Editorial: Russia and Wikileaks


Wikileaks logo

Countries spy on each other, as they should. It’s important to understand the politics of allies and adversaries, and the intentions of leading political figures. So while I don’t like the fact that, according to reports of the assessment of the US intelligence community, the Russian government is behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee, I understand it. I hope we take similar steps to get an inside view of Russian political leaders. Jack Goldsmith made just that point today:



What makes this story really troubling is that the emails were released to the public by Wikileaks. I am no fan of Wikileaks or Julian Assange. But if the story of the Russian government’s involvement in the hack is true, then it seems that Wikileaks—not to put too fine a point on it—has actively colluded with a repressive and authoritarian government to influence American politics in favor of a candidate who is completely unsophisticated in diplomacy and foreign relations and whose election would serve Russian interests, at least if his recent remarks on the United States’s NATO treaty obligations are to be believed.

If the story is true, it is worse than Watergate in some senses, because it involves foreign interference in our politics rather than domestic crimes that can be dealt with by the legal system. If the allegations are proven, they rightly will affect Russo-American relations in a negative way. They also make clearer what we already knew: Wikileaks and Julian Assange, and their starry-eyed enthusiasts, are poseurs, not journalists, led by a charismatic, irresponsible charlatan, who think of themselves as heroic truth-tellers but are in fact naive pawns of, in this case, a government that is up to no good.

I should add that I don’t think the emails are particularly damning. As I wrote elsewhere yesterday:

From my experience in civil litigation, I can tell you that every business, from the smallest to the biggest, from the least sophisticated to the most sophisticated, has a lot of embarrassing crap in its email servers, mostly because we treat email the way we used to treat oral office scuttlebut. This story was an interesting “gotcha,” but in my view it has been way overblown and in a more rational world would not have led to [Rep. Debbie] Wasserman Schultz’s resignation.

Update: Statements like this from Mr. Trump are as good a case as I’ve ever seen for the proposition that Mr. Trump is actively dangerous to the national interest:


5 responses to “Editorial: Russia and Wikileaks”

  1. Sarah

    Hear hear! Care to comment on Mr Trump’s actions on national TV as they relate to the Logan Act? Do you think his comments could be considered “negotiations”?

    1. Sarah, I’m not an expert in the Logan Act, but it seems like a stretch. You may be interested in this post at Lawfare, which opines that Trump is not an agent of a foreign power for purposes of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act nor an agent of a foreign principle for purposes of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, but that Russia is supporting him and that he is a chucklehead.

      1. Sarah

        Chucklehead indeed! Thanks for the post.

  2. I was stunned—quite literally stunned—by the Trump campaign’s assertion that we might not come to the defense of NATO allies who we deemed unworthy because they hadn’t written a large enough check.

    A staggeringly dangerous thought. And one that’s sure to delight the kommisars (yes, they still have them) in Moscow.

    1. Well, it was an outrageous and irresponsible thing to say, for sure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.