Kushner's influence has diminished after the Comey firing. Bannon took on Kushner against everyone's advice and won. Bannon's back in favor, and expect his role to grow. Bannon is a classic "son of a b****" that you want in your corner when the temperature rises and everyone else runs for cover.
I will add regarding legality that it probably depends on what was actually exchanged, which we do not know. As far as we know, there may have been nothing exchanged and the collusion attempt failed. Talking is not something of value.
I don't think it matters, the email shows intent.
"Information" is a rather vague word. I think the idea that speech is a "thing of value" is quite a stretch. The emails do open the door to the possibility that something of tangible value was exchanged, though. Certainly, if services such as information gathering were offered to and accepted by the campaign, that would be something of value.
Opposition research (or in this case...hacked emails...) are most definitely a thing of value.
I see. So if the Clinton campaign had asked for favourable coverage and puff pieces in the Mexican owned Carlos Slim Blog that would be illegal.
News coverage does not count as a campaign contribution under campaign finance regulations. But services rendered for free can
absolutely count as in-kind contributions to a campaign. In this case the contribution would be the act of conducting opposition research (not the information itself).
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-types/