’s office started investigating him. 

While the trial of Mr. Manafort is rife with political overtones, it is important that he not only receives a fair trial but also that the coverage of any evidence presented and the eventual verdict is accurate and not used as a political weapon through distorting the subject matter of the trial.

ICYMI: Former Obama Official Admits the Obama Administration Is at Fault for Russian Meddling

As Trey Gowdy points out there is zero evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, an Obama Administration official last week testified that they knew of attempted Russian meddling and were told to “stand down” and not try to stop it (emphasis added) :

The Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “stand down” his efforts in the summer of 2016.

The startling admission has largely been ignored by the media.   Monica Crowley lays out a case for why the Obama Administration stood down in light of Russian meddling:

Long before the 2016 election, when Donald Trump was a mere private citizen, Russia was engaged in widespread cyber-aggression against the United States. Moscow racheted up those attacks during the campaign. And yet, despite knowledge of the ongoing cyberwarfare, the president at the time, Barack Obama, and his intelligence chiefs — John Brennan at the CIA, James Clapper at National Intelligence, James Comey and his predecessor, Robert Mueller, at the FBI — reportedly didn’t lift a finger to stop it.

Why? Because the Obama administration was obsessed with protecting its bigger agenda: namely, closing and implementing the Iran nuclear deal and trying to save their collapsed Russian “reset.” Calling Russia on its malign cyber activity would have imperiled both initiatives, so Obama and his intel team apparently chose to ignore it, even as it escalated. 

Regardless of the reason, the Obama Administration response to Russian meddling is extremely problematic.  This should be a much bigger story than the endless focus on collusion, on which Trey Gowdy notes “he has yet to see a 'scintilla' of evidence showing that there was coordination between the two sides.”

Chairman Devin Nunes Leading the Fight Against DOJ and FBI Abuse & Scheduled to Address the RNLA

Perhaps no one has fought against the alleged abuse of power and anti-Trump bias from high-level officials at the Department of Justice and FBI more than House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. In February, Nunes released a memo despite fierce Democrat opposition claiming to have evidence of Justice Department abuse of power against President Donald Trump. As The Hill summarized:

For those on the right, the memo confirms every suspicion they have had about the U.S. government spying on the Trump campaign and political bias they say has reached the top levels of the DOJ and FBI. 

They say the memo proves that the FBI obtained questionable intelligence from partisan sources and shielded their methods from a surveillance court to investigate a candidate and campaign they were eager to see fail. 

The memo makes the case that the FBI and DOJ did not inform a surveillance court that Democrats had partly funded an anti-Trump dossier that was used, in part, to obtain a secret surveillance warrant in October 2016 for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. 

The memo goes on to allege that Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the dossier, did so out of animus against Trump and that the FBI had not sufficiently vetted his claims when it obtained warrants to spy on Page...

These are serious charges by Chairman Nunes that must be answered for by the DOJ and FBI. As of June 3rd, Nunes informed the American public that he still has not seen the documents requested from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein despite his issuing a subpoena to have the Justice Department prove this is a legitimate and fair investigation. RealClear Politics reports:

"For almost a year now, we've been waiting for documents from the deputy attorney general," Nunes said. "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein could provide all the documents, all the information we need this week, and we could write a report by Friday."

"All the members of my committee don't believe that the counter-intelligence capabilities should be used to target a political party - none of my members on the Republican side do."

"We could finish this by Friday," Nunes said, if the DOJ would provide the documents he has asked for.

Chairman Nunes has not wavered in pursuing transparency and accountability at the highest levels of the Justice Department. He has been vilified by the left simply for demanding an honest and unbiased investigation of the President of the United States.

Despite these fierce partisan attacks, Chairman Nunes has consistently put the sanctity of a principled American justice system first and for that he should be applauded.


Upcoming RNLA D.C. Luncheon:

On Monday, June 25, the RNLA is holding a luncheon with Chairman Devin Nunes. PLEASE NOTE: This date has changed from its original date.

To purchase for this noon luncheon at Tony Cheng's Restaurant in Washington D.C.; please click here for more information.  Also, priority-seated tables are still available; to inquire about a table, please email RNLA Deputy Director Brittany Walker at walker@republicanlawyer.net.

We hope to see you there!

ICYMI: David Bossie Talks Trump and Citizens United at the 2018 National Policy Conference

At the 2018 RNLA National Policy Conference, Citizens United President David Bossie discussed the landmark campaign finance case Citizens United v. FEC, and how that led to his relationship with President Trump.

Bossie came up with the concept of Citizens United after he saw commercials of the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.  Citizens United ended up filing a complaint with the FEC arguing that the documentary violated section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as it was produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituting political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. 

