It may seem inappropriate to offer opinions on this topic while investigations continue in Congress and the Justice Department. However, some things seem abundantly clear to me if not to others.
How do we know it was the Russians? The answer lies in the information released by our national security agencies. They have traced much of the activity to computers in the Russian FSB (their CIA) and GRU (their military intelligence agency). Can our agencies do this? Of course. They do it all the time. Each computer has a unique address which is ultimately traceable in spite of many attempts to hide the source of the transmission. All it takes is time and technology, and our agencies have both.
What kinds of activities have intelligence agencies traced to these computers? They were involved in the hacking of DNC e-mails and those of John Podesta, chair of the Clinton campaign. They were also involved in spreading “fake news” on the internet, and this news was unfavorable to Secretary Clinton. Finally, they conducted numerous assaults on state election databases, although this activity appears to have had no effect at this time. Note that there has been no evidence yet released that they actually changed any of the ballots that were cast or the process of counting those ballots.
“Fake news” or false intelligence is an often used device for attempting to influence the actions of one’s enemies. It has been used many times in a military context, often with great success. The Russians have mastered its use in non-military situations as well. In fact, they have been known to use it in domestic politics as well as international activity. I believe that the purpose of this activity during our elections was as it has often been described — to undermine public confidence in our electoral processes. It has the additional advantage of sowing confusion in our governmental process. It is always dangerous to equate effects with intent, but Mr. Putin can hardly be displeased with these effects.
Some have attempted to respond to this new by denigrating our intelligence agencies. “They are the ones who said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.” The principal source for this allegation about WMD was a source who had direct contact with executive decision makers. This source had been deemed “unreliable” by the CIA. Furthermore, there were professionals in our intelligence system who were more convinced by the evidence presented by the UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix. This isn’t the first case in which decision makers have ignored input from intelligence agencies and later blamed those agencies for their poor decisions. Our intelligence agencies are far from perfect, but they are much better that their critics allege.
Because the aforementioned investigations are still underway, it is too early to address the collusion issue in any detail. It is enough to say that many of the participants in events leading up to our presidential election displayed an alarming naiveté in their dealings with Russians. Such people are sometimes referred to as “unwitting assets.” Certainly the meetings and the subsequent investigations have added to the confusion and disarray in Washington. I do not believe that such disarray serves our nation well.