>>>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.
>
>No, I don't think that's right. The thing of value was the dirt, not its gift wrapping/meeting.
>
>>>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.
>
>You sound so learned, but you don't know what was in the warrants either and nor presumably does Vox or wherever you're getting your partisan talking points this time.

That is correct - I do not know either -- however I know the standard practice and guidelines that a judge uses to approve such warrants - and the assumption that 4 different judges approved said warrant 4 different times based solely upon one dossier is preposterous. And if you take a look at the timeline here -- the 1st warrant came out before the dossier - so it's not even possible that this was a factor, let alone a controlling factor.

>The risk is that Schiff leaks his oversized memo and as I keep saying, it devolves into partisan "he said she said" that seems designed to distract from the importance for US democracy, even if this is the whole iceberg rather than just the tip. Distraction is the antic of the guilty. Just saying.

Good point - but note that they voted to release one memo and not the other. That is about as partisan as you can get and an antic of the guilty.

>I'm arguing for a special counsel who *will* see what's in the FISA warrants without any leaking of classified information. Maybe respond to that? Curious that you've now ignored this 3 times...

And I'm saying that is pointless. It's Trump's attempt to attack the DOJ -- now he wants to claim that those 4 judges must be secretly plotting against him and violating their oath, not doing their job, and ignoring the law. This is the same guy who said a judge couldn't hear a case or rule fairly because he was of Mexican heritage. At some stage you have to simply accept it. You want to have a special counsel investigate 4 judges - then when that does not go right next step will be to attack the special counsel and demand an investigation into that special counsel -- the cycle goes on and on. My question to you is why do you want to investigate the 4 judges???