Of course I well understood the definition of “collusion”. I observed that you were alleging collusion by unspecified colluders doing unspecified acts, and that you have to pin down what you are alleging and that you have the burden of proof to support your allegations once they become sufficiently tangible.
Fortunately, you seem to have finally understood the point and made a somewhat tangible allegation (see highlighted text) . I still object that you have not specified who were the other parties to the collusion, though reading what you wrote literally, you may be asserting DJT was colluding with his own crew. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but if you did it’s absurd: you can’t collude with yourself. Let’s assume you meant collusion with the Russians.
Problem with that is you’ve got no evidence DJT met anyone secretly for the purpose of getting damaging info on Hillary. We do know that DJT publicly called for Russia to release Hillary’s emails. Reread your definition: DJT public actions are not collusion.
Also I think your charge of collusion for meeting someone in private to obtain info damaging to a competitor is overly broad: every candidate for any office above dog catcher is guilty. You need to to make an argument why the Trump campaign instances of alleged collusion are any worse than say Hillary meeting with DNC officials to get dirt on Bernie or coming up with tricks to derail his campaign. Yup, those are allegations of collusion and they are supported by the emails released by Wikileaks.