Would George Bush Consider a PatFitzPack of Pardons?

JMart reports that Dick Durbin wrote Bush in support of a pardon for George Ryan (really, Durbin?!?!?!).

Obama’s colleague and close friend Sen. Dick Durbin sent a letter to the president this week requesting that he release Ryan, who is doing a 6 1/2 year federal sentence on corruption-related charges

Crazy as it sounds, I think Durbin’s onto something. In fact, I think he should start pitching a "PatFitzPack of Pardons" for Bush.

After all, we know that Scooter Libby is bound to get a pardon in the next few weeks.  Conrad Black has already asked for a pardon; and what neocon President could resist that request? Throw George Ryan in there, and you’ve got a hat trick.

24 replies
  1. dakine01 says:

    I can think of one semi-viable reason to pardon Ryan; for his commuting of all death sentences in Illinois after recognizing the inherent problems with it.

    He took a lot of abuse from his fellow Republicans for actually behaving as a human in that instance.

  2. JohnLopresti says:

    I read Dukestir’s skipper had asked for a reprieve, but the article was vague. I kindof like the chance for the president to sign an executive declaration of clemency in some of these cases. However, the lameduck environmental rule rollbacks blossoming are less appealing, like this roadless rule injunction partial reversal order led by a WY court. The opinion following the haloween hearing opted for a compromise, letting region IX states preserve the ban, but granting WY release from the injunction.

  3. Rayne says:

    Don’t we go back to the argument that a pardon for Libby means no Fifth Amendment protections if asked to testify in the future? I still can’t believe that Libby will get a pardon for this reason.

    Ryan ought to get at least a commutation out of fairness considering Libby’s commutation.

    • bmaz says:

      A) I am not convinced Bush will do it B) if the pardon is crafted right, Libby arguably may still retain 5th privileges as to the thing we really want. Not definitively, but I think Libby could make a decent run with this argument.

      • FrankProbst says:

        A) I am not convinced Bush will do it B) if the pardon is crafted right, Libby arguably may still retain 5th privileges as to the thing we really want. Not definitively, but I think Libby could make a decent run with this argument.

        He really doesn’t need his 5th Amendment privileges. If he’s willing to flat-out lie under oath, I’d assume he’d be willing to “not recall”.

        That being said, I agree with you on (A)–I’m not at all convinced that Bush is going to pardon Libby, or anyone else, for that matter. He is a black-or-white kind of guy, and he seems to see pardons as pretty “black”. And don’t try to tell me that he’s “loyal” to his enablers. Ask Katherine Harris how that works. (And speaking of loyalty and Fredo, did he ever manage to find a job? You know you’re tarnished when you’ve got a rec letter from the POTUS, and you STILL can’t land a job.)

      • LabDancer says:

        With you on both counts – – & if [b], nor need the craftsmanship be particularly clever, IMO.

        Yup, when I think back to those heady days of Iran/Contra, and how the RePod people were going to pay for that one…

  4. NelsonAlgren says:

    I still don’t think Bush will pardon anyone involved with his Presidency. It would be an admission of guilt, for one. Second, why pardon when the Democrats don’t have the stones to investigate anyway?

  5. AZ Matt says:

    I would like to see this bastaard in jail:

    NOVAK: I’d go full speed ahead because of the hateful and beastly way in which my left-wing critics in the press and Congress tried to make a political affair out of it and tried to ruin me. My response now is this: The hell with you. They didn’t ruin me. I have my faith, my family, and a good life. A lot of people love me — or like me. So they failed. I would do the same thing over again because I don’t think I hurt Valerie Plame whatsoever.

    He could rot there with no parole and nothing to write with, just talk to the walls.

  6. orionATL says:

    with respect to patrick fitzgerald,

    i have wondered whether fitzgerald would be re-appointed as the u.s. attorney for northern illinois once the u.s. attorneys resign in mass after senator obama takes office.

    fitzgerald has a reputation as one of the doj’s top prosecutors – very professional, very committed, very experienced, and, one assumes, highly intelligence.

    plus he has made a reputation for himself by putting a bunch of corrupt illinois politicians in the pokey – not to mention his exceptionally skillful management of the libby/rove/cheney/plame matter.

    sounds like a great guy for the job of u.s attorney for northern illinois for the next four years.

  7. Synoia says:

    If I read the Judge’s FISA questions correctly, if upheld, the AG can “pardon” oops sorry, retroacticly immunize, anyone at any time for no reason at all…

  8. pat1213 says:

    Pardon Plaxico
    Pardon Steve Howe
    Pardon Roman Polanski
    Pardon 50 Cent
    Pardon Mumia
    Pardon Zha Zha
    then pardon George Ryan

  9. obsessed says:

    I’m much more curious about whether Bush will issue pardons for people who haven’t been indicted – Gonzales, Cheney, Rove, Domenici, etc. etc. (what a list!).

    I mean … if Rove & Cheney aren’t going to get indicted, then pardoning them would be admitting and calling attention to their crimes, ne? But if he doesn’t, he leaves them naked after 1/20/09 because it may be a long while before somebody else disposed to pardoning them gets into the Oval Office.

    What you guys think the chances are that Bush will issue preemptive pardons to these guys?

  10. pretzel says:

    Question concerning Scooter and the 5th Amendmant rights if he is pardoned by Bush (and I don’t think he will be, imo)

    I know he could extend those rights to additional charges outside the perjury and obstruction charges which would have been covered in the pardon but could he exert those claims if he’s brought in to testify in a case brought against others if he’s not named as a defendant?

    Just for the sake of argument, say early next year Fitzgerald brings evidence to a grand jury against Cheney etal. (without Libby being named) of their involvement in the Plame Outing. Libby’s testimony would be a critical piece of evidence. If Fitzgerald limits Libby’s testimony to his actions for which he was convicted on could he claim 5th Amendment protection based on the pardon given to him by the President?

  11. brendanx says:

    Republicans are going to be making a big deal of Holder because it will establish an equivalence just as Bush is letting a bunch of traitors and crooks go free.

  12. Mary says:

    Horton’s pieces are like watching the sun come out after days of grey rain.

    SidewaysT, Fitzgerald seems to have either no sense of irony, or a bubble of oblivion that surrounds him about his own institution. After he utilizes what sure looks like torture evidence in his Saleh prosecution, he then steps up to the plate in the Burge police torture case and solemnly opines on there is “no excuse” for torture. And after thousands of lawyers in the DOJ all sat silent when the DOJ’s torture policies were revealed – when they not only sat silent, but misled court after court and advocated for the continued torture detentions for the sole purpose of avoiding Executive branch embarassment, after the series of Ashcroft, Thompson (who directly signed off on the Arar shipment to torture paperwork), Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Comey, McNulty, Goldsmith, Bradbury, Philbin etc., he is “shocked” to find 15 corrupt police officers in IL.

    On a different note, I sure wish the Impeachment Ornament had made it to the tree.

Comments are closed.