Rudy Giuliani Now Says Collusion Isn’t a Crime and He May Be Right

Rudy Giuliani Now Says Collusion Isn’t a Crime and He May Be Right July 30, 2018

In the ongoing probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as potential acts of collusion or obstruction by President Trump and his team, we’re entering new territory.

That’s right.

As the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort begins today, President Trump’s loyalists are moving on from their argument that there was no collusion.

The argument has now morphed into something resembling: If there was collusion, so what? Collusion isn’t a crime!

It’s a big stretch and bears the stench of desperation.

While appearing on friendly territory, where it was guaranteed he’d receive no push back or any challenge, whatsoever, President Trump’s attorney, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani gave the apparent new defense.

“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”

“Collusion is not a crime.”

The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”

I don’t know that the Cohen tape proved or disproved anything, given it was only about two minutes long, and one expert has suggested that the clip the public got to hear was altered. It was, in his opinion, snipped and spliced, leaving off the beginning and the end, suggesting that there was more that was being held back.

Giuliani further pushed this new defense while appearing on CNN.

“I don’t even know if that’s a crime, colluding about Russians,” Giuliani said. “You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime. The president didn’t hack. He didn’t pay them for hacking.”

And nobody has said he paid for hacking.

That’s curious wording used there, however. “…colluding about Russians.” Was that simply a misspeak from Giuliani, or is he setting up what he sees as some bizarre, but clever defense against any potential charges?

With Giuliani, it’s probably best to just wait until the next shoe falls. I don’t get the impression that he has any real long term strategy.

To be completely fair, however, he may have a point in all of his flailing and frothing.

Collusion is not a crime.

At least, the term, “collusion,” and the image the word tends to conjure up in our minds.

Looking over a piece written by the National Paralegal College on the matter, we get an enlightening view of collusion, and why this is tripping so many people up.

To begin with, “collusion” is a political term, not necessarily a legal term.

The term “collusion” is defined as “concerted activity toward a common purpose.”[2] The colloquial connotation of the word indicates that people who “collude” have worked together, usually in secret, to do something illegal.

And nobody is prosecuted under any crime called “collusion.”

Those on either side of this particular debate mentioning collusion are avoiding the true meat of where we are.

“Collusion,” more accurately, is an umbrella term to encompass a range of potential legal offenses.

According to the NPC, there are three specific, actual criminal offenses that observers should be focusing on in the Russia probe.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW VIOLATIONS

The campaign election law that is implicated here is 52 USC § 30121. There are two relevant parts of the statute.

The first is Part (a)(1)(A), which reads:

It shall be unlawful for—

      (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

  • a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.”

Turning to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, and several Kremlin-connected Russians, all due to a promise of damaging information from the Russian government, in an effort to aid Trump’s campaign could be considered “a thing of value.”

The fact that former Trump “fixer,” Michael Cohen says he’s now prepared to testify to Mueller that then-candidate Trump knew about the meeting beforehand, and approved, draws the president into the fray, if it can be proven.

Paul Rosenzweig, who served as a deputy assistant secretary for policy at Homeland Security pointed out:

Courts have held that “thing of value” includes intangibles, such as amusement, sexual intercourse, a promise to reinstate an employee, and information.[5]It’s not inconceivable that this could be interpreted to include damaging information on an election opponent.

And no, the Steele dossier does not fall in that category.

Yes, Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent to compiled the dossier is foreign, but no, he didn’t not offer the information to give aid to anyone.

He worked for a business. That business was hired to do a job, first for a conservative website, the Washington Free Beacon, then later, by the Clinton campaign.

There are those trying to make that leap and they sound ridiculous.

And desperate.

The second part is (a)(2) of 52 USC 30121. That part provides:

It shall be unlawful for—

              (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation… from a foreign  national.

The word “solicit” has a very specific meaning in this context. Election law expert Rick Hasen has said that “solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.” If Trump Jr. asked Veselnitskaya to provide “anything of value” on Clinton, then it could be found that he illegally solicited a foreign national to provide a campaign contribution.[6]

And no, it doesn’t matter if Trump Jr garnered any useful information from his meeting with the Russian attorney or not. It matters that he met her with intent.

MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS

It is a federal crime, under U.S. Code Section 1001, Title 18 to “knowingly and willfully” make false statements, and that includes concealing information “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.” [7]

How many within Trump’s circle can be pinched for making false statements, at this point?

