On 8/2/18, I devoted a post to Trump’s famous July 27, 2016,
invitation, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing.” I there contended
that this did not constitute a violation of any federal solicitation-computer
crime statute, but that it arguably constituted criminal solicitation of a
foreign (“in kind”) campaign contribution in violation of the election laws. I added, in passing, that it was potentially an impeachable offense. https://lawrencecrocker.blogspot.com/2018/08/was-trumps-russia-if-you-are-listening.html.
I have seen no reason to revise those conclusions substantially. I still think that there is a respectable argument that Trump violated the solicitation provision of
the election law, a violation not merely civil, but a criminal. It is simply implausible that he did not think he was asking for
something that he expected to be of very substantial value to the campaign – certainly
more valuable than many thousands of MAGA hats. It is also implausible that he had not been told about the prohibition against foreign contributions.
What I want to do here is first to extend the analysis to
consider Trump’s defense to accusations against his statement: “Of course I was
being sarcastic.” (Interview on Fox and Friends.); "[I]n jest and
sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer." (Written
answers to Mueller questions.)
Second, I want to return to the question of Trump’s claims
that he has been fully vindicated with respect to all claims of the sort that
he or his campaign colluded with the Russians.
