Contempt of court charges for Bush?

In the past, key figures in the Bush administration have said that they would not comment on any ongoing court cases that related to them; case in point have been those about Valerie Plane, Iraq torture issues, etc. They have remained tight lipped in all of these situations.

With Tom DeLay facing money laundering charges (or whatever it was) Bush and others are repeatedly saying Tom is innocent, that the charges are baseless. Cheney had even organized an event to raise money for Tom's legal fees.

Here's my question: do these statements of presumed innocence from the Bush camp count as unfairly influencing court preceedings in the DeLay case, based on the grounds that the President (and others around that level) have a lot of clout with what they say? All jokes aside, don't people (as in the American public as a whole) generally think the President speaks the truth?

For example how would jurors (not being sequestered) make their decision, knowing Bush and Cheney are repeatedly saying Tom was innocent? Doesn't that count as unfair influence? I mean shit, it's the President of the United States saying it. Not some defense attorney.

So I think that would mean contempt of court charges could be issued. Is that the case? I'm wondering if those would also be grounds for having a retrial assuming charges were thrown out in the DeLay case or if Tom won it.

2GET

I don't think any polititian tells the truth.

>>3
Fail for view too simple.

>>1
This is no different than what happened under Clinton's adminstration.  I remember when the White Water case ended due to reaching the statute of limitations due to the stonewalling of the investigation.  The first thing Hillary Clinton did was run onto the media and give a big speech about how they were found innocent.  This is, of course, a major lie because the Clinton's were not found innocent, they stonewalled the investigation till it ended.  Quite a big difference.

Point is...  Retrial for Bush?  I'm still waiting for the multitude of retrials for Clinton!  Get in line!

>>3
Udo Voight keeps it nice and simple.
ALL OUR PROBLEMS IS FROM NIGGARS!
although he states it more eloquently.

>>6
Or that's what the democrats say because their argument is so weak it cannot withstand debate and they are forced to prey on people's fears and paranoia.

>>7
fear and paranoia has nothing to do with uselessness. see thread below.

>>8 ?
Religiousness has nothing to do with fear and paranoia. i think religion and fanaticism are different things. Religion is just thought. The thinkers may be wrong, but they aren't doing anything wrong by believing god exists and god's nature.

I'm, not saying all minorities are liberals, a large portion of blacks are christians, oppose immigration and support conservative issues etc.. I just mentionned in another thread that liberals tend to simply call everyone jargon and then leave it at, preferring to prey on the fears and paranoia of the stupid to get their votes rather than rational debate.

It's the only possible abuse of democracy and it's as if they are abusing it to the max.