Oh, so he's not guilty of the crime of conspiracy. Conspiracy is a hard crime to prove. A jury has decided there's not enough evidence to prove him guilty of conspiracy of aiding the other side, and I can live with that.
My question is, was there any evidence of any kind at all to support the proposition that he's on our side?
That's the question that should determine how he is to be treated in the U.S. from now on. I don't think somebody who isn't on our side should be given a university lectern to stand behind. I know. I know, he has a right to say what he thinks. That isn't the same thing as a right to be given a soapbox to stand on and a crowd to talk to. With our money.