His isn't a tactic we favor, but if President Donald Trump keeps saying "your mama wears Army boots," Democrats will keep running home to tell on him.
Such is the much-ado-about-nothing case this week when the president said he'd be willing to listen to dirt from a foreign source on his 2020 Democratic presidential opponent.
"I think I'd want to hear it," Trump said during an interview with ABC. "There's nothing wrong with listening."
Democrats, hearing that, went apoplectic, calling his statement treasonous, "an invasion of our democracy," "a threat to our national security" and a reason to kick-start impeachment proceedings.
Trump, make no mistake about it, loves to keep poking the bear. He likes nothing more, even from his pre-presidential run days, than to give his friends and foes something to talk about. He wants to dominate the news, and saying something provocative is the way to do that.
Taken at face value, the question is whether accepting dirt on another candidate from a foreign source is illegal. Election laws are clear on accepting campaign contributions - "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation." That can't be done.
But accepting information, and whether it is a "thing of value," is a murky area, according to experts on the law.
"There are no bright lines here," James Gardner, a professor at the University of Buffalo School of Law, told CBS.
And it's arguable when information becomes substantive enough to constitute what might be called an in-kind donation.
"If a foreign ambassador happens to see a presidential candidate at a cocktail party in Washington," Edward Foley, director of election law at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, told CBS, "and happens to just have a discussion about the race and what would be wise strategy, I think it would be harder to claim that that violates federal campaign law."
However, Shan Wu, a former federal prosecutor, told PBS he believes the special counsel's recent report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election implied that obtaining dirt from a foreign source was a "thing of value." But he said Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russians before the election wasn't prosecuted because it couldn't be proven Trump Jr. knew such a meeting was illegal at the time and because he received no information that was valuable.
But Trump - the president - now would know if something like that occurred, he said.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department probe is continuing on how the FBI used the discredited Christopher Steele dossier, which was financed by the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, against Trump and his campaign. The dossier was compiled by a foreign national, Steele, and contained information from alleged Russian sources.
Clinton, herself, said on "The Daily Show" in 2017 said the Russian-assisted document was "part of what happens in a campaign." She said after Trump got the nomination, the people providing the research approached her campaign lawyer, asked if they wanted to continue it, and he said yes.
In the end, though, whether the president was gigging his ABC host, George Stephanopoulos, was semi-serious or was serious, the subject of foreign dirt is not likely to come up. Other than former Vice President Joe Biden, whose career politician actions are well documented, the other potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have so little experience abroad that what a foreign entity might know about them is likely to be inconsequential.
Don't get us wrong. We don't believe presidential candidates of either party ought to be trafficking in dirt supplied by foreign sources. We know without dispute that Russia attempted to meddle in the 2016 election, has made attempts before and is likely to do so again in the 2020 campaign. And other individuals from other countries may have motives that are just as nefarious, or, at it turns out, may be working for Democrats.
Where Trump's concerned, though, we're amazed his opponents - even four years removed from the Trump Tower escalator campaign introduction - still choose to take everything he says literally. Yes, we should be able to take a president at his word, but Trump's still the narcissistic entertainer. He wants to be noticed and to be the center of attention. Yet, his supporters have the ability not to excuse his words but to understand that's it more important to see what he does (or doesn't do) than to pay too much attention to what he says.
But as long as Democrats and the national media do just that, they'll still be running home to tell on him every time he mentions "Army boots."