Cenk Uygur's attempt to show that Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite is wide of the mark. Gingrich has admitted that he was having an adulterous relationship during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. But Clinton's impeachment was for perjury, not adultery. Gingrich's position was (and is) that "you cannot accept. . .perjury in your highest officials."

Uygur responds by wondering why Gingrich hasn't been "all over TV speaking out against [Scooter] Libby." In doing so, Uygur ignores the fact that Gingrich was Speaker of the House during the time of impeachment. Thus, he had to decide, as all members of Congress did, whether it was acceptable for Clinton to remain president even though he had perjured himself.

But Libby resigned from his government position as soon as he was indicted for perjury. Before that, the evidence against Libby hadn't been made public. After that, it was the role of Patrick Fitzgerald and the jury to evaluate the evidence and determine whether Libby had committed a crime. If Gingrich were to go on television and argue that Libby's perjury conviction is a trivial matter, or that Libby should hold high public office again, that would be hypocritical. But Gingrich hasn't done that.

Uygur assumes in jest that Gingrich will be "leading the charge" to make sure Libby isn't pardoned. I doubt that Gingrich will take a position on this. But even if Gingrich were to lead a charge to secure a pardon for Libby, he wouldn't be engaging in hypocrisy, much less "hypocrisy that knows no bounds" (to use Uygur's overwrought phrase). The issue of whether a given former offical convicted of perjury should be pardoned is distinct from whether perjury disqualifies an offical from office -- which is the issue on which Gingrich opined . To my knowledge, Gingrich never advocated that Clinton be prosecuted (much less imprisoned) and, of course, Clinton wasn't.