Why should an elected polictician be permitted to void the decsion of a Judge and Jury?

Question

This isn't an anti-Bush question.
I live in the UK. If a politician tried to interfere with a conviction or sentence passed by a court, let alone quash it - he'd be swept out of office.
Yet successive presidents seem to be able to squash convictions and jail terms for their friends; Clinton did it, Bush is now doing it and II'm sure previous presidents have done it as well.
Why isn't this causing outrage in America?
I though in America everyone was supposed to be nominally equal before the law? How can that veneer survive when your prospects of staying out of jail depend on how good a friend you are of the president of the day?
I am genuinely perplexed by this and I therefore ask this question in an effort to see what the views of ordinary American's are.
Note: Answers which are merely insulting of Bush and/or the UK are not helpful.

Answer 1

So much for the rule of law . I think Americans are too numb or dumbed down to pay much attention to this and a worrisome number acutally supported Bush's interfrerring with Libby's sentence. We are like the Roman Empire in the second triumverate. Laws and precidents don't seem to mean much at the leadership level, if it interferes with the getting of more power.