This concept in 2005 led to the Supreme Court decision in 2010 which has since resulted in many victories across the country due to Bossie's efforts.  It was this case that led Bossie to get to know President Trump on a more personal level.  Bossie stated:

"Because I had just won this case as in 2010 as the plaintiff, [Donald Trump] started asking me about politics.  So over the years, I kind of became one of the guys he called.  I introduced him to...Don McGahn, one of my longtime friends."

In 2016, Bossie worked as the Deputy Campaign Manager for Donald J. Trump for President alongside Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski.  Bossie described in-depth his time on the campaign trail through election night and described how writing Let Trump Be Trump with Lewandowski about this experience was "natural" and "cathartic."

Bossie credited President Trump and the incredible accomplishments he has made from the economy to foreign relations during his tenure in office.  In regard to the upcoming midterm election Bossie stated:

"We have to tell the story of the good news of our accomplishments over the first year and a half.  It's an incredible list of accomplishments.  All of them good - for all Americans- not just conservatives or Republicans...

"If we do that, we're going to bring about real change because we will keep the House and add in the Senate."

To view Bossie's speech in its entirety, click here.  RNLA members may purchase a signed copy of his book Let Trump Be Trump, by signing into the Members Only section of RNLA.org after clicking here.

When It Comes to Protecting Our Elections from Cybersecurity Threats, States Know What They’re Doing

Tom Spencer has an article at the Daily Signal that makes a great point: “When It Comes to Protecting Our Elections, States Know What They’re Doing:”. While some have been screaming the 2016 election was hacked, the reality is that not a single vote was hacked and the states are doing a great job of protecting the security of elections from hacking. The states running elections is a good thing for cybersecurity as Tom explains:

Our federalist structure, which gives states the primary control and responsibility for election administration, is the best defense against the hacking of an election. Our decentralized system consists of thousands of different jurisdictions, which use different procedures, equipment, servers, vendors, and locations for data at every step of the election process, from voter registration to the final certification of results. Federalizing the administration of elections would remove this vital safeguard.

Not only is the diversity of state systems helping preventing hacking, the states are doing a better job than the Federal Government:

States and localities around the country are experts in election administration and have been thinking about and protecting the security of our election system long before it ever entered the national spotlight. And the federal government is no bastion of cybersecurity, as demonstrated by the fact that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was hacked over 200 times.

The sad fact is the real purpose of some promoting the false narrative that states were hacked is not really about cybersecurity but undermining the 2016 election and ironically helping Russia:

In a sense, Russia is winning without “firing a shot,” as the myth of their election hacking has undermined confidence in the 2016 election. Those who wish to sow discord in the U.S., like Russia, have found reliable allies in politicians, pundits, and computer scientists who are eager to create a centralized election administration system that is far easier to hack.

This is far worse than simply casting doubt on our election systems and election results. Rather, it creates the potential for real harm to our election administration systems while ignoring the efforts of hardworking election officials across the country.

Let the states continue to run elections.  They have done a better job at cybersecurity than the Federal Government.

DOJ IG to Investigate FISA Abuses by Obama Justice Department

Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would launch an internal investigation into possible Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses by the DOJ under the Obama Administration during the 2016 election. Inspector General Michael Horowitz, an Obama appointee, will lead the investigation within the DOJ.

The scope of the investigation purportedly includes how the DOJ may have mishandled FISA warrant applications; included in this, Carter Page and failure of DOJ to fully disclose the origins and inherent biases of the so-called Steele Dossier to the ex parte Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), as was detailed in House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes' memo released early last month.

In a reply letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham, dated yesterday, Inspector General Horowitz laid out the general scope of his investigation:

[The Office of the Inspector General (OIG)] is initiating a review that will examine the Department’s and the FBI’s compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the FISC related to this U.S. person. As part of this examination, the OIG also will review information that was known to the Department and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source. Additionally. The OIG will review the Department’s and FBI’s relationship and communications with the alleged source as they relate to the FISA applications. If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review. 

Chairman Grassley issued the following statement after learning of the OIG’s new investigation:

Federal surveillance authority is an important tool to combat terrorism and keep Americans safe, but it must be used by the book in order to protect the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Americans. We need to be sure that improper political influence, misconduct or mismanagement is never a factor when federal law enforcement seeks permission to secretly surveil Americans. I’m grateful that the non-partisan inspector general is reviewing both the controversial FISA application and the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele, whose Clinton-funded work was used in the FISA application. The inspector general has a sterling reputation for getting the facts and holding any bad actors accountable.

Senator Graham added:

I am very pleased the Inspector General has decided to act on our request to investigate these issues further. . . The American people are rightfully troubled by the information they have heard about politicization in DOJ. All Americans deserve to know if the rules were followed and whether justice was indeed blind.

This is an important first step toward understanding the degree and depth of political biases by career employees at the DOJ and the important efforts to correct this troubling problem. We will keep you posted on further developments on this very important story.

