There was something fishy about our election; we knew it. We accused ourselves of saying so merely because we so hated its astonishing outcome. We now know.
The New York Times is not known for quickie conclusions. It’s as bad as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in wanting proof on all fronts before drawing a decisive conclusion. But after the most intensive interviewing, examination of documents, and endless argument, the NYT — by far the most important paper in the world, — has a, what the CIA would call, “finding”. The 2016 United States election was hacked, and hacked by no less than the Russian government, with President Vladimir Putin inevitably in on the plot.
Nor was the purpose just to make democracy look messy; it was hacked for the specific purpose of putting Donald Trump in the White House. Presumably, the motive wasn’t philanthropic: the president-elect is quick to repay debts, in appointing as secretary of state Rex Tillerson, chief executive officer of Exxon and — guess what — a pal of Putin’s.
How is this possible? Well, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was hardly airtight (I worked there as a college summer intern. Then, you could walk off with piles of documents, even from the Kennedy White House. I had assumed that by now they knew something about security).
Russian-controlled hackers got right inside the DNC and set up such a wonderful system, that when you were warned that you needed to change your password, and opened your account to do just that, all your accumulated emails went to Moscow.
As the extraordinary long article about what happened — the US government, no less, being hacked by its foremost adversary, the Russian government — puts it: “By last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including the Times. Mr Trump gleefully cited many of the purloined emails on the campaign trail.”
It turned out that there were two Russian hackers, one called Cosy Bear, the other Fancy Bear. They were both highly successful.
Along comes a hacker who identifies himself personally as “Guccifer”, offering ample proof — through more hacks — that he was for real. There wasn’t any doubt.
“In addition to what Guccifer 2.0 published on his site,” the Times continued, “he provided material directly on request to some bloggers and publications. The steady flow of Guccifer 2.0 documents constantly undercut Democratic messaging efforts.
“On July 6, 12 days before the Republican National Convention began in Cleveland, Guccifer released the DNC’s battle plan and budget for countering it. For Republican operatives, it was insider gold.”
Now the president-elect rejects CIA and Federal Bureau of Intelligence findings, and instead takes sides with — astonishingly — a foreign leader, and who has been implicated in the death of a former KGB operative.
Did Russia help Trump win this close election? A few thousand votes in three close states would have elected Hillary Clinton. We don’t know, but it’s too close for us to permit doubt, especially given Trump’s career as a “birther” and willingness to cast doubt on almost every aspect of the Obama presidency.
Given all the factors in play, I think President Barack Obama should declare a failure of election, which he can do under the “inherent powers of the presidency”, with the ample precedent of Abraham Lincoln’s actions in pursuing the 13th amendment to the constitution.
Of course, Trump supporters would react with violence; “Lock her up”, the refrain throughout his campaign, shows that mere law and constitutionality were sideshows to mainline Trump supporters.
Obama, however, remains commander-in-chief. He can fight fire with big fire hoses. Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He knows that the American system was never intended to allow national suicide.
One way or the other, the ex-USA is headed for its greatest crisis since a “stolen election” in 1876 put the loser in the White House. It was a “compromise” where southern states voted against the winner, Governor Tilden of New York, in the Electoral College, in return for a promise by Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican nominee, to withdraw the occupation troops in the south (“Reconstruction”) present since the end of our Civil War 11 years earlier.
If Obama hasn’t the courage to act on what he, more than any other, knows was a failed election, number 45 will move (part time) into the White House with a stench of illegitimacy and challenges on several fronts to his right to rule. As more detail comes out on the Russian hack, noises will grow ever louder for recall, impeachment, or just too much clamour for democracy to work.
I’m so glad to be living in Southeast Asia.
W. Scott Thompson is Professor Emeritus of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, United States.