He didn't use the info. Just use your noggin'.  DId Hillary lose the election because of her own ties to russia? No. The info they went to that meeting for wasn't exchanged because it wasn't used when it was the most useful to the trump's side. You're the ones assuming things and being illogical about this. 

Would you agree that going to a meeting for the agreed-upon purpose of obtaining a thing would count as "soliciting" that thing? and if not, why not?  Later questions to follow, but these first, please. 

Exactly how am I assuming anything.  I said that the only word you are going on is Trump Jr who has shone that he will continue to lie until proven otherwise.  You continue to say nothing came of the meeting and I am wondering where you are getting this information from.  You continue to make statements on the belief that Trump and his team would personally exposed any information they may have obtained from this meeting not knowing anything about the information that was given.  I have no clue what came of this meeting but I can assure you I will not believe someone who has already shone he will lie every chance he can get.  

We still come down to what we know.  Trump Jr and his team went to the meeting expecting valuable information.  It really does not matter if it can be proven if he obtained that information or if he obtained the info and chose to use or not use or gave the info to someone else to use.  The facts are he went to the meeting with the intention of receiving valuable information from a foreign national.  Noticed in the post I made that it says solicited.  That means he does not actually have to receive anything he only had to know that one, the person was a foreign national which the emails prove, and two there was a payoff in some form which was the information.

So by going by my post, Trump Jr did violate the finance contributions and he can be tried and convited.  As to the penalty, I have not clue what that can be but who knows, it may have jail time which would be very interesting if so.  

This story continue to gain more meat to that nothing burger. So another shoe drops as we find out that the same lawyer Trump Jr met received a nice gift in a Lawsuit she is connected to being settled out of court for pennies on the dollar.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-12/democrats-ask-doj-about-settlement-involving-trump-linked-lawyer

Next you have this Russian lobbyist attending the meeting who may or may not be part of Russian intelligence but then again everyone says they are not part of anything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p057z84v

Drip, Drip Drip as more and more little tidbits are released. I believe before the end of this week, the news will having this looking like a full blown Russia Intelligence operation. Whether it's true or not will be interesting to see.

Machiavellian wow....

The 17 House Democrats asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a Wednesday letter whether the involvement of Veselnitskaya, who they called a "Kremlin-connected attorney," may have helped prompt the settlement, given her meeting with Donald Trump Jr.

“The connections here are too substantial to ignore. Why was a Russian money-laundering case involving more than $230 million dismissed without explanation?"

I guess it paid off for Natalia Veselnitskaya to meet with Donald Trump Jr.

Yeah, now we have that Quid Pro Quo coming into play and no matter how you slice it, this does not look good for Tump and his administration.  Now we have Jeff Sessions back on the block again having to explain how this is not connected to Trump and his administration.   

I wonder if Aeolus451 will have a defense for this little nugget of news.  If Trump Jr did not receive anything from that meeting, it sure looks like Natalia received compensation.  I wonder if this was how it was during the Nixon years.  I also wonder what it would take for the Republican party to start getting off of the Trump train.  I am guessing as long as Republicans think he is doing a good job, he should still be able to serve out his 4 years.

Sure, it fits the definition of the word but the context could change the answer.

There's another side to this that nobody seems to be talking about. If Hillary Clinton decides to run again in 2020, this is going to come up again. Hillary's reputation was ruined in the last election because of her unethical activities. In 2020, if this issue comes up, she's screwed. The American people will want to know what dealings she had with the Russians. She's going to have to say something.

If the Democrats were smart, they would pretend she doesn't exist and choose somebody who doesn't have so much controversy surrounding them. As of right now though, the Democrats are still idiots. They refused to admit they screwed up in the last election and many elites in the party still seem to think that the Clinton name has some value. Maybe if they screw up in the 2018 mid term elections, they'll finally do one much needed soul searching for 2020.

Its pretty clear Trump has many times more damning dealings with them, and alot of people dont seem to care.

They just go "fake news" or "doesnt matter, wasnt/isnt serious".

But I agree, hopefully Hilary doesnt run in 2020.

Thank you.  That's a fair caveat.  Here is the context.  Do you still agree that the aforementioned definition of solicit is applicable?  If not, why not? 

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
  (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

And here is paragraph (1):  (It shall be unlawful for)
  (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or