RNLA Honors Prof. Ron Rotunda on His Passing

Professor Ron Rotunda, a stalwart leader of the conservative and Republican legal movements, has unexpectedly passed away.  A consummate scholar, he was an expert on constitutional law, federalism, free speech, professional responsibility, legal history, and many other areas of law.  His legal and political analysis was always insightful and witty, enabling non-lawyers and lawyers alike to easily understand complicated concepts and making him a sought-after commentator on many issues.  

RNLA President Elliot Berke said: "When I was in law school, Ron became a legal giant to me as a Constitutional Law scholar. He had worked on Watergate with my Con Law professor so I then only knew him by reputation. Within a few years of graduating, I was fortunate to work with him in the Independent Counsel's office and to become his friend. He leaves behind a tremendous legacy in the law and will be greatly missed." 

Here are some recent highlights from his prolific writing and speeches:

John Marshall and the Cases That United the States of America - published in January, this critically acclaimed book contains Prof. Rotunda's rewritten and condensed version of Beveridge's biography of John Marshall.  It is a fascinating read for scholars of legal history and constitutional law.

"Facebook, Russian Interference and the Monsters on Maple Street" - Verdict, Dec. 18, 2017:

There is nothing new under the sun and there is nothing new about Russian interference. The Russians (and the Soviets before them) spread agitation-propaganda, or “agitprop,” a Russian blend of agitatsiya (agitation) and propaganda (propaganda). Its purpose is to sow discord, fan hatred. . . . 

Non-democracies spread fake news to undermine democracy and manipulate people. . . . There is nothing unusual, or even new, in all of this. When we express surprise, we emulate French Captain Renault in Casablanca who said, “I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!” (Right after that, an employee says to him, “Your winnings, sir.”) 

What we know of Russian interference tells us much about Putin, the former KGB operative, and much about ourselves. Russia used Facebook and other social media in the year or so preceding the 2016 presidential election, and the period following, to sow discord and mayhem. The point is to amplify social divisions . . . by promoting opposite sides of the political spectrum . . . .

"Using the Licensing Power of the Administrative State: Model Rule 8.4(g)" - The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention, Nov. 18, 2017: Prof. Rotunda provided a chilling, yet amusing, analysis of free speech implications of the American Bar Association's new Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g).

"George Wallace at Harvard—The Good Old Days of Campus Free Speech" - Verdict, May 8, 2017: 

Every generation must relearn the lessons of free speech. It is no accident that Eastern European Communists suppressed speech and art as well as politics and religion. And when the people overturned the Communist dictators of Eastern Europe, they regarded freedom of expression as a premier right. The Czech revolution began in the theatres, and that country’s first freely elected president since World War II was a playwright.

"An English Teacher Corrects Shakespeare" - Verdict, Apr. 10, 2017:

There is also the problem of free speech. People have a right to use ordinary English. Perhaps because we have passed 1984 unscathed, we often ignore the significance of George Orwell’s “Newspeak”. Words both reflect and mold the way that people think, which is why they are so powerful and why the First Amendment is so important. [Northern Arizona University's] Dr. [Anne] Scott is using her power of grading as a way to control how people talk. . . . 

There are limits to the power of words, but there is also a magic in them: not the magic of “abracadabra,” but magic nonetheless. Words have the ability to confuse and to clarify, to help legitimate policies, to generate loyalty, to give the appearance of action, to mold people’s perceptions of the world, to affect the way they approach a problem, and to reflect their innermost thoughts. When people argue about “mere words,” they are talking about fundamentals, about infrastructure, not superstructure. 

When Dr. Scott and Northern Arizona University force students to use certain words and shun others, they are tapping into this power—a power easy to abuse. That is why we have the First Amendment. The government should not punish people for using words that our dictionary blesses.

"The Electoral College Works Fine, Just as It Is" - Verdict, Dec. 5, 2016:

Our Electoral College system prevents candidates with only regional appeal from winning. Statistically, a rule requiring the winner to prevail in a number of sub-elections produces a better result for the country. For the same reason we count the number of games won in the World Series (rather than the total number of runs, which would be heavily influenced by an anomalous game). After all, if Clinton in 2016, won 100% of the popular vote in her home State of New York, thereby prevailing in the nationwide popular vote, those extra votes would not show she had more support nationwide, only that she is a candidate popular in one very populous state. 

The Electoral College penalizes political parties that have only regional strength. In the 2016 election, the Democrats had regional appeal. If you look at a map of the vote for president based on counties, with counties colored red (for Republican), you will see the country painted with a sea of red except, primarily, at the seashores. This regional influence extends in congressional races as well. In the House of Representatives, just three coastal states, California, Massachusetts and New York, now account for a third of all House Democrats. 

The Framers of our Constitution built for the long term and created a system to last for generations. They established a democracy while protecting the rights of the minority. . . . 

