My understanding is that Trump and others were contacted and told there was dirt to be had. Going to hear the dirt is not solicitation. Ending the meeting when it was apparent there was no dirt, and having no further contact with said dirt distribution source is not collusion. No laws were broken. Nothing was done that every and any campaign team hasn't done since politics began. Simple opposition research. Media makes it look bad because they only report the story as if nobody else does or has ever done such horrible and dishonest things. They act as if politics was a pure as the driven snow pre Trump era. Laughable.
Mere information is protected under first amendment rights. Paid dossiers are considered 'things of value" --- non-paid information is not. This has been defined in courts for decades. Just because liberals fervently wish this week for Don Jr. that non-paid information is somehow illegal -- it is not.
As long as the information is not covered by government classification (or corporate privacy) a U.S. citizen can give a foreign agent any information they desire if no money is exchanged. This includes situations where information is given to a reporter who is not a U.S. citizen -- so this is a 4th Estate issue as well.
AGAIN - this is AGAINST CAMPAIGN laws which has it's OWN laws -- you're not even allowed to have foreigners volunteer for your phone bank FOR FREE and you are telling me that receiving info from foreigners is legal for a campaign. LOL
Yes, paid dossiers are things of value - now prove that the DNC or the Clinton campaign paid the Brit for that information. It should be simple for you. Campaign laws have got NOTHING to do with the first amendment, you can talk to or receive any help from foreigners as you like - you can't do that when you are part of a CAMPAIGN. How can you not understand the DIFFERENCE?
Apparently you do not understand the difference when it comes to paid and unpaid information for campaigns under law.
Ok show me where it says that unpaid information (aka donated information from foreign nationals) is lawful - just show me a court ruling since you keep insisting that courts have already defined that.
Well - actually since you are asserting that information provided from foreign nationals to a campaign for free is illegal it is incumbent on YOU to provide a single court case stating this is illegal. Hint: Legal scholars say it is not.
Sure Soliciting the “Thing of Value” To coordinate spending is to receive a contribution. It is also illegal to solicit a contribution or expenditure–any “thing of value”–from a foreign national. 52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20 (g). A solicitation also need not be express: it can be implied. It is useful to consider the regulatory definition of “solicitation” adopted by the Federal Election Commission. I have put in italics key portions: To solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A 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. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. 11 C.F.R. §300.2(m). It also bears emphasis that a solicitation need not be successful in order to be illegal. The law applied here is not about an attempt, inchoate or otherwise, to commit a federal offence—the very solicitation is itself a potential crime. https://www.justsecurity.org/42956/...inal-case-trump-campaign-coordination-russia/