>>>This says that I can't couldn't take money from foreigners.
>>>Do you think that foreigners gave him money?
>
>If he "solicited" a "thing of value" then he breached this act. The argument is that in taking the meeting, he "solicited" dirt on HRC.
>
>Which is why I suggested that the definition of "solicit" matters. According to the statute, "solicit" has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(m) which is :
>
> to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.
>
>IMHO it's arguable whether the "thing of value" was asked for, or offered.

Dirt on HRC from the Kremlin during a campaign for president would be of value though yes? I don't think an argument against that would hold up too well.

>What is VERY clear by this definition is that HRC and the Democratic party solicited and paid for dirt from Russians to pee pee over Trump. The cut outs don't excuse them, since "indirect" solicitation is still a crime. Curiously, the moral crusaders thundering accusations of law-breaking against Trump JR for responding to offered dirt, seem blind to these other undeniable crimes.

Might remember that is was Republicans running against Donald Trump that originally funded this.and the dossier didn't even come out before the November 2016 election.