The structural limits do not stop here. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictators, such as Hitler & Benito Mussolini. In modern form, plebiscites arose out of the French Revolution. Madison feared what he called “tyranny by the majority.”

"The ABA Decision to Control What Lawyers Say: Supporting 'Diversity' But Not Diversity of Thought" - The Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum, Oct. 6, 2016: 

These changes show that the ABA is very much concerned with what lawyers say and who teaches them. The only thing that does not concern the ABA is diversity of thought. The language that the ABA uses to promote its latest foray into political correctness makes this all too clear. Moreover, what the ABA does affects all of us, even if we are not lawyers, because of its governmental power. . . . 

Even when a court does not enforce this rule by disbarring or otherwise disciplining the lawyer, the effect will still be to chill lawyers’ speech, because good lawyers do not want to face any nonfrivolous accusation that they are violating the rules. The ABA as well as state and local bar associations routinely issue ethics opinions advising lawyers what to do or avoid, and most lawyers follow this advice. . . . 

Is it the best use of scarce bar resources to discipline lawyers who may violate a vague rule that prohibits speech because that speech violates the new Rule 8.4(g)? It is not as if the disciplinary authorities are looking for things to do. There are plenty of lawyers who are incompetent, who commingle trust funds, or who cheat third parties. 

The purpose of the new Rule 8.4(g) is to promote a “cultural shift” in the United States. Until now, that was not within the job description of the ABA or of the Rules Governing Professional Conduct.

Rest in peace, Professor Rotunda.

The Present-Day Red Scare Continues; At Risk, Our 1st Amendment

David Harsanyi of the National Review posted a story noting all the hysteria by the left regarding the latest phase of the "Russia Probe" into the 2016 Election. His story, "The Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All about Chilling Speech," highlights the troubling implications made by the left, if followed through to fruition. 

This story surrounds the debate to release a controversial, confidential memo by Rep. Devin Nunes regarding alleged FBI surveillance of the Trump Campaign in 2016. In turn, many in the public have called for the release of this memo, which has caused hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo to trend across social media. Mr. Harsanyi noted:

It didn’t take long for a report to emerge that claimed Russian-sponsored Twitter accounts and bots were the real driving force behind the viral call for the release of the memo. Without worrying about the veracity of this convenient claim, all the usual suspects giddily spread the story across social media — probably because they have such a deep reverence for truth in the Era of Trump...The report also prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff, both Democrats, to pull out every fearmongering catchphrase available to demand that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg perform an “in-depth forensic examination” on the “ongoing attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic process.”. . .

As it turns out, reports today say that Twitter’s internal analysis found it was mostly Americans, not creepy Slavic mind-control robots, who were behind the hashtag. Not that it really matters, anyway. If a group of Americans have a legitimate issue to rally around, how is it supposed to control what outsiders do? It’s not as if #ReleaseTheMemo were secret or illegal. Republican politicians were openly using it. . . .

Yet if Feinstein and Schiff had their way, Twitter and Facebook would have moved to quash the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag for what apparently turned out to be solely partisan reasons. . . . Not long before she demanded forensic investigations into hashtags, Feinstein was demanding that Twitter, Facebook, and Google restrict their content more tightly, threatening, “Do something about it — or we will.” Democrats have attempted to control interactions through the Fairness Doctrine or the IRS, and now through the Russia scare. Part of living in a free country is dealing with messy, ugly misinformation.

Mr. Harsanyi also makes a comparison the how speech is treated in Europe today:

Lots of people in the United States seem pretty impressed by how they do things in Europe. In Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May is launching a “rapid response unit” run by the state to “battle the proliferation of ‘fake news’ online.” The “national security communications unit” will be tasked with combating misinformation — as if it had either the power or ability to do so. In France, President Emmanuel Macron is working on a plan to combat “fake news,” which includes the power to institute an emergency block on websites during elections. What could possibly go wrong?

He finishes by making a very good, salient point:

I’d rather we live with Russian troll bots feeding us nonsense than with authoritarian senators dictating how we consume news... If your argument is that Americans are uninformed and easily misled, I’m with you. Just look at all the people who believe that a $46,000 buy on Facebook by the Russians was enough to destroy the pillars of our democracy. But if you want to live in a free and vibrant nation, you have to live with the externalities of that freedom.

Just as a refresher, according to CBS News, the total costs of the 2016 Election were estimated to be some $6.8 Billion. Americans should not allow the Democrats to use scare-mongering over alleged Russian interference in our public discourse as an excuse to limit Americans' important right of free speech.  