Trump son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, has had to file multiple security clearance applications, due to his “forgetfulness.”

Part of that forgetfulness includes a lot of conversations with Russians, including the Trump Tower meeting.

What about Trump Jr? He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that his father knew nothing about the June 2016 meeting, but now Michael Cohen is saying that is false.

Again, if it can be proven…

CONSPIRACY

This one is tricky.

The NPC piece spells it out this way:

“Conspiracy” is a “catch-all” crime that applies to plans to commit many different types of illegal acts. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement’s goal. In most jurisdictions, at least one conspirator must undertake an “overt act” taken towards furthering the agreement (this requirement is there to distinguish mere “talk” from a real plan to commit illegal acts).

The general federal conspiracy statute is 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute states:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

So would the Trump Tower meeting fall into that category?

It would require the collection of those emails, phone records, and a lot of testimony proving that Russia, indeed, intended to help the Trump campaign by their actions, that Trump and/or Trump Jr agreed to obtain that information in an effort to turn the election in their favor.

Also, fraud is a tricky topic.

Moreover, it is unclear that interfering with an election (even with false information) constitutes the crime of fraud. In United States v. Gradwell, a 1917 case, the United States Supreme Court held that a conspiracy to influence a congressional election by bribery of voters was not a conspiracy to “defraud” the United States under the meaning of the code since it is the state governments, not the federal government, that administers elections.

It must also be noted that merely promoting or disseminating false information about a political candidate is political speech protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court said in the 2012 case, United States v. Alvarez,[11] false political statements are protected speech, a holding that “comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee.” Just showing that the Russians intended to lie about Hillary Clinton would be insufficient. The government would have to show that they intended to commit a more specific federal crime to implicate Trump, Jr.

That’s an interesting twist, and not one everyone will be happy with.

So was there collusion?

It’s all going to come down to evidence and how vigorously special counsel Robert Mueller pursues each point, it appears.

"As to Graham10 My child, listen to me and do as I say,and you will ..."

Let’s Address Franklin Graham’s Refusal to ..."
"Most people (me included) will participate to the extent they are comfortable. That extends to ..."

Let’s Address Franklin Graham’s Refusal to ..."
"The Trump Christians are among many so-called believers who's actions make me feel very, very ..."

Let’s Address Franklin Graham’s Refusal to ..."
"If someone doesn't believe in the particular faith being expressed at a wedding or funeral ..."

Let’s Address Franklin Graham’s Refusal to ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • earhartam

    Fantastic analysis, Susan!

    As I see it, it comes down to Junior is a business man at his core. There is no possible way he believed at any moment the Russians were going to give his dad a freebie. No way. There had to be a quid pro quo going on. So the question is what did they want in return.

    Veselniskaya talked about adoptions, which means she was talking about the Magnitsky act, which means Russia wanted to influence more than the election, they wanted to compromise a president.

    Frankly giving up good dirt would be stupid since the material was better disseminated by Wikileaks than Trump campaign or the RNC which is what I think they did.

  • earhartam

    One request to Patheos, to better engage the reader, thereby gain readership, please consider push the comments section closer to the article. It’s hard to find at the bottom.

    Thanks.

  • AJ

    I’m put in mind of that famous (infamous?) rejoinder: “It depends on what the definition of ‘is,’ is.”

    By no means am I a legal scholar, and I’m glad. This is getting mind-numbingly monotonous! Who cares what “collusion” means and whether what Trump did with the Russians meets the required legal definitions or not? Can we get down to common sense? Can anyone tell me that they think, if this were reviewed by the Founding Fathers, that the Founders would’ve had one moment’s pause in considering whether what the Trump brigade has done with the Russians meets the technical or legal or WHATEVER definition of “collusion”?

    Back when this country was formed, things were so much more stringent in terms of morality, assessing characters, and maintaining integrity. If anyone thinks the Founders would’ve been confused as to what to do in this situation, I think you need to go back and study the Founders’ words on what the presidency means and just what sort of character should hold the office.
    Whether Trump and his ilk meet the full or partial definition of “collusion” or not, the Founders would’ve looked to the man’s character. The fact that he DOESN’T HAVE ANY would’ve decided it for them. No man lacking integrity or a trustworthy character should’ve been allowed the job.

