Fascinating new RW talking point

[mr_lebowski]

21. That definition does not define 'collusion' as inherently illegal ...

IOW one reason an action COULD be logically called 'collusion' ... is BECAUSE it's 'inherently illegal' ... but it doesn't work the other way round. 'Involving Secrecy' .... is another definition, you see?

The problem here, for US ... is proving exactly 'what statute' ... would literally make it illegal for Trumps people ... to ask Russians to help them win the election ... esp. if it couldn't be proven Trumps people knew what specific illegal 'acts' were to be undertaken in that effort.

However, if it could be proven that a 'bribe' was offered, of any kind (including but not limited to removal of sanctions), in exchange for KNOWN illegal activity like breaking into a secured computer network ... that probably gets us into the realm of actual illegal collusion.

But it could be very hard to prove, esp. if we have to prove Trump ORDERED his people to make such an offer, and knew he was 'paying' for a law to be broken.