That's my whole point. The judge is re-defining the Texas money laundering statute to mean something entirely different that what it plainly says in an effort to convict Tom Delay.
Agreed. I was just putting a little background to it. I'm guessing as to the specifics, but I think this bodes well overall for DeLay.
I also think that a guilty verdict could potentially be challenged on First Amendment grounds, as it would produce a chilling effect on corporate political contributions - which the Supreme Court has ruled is a de facto violation of free speech. Corporate entities could be inhibited from making their contributions fearing that any monies paid to candidates in like amounts could be perceived as money laundering, even though there was no intent. SOme might argue that guarding against corruption overrules this, but I think it a valid argument to be made.