monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

That's exactly what Hillary's hatchetmen did---paid people to go collect "dirt" on Trump from Russian intelligence agents, ya know?

Except that the original dossier (later leaked) was put together by Republicans opposed to Trump.

Quote:

Depends on where you live. Most states have a one party rule where at least one party has to consent to recording. But not both.

Really Gent? I've never heard of that before. So if I want to secretly record my conversations with you, I just "consent" to it, as one party, that the idea?

Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.

In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted "one-party consent" laws and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.

But what does "election interference" mean?

But what does "election interference" mean?

The story began in September 2015, when a wealthy Republican donor who strongly opposed Mr. Trump put up the money to hire a Washington research firm run by former journalists, Fusion GPS, to compile a dossier about the real estate magnate’s past scandals and weaknesses, according to a person familiar with the effort. The person described the opposition research work on condition of anonymity, citing the volatile nature of the story and the likelihood of future legal disputes. The identity of the donor is unclear.

Newsweek published a list of "13 things that don't add up" in the dossier, writing that the document was a "strange mix of the amateur and the insightful" and stating that the document "contains lots of Kremlin-related gossip that could indeed be, as the author claims, from deep insiders—or equally gleaned" from Russian newspapers and blogs. Former UK ambassador to Russia Sir Tony Brenton stated that certain aspects of the dossier were inconsistent with British intelligence's understanding of how the Kremlin works, commenting: "I've seen quite a lot of intelligence on Russia, and there are some things in [the dossier] which look pretty shaky."

Layman wrote:

But what does "election interference" mean?

The leaked e-mails undermined the ability of the DNC to coordinate the campaign by disrupting their access to electronic communication. They attempted to interfere with the campaign by exposing private e-mails which caused division between the Sanders and Clinton factions, among other unwholesome revelations.

The research was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump to be the Republican Party nominee for president. After Trump won the primaries, a Democratic client took over the funding.

...exposing private e-mails...caused division between the Sanders and Clinton factions, among other unwholesome revelations.

If people are too stupid to see that it doesn't matter, that it's the contact that is being investigated, not the effect, that can't be helped.

But word of a dossier had begun to spread through political circles. Rick Wilson, a Republican political operative who was working for a super PAC supporting Marco Rubio, said he heard about it in July, when an investigative reporter for a major news network called him to ask what he knew.
(...)
After the election, the memos, still being supplemented by his inquiries, became one of Washington’s worst-kept secrets, as reporters — including from The New York Times — scrambled to confirm or disprove them.

Word also reached Capitol Hill. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, heard about the dossier and obtained a copy in December from David J. Kramer, a former top State Department official who works for the McCain Institute at Arizona State University. Mr. McCain passed the information to James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director.

If we put a convict in jail, we "interfere with" his ability to do a lot of ****.

The DNC had nothing to do with creating it. And it wasn't the DNC that leaked it — McCain is the one who gave it to Comey.

Quote:

If we put a convict in jail, we "interfere with" his ability to do a lot of ****.

Except that none of the behavior within the DNC was criminal.

...when the DNC was funding it.