>>>come on, that is due diligence at start and running with the ball if you receive it....
>
>You and I may think so, but the US has laws about not receiving or soliciting "things of value" from foreigners to influence elections. E.g. there are people baying at Trump Jr for meeting a Russian lawyer believing she had dirt on HRC. She didn't, but still they say it's "soliciting" so a crime.

Ambigous language everywhere - another spin could be that jr. only went to the meeting to verify nothing of that matter taints the campaign. As she had nothing to offer, no reason to act ( warn own campaign or involve FBI ). Hard to disprove, if both sides can be said to employ truthful hyperbole in arranging for the meeting ;-)

Such laws IMO are the direct consequence of letting concepts like manifest destiny enter your logic. Putting own laws on a sacrosanct pedestal does not help either. One situation where my own map of things probably is more in synch with Trump ;-)