>> The legality of agreeing to go along with receiving thes stuff, depends on the legality of possessing the stuff. If the material is a trade secret (and Coke employees have offered the Coke forumla to PepsiCo, this stuff happens), or illegal, then it’s a crime to take it. <<
No doubt about it.
But what if some guy emails you to say he has a friend willing to sell you a whole truckload of Coca-Colas at a ridiculously low price. You think to yourself, “There’s nothing illegal about possessing Cokes,” so you email back that you’d “love” to meet and do business with the Coke seller.
In this scenario, are you in danger of walking into a legal trap?
Dunno. But on the other hand, I think I surely wouldn’t want to have the meeting.
That smells like stolen goods to me.
Now, as to what DJT, Jr. did, there is no question that the DEMs are going to find it criminal. It's what they do, make a crime out of opponent's legal activities.
In this case, the product is legal. Adding the stolen goods overlay, the "quality" of the offered goods is UNKNOWN to DJT, Jr., and unlike the "stolen/cheap Coke" example, there is no sign from the offer that the goods have any taint.
The election law the DEMs are abusing assigns taint to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING offered by a foreigner. But because the DEMs have accepted campaign information from foreigners, they attempt to narrow the rule to "hostile foreigners" followed by a conclusory labeling of Russia as "hostile."
In other words, the DEMs aren't saying the Coke is stolen/cheap. They are saying it is illegal to agree to accept ANY campaign information from the Russians.