[Alberta's Child]

1. The first one probably wouldn't apply here. That was a case where a prior candidate had commissioned a poll specifically for a campaign in the same race, and the cost of that poll could easily be documented.

2. The second one assigns "value" to the documents because they contained contact information for political partners and local political figures that would have required research on the part of the Bush/Cheney campaign. And even at that, the FEC recommended no further action because the value of the "contribution" was minimal.

3. In the third one, the FEC says "Yes" to every question (including at least two that I would have thought would be "No") except the last one. And in that particular case, the FEC admits that the "value" is very low but considers it a "thing of value" -- probably because the Canadian government's expenditure of money for those resources is clearly documented. Interestingly, the FEC says the campaign in question is free to BUY that information from their Canadian counterparts ... which everything I'm hearing in the Trump Jr. case would be problematic.

4. In the last case, it looks like the key point in the FEC finding related to the status of the person and the company of interest as part of a "political advocacy group" instead of just an ordinary person. And in the supporting evidence for its decision, the FEC was able to document the exact amount of the expenditures that were made by this outside company in the activities that were the subject of the complaint. I'm not sure how -- or even if -- this would relate to the Trump Jr. case.

[drjimmy]

Those are all good points. One other case that might have bearing--and I can't recall if it was from the FEC or a court ruling--ended with a ruling that the "value" of a non-monetary campaign contribution should be determined by the recipient's perceived value of that contribution. Hypothetically, that could mean Don Jr.'s "I love it" in response to the proposed offering of dirt on Hillary could help demonstrate its value to the campaign.

Ultimately, of course, what Napolitano or Dershowitz or Sekulow or any of those guys say on TV doesn't matter in the slightest because it's all just entertainment for the masses. The only thing that matters is what Special Counsel Robert Mueller does, and he is doing it far away from our TVs.