Is “collusion” even a correct word for this whole issue? “Collusion” implies illegality or fraud. Is meeting people from anywhere and everywhere for purposes of gathering opposition research illegal or fraudulent? And why aren’t the lamestreams reporting on the incidents in which the Dems did the exact same thing?
Take the offensive. We can win on this if we do!
He also attended the meeting with witnesses, promised nothing, and did nothing. If the Russians were offering political information, hell yes, take it. Just like the “hacked e-mails” that revealed the DNC treated the presidential campaign as a game of three-card monte with Bernie Sanders and the entire democrat base as the suckers. Even if the Russians were the source of those emails, which is questionable, they didn’t write those emails, and the Russians didn’t run a sucker’s game. The DNC did.
So if they were offering information on nefarious stunts of Hillary Clinton, of which there are many, it wasn’t the Russians who did those things, it was Hillary Clinton. Of course, we now know that the Russian lady was not offering that information. It was BS and Trump Jr. walked.
So what’s the big hairy deal?
You're right, the word collusion has no precise legal meaning. For the Dims, it's word because it sounds bad... and because it means whatever they want it to mean.
Like Jeff Sessions said the other day, it's a Through the Looking Glass world they're operating in:
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."