It was illegal, Mueller made a prosecutorial decision about proof of intent. Where not beyond s reasonable doubt contemplates a preponderance of evidence, or clear of convincing, although present, is not enough.
That’s my point about skirting the line found in the Mueller report. A representative example of my point.
It is not first Amendment protected. It is Campaign law that determines violation of law.
Clinton’s case is not nearly the same.
Closer to Clinton is this example. Trump wants to substantiate birther. He pays an investigator to go to Africa and investigate, obtain records, etc. This is not a violation.
Trump would pay market value for service.
But
If an African government offered to gift it to assist in a campaign, that’s a violation.
Gifts are prohibited as well as contributions. Also prohibited( this applies to Trump jr) is solicitation.
Solicitation has a broad definition.
In this case:
The Russians contacted him. He had those comments of exuberance if I recall but he didn’t say can’t.
He said ok. I will contact you when we get closer to the election so it has a bigger impact( these are emails in evidence)
Then Trump jr calls them basically SOLICITING THE STUFF NOW.
This is as close as you get. The prosecutorial discretion was, they had a case of intent, but they decided the market value of what they were getting was to speculative to bring the case. A case they could have brought but it was weak on market value.
Obviously, if he got what he hoped for, he would be charged. He is free because he failed.
