“But the consensus was far from universal. “Ambiguities in criminal statutes are supposed to be resolved against criminalization,” Stephen Duke, a Yale University law professor, told Vox. “That is especially so where the statute allegedly punishes the receipt of information. If receiving information that Hillary was being helped by the Russians is a crime, so, too, would be receiving information that the Russians were helping Trump in the election.”
That was the only objection I could see in your linked article but it has nothing to do with why I said Junior broke the law. Im not saying he broke the law because he received the emails so Duke is correct Junior broke no laws simply for being the recipient of emails. If that is where the communications ended it would be absolutely correct to say Junior did not break Federal law.
However, Duke does not saying anything about the legality of Junior acting on those emails knowing:
It was a foreign source
It was a valuable contribution to the campaign
That same foreign source was operating a scam to influence the same election.
Not a single expert in that article says it was legal for Junior to proactively meet with a foreign national for the express purpose of colluding to influence the outcome of a US national election.
Ive already clarified the law was broken regardless of the outcome because the law does not require a “fruitful” outcome but only the attempt, the conspiracy of working with a foreign national. Your article supports what I said:
“For now, however, it matters less that the meeting wasn’t fruitful and a great deal more that it happened in the first place.”