1115.org

I know that it’s standard procedure for politicians to lend support when members of their party are accused of something unseemly, but does anyone think it’s appropriate for George Bush to publicly vouch for Tom DeLay’s innocence before the trial date has even been set?

President Bush said yesterday he is confident that former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of money-laundering charges, as he offered strong support for several top Republicans who have been battered by investigations or by rumors of fading clout inside the White House.

In an interview with Fox News, Bush said he hopes DeLay will be cleared of charges that he illegally steered corporate money into campaigns for the Texas legislature and will reclaim his powerful leadership position in Congress.

“I hope that he will, ’cause I like him, and plus, when he’s over there, we get our votes through the House,” Bush told Fox News’s Brit Hume. DeLay was forced to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in the fundraising case, and he is seeking a quick trial in hopes of returning to power early next year.

Oh wait, wasn’t the president famously zipper-lipped whenever the subject of Valerie Plame came up? Wasn’t the standard response to any question about Scooter Libby or Karl Rove something along the lines of “we cannot comment on an continuing investigation or legal case”? So much for lofty ideals.

No matter what you personally think about the President, he is still the most important and influential person in the country, if not the world. Considering the pull that he has in his home state of Texas, pushing a narrative of DeLay’s innocence weeks (if not months) before a trial is not just inconsistent; it’s sleazy and borderline manipulative.

If DeLay does wind up getting convicted, Bush may wish that he never gave this interview. But in any case, he should leave the crystal ball and tarot cards back at the ranch.