Is "atwitter" a word? My spellcheck isn't bumping it, so I'm going with it.
I was over at Unbearable Bobness a bit ago, and he is just oozing with glee over all the criminal indictments he, and the left, imagine are going to lead to the ruin of the Republican Party. In an effort to edjumacate, I offer this I stole from Powerline:
Abrams: Thanks for coming back on the program. I haven't even had a chance to look at this indictment. Tell me what it's about.
DeGuerin: I haven't seen it either, but I'll tell you what happened. Earlier today, a motion was filed that spelled out for Ronnie Earle in terms that even he could even understand that there is no such thing as a conspiracy to violate the Texas election code. So the original indictment doesn't charge a crime. So I guess this is his reaction that he had to rush back to the grand jury and charge some other crime.
Abrams: So you think literally, today, today, he went to a grand jury in the afternoon and got an indictment on money laundering that quickly?
DeGuerin: Apparently, after all the motions spelled out there's no conspiracy to violate the election code. It's just real clear, there's no such crime. So apparently in response to that, he rushed before another grand jury.
Abrams: And again, and and we've talked about this before, you appreciate how severe the allegation that you're making against the district attorney is. The notion that this district attorney went to a grand jury in response to you filing a legal motion and as a result, got a grand jury to indict your client is a very serious allegation.
DeGuerin: I think that's exactly what happened, Dan. And make no bones about it, if you look at what we filed, it's just clear as a bell. There's no conspiracy to violate the Texas election code. Ronnie Earle should have known that before they issued the first indictment, but this is apparently like a band-aid, some kind of patchwork to make up for the fact that they issued an indictment for something that's not a crime first.
Abrams: Dick, how do you expect to be able to defend two different charges? Are you going to attack both in the same manner, meaning to basically allege, it sounds like you're doing now, that this is political.
DeGuerin: No, what I said to you, Dan, is the first charge just won't hold water. It is not a crime and it's astounding to me that a district attorney who's been in office for 27 years to get a grand jury to return an indictment for something that's not a crime. All he had to do was look at the books a little bit and he'd learn that. And I suppose that -- earlier today, his reaction was, I'll just go get another indictment for something else.