= new reply since forum marked as read
Since Stone's trial is upcoming (November), the details could not be made public in that report. Stone was the messenger between the WH and Assange/Wikileaks/Guccifer2.0, where Wikileaks got their hacked info from Russian operations like Fancy Bear, etc.
The issue then becomes how much access Stone had directly with Drumpf (and or with someone like Ghouliani who was regulary in contact with Drumpf) to get direction.
I posted elsewhere that the corruption is so vast that to wade through and investigate it all (let alone get all the grand juries empaneled and working on charges) will take YEARS. But if one thing can be found to stop it all in its tracks (not necessarily meaning to resolve it, but to stop further instances of corruption from being generated), then this particular obvious instance of focusing on the "shake down of a foreign power for political gain", is probably the best low-hanging fruit subject to run with that is understandable by the public.
The burden however, is to convince the public that doing "shake downs" (extortion) is "illegal", which is something the GOP is attempting to refute. 
"Sopranos". 
And you noticed who was profusely whining about how Adam Schiff broke down ("translated" into "street lingo" ) the telephone conversations in order to illustrate what was really going on there.
If the public didn't seem to care about "grab 'em by the pussy" video recordings or revelations about paying off hookers to keep quiet while he cheated on his 3rd wife, or having his family in the oval office carrying out policy decisions and traveling the world to promote those policy decisions while gaining more clients for their own businesses - all for over a year without proper security clearances (and then receiving bogus clearances anyway, after the fact, and after many objections), then focusing on "unethical behavior" was apparently not having the intended effect on public sentiment.
I.e., the narrative had already been ingrained that the "swamp" was the previous Democratic administration and they were swooping in to get rid of that. 
when watching CSPAN3 at the conclusion of Maguire's testimony, when the CSPAN3 host did a brief call-in segment while waiting for Schiff to come out to make a statement. I have been a CSPAN viewer (all channels as they eventually became available) for literally 30 years this year (once we finally got cable in my neighborhood in '89 here in Philly) and have heard literally hundreds and hundreds of hours of callers on CSPAN. But given the circumstances and the issues surrounding "ethics" and what had just transpired - the host had tried to explain the context of the hearing and the problem of a President conversing with foreign countries for personal benefit - and in this case, to have another country investigate a political opponent right before an upcoming election - and one caller blurted out "I don't see anything wrong with that"!!! 
THAT is what we are facing.
As a now-retired federal employee, I literally had to take ethics training yearly during my time in my agency. The fear of god was placed in us about "appearances" and "perceptions", let alone actual activity that might impact our mission with respect to our dealings with regulated industry - YET none of these things are typically applicable, in a "legal" sense, to the general public. So "ethics" is not clear cut and in fact, many state and local governments still have no rules for dealing with such ethics problems (although some are slowly getting around to it - usually after some big scandal hits).
I.e., when it comes to something that is "not against the law" (where "ethics" resides in a "legal" gray space), then the public chalks it off as maybe "looking bad" but not something that is "illegal". In fact some in the public admire those who are able to "get what they want by any means necessary" (as long as it doesn't "explicitly" violate a law).
The Russian interference was happening "in real time" and was even being reported about. But the problem was the timing and the "public perception" on how to handle it - literally in the middle of an election season - without making it appear to be "partisan".
And specifically, you had a candidate who had not yet been officially elected while the investigations within the intelligence agencies, was going on. So whether the "interference" would be successful or not was obviously not known until after the election (and whether anyone working for the candidate was directly tied to the interference). And by then the country was in the process of moving into the "fog" of a Presidential transition. But it is that period - during the election season and post-election through to inauguration day, that was a focus of the Mueller probe, where "executive privilege" could NOT be invoked, as much as this current administration keeps yelling that it could be.
The Mueller Report is impenetrable for so many Americans who do not have legal training (as I do not.) I found it very difficult to read the 2nd part, and I'll confess that I skipped over most of the first part. Most Americans read even less than I did, and that's a fact.
If it's so difficult for us, imagine how a jury of 12 average citizens would react - they probably would not convict him (based on the Mueller Report alone) because the facts are hidden, convoluted and complicated.
The story of Chump's corruption (Ukraine/Biden) is much easier to understand for most Americans. It's far from his only offense, but it's the one that will hang him because it's easy to grasp and the proof is there. The same jury that would have let him go on collusion, would definitely convict him on the corruption.
Tha nks!
And asking someone to share information with the FBI isn't a crime.
Thanks for the kind words. It would be fun to have you in class. I like the way your brain works.
The law is actually very much like engineering - it's very logical and requires a lot of diagramming and deductions. It doesn't seem that way because when looking at it in pieces it seems to make little sense. But when you understand the bigger picture, the precedents and how various parts of the law affect and interact with each other, it actually is very logical.
