No. You are wrong. You said: ..."was to get information from a foreign agent that was illegally obtained."
OK, I'll admit I may have over assumed - but my assumption was based on the FACT that jr was getting information from a foreign source, and that information is questionable at best.First off; you implied as fact the information obtained by the woman who arranged the meeting was illegally obtained. That's a sneaky, clever way to drag more into this than there is. It's the same reason why you say the Russians hacked the election. They didn't 'hack' the election and nobody alleges that.
Um, I hate to break this to you... but, it's been proven that russia hacked the election. You may want to read these:
http://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hack...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/06/heres-the-public-ev...
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.So first off, the information she had was not illegally obtained. In fact, she had no information so you can stop saying that "illegally obtained" phrase.
I'll own that. But you have to own that jr's INTENT was illegal.Second, there was no information so there was no crime.
Wrong. Again, it goes to INTENT.If she had illegally obtain information that came from the Russian government and a conspiracy to knowingly commit a crime was discussed and actions begun, Trump Jr would be sunk. He'd have already resigned by now no doubt and there would be real talk about prosecution, not made up talk by talking heads.
It's not made up... sheesh! He confessed to it in his emails!! ("if it's what you say, I love it")And no, it's not that bad and certainly isn't criminal. I listened to what Trump Jr said and I believe him when he says in hindsight, it was stupid to take the meeting.
LMAO - uh huh. So if this were done by the Obama team... that would have been fine? Right?This is a 100% political issue. And from a political point of view, he's guilty. He never should have spoken to this woman.
No, from a legal point of view he's guilty.
but, if you're going to drag Obama and Hilary into this, fine. Go ahead, but you'll have to explain why this woman was given a very specific pass by AG Lynch.
Good question. It's completely the wrong context, but go ahead - ask that question. It doesn't take away from jr's INTENTAnother reason this is dying: the Dems have blood on their hands. they've decided they want this political witch hunt to go away. the Clintons did this very thing over and over.
Did what "thing"? Colluded with the russians?The only difference is the media protected them by not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Please - show me those acts of collusion that got "covered up".
this is a nothing burger! It's going nowhere and for good reason.
Pages: 
