Walked back through Q&A notes to find the source of this line of questioning a thing of value. Why? For one, Art. I (abuse of power) asserts president's personal gain by some exchange (quid pro quo); House shall demonstrate not only illicit transaction and "things" exchange by the parties, but assert the non-trivial purpose, or "value," of a hypothetical proposition-- Javelin missiles:Zelensk(i)y's info:Election2020 outcome. To wax academic about extrinsic values and depreciation schedules (GAAP) of information or knowledge was fun 20 years ago. Second, money--not mass weight (pounds)--is the only unit of measurement in the USA (price of everything, value of nothing) commonly employed to express both "gain" and "profit"--and, above all--litigation of equity.

29 Jan, ~10:30-11:00 PM, session end. Blumental, sole-use (Warren, Heinrich, Harris concurring)

Before the break, the President's Counsel stated that accepting "mere information" from a foreign source is not something that would violate campaign finance law, and that it is not campaign interference to accept "credible information" from a foreign source about someone who is running for office. Under this view, acceptance of the kinds of propaganda disseminated by Russia in 2016--on Facebook and other social media platforms, using bots, fake accounts and other techniques to spread disinformation--would be perfectly legal and appropriate. Isn't it true that accepting such a thing of value is, in fact, a violation of law? And isn't it true that it is one of the highest priorities of our Intelligence Community, including the CIA, NSA, DNI, and FBI, to do everything possible to prevent such foreign interference or intervention in our elections?

Collins, sole-use.

The House Judiciary Committee report accompanying the Articles of Impeachment asserted the President committed criminal bribery as defined in 18 U.S.C., section 201, and Honest Services Fraud as defined in 18 U.S.C., section 1346, but these offenses are not cited in the Articles of Impeachment. Did the President's actions as alleged in the Articles of Impeachment constitute violations of these Federal criminal laws, and if so, why were they not included in the Articles?

30 Jan, ~1:30-2:30 PM, re-direct. Brown, sole-use (Wyden concurring)

During yesterday's proceedings, the President's counsel failed to give an adequate response to a question related to whether acceptance of information provided by a foreign country to a political campaign or candidate would constitute a violation of the law and whether offers of such information should be reported to the FBI. FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was appointed by President Trump, has said "if any public official or member of any campaign is contacted by any nation-state about influencing or interfering with our election, then that [is] something that the FBI would want to know about," and "we'd like to make sure people tell us information promptly so that we can take appropriate steps to protect the American people." If President Trump remains in office, what signal does that send to other countries intent on interfering in our elections in the future, and what might we expect from those countries and the President?

Stabenow, dual-use (Cortez-Masto, Rosen concurring)

In June 2019, Ellen Weintraub, then-chair of the Federal Election Commission, wrote in a statement that "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation." In a 2007 advisory opinion, the FEC found that campaign contributions from foreign nationals are prohibited in federal elections, even if "the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain." How valuable would a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens be for President Trump's reelection campaign?

Responses by House and R/WH managers inadvertently proved just how "difficult to ascertain" an unrealized value is in practice and this line of questioning died so that senate inquiry into  personal and national "interest" might live.

Thank goodness that "online" US election gambling legal? Note to self: research SEC and FEC regulatory guidance.