So, I’ve read much of the Mueller Report (Redacted Version) now and I think it’s clear that the only reason Drumpf isn’t indicted for obstruction is the OLC memo saying that a sitting POTUS cannot be criminally indicted. But I don’t quite get the investigation’s conclusions that it was impossible to conclude that the campaign conspired with the Russians to rig the 2016 election. As I read it and listen to the lawyers, it seems that the Drumpf Campaign was aware of the Russian attack, welcomed their aid, had numerous contacts with Russian actors, but they could not be shown to conspire with the Russians. But what about the delivery of the campaign polling data from Cambridge Analytica to the Russians for the express purpose of helping the Russians in their social media propaganda campaign? I am not a lawyer, but I don’t see why that doesn’t constitute proof of conspiracy, even full cooperation, with the attack by a foreign adversary. I can understand that Mueller and his team might still feel bound by the OLC memo not to indict for that, either, but it still should’ve been evidence that the campaign conspired with the Russians, right?
Would someone who is a lawyer explain to me why I’m wrong? If Mueller explains why I’m wrong, could I please be shown where in the report I missed the explanation?