Rush to Regulate Foreign Speech Risks China-Like Censorship

RNLA member Eric Wang wrote in USA Today how the rush to regulate foreign speech on American political and policy issues will inevitably stifle American speech, pointing first to the example of China:

Recent revelations that Russian interests used social media to interfere with the 2016 American election campaign have sent lawmakers scurrying to respond. China’s “Great Firewall” offers one possible model for securing our democracy. . . . China censors any agitators, foreign or domestic, on social media. Politically sensitive topics like Tibetan self-determination, the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, or resistance against the Communist Party are off-limits. Of course, the Great Firewall also completely blocks access to Facebook, Twitter, and thousands of other websites. . . . Emulating China’s disregard for free speech may seem like mere satire for Americans. . . . But recent calls to regulate online political speech by foreign interests directed at Americans seem to articulate no bounds. There is a real risk that a rush to regulate will threaten basic civil liberties. . . .

As Mr. Wang points out, the frightening example of China shows that control of the internet almost inevitably leads to censorship.  Even if American citizens' right to speak is not curtailed, their right to listen would be:

Any regulation of speech about political issues by foreigners could end up entangling U.S. citizens. . . . Even if we could use technology, such as blocking overseas Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, to prevent only foreign nationals from influencing us, this would still limit Americans’ First Amendment rights. As the Supreme Court has held, the right to speak also involves the right to listen.

Mr. Wang includes some interesting examples of the various ways foreign actors seek to influence opinion in the U.S. and concludes by pointing out that foreign attempts at influence are inevitable and certainly not new:

Except in the most closed societies, speech has always seeped across national borders. In an irony befitting today’s topsy-turvy politics, Democrats now decry Russia’s attempts to aid Trump last year. But last year, Republicans condemned foreign leaders who urged Americans to reject Trump. Look at history as well. The book “Democracy in America” is one of the most influential tracts on our political system, and remains required reading in American university political science courses today. It was written, of course, by Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman. By regulating Americans’ access to foreign speech about our politics, we risk becoming a “hermit kingdom.” 

All this is not to diminish the threat of foreign interference in our democracy. But First Amendment rights, once curtailed, are not easily restored. Therefore, we must carefully consider how we handle this issue. Rushing to restrict Americans’ political freedoms in the name of curbing foreigners’ political speech would play right into Russia’s hands.

As we have been discussing frequently in the past few weeks, while we may resent foreign attempts to influence our political process, regulating and restricting more than is already done in the law risks stifling speech by American citizens on important political and policy issues and isolating the U.S. internationally in a way that is unthinkable in a modern free society.

Liberals' Russia Narrative Crumbles as They Rush to Regulate Online Speech

The narrative of Russian interference with the 2016 election that has been one of liberals' favorite tools to attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency continues to crumble.  

Last week, we noted how the Department of Homeland Security had finally notified 21 states where they had evidence of Russian activity regarding their election systems.  Except now California and Wisconsin have been told that this was not actually true, and the election hacking narrative, which started with the Obama DHS, may collapse even further.

Now, Facebook has delivered ads purchased by Russians to Congress and issued some FAQs about them, including these revealing facts (emphasis added):

• An estimated 10 million people in the US saw the ads. We were able to approximate the number of unique people (“reach”) who saw at least one of these ads, with our best modeling [RNLA note: The number of registered voters during the 2016 election was over 157 million and the total citizens of voting age was over 224 million.] 

• 44% of total ad impressions (number of times ads were displayed) were before the US election on November 8, 2016; 56% were after the election. 

• Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That’s because advertising auctions are designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as a result. 

• For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.

But, before their narrative completely crumbles, liberals are rushing to use it as an excuse to regulate online speech, which has long been a goal of campaign finance "reformers" such as former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, who advocated overturning the FEC's longstanding exemption of internet activity from certain regulations to apply the regulations to conservative YouTube videos ex post.  Liberal outlet Quartz recently demonstrated how the "reform" community is using the Russian Facebook ads as a pretext to argue for government control of speech by American citizens on the internet (while non-ironically lamenting that Facebook had failed to reach out to any "experts" in the "reform" community as it amended its ad policies).  And Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner are expected to introduce legislation to regulate political advertising online soon (more on that here once it is introduced).

FEC Commissioner Lee Goodman's TechFreedom podcast on these issues, that we highlighted on Monday, summarizes the serious constitutional dangers with the liberals' rush to regulate and what factors should be considered in a more measured approach that respects Americans' important political speech rights on the internet.

Political Speech At Risk, Again

RNLA members Brad Smith and Eric Wang coauthored an op-ed in The Hill debunking proposed legislation in Senate, which would have vast consequences if enacted. The piece looks at the "DISCLOSE Act of 2017" introduced by Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) which would restrict and heavily regulate political speech in America ahead of elections.

