>>>He accepted the meeting - that's all he had to do in order to be in violation of the law.
>
>You're saying the meeting had value, then. We can agree to disagree.

The meeting did not have to have value -- Trump Jr just had to think it did -- and seeing how he was told it did and said he thought it did,and thus took the meeting-- he broke the law.

>>> I am not talking about the peepee dirt because that is not what I'm talking about.
>
>It is what I'm talking about, because I perceive double standards and hypocrisy that somebody determined to pursue a possible technical breach, willfully ignores an undeniable barn door breach.
>
>>>You do not know what ELSE was in the FISA warrants
>
>No, but I can see McCabe's testimony on that topic. And rather than a flurry of confusion from memo and leaked counter memo likely to muddy the truth, a special counsel offers certainty on a matter that ought to be more of a concern for US citizens.

You do not know what the stacks and stacks of information that 4 different judges went though to approve the warrants. And as a side note here -- warrants in this country do not require the same level of proof as a conviction in a trail -- just 'probable cause' -- and you do not have any idea as to what all the factors where that allowed those 4 different judges 4 different times to determine there was probable cause for the warrants. This is what everyone has made it clear that the memo is misleading -- and again I suggest you read the last line of it lol lol.

>>>-- and what I'm talking about is the Trump Jr's legal issues -- so it is you what have whataboutismed by bringing up the dossier to begin with as it has nothing to do with Trump Jr's taking the meeting at Trump tower.
>
>I'm posting about the memo. If you want to talk about something else go for it, but you don't get to veto others by insisting only your topics may be discussed.

There appears to be 4 different subjects going on at once and they're becoming hopelessly intertwined.