Other than the nonsensical “rigged witch hunt,” Trump’s favorite catchphrase is “no collusion” (sometimes misspelled). As we know, “collusion” is a legally undefined term, and is not by itself a crime, although it sounds a lot like “conspiracy,” which is. What does Trump mean by “collusion,” and is he guilty of it?
As far as I can tell, Trump’s definition of “collusion” has three elements:
- The Russians took illegal actions for the purpose of getting him elected;
- He knowingly cooperated with them; and
- He offered, and subsequently acted, to provide the Russians with foreign policy concessions in exchange for their assistance with the election, or possibly for financial help with his businesses.
In short, the essence of Trumpian “collusion” is a quid pro quo.
What does the evidence that is currently available to the public show?
- There is no doubt that the first standard was met. Even most Republicans admit it.
- #2 is a bit murkier. There is, of course, tape of him calling on the Russians to assist with Hillary’s e-mails, but he insists that he was joking. There was the famous meeting at Trump Tower, but we do not know for certain that he was aware of it. Various campaign operatives had contacts with Russians, and some of them lied about it, but we don’t know what, if any, direct communication they had with Trump. Mueller may have evidence on this point of which we are not aware.
- There is plenty of evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as efforts to provide a quid pro quo. Trump employed people in his inner circle with Russian connections; his son-in-law tried to create a secure back channel to the Russian government to discuss policy even before he took office; he has done everything he can to put off imposing sanctions on the Russians; he continues to damage our relationships with our European allies; and finally, he has repeatedly praised Putin and put the Russian system on the same moral plane as our own. In short, he is doing exactly what you would expect a paid Russian agent to do, and with considerable success.
The problem is that these actions can also be explained by his very unusual ideology and personality. So what exactly is motivating him? We will probably never know, in spite of Mueller’s best efforts, because even if the system had the ability to ask him directly, nothing he said, under oath or otherwise, could be taken seriously, given his propensity for telling lies.