U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a press conference on March 2 explaining his decision to practice what is known as recusal, an action where a person abstains from any pending investigations due to possible conflicts of interest. Democrats have claimed that Sessions allegedly lied under oath during his confirmation hearing regarding his contact with Russian ambassadors during President Donald Trump’s campaign trail. While a violation of his oath certainly seems like unfair practice, it is critical to analyze what exactly occurred in these alleged meetings.

Drawing from Tucker Carlson’s interview with Rep. Sean Maloney, Sessions had reportedly sat in on two separate meetings with the Russian ambassador. The first of these meetings occurred in Cleveland at the Republican National Committee (RNC), which was organized under the Obama administration’s Department of State where roughly one hundred ambassadors were invited to watch the convention in progress. The second meeting occurred in Sessions’ office in the presence of two retired Army colonels on his staff and the Russian ambassador. The latter of these two meetings does seem slightly ominous, but Tucker himself called into question whether these officers would have failed to report any misconduct performed by Sessions.

While evidence of any misconduct has yet to be reported, Trump has decided to fire back at members of the Democratic Party, specifically targeting Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Trump showed the American people via social media that both Schumer and Pelosi have held meetings with Russian ambassadors, including Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. While this political fist-fight is certainly entertaining, it begs the question: Why are we practicing McCarthyism in regards to communication with the Russians?

As a young conservative, I worry that such tactics practiced by the Democratic Party will lead to a lack of bipartisanship, a scourge which has only grown in the past eight years. With a nation that is suggested to be more divided than ever, how are younger generations of Americans supposed to learn from such deplorable tactics?

Ever since the third presidential debate in which Hillary Clinton accused Russia of its involvement in and support of Trump’s campaign, we have seen this tactic used religiously to silence any talk of the email leaks that surrounded the Clinton campaign. Even to this day, the average American has little or no knowledge of the content of the leaked emails. The fact that none of the emails were denied to be false further makes me question why we are out to deface Russia. If I were a fan of an NFL team—the Eagles, for example—and Russia leaked information that the Cowboys were employing tactics that dehumanized their fans, I would surely praise Russia for uncovering this information rather than labeling them as a supreme evil.

So why is it that when it comes to national politics, believing such ugly and undeniable evidence uncovered by a foreign government becomes tantamount to an act of treason? Personally, I am not a huge fan of hacking to discover such evidence, but when the act is already finalized and the evidence is shown, why shouldn’t the American people use it to decide who they wish to vote for in a presidential election? While it is certainly viable to point fingers at Russia for performing such acts, I think fingers should also be pointed inwards. If such terrible words were actually written by Democratic representatives, then the fault lies with the authors of those emails, not the hackers who unveiled them. It is important to ask whether the Democratic Party will accept this or whether they will continue to point fingers elsewhere.

As of now, no realistic conclusions can be made regarding the relationship between the United States and Russia. While my personal viewpoint seems more sympathetic to the Russians, I do believe that Americans should be aware of the changing foreign relations between the United States and Russia, as well as NATO and the EU, over the course of the next few years.