The conspiracy stuff is also nonsense. Adrian Lamo logs show Manning contacted Assange with intent to leak. It is all selectively-selected and maliciously presented hogwash.
Surely it's evidence of intent (to be an accomplice to hacking) though.
If you ask someone to provide you with what they think is the combination to a safe that you don't have permission to access, then saying "no luck with that" (after receiving it) could still be valid evidence that you were intending at some point to steal something.
It looks like the record is fairly clear that Assange and Manning discussed what documents Assange would like access to and Manning agreed to provide them.
If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question, then there's prima facie evidence of a conspiracy.
You can argue that the actual act was not criminal, and so the inchoate offense of conspiracy is also impossible, but it's unclear to me why you think the conspiracy charge, in particular, in nonsensical - could you elaborate?
> If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question
If it's so, you have to virtually prosecute every investigative journalist.
Does prosecuting advance the interests of justice? Is this prosecution an efficient use of the limited resources of the prosecutor's office? Given that not everyone is prosecuted, is this prosecution consistent with our own internal standards or rules? How strong is the evidence in the case? How severe was the offense? What is the historical conduct record of the defendant?