In that context, no in my opinion. He didn't receive a donation or a contribution to the campaign nor was he solicited for a donation or contribution to the campaign in exchange for unspecified favors. The meeting was for evidence of something unlawful Hillary did with Russia. It would decimate Hillary's campaign if the evidence was shown to the world but that wouldn't be a direct contribution to the campaign of trump.

They won't be able to get the son of a president with this. Also, this sort of stuff is silly because Hillary (and likely many other candidates liketly including trump) received alot of campaign donations from individuals or companies from other countries except that they weren't "foreign nationals" at the time. Politicans don't adhere to the spirit of this law in any sense except to the letter of it.  Was this law created before the internet became a thing or before you could wire money? 

1.  When you agreed that "going to a meeting for the agreed-upon purpose of obtaining a thing would count as "soliciting" that thing", did you not understand that going to a meeting for the purpose of obtaining a thing is a fact that doesn't change based on whether or not you were successful in obtaining that thing? 

2.  Isn't it contradictory to (a) assert that such information would not be "money or other thing of value", yet (b) admit that the information would be devastating to Mr. Trump's political opponent?  (In other words, why wouldn't that information be of immense value to Mr. Trump, and therefore forbidden for him to receive or seek to receive from foreign nationals?)

3.  Let's keep separate the question of whether Mr. Trump has broken the law and the question of whether others have broken the law—these are different questions.  Right now we are working on the first of these questions; if you want to admit that he has done so in your honest opinion (not simply for the sake of agrument), we can move on to whether that fact is unusual among politicians (especially, whether Mrs. Clinton has also done comparable or worse law-breaking). 

1. That wasn't the basis of my disagreement with it not being solicitation but it does make it less of a big deal because nothing was exchanged. My basis was that it didn't directly contribute to the campaign therefore it doesn't apply to this.

2. Not really because depending on how the evidence against hillary was used, it would change it's perceived value and if it would be of any contribution to the campaign in a roundabout way. Also, what is considered as "other thing of value" is arguable and the law doesn't specially mention anything about the exchange of something that directly damages the compaign of an opponent rather than being a direct contribution to the campaign. 

3. Well, politicians have been breaking the spirit of this law for a long time so to me, it's silly to use it as a way to get someone who came closer to breaking the letter of the law rather than the spirit.  This should dropped just because it's not gonna fly in court and jury. It's more or less a means to damage trump regardless if it goes anywhere or not. I can undertand why democrats wouldn't let that bone go easily.

The law should be changed to better fit the times. It's built around foreign national (foreigner in your country) attempting to give a contribution or donation in exchange for a favor in the physical world. Politicians are given donations from foreigners in exchange for favors all the time but they just happen to be not on our soil when they do it because of conveniences of modern times.

1.  If the information was exclusively something to be used against a party Mr. Trump wanted to see damaged, and therefore was exclusively an indirect benefit to Mr. Trump & Donald Trump's campaign as opposed to a direct benefit, this could be seen as equivalent to performing a service, which are most certainly covered under this statute as I believe case law attests.  Additionally, by that logic securing the services of a hitman is fine because it doesn't directly benefit you, only damages another party to your indirect benefit. 

2.  Please agree or disagree to the following statements.  You may, obviously, give as much context or qualification as you like to your agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty. 
(a)  Trump would not have taken time out of his busy schedule for a meeting to obtain information that he did not value. 
(b)  The statement of the go-between, "...offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information..." indicate that he considered the information to be a thing of value. 
(c.)  The statement of Mr. Trump, "...if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." indicates that he considered the information to be a thing of value. 
(d)  In general, information can be a thing of value, which is demonstrated by people and organizations expending resources to produce, obtain, publicize, or prevent the publicization of information, which they would not do if it was worthless. 
(e)  In specific, this would be a case of a party (Mr. Trump) valuing information for the purposes of obtaining and subsequently publicizing information "especially later in the summer". 

3.  I don't see how trying to do something illegal (but failing) would be closer to the spirit of the law than trying to do something illegal (and succeeding). 

I'll just agree to disagree on 1 and 2 since it's a legal argument that would debated around the termnology around the laws rather than who said what considering what the meeting was for. If this was about a donation of money in exchange for favors, it would be clear cut.  It will either go to court or won't.  I think that it won't or that it won't go much of anywhere other than being talking points for cnn for the next couple of years.

I think you're misunderstanding me with 3. What trump jr did in this situation and what just about all politicians do breaks the spirit of this law but trump jr came closer to breaking the letter of the law in this situation than most of them do. I think it's not a big deal because politicians ignore it anyway.

In my opinion, I think the law should be updated to fit the times to close loop holes or be done away with because it only serves as a snare for the witless instead of keeping foreign governments from influencing our elections by donating to candidates that would likely do something they want.

1&2.  I can't argue with that
(In all seriousness, I think that (a,b,c) could, if you were amenable, be fruitfully separated into "question of reality" to be discussed and "question of law" to be set aside, while (d,e) are only of value as "question of law"; but nevertheless I will respect your desire to agree to disagree on the whole show, for as long as that is your desire.) 

3.  I guess I did misunderstand you:  I had thought you were saying something more along the lines of "other politicians routinely break the spirit of the law more than Junior did, but Junior broke the letter of the law more than them"—whereas I now understand you to be saying something more like, "Junior only went a little further than others, if any at all, in terms of the spirit; but he clumsily came much closer than them to breaking the letter of the law."  Is that a more or less accurate picture of your thoughts?