I definetly never claimed that Trumps campaign ran anything well. From everything I've read it was a complete disaster. I have no idea how he won.

After reading up more - it appears that it is not a crime to meet with a Russian lawyer, OR a Russian Government Lawyer, or even a member of a foreign gov't when running for office.  The closest thing that could be found that is a crime here someone posted earlier - that you receive something of value in return. From what I've read, that has never been inferred as being anything other that money (or a valuable object). It's never been construed to mean information.

I know this is from FoxNews, which is obviously biased, but it seems to say theres really nothing here, even at its worst, that could be considered a crime.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/11/gregg-jarrett-donald-trump-jr-has-broken-no-law.html

I didn't say that. 

I said that Hillary Clinton is not president. If you wish, I can elaborate. 

For practical reasons, I am much less concerned about the alleged impropriety of someone who hasn't held public office in four years and will likely never hold public office again, than I am about a smoking gun that shows that the circle of national security threats surrounding the most powerful man in the world consistently lied about their role in an attack on the US democracy. 

I'll be frank; given the above, engaging with you in a debate on the merits of a Daily Caller opinion piece seems like a colossal waste of time for everyone involved. 

It wouldn't be for nothing - they ("The Russians") - didn't want Clinton to win. I think it's likely that simple. I mean, you can certainly believe this grand scheme in your head that Trump has things to pay off to the Russian gov't - but there's nothing that indicates this. 

Personally - I totally believe that the Russians wanted Trump to win, and that they did things on their own to try and make that happen. Just like other governments all over the world did what they could to get their candidate of choice elected in the US. Just like the US have done in dozens (hundreds) of elections around the world (Obama even commented on what we hoped for in Syria years ago).  I think they (The Russians) did it for their own gains - Clinton was super close to the Ukranians and wanted a no-fly zone in Syria, which would've caused major problems for them.  I just don't think there was any "collusion" by the Trump team any more than every nominee tries to get as much info as possible on thier opponent. I CERTAINLY (at this point) think Trump has made any promises to do things for the Russians because they have dirt on him or he "owes" them something. I still think Trump is slimy and probably has done some illegal things - I just think the Russia narrative is bogus.

But who knows, I could be proven wrong. I'm wrong a lot. *shrug*

If you think what Trump Jr did was a crime, the Clinton team did the exact same thing, and much worse. This was known BEFORE the results of the election, when everyone and their dog thought Clinton would win. Why would you not be oppossed to this crime then? I find it pretty hard to believe once she was elected that on that day you would've made a post and made a huge deal about it now that she was elected. Your insane amount of bias is showing.

I'd rather not discuss further as well with someone who would make such an insane arguement, anyway, so at least we agree on that much.

"An Attack on US Democracy" - which hasn't been proven. What has been proven was the attack on US Democracy by the DNC in keeping Bernie out. Have you posted about your outrage on that yet?

The relevant crime is "illegal campaign contribution by a foreign principal", which prohibits foreign nationals from providing "anything of value" (not just money). 

It would likely be prosecuted under the first part of 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States. This is considered the general conspiracy statute, as it covers conspiracy to commit any federal crime. 

However, I'm not sure if such a thing (conspiracy to illegally receive campaign contributions) has ever been prosecuted before, so honestly I think its unlikely to go that route.

Also, here is an article from Vox with the opinions of 17 legal experts: https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15952232/donald-trump-jr-lawyer-russia-manafort-kushner-clinton-2016-election

I swear dems really know how to run an election campaign for their opposition.

Misleading on a few accounts. 

1.) Politico's original reporting on this matter came out two months after the election ended. 

2.) "Worse" here is pretty subjective, but I feel that it's best to hold fast on my commitment not to discuss and irrelevant Daily Caller opinion piece about Hillary Clinton.

Conversations are generally easier and more productive when you stick to responding to what the other person is actually saying. I find it pretty hard to believe that anyone should take your assessment of me, and what I would or wouldn't care about in a hypothetical situation seriously, given that I'm an Internet persona that you literally just started engaging with today.

I object to your use of "insane" here. You're free to disagree with my conclusions, but the entirety of my discourse with you has been calm, rational, and fact-based.

The CIA, NSA, FBI, and ODNI released a joint statement that said they had high confidence that Putin ordered an interference campaign in the 2016 US Election.

That is as close to "proof" as you can really get on something like this.

Conversations are generally easier and more productive when you stick to responding to what the other person is actually saying. 

The DNC sucks. Bernie was a better candidate in my estimation than Hillary was. That being said, the DNC is under no obligation to nominate a candidate in a manner that I consider fair or just. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He is an Independent who became a Democrat since it was his best chance at winning office. It probably would have been in his best interest to aware himself of the ways that the DNC does business with regards to nominating their candidate before he switched his party affiliation for the sake of political expediency. 

I'll point out, once again, that I've been very cordial here. I've responded point for point to everything you've said, despite that fact that very little of it addresses what is ostensibly the topic of discussion here, and much of it is strawman arguments that make assumptions about who I am, and what I care about.

I agree it's totally easy for people to believe in or deny pretty much any information they see, hear or read..  I guess going to a meeting with the knowledge that the person could be part of the Russia government or agent is no big deal to some.  At best, with Paul Manfort there, he was told that this meeting was risky because he could be dealing with a foreign government and taking anything from them to change the election could be a felony event.  You say there is no proof but then again we have his emails that clearly show that Trump Jr was willing to take this risk.  He showed up and of couse we have no clue if the information for bogus or not, we only have his word that nothing came of the meeting.  Maybe you need that hard evidence like a mike during the conversation to pull you past think it was nothing.  I personally just going by my own moral compass knows if I tried that excuse with my wife, I would be divorce. 

The reason why we see so much leaks is because Trump had and still has no clue how government works compared to a business.  He thinks he is CEO of the US and treat the job as such but he and his people keep stumbling from one bad moment to the next and making enemies along the way.  When all is said and done, he probably will at least serve his 4 years but it should be interesting to see how his popularity and business venture fares.  In the end he probalby still come out of this making billions for his brand.

Sometimes people just grate against each other. Hopefully you can see in my conversations with others I have been level-headed as well. I find some of your comments hard to believe, but you are obviously free to believe them. Probably best we just stay clear of commenting to each other further. I appreciate the lack of escalation. Hope the rest of your day (and posting) is fun. :)