I wish I could go just one day without a prominent liberal throwing a stone from their own glass house. When Hillary Clinton said of the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence by President Bush, "What we saw today was elevating cronyism over the rule of law. And what we saw today was further evidence that this administration has no regard whatsoever for what needs to be held sacred," I had to laugh.

Does the name Billy Dale happen to ring any bells Senatorette Clinton? Remember the man that you and your husband trumped up embezzlement charges on just so you could get him out of the White House Travel Office, a position he held for three decades? And why? To give the position to Harry Thomason; Clinton crony.

Sure, maybe you can claim that you had nothing to do with that. And sure, maybe those fawning over you at your campaign stops might believe that. But the truth is different. When notes by David Watkins were subpoenaed in the case, they read that there were, "periodic reports from Vince Foster that [the] First Lady had inquired about [the] Travel Office and why wasn't action being taken" and that, "they should be fired immediately and out of here by the end of the day."

Of course that wasn't the only case during the eight years of the Clinton presidency, but it illustrates the point pretty clearly. Especially considering that Billy Dale was found not guilty in a matter of hours and even eventually reimbursed by Congress for his costs that were accumulated in his defense against of Clinton cronyism.

The Bill Clinton pardon list also contains several instances of people that were pardoned for "obstruction of justice" and "perjury". So much for things that need "to be held sacred" huh?

I hate to revisit the whole Scooter Libby affair but how can one let this sort of insanity go unanswered especially as Hillary holds hands and shares the stage with former President Clinton? History has got to account for something.

To boot I am still waiting for the "justice" that Scooter Libby "obstructed" and "perjured" himself in the pursuit of hiding to be prosecuted. I'm still waiting for the known leaker, one Richard Armitage, to be hauled up on charges. I am still wondering how, if Armitage was known to be the leaker Libby could have "obstructed" anything.

If there was a crime here why did Fitzgerald not pursue Armitage? For that matter, why aren't Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all the other demagogues on the left not out there demanding that Armitage be tried?

The answer? Because there was no crime. No crime means no "obstruction of justice." No crime also means that the whole charade was nothing more than a perjury trap to get a conviction as close to President Bush as possible.

I hear liberals whine about the "rule of law". But what does the law say? The law says that the President has the right to reprieve and pardon those convicted of crimes. Its right there in Article II of the Constitution which, I realize, is something most people have never really read. I realize that liberals only want the laws they like enforced and that those change on a day to day, if not an hour by hour basis, but come on.

The power of the pardon is certainly overused and abused by Presidents. Lists of pardons longer than my arm are granted by many presidents and mostly for political reasons and gain. But to say that the rule of law was not obeyed when they are granted is ignorant. The Constitution itself sets itself as the "Supreme Law of the land".

But every now and again, presidential pardon powers are justified. Like when a man is accused and convicted of a crime in the non-cover-up of a non-crime while the man that actually non-committed the non-crime is never even charged because there was no crime.

That's when it is justified.

And let's not forget that thus far all President Bush has done is give Scooter Libby a reprieve from his jail sentence after the judge ordered him to jail while he pushed forward his right to appeal. The conviction, as of right now, still stands pending appeal.

In the end, Libby will serve just as many days in prison as President William Jefferson Clinton did for willful perjury, suborning the perjury of others, "obstructing justice", attempting to deny an American citizen her constitutionally guaranteed day in court as well as crimes associated with those acts; none.

About the Author

J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts and American Infidel T-shirts