What happened concerning Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting with a Russia lawyer was not illegal. "There is one final law to be considered. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, soliciting and/or receiving foreign donations is prohibited (11 CFR 110.20). This includes “money or other thing of value.” Is information, by itself, a “thing of value?” One could attempt to make that argument, but it has never been interpreted that way." https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-donald-trump-jr-has-broken-no-lawIf you want to make the argument that it was illegal, you'll have to face applying it, including retroactively, to all candidates. If you think Hillary Clinton did not hold any meetings with any non-US citizens/nationals where she knew she'd be hearing information (of value) to further her campaign, your crystal ball is better than mine.
You can't arbitrarily decide when to apply a standard (including a new interpretation or application) and remain credible.
Are you really willing to take down every Democrat too whose campaign included anyone who ever met during that campaign with a non-US citizen/national to obtain valuable information for the campaign? I'm not.
More importantly and not covered by Gregg Jarrett, there was no solicitation (or receipt).
I've read both and see no way to prevail using the position that either the emails or meeting was illegal.
Here's something else for you to ponder while you're at it. What if the lawyer had supplied proof positive of major law breaking by Hillary Clinton, so major and so condemnable by both sides of the aisle, that she'd not only have had to withdraw from the race but would have definitely faced criminal charges, conviction, and sentencing to a long prison term? Would you claim that the Trump campaign broke the law obtaining it in the meeting between Trump and the lawyer?
Supplying actual evidence of any important illegal activity (above the level of infrequent, minor infractions) by any candidate for public office is "meddling" I more than welcome from any nation's government.
If it is ever declared illegal for a candidate or campaign in the US to accept and disseminate such evidence, you can be sure that declaration is a criminal-protection declaration at the direct and negative expense of what little democracy we have.
How could a candidate be working to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States while knowingly concealing the important illegal dealings of that candidate's election opponent, illegal dealings that, depending upon the nature of the crimes(s), could constitute plotting the violent overthrow of the Constitution? Some laws trump others. In the secular state of the US, we start at the top (the US Constitution) as the law that trumps all others. Concealing such illegality would constitute aiding and abetting by simply keeping silent about it. That would certainly be a greater legal infraction than any violation being claimed against Trump, Jr. right now.
The above constitutes a lightly edited compilation of various social-media commentary of mine over the last several days.