If I tried to rob a liquor store at gunpoint

And it turned out there was no cash on the premises, so I went away – does that mean I didn’t do anything wrong?

Come now.  I’d say I probably deserved to be condemned, if not charged with a couple violations.  And yet, unless I’m mistaken, that is exactly the excuse Donald Trump’s son is using for his infamous meeting.  And it’s the reason some in the GOP are actually defending him. Yes, he went to meet with a citizen of a foreign country in order to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton, but there wasn’t anything there.  No blood, no foul.

I’m no legal expert.  I don’t know the law.  I’m guessing there still isn’t proof of wrong doing on a legal scale.  If there was, we’d be moving seriously toward impeachment even as I type.

But as we’ve heard for decades, just because something is legal (say, abortion) doesn’t mean it’s right.  If we didn’t distinguish between the legal and right, the Patriots would be more popular than they are.  Deep down, we know there is more than just ‘beating the rap’ that defines right and wrong.

Consider this.  If someone working with Hillary – let’s say Bill Clinton – was found to have gone to a meeting with someone from Russia (or, if you prefer, Iran or China) for the sole purpose of digging up dirt on Trump, or Bush, or Romney or anyone else, do you think Conservatives would be invoking ‘no harm done’ as an excuse to move on?  I can’t believe that.  And if it happened that way, they would be right to demand accountability.

Same here.  I don’t know where it will lead.  I’m still old fashioned enough to want more than ‘we don’t need evidence, we know he’s guilty.’  Nonetheless, there is quite a gulf between legal guilt and ethical violation; between not breaking a law and doing the right thing.  Donald Trump may be many things, but he isn’t worth throwing any remaining moral credibility out the window.