“I think that the idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake,” he said. “Information that is credible that potentially shows wrongdoing by someone who happens to be running for office, if it’s credible information, is relevant information for the voters to know about.”

Asked about that contention, Burr indicated, “I have no problem with what Philbin said."

Democrats, though, expressed outrage at the suggestion, most notably Burr’s counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.), who said “my head exploded” when he heard the remark. Burr and Warner have worked closely on the issue of election interference in the aftermath of Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election — perhaps the only bipartisan duo in Congress still working together on the issue.

“God help us,” Warner told POLITICO, referring to Republicans who were defending Philbin’s argument.

“I think [Philbin’s arguments] dramatically weaken America’s expectation that we’re going to have a free and fair elections. I think it directly contradicts the work of” the intelligence community, Warner added.

Burr later sought to turn the tables on Democrats, asking the House prosecutors whether they would consider the Steele dossier — the collection of memos by a former British intelligence operative, who talked to Russian sources — improper foreign interference obtained by Democrats in 2016. The ex-spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a research firm that had been contracted by Hillary Clinton's campaign for opposition research on Trump.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), one of the House prosecutors, sidestepped the question.

"The analogy is not applicable to the present situation because first to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was opposition research that was purchased," he said.

Trump attorney Jay Sekulow shot back: "I guess you can buy foreign interference ... If you purchase the opposition research I guess it's OK."

In providing his answer Wednesday, Philbin pointed to a Justice Department opinion declaring that Trump's request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Biden was not a "thing of value," which would amount to an illicit campaign contribution from a foreign national.

"The Department of Justice concluded that there was no such violation here. So that is not something that is involved in this case," Philbin said.

House Democrats seeking Trump’s removal from office repeatedly warned that an acquittal would embolden Trump to seek derogatory information on his political opponents from foreign powers.

The House impeachment managers noted Trump’s ABC News interview last year in which he indicated his openness to accepting such help — and they also cited reports that Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company where Biden’s son previously served as a board member, had been hacked by Russian intelligence agents.

Philbin, noting the ABC interview, said the president's suggestion that he would accept information on his rival from a foreign power "does not involve something that is a foreign campaign contribution."

"He was referring to the possibility that information could come from a source, and I think he pointed out in that interview that he might contact the FBI, he might listen to something," Philbin said. "But mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance laws."

POLITICO NEWSLETTERS Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Sign Up Loading By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The White House’s posture also follows years of investigations by the House and Senate intelligence committees seeking to understand the extent and impact of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Lawmakers of both parties, while sharply divided over Trump’s involvement in the 2016 effort by Russia, have long agreed that the Kremlin’s campaign was wrong and dangerous — and that all foreign interference should be prevented.

Burr wasn’t the only Senate Republican who appeared to approve of Philbin’s argument.

“I think all he was addressing is whether there was a crime. And what I understood him to say is there is not — it is not a crime, per se,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) also defended Philbin’s view.

“The president is the presidency — he is that branch of government. Everybody reports to him, including the attorney general. Are you saying that the American people shouldn’t know about or we shouldn’t pursue criminal wrongdoing just because it’s overseas?” Johnson told reporters.