Well, except for the whole conspiring to commit a straw purchase by agreeing to get his co-conspirator to lie on the 4473. BTW, both Kyle and Dominick testified to doing this in open court, on the record, under oath. They both testified that Dominick showed his newly purchased rifle to Kyle, that they went out to shoot it, that Kyle told Dominick that he wanted one of his own but couldn't buy one because he was 17 and thus a prohibited person, then discussing Kyle giving Dominick the money to buy it for him and telling Dominick which one he wanted, and even testified under oath that they discussed the fact that what they were going to do was illegal. When Dominick checked "yes" on box 21a of the 4473 he was lying, and the instructions on the back of the form explicitly describe this exact scenario as being illegal, and when he signed the bottom of the 4473 he committed a felony. The same exact felony that Hunter committed, BTW, you know, the one he's being prosecuted for. For the record, here's the 4473:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

Here's the instruction for question 21.a.:

Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.

EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may not be prohibited). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “no” to question 21.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift (with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black),

Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “yes” to question 21.a. However, the transferor/seller may not transfer a firearm to any person he/she knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (h), (n), or (x).

Just to make it even more clear, I'll change just the names and leave the rest of the wording identical:

EXAMPLES: Mr. Rittenhouse asks Mr. Dominick Black to purchase a firearm for Mr. Kyle Rittenhouse(who may or may not be prohibited). Mr. Kyle Rittenhouse gives Mr. Dominick Black the money for the firearm. Mr. Dominick Black is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “no” to question 21.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Black. However, if Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift (with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black), Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “yes” to question 21.a. However, the transferor/seller may not transfer a firearm to any person he/she knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (h), (n), or (x).

Now, you'll come back and try to say that Dominick was found innocent, but that was on state charges, not federal charges. He was never charged for the federal law violation. That's interesting that Hunter Biden would be charged, but not Dominick Black. The same Republicans droning incessantly about Hunter being guilty are strangely silent on Dominick Black not being charged.

There's zero doubt or ability to ignore the fact that Kyle and Dominick conspired to break federal law, discussed the fact that what they were going to do was a crime, and followed through on their intent to commit a federal felony. The question isn't their guilt or Kyle's central part of the conspiracy to commit a federal felony, it's really about why they weren't charged. That has every thing to do with politics and nothing to do with following the law. Hell, the DOJ wouldn't even need to call either to testify at their trial, nor would they need to introduce any evidence other than the court transcripts from the state trial where both admitted to the crime, on the record, under oath.