It also says, "GOP campaign consultant." That's a third party contractor--not quite indicative of a high level conspiracy. I think that's a far, far cry from what you're claiming.
The article alleges a GOP consultant worked with a hacker of unknown origin claiming to have opposition info.
The leaks (and Podesta's) revealed, though, a frankly disgusting level of cooperation between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. [1]
This whole idea that a contractor using hacked opposition info to his advantage in a way that may have unintentionally benefited Russian interests is in any way more scandalous than nearly all the mainstream media verifiably going to bat for Clinton campaign is selective outrage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
---
I should probably mention that if getting this data doesn't qualify as "receiving stolen property," it should. The consultant could learn a lot from Pepsi ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jul/07/marketingandpr... ), but there is a difference between coordinating with somebody to steal data and getting data that has already been stolen.
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
A number of people find it easier to act as if this was a big post-election surprise but that's just wishful thinking to avoid having to consider the implications of many people knowing but not caring as long as it got the political outcome they desired or, in the case of the media, accepting responsibility for their coverage decisions.
It's also irrelevant, because it was public knowledge by the time it was reported. My post is to debunk the assumption that the contractor knew the hacker was a foreign agent.