(CNN) Since signing on as President Donald Trump's lead lawyer responding to the Mueller probe, Rudy Giuliani has said a number of outlandish things. But none were more outlandish than what he told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday, when questioned about three of the Trump campaign's top aides meeting with Russians who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.

"There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians," Giuliani told Tapper.

Which, well, whoa boy.

Let's tackle the legal piece of this first.

Here's how the Federal Elections Committee regulations phrases which activities are prohibited by foreign nationals and foreign governments: "Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States."

The issue, legally speaking, is whether "other thing of value" would include "dirt" on Clinton's campaign. It is not a "something" by the traditional definition -- like, say, a gift or a big wad of cash -- and there is considerable debate about whether Trump's campaign would have been technically breaking the law by simply sitting down for the meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 -- particularly if no actual "dirt" was given.

Donald Trump Jr., one of the three Trump campaign attendees at the meeting, said that the Russians had no negative information about Clinton.

(To understand "something of value" -- and how it can be something that is not totally tangible -- one needs only look as far as Trump's onetime lawyer Michael Cohen and his hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. While the Trump campaign didn't receive cash, it's quite clear that Cohen paying Daniels $130,000 to ensure she didn't speak about her alleged affair with Trump benefited the campaign in the final days of the race.)

Here's the thing: Simply because something isn't technically illegal --- or may not be illegal -- doesn't make it right. And that's what we are dealing with here: Is it the right thing to do for the Trump campaign brain trust to sit down with Russians promising dirt on Clinton?

Even Giuliani, who, as I noted above, has said some pretty b-a-n-a-n-a-s things in defense of Trump, wasn't willing to say he would have done the same thing (or advised Trump to do so).

"I probably wouldn't," Giuliani said when pressed by Tapper about whether he would have taken dirt from the Russians. "I wasn't asked," Giuliani added. "I would have advised, just out of excess of caution, don't do it."

Correct! Except that Giuliani wouldn't have done it -- and wouldn't have advised to do it -- not because of an excess of a caution but because he knows it is not the right thing to do.

Step back and consider what we are talking about here: The Mueller report confirmed what the intelligence community told us in January 2017 -- the Russians ran a broad and deep effort to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor because they believed he would be better for their interests than Clinton. That effort included hacking into the email servers of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and then weaponizing that stolen material by releasing it on WikiLeaks.

Here's the relevant part of the Mueller report on that subject:

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Amid that effort, the President's eldest son, his son-in-law and his campaign manager met with a Russian lawyer after being told that the foreign citizen had compromising information on Clinton, and that it was part of a Russian effort to help Trump.

And, as the Mueller report concluded, the Trump campaign was all too happy to accept any of that dirt, even though, apparently, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya didn't have any. (Worth noting: Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort didn't know the Russians were bluffing.)

Is that right? Is that how we want those closest to the President of the United States to act? Anything goes -- as long as it's not expressly illegal?

Giuliani's answer is, well, yes. That everything is allowed that is not prohibited. And he's far from alone. The broader response by Trump and his allies to the Mueller report has been along the same lines of Giuliani's response to Tapper: There were no obvious crimes -- or at least any provable ones -- and, therefore, everything is "very legal and very cool."

That's a hell of a standard to set for the presidency. And for the country.