The Times’ Maggie Haberman pressed Sarah Sanders today on how the President is defining “collusion” these days.
Interesting new standard for “collusion” Sanders sets forth here. Seems to be. Collusion would mean that Trump won *because of Russian interference*. Sort of a no harm no foul defense. pic.twitter.com/3fRKcezgiL
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) January 24, 2018
This is a very fuzzy answer. But I interpret what she says as this: as long as Russia didn’t cause Trump to win, it’s not really an issue. Again, it’s fuzzy. But that is what she seems to focus on: whether or not the interference succeeded in electing Trump. Needless to say, that’s an insanely permissive standard and ridiculous by really any measure.
Note that she also seems to be limiting the defense to the President, what he did, what he knew about.