This is not the first introduction of a bill like this. Rather, it is just the latest version to drop into the "legislative hopper" in the wake of the 2016 Election and alleged Russian attempted interference with the presidential election. This 2017 version is just an opportunistic way to limit political speech at home.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Wang write:

Foreign interference with our elections is already illegal. Under existing law, foreign nationals and foreign corporations are strictly prohibited from making political contributions and independent expenditures in connection with elections for federal, state, and local office. . . Under existing law, foreign nationals and foreign corporations are strictly prohibited from making political contributions and independent expenditures in connection with elections for federal, state, and local office. However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has properly recognized that millions of Americans have not surrendered their right to political speech simply because they work at foreign-owned corporations. Thus, domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies like Anheuser-Busch, Bayer Health and Honda Motor, which are integral parts of the national and local economies, are permitted to engage in certain political activities, so long as those activities are directed by American citizens.

The Disclose Act of 2017 introduced by Whitehouse would upend the existing law by categorically prohibiting any political activity by a corporation or subsidiary if more than 20 percent of its voting shares are foreign-owned. This percentage ownership limit is a smokescreen, however, as the bill also would much more severely prohibit any corporate political activity if a foreign national “has the power to direct, dictate, or control the [corporation’s] decisionmaking process.” Because the owner of even one share of a publicly traded corporation generally has such power through a shareholders meeting or a proxy vote, this provision likely would strip away the political speech rights of any public company with even one foreign shareholder.

In a vacuum, perhaps we could be accused of over-reading this extreme result into the bill. But FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub outlined this very same legal approach in a New York Times opinion last year as a way to counteract the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which permitted certain corporate political activity. Thirty-seven of the 38 Senate sponsors and co-sponsors of the latest Disclose Act who were in the chamber in 2014 also voted to amend the Constitution to override Citizens United. While that effort failed, it now appears those Senators are trying to use a mere bill to accomplish the same result, a maneuver that is clearly unconstitutional.

Aside from its foreign national provisions, the latest Disclose Act also contains numerous purported disclosure requirements (hence its name). But those disclosure provisions are also ploys to shut down political speech. For example, the bill would require any corporation (even one that has no foreign owners at all) making a “campaign-related disbursement” to disclose all of its “beneficial owners,” a term which likely includes any shareholder. For a company with tens of thousands of shareholders, including many who own shares through mutual funds and are unknown to the corporation, complying with this requirement would be practically impossible, and thus political speech would be essentially prohibited. . . .

This is yet another example of the left trying to politically capitalize on the alleged Russian attempted interference with our past election. Rather than directly addressing what allegedly occurred last year, the left would rather limit political speech overall, even from domestic sources and especially from those who may disagree with them.  Private entities such as Facebook are also changing their practices, which raises concerns about private regulation of political speech by unaccountable--but nonetheless powerful--brokers of communication in our modern era.

Does the Real Election Interference Involve the Democrats?

In May, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen recounted the Obama administration’s long held propensities for election tampering, the latest effort being the DHS’s bid under former Secretary Jeh Johnson to infiltrate numerous state election voter databases during the 2016 election cycle.

Johnson testified last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, however, that, even though he did not believe that “votes were altered or suppressed in some way,” his organization did not report on potential Russian hacking for the sake of non-partisanship.

David Warrington, RNLA Vice President for Election Education, highlights the Democratic Party’s herculean attempt during this hearing to scapegoat anyone else for its own illegal forays into elections:

Leaving aside for a minute that Russia ‘hacking’ the 2016 election is a wildly inaccurate portrayal of Russia's digital meddling — which to date are only allegations, nothing proven — there's likely another reason Johnson wasn't quick to cry foul: some of the known, legitimate attempts to hack into state election databases were perpetrated by Johnson's own organization, the Obama-led DHS.

DHS is not alone.  As we detailed Friday, even Democrats are raising questions of interference with the election regarding Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch. What does all this mean?  As Warrington concludes the continued fixation on Russia:

They are little more than an attempt to protect the previous administration from being exposed as election meddlers, albeit unsuccessful ones. But Hillary Clinton's leaked emails, which showed the Democratic National Committee colluding with her campaign to ensure she won the nomination over Bernie Sanders, have already proven that meddling in democratic processes is a strategy the left employs to win. 

Partisan politics in the end is driving this Russia hacking myth. And as Michael Thielen put it, “the reality is that there’s more evidence linking a US federal agency under Obama to state election hacking than there is linking Russia to the presidential election.”

The Post-2016 Election Investigation Expands: Former AG Lynch Questioned

Today, news broke that the U.S. Senate is going to turn their post-2016 election investigation towards former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. A bipartisan letter signed by a pair of leading Republican and Democratic Senators requested Ms. Lynch to answer a series of questions related to her Department of Justice investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and server use.

The Daily Caller reported:

A bipartisan group of Senate Judiciary Committee members, [signed by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham, and Ranking Subcommittee Member Sheldon Whitehouse] sent a letter to former Attorney [General] Loretta Lynch Friday seeking to confirm if she attempted to stifle the FBI investigation into the Hillary Clinton email probe.  Members gave Lynch a deadline to answer their questions by July 6.

