quote:
4. Some are suggesting that Trump Jr. may have violated a campaign finance law with this meeting. He didn't. Rachel Stockman at Law Newz wrote a piece titled "Could This Obscure 1990 FEC Opinion Prove That Trump Jr. Committed a Crime? It Just Might." The campaign finance law cited states that it's illegal to solicit "anything of value" from a foreign national; Stockman then cited a Federal Election Commission (FEC) opinion stating a candidate's friend paying for polling for the campaign counted as "an in-kind contribution" to the campaign.

"What if the purported information did have value, and was paid for by the Russians — say if they paid for hacked emails?" wrote Stockman. "Well, we will never know because the Russian attorney claims she was never in possession of any of it."

There are two problems with this: one, it's based on an opinion from a government agency, rather from a court; only the latter would have serious legal implications. Two, it doesn't seem likely that a court would agree with Stockman's logic, as Turley argues that it would mean that a "wide array of meetings by politicians and their aides with foreign nationals would suddenly become possible criminal violations":

Consider the implications of such an unprecedented extension of the criminal code. The sharing of information — even possible criminal conduct by a leading political figure — would be treated the same as accepting cash. It would constitute a major threat to free speech, the free press and the right of association. It would also expose a broad spectrum of political speech to possible criminal prosecution.

Executive branch officials could then investigate campaigns on any meetings where information or tips might have originated from a foreign source. Such an expansion would likely hit challengers the hardest, since sitting presidents not only control the Justice Department but the government has a myriad of back channels in communicating with foreign officials.

LINK

quote:
But you're responding to someone asking me to define collusion

And you did a fantastic job of defining it. Well done

You're gonna need more than just motive for collusion though. We still don't know what information was passed, if any.

From a legal perspective, this is no different than Hillary/Ukraine.