What new Mueller indictments say about his direction

On Friday, special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers for allegedly hacking into the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Evan Vucci/AP
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice, July 13, 2018, in Washington.

For the most part, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling into the 2016 US presidential election has operated silently and stealthily, like a submarine. Occasionally it breaks the surface, revealing something about its size, shape, and direction. Friday was one of those times, as Mr. Mueller and his team indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers for allegedly hacking into the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The indictment connects the officers directly to the Russian government, saying they acted in their “official capacity.” It says the information acquired by “spearfishing” and other hacking techniques was released via online fronts DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0.

The hacking group also conspired to break into state boards of election, data firms that create election software, and other voting-related targets, according to the indictment. The court document explicitly states that there is no allegation any vote count was changed or election affected in any direct way.

There is also no allegation in Friday’s charges that “any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity,” the indictment says.

What do these charges say about the larger Mueller operation?

First, that it appears to have been unimpeded by continual charges from President Trump and others that it is an illegitimate, partisan “witch hunt.” Indeed, an indictment that directly points to Russian President Vladimir Putin makes it much more difficult for critics to dismiss Russia’s culpability in election hacking as unproven.

This won’t end calls for its conclusion. Presidential lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Friday tweeted that the indictments are good news – Russians have been nailed, no Americans are involved, and it’s time for Mueller to wrap up his “pursuit of the President.”

Mr. Giuliani’s statement in regards to Americans may be premature.

Second, Friday’s move is typical in that Mueller’s indictments tend to always seem a bit surprising in their breadth, indicating that the investigation is a little broader, a little farther along, and a little more wide-ranging than many observers think.

Evidence of this includes the mention of state election boards and other non-federal institutions in the document, and its scope, which in essence is a legal attempt to hold the Russian state accountable for wide-ranging intelligence activities.

While no American is charged in today’s indictment, there is nothing in it about precluding any eventual charges against a US citizen. Details describe efforts by “Guccifer” and other fronts to reach out to Americans, including one who prosecutors say was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

Longtime Trump political associate Roger Stone has admitted to communicating with Guccifer 2.0.

Third, Friday’s move also appears to show that the Mueller team and top Department of Justice officials such as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein are unintimidated by political threats against them. They released the indictment two days before Mr. Trump is to meet with Mr. Putin, raising the stakes for the meeting and implicitly pressuring Trump to speak directly to his Russian counterpart about the situation.

After indictment of Russian spies, are Mueller and Rosenstein immune from dismissal? Probably not, but the political cost of such a firing might well be greater.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What new Mueller indictments say about his direction
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today