    The following have been taken from a book review I wrote on David Barton’s “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White, ©2004. Though the book’s aim was to educate readers on America’s TRUE political record concerning the treatment of blacks, I found the book filled with timeless wisdom that even worked for the 2016 election. And I think some of the quotes I recorded also work to back up my above claim. I hope some or all will get whoever reads my post, thinking.

    (Oh, and, uh, for those who really think that we were “electing a president not a preacher,” please take note of what Noah Webster says on that subject. That would be the second quote given below. Since no one with modern conservative/Christian bona fides has been able to make you see the light, perhaps an actual Founding Father can school you better on the subject. Go ahead and try to argue with one of our Founders about how Trump didn’t have to be aboveboard morally because we weren’t electing a pastor!)

    1. “[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them…Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently.… Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it—and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course [Christians] take [in politics] (468)”—American revivalist, Rev. Charles Finney (135).

    2. “In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular [party] of the candidate—look to his character.…It is alleged by men of loose principles or defective views of the subject that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct [in Exodus 18:21] that rulers should be men ‘who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness (470)”—Founding Father, author of Webster’s dictionary, and anti-slavery leader, Noah Webster (136).

    3. These pages also include admonitions from Rep. Robert Brown Elliott, Frederick Douglass, Rev. Charles Finney, Dr. Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Rev. Francis Grimke, and Rev. Matthias Burnet, who each implore American voters, both black and white, not to vote for color or party affiliation but for one’s character. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it: “Not the color of one’s skin but the content of one’s character.” Elliott basically said to “align with political candidates [who] conform to what he called ‘the injunctions of Christianity” (134). Douglass felt “citizens must vote righteously—and this first assumes that they are voting” (134), which is both a privilege and a right. As Finney, Elliott, and Douglass believed: “So when voting, no vote should be cast solely on the basis of any party; the values of each individual candidate must be examined using the standard of Biblical righteousness cited by Frederick Douglass, the principles of Christianity as cited by Robert Brown Elliott, and an awareness that voters will answer to God for their vote, as pointed out by Charles Finney” (135).

    So, please, can we stop with the “Does it meet the legal definition of ‘collusion?’ ” The Founders never would’ve voted for Trump in the first place, and they certainly wouldn’t dicker around trying to figure out how to feel about “collusion about” or “collusion with” or whatever configuration the Trump team tries to push tomorrow. The Founders would’ve simply looked at the man (and his entire family) and seen absolutely no character and absolutely no basis for trustworthiness—and kicked the man to the curb! The only Biblical standards Trump meets are the ones in Proverbs that talk about the foolish, wicked, or evil man and the ones set forth by Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9-12.

    And the same standards for judging the president, the Founders would’ve held to his entire cabinet. If the man at the top is shady, then those under him would be tarnished, too. Birds of a feather and all that. If Trump picked them, then, since he’s tainted, so are they, and they should get the boot, too. End of discussion.

    I have had ENOUGH of all this mumbo jumbo! The man is not fit to lead an Easter egg hunt let alone the world via the office of president! By all means, let Mueller do his job, and I pray that, at the end, Trump and Friends are found guilty (or whatever the end result of guilt would be called) so that we can move on. Whether or not Trump knew or didn’t know, whether his is or isn’t a Putin patsy—none of it matters. The man is NOT trustworthy. He is decidedly nefarious and has no business being the leader of the free world or top representative of the sole superpower! He lacks character, morals, scruples, and integrity. As far as the Founders were concerned, whether or not he can be linked to any sort of tie to the Russians is moot. The bottom line is the man himself, what he is inside. And since his inside is as those Pharisees’ whitewashed tombs, this whole wearisome affair can be quickly decided: He needs to go.

  • Jansmt7

    Fine, let’s call it what it is: Treason.

  • AJ

    I’m put in mind of that famous (infamous?) rejoinder: “It depends on what the definition of ‘is,’ is.”

    By no means am I a legal scholar, and I’m glad. This is getting mind-numbingly monotonous! Who cares what “collusion” means and whether what Trump did with the Russians meets the required legal definitions or not? Can we get down to common sense? Can anyone tell me that they think, if this were reviewed by the Founding Fathers, that the Founders would’ve had one moment’s pause in considering whether what the Trump brigade has done with the Russians meets the technical or legal or WHATEVER definition of “collusion”?

