Are GOP ads citing hacked emails unpatriotic? Nancy Pelosi says so.

Nancy Pelosi has called upon Paul Ryan to ask Republicans to refrain from turning emails thought to have been stolen by Russian hackers into campaign fodder. But it's unclear that he could stop them even if he wanted to.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Democratic congressional leader wants House Speaker Paul Ryan to not use hacked documents in this year’s election campaigns.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urged Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday to keep Republican candidates from using hacked Democratic documents in this year's election campaigns, the latest political twist in a summer of revelations of digital break-ins believed linked to Russia.

"Russia's cyber attack is an unprecedented assault on the sanctity of our democratic process," Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote in a letter to the Wisconsin Republican. "We must come together to say that defending our democracy from Russia's meddling is more important than any advantage or disadvantage in this election."

A GOP aide said Ryan cannot control campaign ads by Republican committees that by law are barred from consulting with the party's candidates.

Pelosi's letter came as Congress returned from summer recess just two months from an Election Day in which Democrats hope to gain sizable numbers of House seats, as well as capture the Senate and retain the White House.

Democrats have been happy to link Russia to Donald Trump's GOP presidential candidacy, highlighting his July plea that Russia help find Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's missing emails and work former campaign manager Paul Manafort did for a pro-Russian party in Ukraine. Trump later said his call that Russia find Clinton's emails was sarcastic.

Federal officials have been investigating electronic break-ins into Democratic Party computers by people that private cybersecurity analysts have blamed on Russian intelligence agencies. That's included a breach of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, House Democrats' campaign arm.

Embarrassing internal Democratic documents have been posted online. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida relinquished her post as Democratic Party chief in July after the documents showed the organization tilting toward Clinton in her campaign against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for the presidential nomination.

"Democrats and Republicans must present a united front in the face of Russia's attempts to tamper with the will of the American people," Pelosi wrote.

Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong steered a reporter seeking comment to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which runs House GOP campaign efforts.

NRCC spokeswoman Katie Martin said Ryan and NRCC chief Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., do not "have control over" campaign ads produced by an arm of that committee, which is legally required to spend money without consulting candidates.

Martin cited an NRCC digital ad attacking a Democratic candidate for Congress in Florida, using information a hacker posted online and that Democrats have called "unverified documents provided by the Russians." Democrats have complained about the GOP's use of that information.

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.