Check your source
As Commander in Chief he can listen to anything
Anyone can
And this was a hypothetical question
As Commander in Chief it would be his duty to listen and determine if information is relevant to the security of the nation
Maybe we need an addendum to the 1st Amendment such that everyone has the right to listen or inform oneself

If you watch the whole conversation, her never actually comes out and says that is what he’d do
Does it bother you that Clinton bought and paid for a false dossier from a foreign entity?

Foreign interference in elections is practically an American tradition - people flocked into Missouri from Kansas to try to change the outcome of the first election held there!
Having said that, the Russian information to Wikileaks - the Podesta emails, were more of a public service to the American people than anything else.

You know what, lets turns this around. What if Clinton had won, and there was rumblings of Russian interference, complete with a multi-year investigation?

A subjective answer to a hypothetical question. What a contrived load of horse s@-#! In all reality the democrat candidate in 2016....hired a foreign national to find dirt on Trump.....this ex-foreign spy paid Russians.....also foreigners.....for salacious lies.....which were used to falsely secure a Fisa warrant to investigate the rival party's candidate.....Donald Trump. This is an embarrassment to our nation and anyone who can walk and chew gum. To answer your question......Hell No!.....If you do spit out the gum and try to think it through again!

It's really hard to take this stuff seriously.

Trump's the most scrutinized and criticized president of all time. So, I guess the way-left is scared they're too incompetent to KNOW EVERY BREATH TRUMP OR HIS FAMILY OR HIS CAMPAIGN MAKES? They've even had the institutions working against Trump and the vast majority of the media is complicit. Why would they worry? It's absurd--embarrassingly absurd.

There's a big difference in "collusion" (which Mueller found zero evidence of), and receiving information about an opponent.

As long as the information provided is true, what difference does it really make where the info came from?

"Foreign aid" as in money or "foreign aid" as in potentially damaging information about an opposing candidate? I see an issue with the former, but not the latter.

Most any campaign will accept "dirt" on the opposition regardless of where it's coming from. The thing is what they do with that dirt afterwards. What they should do is fully investigate whatever they've been told and, if they find it's true, they can feel free to use said dirt on the opposition if they wish. The source is irrelevant if the information is true.

If the information proves false and they use it, or if they use it without investigating to determine the veracity of it, that's obviously unethical and could also be considered defamation, though one could argue that defamation is all too common a practice in politics nowadays.

Perhaps they protest too loudly . Every one of those lying hypocrites in Congress have spread dirt on their opponents . Most of them have been paid to do it . The Federal corporation has been a nest of gossips and backstabbers throughout it's history . Drain the swamp .

No, not at all. There is no explicit prohibition against recieving unsolicited information from any source. It's up to the receiver to practice discretion and discern between what is legal and/or useful from that which is illegal and/or frivolous. Regarding disclosure of the communications that too is discretionary. Trump is very savvy to how this is played. He knows he controls the headlines and media coverage. He was willing to dance close to that cliff knowing it provides cover for Barr, Durham, et al to conduct their investigations and not be bothered by a bored or meddlesome press trying to seek out leakers. He also gave a little more fuel the the Democrats burning desires to impeach him. This in turn keeps them fixated on the issue and wasting time by not passing any legislation, which he will in turn point to as reason for Republicans to mobilize on election day and win back the house of reps, maintain Senate majority, and proceed to Keep America Great.

I'm not worried and do understand the RNC with be scrutinized during the campaign. I worry about the next Democrat in the WH.