Comments on: This looks like a job for Josh Marshall, but maybe he hasn’t finished his coffee yet

By: california_reality_check

california_reality_check — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:04:16 +0000

Ya know, I think rdb has something here. What about it you legal eagles? Jury tampering?

By: RETARDO

RETARDO — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:07:10 +0000

ought, rather. sorry. tired.

By: RETARDO

RETARDO — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:06:35 +0000

this has happened before, and somebody with the research skillz out to find out what John Marshall said about it.

thomas jefferson did the exact same thing during the burr trial. i know john adams publicly rebujed jefferson for it, but i dont know, or remember, what Marshall said.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:18:53 +0000

…after a presiding judge has just ruled that the charge stands as proper to be tried by a jury of Delay’s peers…

That was a crackpot-runaway-partisan-junkyard-dog judge! And probably gay too.

By: rdb

rdb — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:57:43 +0000

This link to firedoglake.blogspot.com should work. Read the posting. Do you think that someone the president proclaimed as guilty, before or during a trial could get a fair trial?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:22:20 +0000

rdb, would you be so kind as to explain the charge of “jury tampering” and its relevance to this comment? Thanks!

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:41:28 +0000

The official explanation is presidential prerogative, which seems to amount to “I don’t feel like I have to explain myself.”

Well, that’s nothing new:

I’m the commander. See, I don’t have to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.

The only thing surprising is that there are still people in the United States in December 2005 who think they’ll get something more meaningful from this administration than “Because I said so.”

By: california_reality_check

california_reality_check — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:19:19 +0000

Well, no one seems willing or able to call these people to task. They are really good at what they do. Sound bites, damage control and spin. That’s what it is all about in politics today. I quess the only solution is to try to put as many as possible in jail.

By: rdb

rdb — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:36:41 +0000

firedoglake: Um, hello??!?? The President of the United States and former Governor of the State of Texas says he thinks that Tom Delay is innocent to a national news outlet after a presiding judge has just ruled that the charge stands as proper to be tried by a jury of Delay’s peers. Did he or his staff even stop to think about the consequences of this public display of affection for Delay? Has anyone explained to the Preznit the meaning of the words “jury tampering?”

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:33:46 +0000

The official explanation is presidential prerogative, which seems to amount to “I don’t feel like I have to explain myself.” (via iocaste)

Actually it looks like crc nailed it in 6:

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 and the DeLay matter is further along in the legal process.

And I assumed you were joking.

By: kharris

kharris — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:51:31 +0000

Paul,

I’m wondering whether Bush saying he is confident in D’s innocence when D’s innocence is in dispute is a decent reason to believe pardon-D, on the condition that avoids dragging any other Republicans down with him.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:20:23 +0000

Of course, the context is different. It may be that the president doesn’t believe he should comment on ongoing federal investigations, but that he believes he has no reason to refrain from commenting on state investigations.

By: california_reality_check

california_reality_check — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:14:49 +0000

Well, to be completely fair. It’s a trial. The investigation has been completed.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:16:56 +0000

Isn’t the real scandal that Bush said he likes Tom DeLay?

Oh, check this Google correction. (Nothing to do with DeLay, I realize.)

By: goatchowder

goatchowder — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:14:47 +0000

Actually it depends on what your definition of “ongoing” is.