It's multiple "things" (at least potentially). It's pretty incontrovertible that Russia (or private agents acting on Russia's behalf) "hacked" the DNC's email and leaked it (I believe it's the case that the FBI believes they compromised the RNC too but didn't leak it, but I might be wrong on that).
There is also some evidence that they compromised various electoral registers, though there's no evidence I've seen that that affected anyone's votes. Any changes made were caught and rectified, it's been reported.
Then there's the collusion question. Did Trump, or his campaign, directly conspire with "the Russians" on any of this, or other campaign activities. I've always been skeptical about that myself, but it's becoming more likely and all these undisclosed conversations are looking more and more dodgy (even beyond the inherently dodgy Flynn, Manafort and Page, which is were I thought any fire might be). Don Jr's now basically said that he tried to collude (in response to an email explicitly talking about Russian government support), but claims his interlocutor only wanted to talk about easing sanctions. There's an argument made that this in itself is a violation of campaign finance laws, but I don't profess to know whether that would stand up. Still, soliciting opposition research from agents of a foreign government certainly seems legally as well as ethically iffy.
There is also some evidence that they compromised various electoral registers, though there's no evidence I've seen that that affected anyone's votes. Any changes made were caught and rectified, it's been reported.
Then there's the collusion question. Did Trump, or his campaign, directly conspire with "the Russians" on any of this, or other campaign activities. I've always been skeptical about that myself, but it's becoming more likely and all these undisclosed conversations are looking more and more dodgy (even beyond the inherently dodgy Flynn, Manafort and Page, which is were I thought any fire might be). Don Jr's now basically said that he tried to collude (in response to an email explicitly talking about Russian government support), but claims his interlocutor only wanted to talk about easing sanctions. There's an argument made that this in itself is a violation of campaign finance laws, but I don't profess to know whether that would stand up. Still, soliciting opposition research from agents of a foreign government certainly seems legally as well as ethically iffy.
Comment