2. The email doesn't seem to be available so we have to rely on the hearsay evidence of " three people with knowledge of the email."
3. There is no evidence that this incidence has anything to do with the alleged hacking of computers by the Russian government.
4. It seems Goldstone sent his email based on hearsay he got from a chain of other people with hearsay evidence: ''One person who was briefed on the emails said it appeared that he was passing along information that had been passed through several others.'' I.e., the NYT story is about hearsay about an email containing hearsay.
5. The rest of the article is speculation about who said what and why to Mr Goldstone and what sort of information was involved other than what might have been some secret financing from Russia to the Clinton campaign (no interest in following up on that).
6. As to the notion that a political campaign might be interested to checking out some info to get dirt on another campaign, the NYT thinks " such a meeting was unusual for a political campaign.'' Really. The morally pristine high standards of American politicians and their campaign supporters may have been sullied by this meeting. This hearsay gossip of collusion is more troublesome than the actually available emails showing collusion at the top of the Democratic Party with the Clinton campaign to derail the Sanders campaign. Well, the ruling class decides what news is fit to print and if a footnote should be a headline. Marx said the ruling class determines the "truth" and ours doesn't trust Trump and hates the Russians for interfering with its plans for how the world should be run.
Trump is doing enough real damage, we don't need red herrings to distract us.