Citing May 3, 2017 testimony from former FBI Director James Comey — who expressed concern about the Obama Justice Department — and the June 2016 meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton, the lawmakers asked the former attorney general to answer further questions about her relationship with not only the Clintons but also the Democratic National Committee. 

The Washington Times provided additional context as to why the actions by Ms. Lynch were concerning to the Senate:

In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”

Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions. . . . Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year. . . . Mr. Comey said the language suggested by Ms. Lynch was troublesome because it closely mirrored what the Clinton campaign was using. Despite his discomfort, Mr. Comey said, he agreed to Ms. Lynch’s language.

Finally, this investigation by Congress might uncover something, instead of harping on some phantom Russian hacking of votes--to date, there has been NO EVIDENCE of any votes being changed by the Russian government or any other hackers. Perhaps now, they might uncover some actual, new findings.

The Russian Distraction

Both houses of Congress held hearings today on Russian interference in the 2016 election.  What did we learn?  Not much.  Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  A variety of officials testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.  

Indiana Secretary of State, incoming President of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, Connie Lawson, testified to separate fact from fiction in the Russia hysteria (and warn about the problems with the Department of Homeland Security's designation of election systems as critical infrastructure) (emphasis in original):

As Senator Warner noted in a letter sent yesterday (June 20, 2017) to Homeland Security Secretary Kelly, we have not seen any credible evidence that vote casting or counting was subject to manipulation in any state or locality in the 2016 election cycle, or any reason to question the results. While still alarming, there is a big difference between manipulating VOTERS and manipulating VOTES.  

Here is what chief state election officials know about documented foreign targeting of state and local election systems in the 2016 election cycle, as confirmed by DHS: No major cybersecurity issues were reported on Election Day: November 8, 2016. . . . We also learned that foreign-based hackers were able to gain access to voter registration systems in Arizona and Illinois last summer, prompting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to warn state election offices to increase their election security measures for the November 2016 election. To our knowledge, no data was deleted or modified as part of the breaches, and these are not systems involved in vote tallying. . . . Of course, in more recent days, we have learned from a top-secret NSA report that the identity of a company providing voter registration support services in several states was compromised, and some 122 local election offices received spear phishing emails as a result. . . .  

While there is clearly a pattern of foreign targeting of election systems in the last cycle, it is also very important to underscore that voting machines are not connected to the Internet or networked in any way. I say this not only for the benefit of this Committee, but for the media as well. We must understand how to label, describe and discuss election infrastructure responsibly and accurately when informing the public about elections, because there has been a great deal of misinformation publicized, including statements from the federal government. . . It is gravely concerning that election officials have only recently learned about the threat referenced in the leaked NSA report, especially – and I emphasize this – given the fact that DHS repeatedly told state election officials no credible threat existed in the fall of 2016. 

The media's and Democrat's continued focus on Russian interference in the 2016 election is distracting the nation from addressing some of the important issues facing it, as even Democrats are starting to realize.  Indeed, it is even distracting election officials from important work to address real cybersecurity concerns, such as the actual penetration of voter registration systems by both Russia and the DHS.  With every new revelation and in every new hearing, the same facts are established: no vote was changed through hacking by Russia or any other person or entity; there is no evidence of Trump campaign or administration collusion with Russia; Russia and DHS did hack or attempt to hack voter registration systems, but no voter records were changed; and Russia has long attempted to influence U.S. elections, just as the U.S. attempts to influence elections in other countries.  

Chillingly, the unswerving focus on Russia means that Russia has won, according to some observers:

Some Russia-watchers believe that the goal of the 2016 Russian campaign shenanigans was not to elect Trump but to damage Clinton before her election. That would make a certain kind of sense: Putin does not want a President Trump or a President Clinton — he wants an American president so hamstrung by political rancor, personal weakness, and petty venality that American leadership around the world is compromised. 

Mission accomplished. 

“Russia” is now shorthand for what will be an open-ended investigation of Trump and everybody around him, one that probably will last throughout his term. That may not have been part of Putin’s plan, but it unquestionably serves Putin’s interests. That is something worth keeping in mind.

We hope that Democrats and the media can put aside this hysteria over Russia to focus on real policy issues and the actual threats to election security that come from places like Russia.

The Democratic Party’s Sore-Loser Theater

One of the most important items discussed during today's hearing, former FBI Director Comey stated unequivocally that he was "confident" that no votes were altered by the Russian Government (he made these remarks during Chairman Richard Burr's initial round of questioning). Put another way, the Russians did not steal the election.  Hillary lost and President Trump won.  Period.   

