,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The better claim, which not a few of us made at the outset, is that “collusion” was always too narrow a frame. Trump embraced, rewarded, and did his damndest to dishonestly shield Russia’s interference. That he did this without making a secret agreement is not that exculpatory.
Suppose Trump had made a secret phone call to Putin and said: I get the message you’ve been sending via all your cutouts. You’re helping. If it’s what you say, I love it! I’ll talk up all the hacked e-mails at my rallies, and protect you by denying what’s going on.
“Even if the entire Intelligence Community catches on, I’ll do all I can to muddy the waters. I’ll say it was an inside job, or maybe China. If elected, I’ll work to block any serious consequences, so you can do it again next election. You’ll be well rewarded for this help!”
Now suppose he didn’t make a secret phone call. He just did all those things, and assumed Putin, not being an idiot, would notice his eager cooperation anyway. That’s... well, a lot less prosecutable, and probably not “collusion” in a strict sense. But not much less bad.
The difference between “collusion” and what actually happened isn’t what Trump did. He did exactly what you’d do if there had been “collusion.” The difference is whether he told Russia what he was going to do first, or just did it & assumed they’d see he was playing along.
