Well, at least the President was honest about his thoughts regarding the DeLay case.

Do all these "comedic gems" mean that Karl is feeling the pressure again?

"First of all, the President was asked a question and he responded to that question in the interview yesterday, and made very clear what his views were. We don't typically tend to get into discussing legal matters of that nature, but in this instance, the President chose to respond to it."

Shorter: "We told him to keep his mouth shut, but he went off the reservation again."

No, I think the right shorter is: "The President needs Tom DeLay in the House. Scooter is expendable."

I wonder how much that just shrunk the juror pool.

Hey, have you heard the one about the President that sodomized the interns.

What Bush said:

"HUME: Do you home and expect that Tom DeLay will return to be majority leader?

BUSH: Yes. At least, I don't know whether I'm expecting it. I hope that he will.

HUME: Why?

BUSH: Well, I like him. When he's over there, we get our votes through the House. We had a remarkable success of legislative victories. A remarkable string of legislative victories. We've cut the taxes and delivered strong economic growth and vitality. We've had an energy bill that began to put American on its way to independence.

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.

HUME: Do you just — do you believe he's innocent?

BUSH: Do I? Yes, I do."

Honest is right. BTW, is DeLay innocent? When was he convicted of anything?

"Wanna buy some wood?"

Most incompetent, brain-damaged bunch of cretins in American history...

Wow, Patton, that was a more bald-faced retreat to the Clenis than usual. They not paying you enough?

Highly entertaining post, Hilzoy. Thanks.

well no, it's not jury tampering. that has a specific legal meaning and since there's nothing that the President can specifically do to sway the opinion of jury members, it doesn't even come close to jury tampering for him to have an opinion on the matter. with that said, I think it was a little inappropriate for him to express his opinion.

I bet Tom DeLay's lawyers live to regret this when jury selection time rolls around.

Is Patton a troll? Wow, that was so blunt that I thought it was somebody parodying a troll. I guess, as with their heroes in DC, conservative trolls are beyond parody.

Q Well, if it's prejudging the Fitzgerald investigation, isn't it prejudging the Texas investigation with regard to Congressman DeLay?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered your question.

... by saying I'm not going to answer it. (Damn you media elites!)

It is jury tampering, after hearing Bush, now I know Delay is guilty.

And Strick,
Governor Perry declared Delay innocent of all charges and that the DA was a partisan hack. This OK with you too.

"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

He said wha ... ?

Oh, that's right. Bush is also the guy who said we did nothing to invite the violence in Iraq, but who also said "bring it on."
.

In Bush world, to take what they say at face value (especially regarding tortured) is clearly reading things in a "tortured" way.

"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

Man, SNL should *pay* him as a writer. All they hafta do is suit up and start quoting him.

"And Strick,
Governor Perry declared Delay innocent of all charges and that the DA was a partisan hack. This OK with you too."

Gee, where did I say something about Perry? Ronnie does have a pretty bad rep in the state, but what's that got to do with Bush answering the question?

And, after all, until you change the legal system in this country to be biased against Republicans, DeLay is innocent. (Not to mention that what we've seen of Earle's evidence in the case shows he doesn't have much of a case. I know that's only a technicality, DeLay is a bad, bad man and is guilty by default, but why don't we wait to hear what the jury says. If it gets that far.)

I agree that Delay is a bad man. Very bad.

The remaining part of me that has charitable views of humans hopes that Scott McM thinks the whole thing is absurd and just likes yanking everyone's chain by playing straight man.

If I had his job, I'd be drinking a fifth every day.

Hilzoy:

So this was a surprise:

Was it now? I thought Dubya speaking out both sides of his mouth was more like par for the course...

Hilzoy,

You may not wish to whole-heartedly agree with Reddhead on this, because of the 'jury tampering' thing. Bush isn't involved in the case. He's not part of the judicial branch of government. He is, thusly, legally allowed to state his opinion of the guilt or innocence of Mister Delay, so long as he doesn't do things like threaten and/or induce potential jurors. This is, at least, my understanding of how such things work; I may be wrong. (Aside: I've sort of been waiting for the Volokhs to post on this today, but they haven't.) Whether or not it is APPROPRIATE for him to offer such comments is another matter, and one open to debate... but I think this obscures the larger issue.

I digress, however. The remark ITSELF isn't, in my opinion, what should be at question here; what should be is the rank hypocrisy involved.

Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051215-4.html

It's a meaty transcript, and I think Kos has a diary if you want the relevant highlights, but essentially, the position of the White House is that they get to pick and choose which criminal invstigations they comment on, and which ones they do not. The Plame leaker? No comment. But DeLay gets indicted, and hey, there's the President offering up his views, ongoing investigation be damned.

I find this unacceptable. Either we should get the views of the White House and/or President on BOTH of these (and ongoing investigations in general, if they have an opinion) or on neither. They shouldn't be able to cherry-pick, it creates, if NOTHING else, the appearance of impropriety, and that's at BEST, when it doesn't cross the line and become ACTUAL impropriety.

This, to me, is the central issue, as opposed to whether or not Bush is 'jury tampering' with his comment, which I'd have to say no.

When I read this, I immediately remembered the headline "Nixon Declares Manson Guilty" that Charles Manson held up for his jury to see.

It caused a controversy at the time, but wasn't grounds for a retrial. I know that mass murder isn't as important as political power, though both are capital cases (sorry), but it's hard to believe W's comment is a greater affront to justice.

...and that's the nicest thing I've ever said about George W. Bush.

One more question Mr. President, and this one has nothing to do with any ongoing investigation.

OK, bring it on.

Have you considered resigning the office of President of the United States?

Before it’s too late?