    Back when this country was formed, things were so much more stringent in terms of morality, assessing characters, and maintaining integrity. If anyone thinks the Founders would’ve been confused as to what to do in this situation, I think you need to go back and study the Founders’ words on what the presidency means and just what sort of character should hold the office.

    Whether Trump and his ilk meet the full or partial definition of “collusion” or not, the Founders would’ve looked to the man’s character. The fact that he DOESN’T HAVE ANY would’ve decided it for them. No man lacking integrity or a trustworthy character should’ve been allowed the job.

    The following have been taken from a book review I wrote on David Barton’s “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White, ©2004. Though the book’s aim was to educate readers on America’s TRUE political record concerning the treatment of blacks, I found the book filled with timeless wisdom that even worked for the 2016 election. And I think some of the quotes I recorded also work to back up my above claim. I hope some or all will get whoever reads my post, thinking.

    (Oh, and, uh, for those who really think that we were “electing a president not a preacher,” please take note of what Noah Webster says on that subject. That would be the second quote given below. Since no one with modern conservative/Christian bona fides has been able to make you see the light, perhaps an actual Founding Father can school you better on the subject. Go ahead and try to argue with one of our Founders about how Trump didn’t have to be aboveboard morally because we weren’t electing a pastor!)

    1. “[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them…Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently.… Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it—and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course [Christians] take [in politics] (468)”—American revivalist, Rev. Charles Finney (135).

    2. “In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular [party] of the candidate—look to his character.…It is alleged by men of loose principles or defective views of the subject that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct [in Exodus 18:21] that rulers should be men ‘who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness (470)”—Founding Father, author of Webster’s dictionary, and anti-slavery leader, Noah Webster (136).

    3. These pages also include admonitions from Rep. Robert Brown Elliott, Frederick Douglass, Rev. Charles Finney, Dr. Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Rev. Francis Grimke, and Rev. Matthias Burnet, who each implore American voters, both black and white, not to vote for color or party affiliation but for one’s character. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it: “Not the color of one’s skin but the content of one’s character.” Elliott basically said to “align with political candidates [who] conform to what he called ‘the injunctions of Christianity” (134). Douglass felt “citizens must vote righteously—and this first assumes that they are voting” (134), which is both a privilege and a right. As Finney, Elliott, and Douglass believed: “So when voting, no vote should be cast solely on the basis of any party; the values of each individual candidate must be examined using the standard of Biblical righteousness cited by Frederick Douglass, the principles of Christianity as cited by Robert Brown Elliott, and an awareness that voters will answer to God for their vote, as pointed out by Charles Finney” (135).

    So, please, can we stop with the “Does it meet the legal definition of ‘collusion?’ ” The Founders never would’ve voted for Trump in the first place, and they certainly wouldn’t dicker around trying to figure out how to feel about “collusion about” or “collusion with” or whatever configuration the Trump team tries to push tomorrow. The Founders would’ve simply looked at the man (and his entire family) and seen absolutely no character and absolutely no basis for trustworthiness—and kicked the man to the curb! The only Biblical standards Trump meets are the ones in Proverbs that talk about the foolish, wicked, or evil man and the ones set forth by Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9-12.

    And the same standards for judging the president, the Founders would’ve held to his entire cabinet. If the man at the top is shady, then those under him would be tarnished, too. Birds of a feather and all that. If Trump picked them, then, since he’s tainted, so are they, and they should get the boot, too. End of discussion.

    I have had ENOUGH of all this mumbo jumbo! The man is not fit to lead an Easter egg hunt let alone the world via the office of president! By all means, let Mueller do his job, and I pray that, at the end, Trump and Friends are found guilty (or whatever the end result of guilt would be called) so that we can move on. Whether or not Trump knew or didn’t know, whether his is or isn’t a Putin patsy—none of it matters. The man is NOT trustworthy. He is decidedly nefarious and has no business being the leader of the free world or top representative of the sole superpower! He lacks character, morals, scruples, and integrity. As far as the Founders were concerned, whether or not he can be linked to any sort of tie to the Russians is moot. The bottom line is the man himself, what he is inside. And since his inside is as those Pharisees’ whitewashed tombs, this whole wearisome affair can be quickly decided: He needs to go.