“I think there’s actually a fairly good argument that it’s not illegal.”

That was CNN legal analyst Ross Garber (shown above, in center of image) speaking about Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting in June of 2016 with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

“That information would not be considered by the courts to be a ‘thing of value,’ largely because of the First Amendment,” he continued.

More from LifeZette TV

MORE NEWS: Interview with on the Ground Reporter Louisville

No need to adjust your dial. Those words were actually spoken — on CNN — on Monday.

That’s right: The very same network that’s gone after President Donald Trump by all means possible had one of its own analysts lay out the truth: There’s no “there there” with respect to the meeting in Trump Tower.

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not? Yes No Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote

And it keeps getting better.

“And the other thing the president points out, actually fairly, is that if information is a ‘thing of value,’ then what about the information that came from Russian nationals to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through Steele?” he said.

The looks on the faces of CNN’s chief political analyst Gloria Borger (shown above right) and then network anchor Wolf Blitzer just after Garber said these words were priceless.

Clearly, the analyst’s words of wisdom came as something of a shock. The others were unprepared for the dose of reality he served up — and they scrambled to find some means of turning the segment back to better reflect CNN’s “traditional” (or at least expected) anti-Trump stance.

MORE NEWS: Protesters Descend On Louisville

Garber pressed on, even after Borger attempted to correct him by saying, “But this is from a foreign national, and that’s not legal.”

Garber actually doubled down on his contention that liberals were shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to insist the meeting was somehow illegal.

“Again, I think ultimately under the law that is not going to be considered a ‘thing of value,’ because of the slippery slope of it,” said Garber.

“We should talk about the Clinton situation, because it’s not dissimilar,” he continued, pressing his luck.

As gently as possible, he broke it to his clearly disappointed and “not having it” co-panelists that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

“In the Clinton situation, there is information coming from Russian nationals to the Clinton campaign through somebody else.”

If Trump’s meeting with a foreign national for the purpose of opposition research constitutes conspiracy — then so does the Clinton’s campaign’s purchase of the infamous Steele dossier.

“Look, it is a terrible idea,” Garber said, responding to Borger’s proposed hypothetical scenario in which he, Garber, played a role of adviser to the Trump campaign. “But then it’s a different question about whether it’s illegal.”

Check out the video here of their exchange — then see the tweets below:

1/ Getting “dirt” on a political opponent from Russians is not a crime. 52 USC 30121 prohibits foreign nationals from contributing a “thing of value” to any US campaign. And it is unlawful for someone to “solicit, accept or receive” such a thing of value. — Ross Garber (@rossgarber) August 6, 2018

2/ But information alone cannot possibly be a “thing of value.” Courts would find that conveying and receiving such information is protected by the First Amendment, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United. — Ross Garber (@rossgarber) August 6, 2018

3/ Were it otherwise, the Clinton campaign would be in a jam over the Trump opposition research it received from Russians through former British spy Michael Steele. — Ross Garber (@rossgarber) August 6, 2018

4/ The real question will be whether Trump campaign personnel knew and agreed to anything else. Did they know about email hacking? Or other efforts to disrupt the election? If so, the very broad conspiracy laws may be implicated. But there is currently no such evidence. — Ross Garber (@rossgarber) August 6, 2018

Michele Blood is a Flemington, New Jersey-based freelance writer and a regular contributor to LifeZette.