Because the media and the general public use a term that doesn't apply doesn't mean there is no crime of conspiracy. Nor does it invalidate the law that prevents foreigners from contributing to campaigns.
There is no restriction on foreign nationals working on campaigns however, allowing a foreign agent to do so with knowledge they are a foreign agent would seem unwise under most circumstances.
The law says no such thing. The definition of "contribution" specifically states "anything of value." 52 U.S. Code § 30101 It does not state anywhere that information has no value. The courts are full of cases where information has value. Cohen paid a rather large sum of money for the rights to information about Trump having had an affair. Not all information has value but you can't claim information has no value.
You are wrong because clearly the information has value and as such would be a violation of
Journalists have a constitutional protection that isn't there for others. It would all come down to the intent of who is doing the publication. If their intent is not simply to inform the public but to do harm in some way then they could be an accessory to the crime. Proving intent is a high hurdle but if someone isn't a journalist, they would have some legal risk with such a publication.
Crimes are crimes. Your attempt to claim something isn't a crime by lying about what is in a law doesn't make something not a crime.
Indicting them is hardly pointless. It gives a clear message we know what they did. It then restricts that individual from travel because they would be arrested if they visited any country that extradites to the US. It also allows the US to put sanctions on the individual and others around them. It is far from pointless.
When you can't even ask the correct person, don't expect an answer. I am curious who you think that one person is? Do you understand how emails are stolen? I would hazard a guess, you don't. The only person that can settle such an issue is the person that stole them. They are Russian and have been indicted. But so much for "pointless".
Really? Did Assange steal the emails? You do realize that Assange is in the Ecuadoran embassy in order to avoid any and all meetings with the FBI, don't you?
How quickly you forget about the Russians. Unless you are saying Trump conspired with the Russian because that is the only way it would be a "Trump-only-angle."
The last you heard? Oh, you are referring to fake news reports. I get it now.
The simple fact that the Mueller team has already argued twice in court to allow the prosecution to go forward and won would point to them moving forward. It is actually the Russian company that is trying to stop the prosecution and prevent discovery.
Assange knowing how he got the emails may shed no light on who stole them. Your assumption he would know is asinine. "Hi, we are a 400 lb guy in our mom's basement in NJ and we stole these."
Assange only knows how he got the emails. They could have been sent to him anonymously. Any claim on your part that he knows the person who hacked the DNC server is ridiculous.
You know Mueller hasn't tried to interview him how?
Wait a minute, we have evidence presented to a court that the Russians hacked it. We have testimony to Congress that the Russian hacked it. We have statements by cyber professionals that the Russians hacked it. But somehow you want to believe the one person that has a vested interest in lying about it?
No one called Mullet is involved in this investigation. Your continued bastardization of his name only points to your inability to make a logical argument so you resort to name calling.
No, I am not wrong.
Volunteering on a campaign requires you give your time vs just providing information. Showing up for one meeting is not volunteering. Any campaign that uses foreign nationals in leadership positions is asking to be defeated and would certainly raise ethical if not legal questions.
What you think has little to do with what the actual law is. You are certainly entitled to argue that information has no value but courts would disagree unless you can show it has no value. Anything that if used can sway an election has value. I am hardly saying this is a slam dunk case but there is certainly enough there for it to be prosecuted and move forward in a court of law.