Well, it is troubling that the first jury indicted but the charges were nor precise enough; that a second grand jury did not indict and that he went to a third.  But so what, was this not his right to do?  If it's legal, where's the problem even if it seems unseemly?

Personally, I'm satisfied that the circumstances of the case demonstrate that he tried to circumvent established rules regarding corporate donations to state representatives.  I think that's the point - and you know, if the jury at trial are politically motivated, they may acquit.  But maybe not.  The guy does have a history of nefarious dealings.