Hah! You beat me to the punch and we called our posts the same thing ;-)...I'll change my title since you were first.

Well, Dodo - you and Aaron both take well-reasoned approaches in stating that it is indeed possible there is a valid case against Delay.

And, neither of you event hint at convicting him before the fact.

That is about as fair and balanced as you can get.

However, all of the comparisons you list - demos and repubs both being equally capable of doing wrong and/or of being objective despite their affiliations - that one is an island in the storm of partisanship.

Each side, much like religious extremists (and I count the loud minority of Christians who proclaim that theirs is the 'only' truth) mostly cares that the other side exists and therefore is completely invalid, hateful, and incapable of reason.

Enjoy your island, Dodo - apparently Aaron and I are coming for a visit on this particular one.

I like thick, fluffy pillows - or do I need to bring my own?

A grand jury really doesn't need a reason to indict someone. I am exaggerating only mildly here. In most cases, when a prosecutor convenes a grand jury, they will get an indictment, no matter what. This same prosecutor tried the same thing against Kay Bailey Hutchison, and it didn't work. A prosecutor can get an indictment for a ham sandwich.

From reading "The Corner" it appears that the indictment lacks even an accusation that the contributions were made within 60 days of an election. That appears to be an essential element of this crime. There may be a lot less here than meets the eye.