One seven-letter word synergy may prove critical in proving the allegations that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia, according to Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin.

Rubin asked in her column Monday what would happen if collusion wasnt just defined (as it has been by many) as the alleged plot operating in 2016 between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russians to manipulate the election but was actually widened to include an earlier alleged 2015 plot for Trump to make hundreds of millions on projects while denying any deals with the Russians.

Notice the word synergy in special counsel Robert Muellers sentencing memorandum in the case of Trumps former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, Rubin wrote. She added:

According to Mueller, Michael Cohen was contacted shortly after Trump declared his candidacy, in November 2015, by a trusted person in the Russian government who could offer the campaign political synergy and synergy on a government level.

Rubin claimed that all of Trumps collusion denials crumble if there was concrete evidence of Trumps approval (how could there not be?) to cooperate with Russia to make money and get some help.

Tying Trump to collusion in 2015 makes it interesting but non-essential to prove, for example, that he knew the Trump Tower meeting was ongoing, she added. Knowledge of the overall scheme with a foreign power would be more than enough to incriminate Trump.

In sum, if synergy is collusion and Trump was in on it, we have collusion, she wrote, later adding: If the collusion extended to coordination and assistance from a foreign government, would almost certainly be illegal.

Read Rubins full column here .