I’m running around out of my office today, but on a quick read it’s hard to understand what DeLay is accused of doing. I mean, yes, I get that they are saying he was a member of a conspiracy that steered apparently illegal corporate contributions to GOP candidates. But in virtually all the bazillion conspiracy indictments I have ever seen – even in connection with offenses against conspiracy statutes which don’t require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (like federal narcotics conspiracy) – prosecutors always allege overt acts against every accused co-conspirator.

This is on the theory that you can’t, as a practical matter, win a jury trial without proving that the defendant DID something to further the criminal agreement. These are, after all, jury trials. You can’t win a jury trial with the same innuendo that you can win a headline with. You need real evidence of personal guilt.

A person reading this indictment would not know what the DA is saying DeLay did to be guilty of this crime. And let’s remember that the purpose of an indictment is to give the defendant notice of what he’s accused of having done.