In August, the NYTimes published an article on the almost 1,000-page report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The panel spent three years investigating the manipulation and agreed that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win as they viewed his campaign easy to manipulate. The report describes Trump’s campaign as filled with “businessmen with no government experience… working at the fringes of the foreign policy establishment.” However, the Senate did not agree that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in a “coordinated conspiracy”. This is despite the report showing evidence of communication between campaign advisers and people tied with Russia. President Trump has called the matter a “witch hunt” as it appears this bi-partisan decision decidedly agreed in his favor – that no evidence of an agreement between the Russians and the Trump campaign to work together was found. The NYTimes article explains the problem with the committee: “even though the investigation was carried out in bipartisan fashion, and Republican and Democratic senators reached broad agreement on its most significant conclusions, a partisan divide remained on some of the most politically delicate issues.”
Nonetheless, the Senate is Republican-controlled which I believe makes it easier for them to conclude that there was “no collusion” in 2016. A more recent NYTimes article reported F.B.I director Christopher Wray’s warning that Russia “as actively pursuing a disinformation campaign against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr”. Wray said the reasoning behind this misinformation campaign is Russia thinking that VP Biden is anti-Russia. Wray said the intelligence community has reached a consensus that Russia’s interference in the election is to target Biden. Meanwhile, Trump continues to make light of these warnings and dismisses Russian inference altogether.
As we approach Trump’s potential re-election, it is only too easy for Russia to once again meddle within a group though to be “easily manipulated”, but this approach is interesting and does make sense strategically. Of course, all eyes will be on Trump’s campaign management this time – why not take on a different approach?
Victoria,
I’m glad you included the words “potential re-election” in reference to the upcoming presidential election! It seems fairly clear at this point that the Russians have something serious on the president, which is why he has consistently refused to speak out, whether it was about their attempt to manipulate the election or about other matters (e.g., putting bounties on the heads of US soldiers in Afghanistan). I personally do not think that Trump is at liberty to oppose Vladimir Putin on ANYTHING. And, of course, as the Senate committee concluded, what the Russians are doing is intended to help Trump win another four years. We will have to let the voters decide. –Professor Wallerstein