The Corner

White House

McConnell and Russian Election Interference

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell addresses reporters on Capitol Hill in February 2012.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell says he won’t bring legislation to the floor to protect special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation. The incident has inspired liberals to revive their complaints that McConnell put party before country in the last weeks of the 2016 election. The charge, which I have never quite understood, is based on a Washington Post report from December 9, 2016. The report concerns a mid-September meeting. Here’s the relevant passage:

[T]he White House wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a bipartisan statement urging state and local officials to take federal help in protecting their voting-registration and balloting machines from Russian cyber-intrusions.

Though U.S. intelligence agencies were skeptical that hackers would be able to manipulate the election results in a systematic way, the White House feared that Russia would attempt to do so, sowing doubt about the fundamental mechanisms of democracy and potentially forcing a more dangerous confrontation between Washington and Moscow. . . .

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.

So . . . did Russian efforts to interfere with voter registration and balloting machines succeed because McConnell vetoed a statement? I have seen nothing to suggest they did. Did a failure by states to take federal help against Russian cyber-intrusion cause any adverse consequences at all? I’ll concede that doubt about democracy has been sown, but I don’t see how the bipartisan statement would have prevented that. Finally, was McConnell right to have doubts about the underlying intelligence, either because it turns out to have been overstated or because, while correct, it didn’t have much evidence behind it at the time? I don’t see how anyone can answer that question on the basis of what the Post story tells us.

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular

U.S.

Americans Are Royally Confused about Monarchy

Conventional wisdom regarding America’s relationship with royalty goes something like this: Americans have no time for monarchy as a political concept but can’t get enough of the British royal family. The American media’s round-the-clock coverage of the recent royal wedding certainly seems ample evidence of ... Read More
Elections

The Trump Rationale

Why exactly did nearly half the country vote for Donald Trump? Why also did the arguments of Never Trump Republicans and conservatives have marginal effect on voters? Despite vehement denunciations of the Trump candidacy from many pundits on the right and in the media, Trump nonetheless got about the same ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Collapse of the Collusion Narrative

It is now clear that Russian attempts at interference in the 2016 election, though somewhat outrageous, were ineffectual, unconnected with any particular party, a small effort given what a country of Russia’s resources and taste for political skullduggery and chicanery is capable of, and minor compared with the ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Trump’s Superpower

President Trump has a magic power. No, it isn’t the ability to engage in four-dimensional chess, or even to mystically connect with the “common man.” It’s simply this: He can make Democrats defend anything. Democrats have increasingly defined themselves by opposing anything Trump does. Trump, unlike ... Read More