Morons in Power

"The President . . . shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.

In their recent outrage over the actions of President Bush, Democrats prove once again how ignorant they are of the Constitution. Rep. John Conyers has now decided, with Congressional approval ratings below 20%, to hold hearings on the President using his absolute power to pardon. In an amazing feat, Democrats have managed to hold hearings on a subject even more idiotic that their hearings into whether or not political appointees in the Justice Department were removed from office for political reasons. That is about as stupid as holding hearings to determine whether a democratically elected official was elected democratically (actually, that is what they continue to contest since the 2000 election).
Of all people to speak out on this, President Clinton, friend to drug smugglers/dealers and non-repentant fugitive financiers the world over, had the gall to criticize Bush on his commuting the sentence of Libby. Note that he didn't actually pardon Libby. Libby will still have to pay $250,000, will likely lose his license to practice law, and will have a felony conviction on his record. In the history of Washington criminal occurrences, Libby's actions, based on his current punishment, rank right up there with a President of the United States lying under oath, and rank higher than a former national security advisor stealing classified documents by stuffing them down his pants, then destroying those documents. The fact that Clinton could talk on this subject with a straight face was truly amazing. We haven't seen this kind of chutzpah from a Democrat since Jimmy Carter ranked Bush's administration as the worst in history.
Lets put this in context once again, shall we? From the beginning of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew that the leak of the information of Valerie Plame working for the CIA came from Richard Armitage who was one of Colin Powell's deputies, and was no fan of the President of the V.P. Despite this, Fitzgerald focused on Cheney and Karl Rove, even though he knew they were not the leaks. In the course of his questioning of Libby, Libby slipped up in his testimony. So Fitzgerald went after him for perjury and obstruction of justice, despite the fact that neither Libby, nor Rove, nor Cheney were the ones to leak the information, and the leaking of the information has turned out to not even be a crime in the first place. So they got Libby for lying about a non-crime. And for this they threw more than the book at him. At trial, Fitzgerald emphasized that there was no connection between Libby and the leaked information, so that he would not have to provide Libby's defense team with relevant information for them to mount a successful defense. However, during the sentencing portion, Fitzgerald reversed himself and argued that the crime was so heinous because it had everything to do with the leak, just so he could get a harsher sentence. Once again, for lying about a non-crime. If the real issue was prosecuting the person who leaked the information, why have no charges been filed against Armitage?
But in Democrats' minds, this represents a more egregious violation of the law than Sandy Berger stealing classified documents from the national archives, in his pants, and then destroying them, so that his former boss would not look bad in the investigation of 9/11. The fact that Berger will not spend a day in jail for this offense doesn't bother Dems in the least. You see, the law only applies to Republicans.