The definition of conspiracy is just "agreeing to commit a crime in the future". It doesn't matter who initiates a conspiracy.
It looks like the record is fairly clear that Assange and Manning discussed what documents Assange would like access to and Manning agreed to provide them.
If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question, then there's prima facie evidence of a conspiracy.
You can argue that the actual act was not criminal, and so the inchoate offense of conspiracy is also impossible, but it's unclear to me why you think the conspiracy charge, in particular, in nonsensical - could you elaborate?
It looks like the record is fairly clear that Assange and Manning discussed what documents Assange would like access to and Manning agreed to provide them.
If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question, then there's prima facie evidence of a conspiracy.
You can argue that the actual act was not criminal, and so the inchoate offense of conspiracy is also impossible, but it's unclear to me why you think the conspiracy charge, in particular, in nonsensical - could you elaborate?