>>>Do you understand what conspiracy against the united states is???
>
>Yes, I do. Not sure you do, though. It's not about conspiring with foreigners against the US, but with concealing foreign agency, money laundering and repeatedly lying to government agencies.

Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371. --- It can be used against a group who 'commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose'. The law is actually quite broad


>Looking at the actual indictment: paragraphs 1 through 36 are scandalous details of a decade of secretly representing foreign agents, money laundering, concealment of foreign accounts, lying to IRS, tax evasion, and most recently in 2016 lying to DoJ to conceal same.
>
>No mention of Trump or his campaign, only of 2 lobbying entitles called "A" and "B" one of which is apparently is the Podesta group.
>
>The charge of "Conspiracy against the US" comes immediately after. Explaining as I go:
>
>37. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and 32 through 36 are incorporated here.
>
>So clearly Mueller bases this conspiracy charge on the decade of connivance up to 2016 and then lying to Departments of Justice and Treasury in 2017. Don't believe me? Read on:
>
>38. From in or about and between 2006 and 2017, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., and RICHARD W. GATES III, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of a government agency, namely the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury, and to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, the violations of law charged in Counts Three through Six and Ten through Twelve.
>39. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its illegal object, MANAFORT and GATES committed the overt acts noted in Count Eleven and the overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere as set forth in paragraphs 9, 16, 17, 20-25, 32, and 34-36, which are incorporated herein.
>
>That's the entirety of the "conspiracy" charge. Perhaps you can go and satisfy yourself what counts 3-6 and 10-12 are about, then review my earlier representations to decide whether your domineering tone is appropriate?

Ok you're looking at the wrong case. It's the Papadopoulos case that leads more to the Trump campaign so I see your confusion here.