So what is all the Democrat's talk of the Russians stealing the election about?  In his week, in RNLA's regular weekly column in the Daily Caller, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen discusses why the Comey Hearing actually misses the mark:

Former FBI Director James Comey begins testifying today and all of Washington and the media will be consumed by the details. But they’ll likely overlook why his testimony is so fascinating that has nothing to do with Russia.  Rather, it has to do with what then-front runner and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton found “horrifying” during the 2016 campaign: the suggestion that her opponent Donald Trump might not accept the election results. That’s right, back in October, Hillary said refusal to accept the election results would be “talking down our democracy.” She must have changed her mind because now she is leading the charge to resist and undermine the results of last November’s election.

It is now 7 months since President Trump was elected, and the mainstream media and the left still consider him illegitimate . . . President Obama no doubt was displeased with the reality, but even he understood that Trump had won and his successor was to be the Republican candidate.  (It is also worth noting that President Obama has vehemently denied Russian interference with the election results, on the record, multiple times.) . . . But Hillary is not done.  Last week she gave a speech in which she again blamed everyone but herself for her loss, adding up to well over 35 reasons for why she lost in November. None of these excuses has anything to do with her failure to connect with voters or her undesirable, unrealistic policy positions, of course. 

Hillary Clinton and the left cannot stand the fact that President Trump is in the White House. So much so, that they are actively working to undermine the legitimacy of the election:

As President Obama said: “Russia trying to influence our elections dates back to the Soviet Union. What they did here — hacking some emails and releasing them — is not a particularly fancy brand of espionage or propaganda. We were frankly more concerned in the run-up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of and we’re confident we can guard against.”  Similarly, President Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said, “We saw efforts by Russian intelligence at scanning and probing voter registration databases . . . . I know of no such evidence that actual counts were altered by any type of cyberattack . . . and we saw no actual altering of voter counts.” Even President Obama and prominent Democrats have put the issue to bed: President Trump won last November.  It is time for Hillary Clinton and her sycophant supporters in the media to do the same.

While the media spends the next news cycle or two focusing on the Comey Hearing, just remember this focus--rather a misfocus--misses the point. The purpose of this hearing was supposed to investigate Russia's meddling with the news and presidential election leading up to Election Day. Instead, this has turned into yet another means to challenge President Trump's legitimacy.

The Comey hearing should not at all be about who won the 2016 election. Comey said it and all honest arbitrators agree, President Trump won. Move on Democrats.  

The New Red Scare: No Evidence of Actual Russian Tampering with Votes and Tallies

“There remains NO evidence that voting machines were hacked or that anyone tampered with the result of the election,” David Becker prominently declared in his article in Center for Election Innovation and Research.

While we know the Russians attempted to interfere with the 2016 Election, there is no proof they were able to tamper with any voting machines, the result of any election, or even voter registration records. Mr. Becker’s piece serves as a summary of what we know and do not know about this Russian scheme. The article serves as a rebut to the recently leaked NSA report, which resulted in the arrest of a government contractor. Mr. Becker noted several important points that informed persons ought to know:

Information in voter registration systems was accessed. As we’ve known since even before the election, hackers successfully accessed some voter registration data. In at least two states [Illinois and Arizona] . . . it appears the breach was caught before information was compromised. And we’ve known about the hack of VR Systems since at least October. . . .

Voter registration systems are not the systems on which ballots are cast/counted. A successful hack on a voter registration database, or on a vendor that solely works with voter registration systems and electronic pollbooks, like VR Systems, cannot, by itself, put the vote count at risk. Voter registration data is routinely backed up and stored safely, in case of any system breakdown or hack. Even if voter registration data is compromised, at exactly the right moment to create the greatest mischief, it would be detected, as it would result in longer lines and increased provisional ballot . . . .

However, certainly questions remain [emphasis added]:

• Which local election offices were targeted by the phishing attacks outlined in the NSA analysis? This is important to assess the risk.

• Whether voter registration systems were compromised in a way that could have affected the voting process in November? [I]f a hack had been successful, it is virtually certain that we would have seen evidence of this, but more analysis could be helpful.

• Whether any of these attacks was successful, and if so, whether vote tallying systems were compromised? To date, there is still no evidence of this.

Mr. Becker concluded with this important point:

First, we should resist the instinct to jump to conclusions. We still have no evidence to suggest the results of the election were compromised, which continues to be exceedingly unlikely . . . There is still overwhelming evidence that Trump won the majority of the vote in those states that comprised a majority of electoral votes. Hysteria and misinformation does not help us get to the bottom of things . . .  

The reality is the media and popular press are purposely sensationalizing this story. This hysteria is designed to threaten the legitimacy of an Election, its results, and Donald Trump's Presidency just as he is starting to govern. While the Russians' attempts must be investigated, ALL the facts need to be fairly presented and accurately portrayed.