Yes, they have. But I don't know what that means, ten people perpetrating ten 18 USC 1001 false statements offenses, or something different.
Could be illegal use of NSA data, there are some unauthorized disclosure clauses in the FISA snooping enabled by 50 USC 1801 et seq.
It would be helpful if these pundits would provide a more precise statement of what they are thinking.
The Hatch Act prohibits partisan electioneering on government time, and none of the hoax or Hillary exoneration is electioneering. The Logan act prohibits trying to influence foreign governments contrary to US policy. The targets of this scheme are the US public and Trump personally, so no Logan Act violation.
Some things are just so far beyond the expected norms that Congress doesn't get around to criminalizing it. Further, one has to naive in the extreme to trust the government to follow the laws it passes to regulate itself.
-- if there are no laws to prohibit government employees to conspire together and with foreign powers to overthrow a Constitutionally legally executed popular election in order to seize supreme power away from the people in favor of residing with unelected government bureaucrats, then the Republic is finished right now! --
Laws don't make a country. And it is illegal to conspire to overthrow, but only if by force.
It's ironic that laws don't prohibit exactly what you outlined. Abuse of power is not a crime unless it deprives somebody of a constitutional right. Nobody was deprived of their vote! Nobody in the general public was deprived of any constitutionally protected right. What the government did was use its institutions to perpetrate a political hoax on its own public. That is not criminal conduct.
Iraq and WMD. Remember the Maine! Gulf of Tonkin. All legal. So is misleading the public for purpose of throwing an election. The government most responsible for misleading the US electorate is the US government. Of course it aims to deny and deflect blame for that. Russia!!
the Smith-Mundt of 1948 the statue your looking for. It must be reinstated and proven the revision of 2012 was fundamentally against Roman law. This SHOULD hold up in the supreme court.