Posted on 12/15/2005 2:19:57 PM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- The White House on Thursday defended President Bush's decision to insert himself into Tom DeLay's legal case, saying Bush was employing "presidential prerogative" when he declared the former House majority leader was innocent of Texas charges.
On Wednesday, Bush was asked during an interview on Fox News Channel whether he believed DeLay was innocent. "Yes, I do," Bush replied.
The Texas Republican was forced to step down as leader in late November after he was indicted on a state charge of conspiracy to violate election laws. A second grand jury indicted him on charges of conspiracy to launder money and money laundering. The initial charge has been dismissed, but a judge has let stand the later charges.
"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," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "Call it presidential prerogative."
At the same time, Bush and his aides have refused to answer almost any question related to a CIA leak case, saying it would be inappropriate.
McClellan denied there was any inconsistency between the president's remarks in the DeLay case and the White House's "no comments" in the CIA matter because the CIA case involves a continuing investigation affecting the administration and the DeLay matter is further along in the legal process. He also noted that the White House has commented previously on legal matters, such as charges against former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
So, it's OK for dozens of prominent Democrats to say that DeLay is guilty as hell, but the president isn't allowed to say he thinks DeLay is innocent?
Good grief.
You mean like Bipolar Howard did with his "serve out his sentence" comment about Tom DeLay?
-PJ
What baloney!
I saw the particular section and the prez was very circumspect and careful in not wanting to be seen as interfering in the case. He didn't "declare" Delay innocent as the AP article claims but only stated his belief that Delay was innocent.
Let me see, the leak probe directly involved the White House.
The investigation of Tom Delay doesn't directly involve the White House.
Other than that, I can see where the media might find a bit of hypocrisy about the President's statement.
(Do I really need a sarcasm tag?)
The despicable Ronnie Earle has a long track record of using bogus prosecution for corrupt political purposes, going back to Kay Hutchinson where the judge threw Earle out of the court due to a complete lack of evidence.
DeLay's charges are a bunch of horse vomit fabricated by a power-hungry Spitzer wanna-be.
In principle, as a law-enforcement officer, he shouldn't comment on it. But because this is a state matter (as opposed to the Plamegate fiasco) there is no real barrier.
Another one? Matt Cooper, even Andrea Mitchell. Are you required to be married to a politico (non-R) to get a MSM job?
The President refrained from commenting on Earle with respect to investigation.
He gave his opinion of whether Delay was innocent or not. Unless McCain has outlawed this form of speech as well, it's well within his rights.
'Stuf it AP. You're just ticked off because the President put his weight behind Delay which will make more members of the House even less relunctant to toss Delay overboard while he's subject to a witchhunt.
I'm suprised they haven't penned venomous stories about the President keeping Rummy yet, or have they?
Good detective work. PowerLine has been on her case as a flaming democrat party operative writing for AP for some time, such as this piece of trash under evaluation here.
Jennifer Loven authors ridiculous democrat party hit pieces and is married to Roger Ballentine, who was Bill Clinton's deputy assistant for environmental initiatives and chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force. Hubby was on John Kerry's staff for campaign 2004.
What they're saying is that since he commented on Delay, he has to comment on Plame as well, to be consisent.
Note that I'm not agreeing with that, only explaining it.
So 'innocent before proven guilty' doesn't apply to the DeLay?
What a non-story. Jennifer Loven is the biggest DNC hack writing for the AP, and that is no easy accomplishment.
As others have noted, there is no equivalency, and I'm sure this propaganda peddler knows it. The DeLay case is in the jurisdiction of the State of Texas. The Plamegate case, according to Democrat and MSM charges, reaches into the White House and is a federal investigation. So the President can't comment on it because a) he's a possible target; and b) it's in his chain of command.
Yup..the same guy that said he couldn't judge Osama till he knew all the facts.
Duhhhh...you need to pull your head out of you know where, and get REAL!
Time to coin a new word here, "Pre-emptive pardon"
I like it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.