Thank you again for joining the discussion. Your contribution resonates with some actual knowledge, which has been rare in these threads.
You'd mentioned that the statute requires commission of some underlying crime, and the summary link you provided bears that out. But the connection between "conspiracy" and "crime" isn't direct.
A fictitious example: A person joins a criminal gang, the gang has (before this person joined) committed one or more crimes. THIS is the "commit a crime" "element." It is different from an individual defendant committing a crime (other than conspiracy), but it is a commission of a crime. The defendant then conspires with other members of the criminal group, to commit a crime for the GROUP's benefit. This is conspiracy, and if the prosecutor can produce evidence of this intent to commit a future crime, defendant is guilty, even if defendant commits no crime other than participation in the GROUP conspiracy.
Not sure if that clears things up any, but it's my shorthand image.
Applauding the judge in this case is like applauding the judge that allowed Florida to hold Zimmerman on a murder charge, with zero evidence of intent. The judge was obviously wrong, but he's the judge. As I said, erroneous decisions are common, even "the norm." Some judges make this sort of heavy-handed mistake on purpose, because they know it is expensive and time consuming to appeal, and there is zero downside to the judge. Many people celebrate judicial law-breaking, because somebody else's ox is being gored. Human nature at work.