Bush Refuses to Influence DeLay Trial, Then Declares DeLay’s Innocence

[RedEarth]

Bush Refuses to Influence DeLay Trial, Then Declares DeLay’s Innocence



In an interview last night with Brit Hume, President Bush refused to comment on prosecutor Ronnie Earle to make sure the DeLay trial is “conducted as fairly as possible“:

HUME: You know a thing or two about Texas politics. What is your judgment of the prosecutor in the case, Ronnie Earle?

BUSH: I’m not going to go there, simply because I want — I want this trial to be conducted as fairly as possible. And the more politics that are in it, the less likely it’s going to be fair.

But under Hume’s grueling interrogation (one second later), Bush passed judgement on the trial:

HUME: Do you just — do you believe innocent?

BUSH: Do I? Yes, I do.

So much for keeping politics out of the trial.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/15/bush-delay-politics/

[FreedomAngel82]

1. Flipflopper

[azmouse]

2. I'll second that!

[BOSSHOG]

3. bush sticking with the white house policy of not discussing

ongoing investigations. Does he think he's innocent? Hell, hume, he doesn't even know what he's charged with. A republican committing a crime, no fucking way? delay is a fine upstanding christian. He's just a victim of the evil liberal media.

[harlinchi]

4. Isn't that called 'command influence'?

It seems like it to me.

I'm told that in the military, the outcomes of courts martial are almost always pre-determined, usually by command influence. A commander makes known his or her belief or preference, then subsequent actions by subordinates reflect that belief or preference.

When his interests were served by referring to command influence to defend his lack of comment on the Plame Leak Investigation, Bush had no problem holding his tongue about the merits of the case, any actions he planned as a consequence of the case or the inconsistencies in comments already made by he or his mouthpieces.

In the matter of Delay, the tar-brush (probably more accurately called a white-wash brush as few corrupted GOP'ers are Black!) of corruption comes close to Bush but does not appear to actually hit him. Appear, I said! As a result, Bush obviously feels comfortable exerting the influence he knows will result from such a statement.


"What sluggards, what cowards have I brought up in my court, who care nothing for their allegiance to their lord. Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest."

While neither Bush nor Delay is a King Henry II and Earle is not an Archbishop Becket, I'd be very careful if I were he. Small planes in Texas would be a no-no (Even bin Ladens died in plane crashes in Texas, a father in 1968 and a son in 1988! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/... ). I'd communicate to all I knew the fact that suicide has never been considered and if it is asserted to have occurred (in the future) it is not true.

There will always be a loyal Bush worker to take action on his behalf.


This was posted in another thread but it seemed appropriate here.

[Kurovski]

5. This also puts the lie to Scotty McClellan's constant

insistence that the WH will not answer questions or comment upon "an ongoing investigation" in White House press briefings and gaggles.

Pffft....

[cliss]

6. I swearr...

Bush is getting more stupider with each passing day. Could it be Reefer Madness? Maybe Cocaine-Coma? Perhaps his close friendship with Jack Daniels.

I don't know what is causing it, but Bush is really going down in flames.

[Crankie Avalon]

7. What's also disgraceful from that same interview is how...

...* tries to spin and lie the Abramoff affair as just as much of a Democratic scandal as a Republican one:

Jack Abramoff: "I'm -- you know, the Abramoff -- I'm frankly not all that familiar with a lot that's going on up there on Capitol Hill. But it seems like to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties. Yes, I mean, it's really important for all of us in public life to have the highest of ethics. So we can only trust the American people." Is that because we can't trust the president? Bush would like to portray Abramoff as a congressional problem and an equal-opportunity one at that. But the indicted lobbyist has enjoyed close ties to the president and boasted of raising more than $120,000 for his reelection campaign. And the fact is that Abramoff, his firm and his clients were far more generous to Republicans than to Democrats, in part because Republicans have control in Washington and in part because Abramoff has always been closely aligned with the GOP: He was the president of the College Republicans in the 1980s, and he's close with both Rove and Rep. Tom DeLay.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/12/15/bushhume/index.html

[Geoff R. Casavant]

8. Well, two comments.

First, I don't see a flip-flop here. He was asked about Earle and refused to answer, then he was asked about DeLay and said he was inncocent. Two different subjects, two different answers.

Second, this strikes me as a valuable clue in another way. Bush probably knows nothing about the DeLay matter except what his bubble keepers have told him, so of course he believes DeLay is innocent and has no compunction about offering an opinion. On the other hand, he knows much about the Plame affair that has yet to come to light, and so no one makes any protestations of innocence. This is a strong indicator that re: Plame, there's a lot of guilt to go around.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. How can he comment on an on-going investigation and trial of

Delay, but not on the CIA-leak?