You aren’t making reasonable inferences from the evidence, which is what people do when they try to make a neutral decision. Instead, you’re arguing like a defense lawyer. That’s fine, but those of us trying to judge the evidence don’t have to sit in that posture.
In particular, it is a totally reasonable inference that Papadopoulos told the campaign about the hacked emails. That is what almost any campaign staffer would do with such explosive information. Maybe it didn’t happen, of course. But if we don’t know either way, the natural assumption is that it did.
Similarly, the idea that DJT is told that Russia has dirt on Hillary and he doesn’t naturally think of the hacked emails, just because the offer (which is on its face badly translated with reference to crown prosecutor, etc.) uses the word “official,” is not a reasonable supposition about how human minds work.
What you call speculation and suggest is wild speculation is actually just the kind of reasonable inferences from known facts that people make all the time.
ETA: None of that requires that the hacked emails were discussed at the meeting. Instead, what appears to have been discussed was the quid and not the quo.