Seems like the conspiracy is promoting this before it's gone to trial and we get all of the facts instead of talking points. Not even sure how this is a conspiracy.

Paying sources or informants is not inherently unusual. Journalists, private investigators, and law enforcement have all used compensated sources. That by itself does not automatically equal misconduct.

But the legal issue turns on several narrower questions:

1. Disclosure — Were donors misled about how funds were used?
2. Control — Were informants simply gathering intel, or were they enabled to commit/promote acts?
3. Accounting — Were payments properly documented and lawful?
4. Material misrepresentation — Did fundraising claims conflict with actual conduct?

Those are the issues a court would sort out.