Hmmm….Let me check and I’ll get back to you on that.

So Rice + Bsuh says the US does not torture prisonors anywhere, that's odd really, so why would the US need an agreement on banning torture, when you don't do it, surley a ban means you have to stop doing something that you are allready doing, doesn't it?

quote Guradian London today 'George Bush accepts call for law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign suspects.'

Gotta love those guys in the White House -- they're such kidders.

You misspelled "total idiots"

Strick, the President didn't say that DeLay was innocent until proven guilty, he asserted that he thought DeLay was innocent of the charges pending, before the trial. This is highly inappropriate conduct for someone in his position.

For all his issues, he looks way more credible that the Iraq is Vietnam! Quagmire! We can do no good! Cut and run! crowd in the face of 15 million voters. He's right way more often than Murtha, Kerry or Pelosi are.

On De Lay, not as if the democrat criticism of DeLay withheld judgement - so if the opposition aren't going to try and not biad juries towards guilt, why should he hold back?

McAristotle - would your last post have been heavily influenced by alcohol? Seems a little incoherant to me.

I gave a "not peaceful welcome" to the cops outside my front door, and now I'm blogging from jail.

Now, Craigie...we wouldn't want to give idiots a comparison biased against them.

Basically, the Great Leader and his minions are just flaunting their distaste for honesty, integrity, and just about any other sort of reasonable decency. Yes, its "we never comment on that sort of thing" when its an investigation that is close to home and "oh, that guy is innocent" when the path may well lead to the front door. And, they continue to do this believing that lying as a means of social and political is perfectly acceptable, comfortable in the knowledge that they now control the Enterprise. But, for how long? Because, the wheels of justice--the tires of which have been lovingly cared for and slowly and surely improved and reinforced over the past 11 generations of American Independence--are hard to stop if the malfeasances are so widespread, the cronyism and out and out cynicism and greed spread so far that to open a ledger, read an IRS statement, talk to a reporter, leads one to the conclusion that the wheels of justice need to turn a little faster with just a little more torque to get out of the oily sands of Iraq's would be conquerors.

In the Bush World all good men accused by the bad men of any past wrong doings are innocent because the good men focus on doing good in the future and are not distracted by dwelling on the past by the bad men. So, every good man comes to the aid of other good men who need defending from the bad men. The needs of good men come before the needs of bad men. Only good men count. Good men unite. Bad men divide. Why can't everyone just be a good man and focus on the future? Why can't everyone be a good man and just get on with accepting their fate in Bush World?

Going back to Ari Fleischer, it's clear that they believe the people they care about (the famous "base" - I wonder what the Arab word is for that?) will accept this mendacious garbage. As long as the base can be teased up to 50% + 1 they don't give a damn what anyone else thinks about it. The only standard any of them feel obliged to live up to is "what we can get away with."

America 2.0 - get used to it.

Dubya's opinion of Delay, despite evidence to the contrary, recall's his support of Palmerio even after he tested positive for steroids after testifying in Congress that "I have never used steroids. Period."
When asked about Palmeiro's violation, his former boss, President Bush, had this to say: "Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him. He's the kind of person that's going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him. Still do." As ever,to Bush, loyalty and faith-belief are more important than contrary empirical or prima facie evidence.

Gotta love the reporters who should, when McClellan lies directly to their face as he did here, simply give him their press passes and leave en masse.

If they had any journalistic integrity, they would not put up with this.

But they don't.

And the trolls claim the MSM is liberal.

What a hoot!

McAnustotle: For all his issues, he looks way more credible that the Iraq is Vietnam! Quagmire! We can do no good! Cut and run! crowd in the face of 15 million voters. He's right way more often than Murtha, Kerry or Pelosi are.

I guess that's why Bush's approval ratings are in the tank, even now at least a half-dozen points lower than Clinton's lowest polling during Clinton's second term.

BTW, claiming that liberals say that "Iraq is Vietnam" is a lie.

Claiming that liberals want to "cut and run" is a lie.

Claiming that liberals say "we can do no good" is a lie.

And claiming that Bush is right more often than any of the named Democrats is just delusional.

----------

Bush was wrong on WMDs (actually, he lied).

Bush was wrong on WMD programs (actually, he lied).

Bush was wrong on Iraqis welcoming the US.

Bush was wrong on "Mission Accomplished".

Bush was wrong on Iraqi links to 9/11.

Bush was wrong to oppose the 9/11 Commission.

Bush was wrong about the number of troops necessary to effectively carry out the mission.

Bush was wrong to trust Chalabi.

Bush was wrong that Iraq was a threat to the US.

Bush was wrong that genocide was ongoing in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

Bush was wrong to defame the UN inspectors who were right.

Bush was wrong to defame the French and Germans who were right.

Bush was wrong to nominate Miers.

Bush was wrong in his plans for "fixing" Social Security.

Bush was wrong to keep Tenet on as head of the CIA (if we are to believe conservatives themselves who say it was Tenet who was at fault).

Bush was wrong on Katrina.

Bush was and is wrong on torture.

Bush was wrong to try to cut the hazard pay of our soldiers who were fighting in Iraq.

Bush was wrong to deny our troops adequate body armor and vehicle armor in order to shore up his tax cuts for the wealthy.

Bush was wrong that tax cuts would bring economic prosperity to Middle America.

Bush is wrong to withhold the name of the leaker in the Plame case when he said he would do everything within his power to see that the investigation was successfully conducted and any wrongdoer brought to justice.

Bush was and is wrong to effectively call Americans who disagree with him traitors.

============

The polls tend to agree that Bush is wrong and that you are an ass, McAnustotle.

Deal with it.