Let’s say you receive an e-mail from a friend, who, says “Hey Bill, wanna rob a bank with me?” and you reply with “Sure!” 
So, you go over to Bill’s house, and he explains to you that, after thinking it through and mapping out a plan in his brain, it’s really too difficult to rob banks these days, so forget it. The two of you play Xbox for four hours and never speak of the bank robbing plan again.
Here’s the legal question: Did you commit a crime when you said “Sure!” to Bill?
I asked this question to two separate attorney friends of mine, and they both explained that the answer comes down to a legal term called “furtherance.” If your friend Bill drove you over to the street of the bank and scoped it out first, then maybe went out and bought some ski masks, and then still decided not to rob the bank, yes, it could be argued — you may have still have committed conspiracy with your “Sure!” e-mail.
But in the original scenario as described above, no, you did not, because no actions were taken to “further” the criminal act.
When it was revealed earlier this week that Donald Trump Jr. agreed to meet with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June of 2016 in a room in Trump Tower after receiving an e-mail that promised this Russian lawyer had dirt on Hillary Clinton, and further that she was specifically from “the Russian government,” it was bad on a number of levels.
First, it showed Donald Trump Jr. to be a liar when he told members of the press previously that he had never met with Russians.
Second, it destroyed the narrative that no one from high up in Trump World had met with any Russian government operatives about the presidential campaign.

Third, it fueled the heretofore evidence-less theory that the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia, a foreign power, to influence the presidential campaign of 2016 (I don’t use the term “election” because that connotes that there was some malfeasance with regard to voting and the election itself, which there was not).
But, was it actually “collusion?” Collusion is defined as “secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.” 
From the various accounts of the meeting, no illegal activity was talked about. No criminal act was even suggested or implied. In fact, no campaign information was of value was transmitted at all (which incidentally would not have been a crime either.) 
Veselnitskaya instead pulled a bait and switch and lobbied Donald Trump Jr. to change U.S. adoption laws with regard to Russian adoptees should his father win the presidential election. In essence, they played Xbox for 20-30 minutes.
Furthermore, the act itself of taking on the meeting, as many legal scholars — such as Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, an admitted Hillary Clinton voter — have pointed out, breaks no actual law whatsoever.
Granted, it can be debated that it was stupid or even unethical for Donald Trump Jr. to say “Sure!” to scheduling the meeting with Veselnitskaya after being told she was from the Russian government. But throwing around words like “treason” and “espionage” – like even some members of Congress have been doing – is ludicrous, and those that are going there are embarrassing themselves. 
The key point in this entire kerfuffle is that like the bank robbery scenario earlier, there is no actual crime or furtherance of a crime at the root of this. Unlike, dare I say, Watergate, there is no illegal break-in to cover up.
In fact, the bank scenario is much worse because the “Sure!” shows that you were ready to commit a crime. In Donald Trump Jr.’s case, his “yes, let’s have the meeting” was talking about a meeting about political dirt, a.k.a. “opposition research” or “oppo.” Not illegally obtained. Not hacking e-mail servers. Not hacking voting booths. Nothing of the sort.
It was a political neophyte (Donald Trump Jr.) getting his first taste of political combat and at the absolute highest level, and essentially striking out. 
Alright, I’m mixing my metaphors now but you get the idea.
Now get ready...we’re likely going to see Donald Trump Jr. testifying in front of a Congressional committee, and probably Paul Manifort and Jared Kushner, and maybe even that Russian lawyer too. And it will be a circus, and the media will lap it up with countdown clocks and smoking gun graphics and comparisons to Watergate, day in and day out. 
But when all is said and done, no one’s going to jail over this, and no one’s getting impeached.  
The worst thing about this whole saga is that it will likely slow down the implementation of the agenda that the American people voted on almost six months ago.

Michael Koolidge lives in Rochelle and hosts the regionally syndicated radio program The Michael Koolidge Show (www.koolidge.com) heard daily on ten radio stations statewide, including Rockford’s 1440 WROK from 9 to 11 a.m. live every weekday morning. Public officials and citizens can reach the show anytime at radio@koolidge.com or 815-561-7130.