[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
That said, though, I thought that retiring presidents no longer got Secret Service protection. Am I misremembering?
[/QUOTE]
All who were president before 1997 are grandfathered in. They still get lifetime protection. Bush and succeeding presidents - barring another change in the law - will only get it for ten years.
[QUOTE=Frank]
All who were president before 1997 are grandfathered in. They still get lifetime protection. Bush and succeeding presidents - barring another change in the law - will only get it for ten years.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. My mistake. All thanks.
I can’t find it at the moment, but I thought Bush was moving to have administrations implement/establish new regs now, so that it will be harder for an incoming president to reverse them? Does this ring any bells? I’ll keep searching–probably find out it was completely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Declan]
Remove all the letter O’s from whitehouse computers, nobody would have thought that Idea up would they have.
[/QUOTE]
Nobody could have possibly anticipated O’s being remove from the keyboards.
-Joe
[QUOTE=middleman]
[/QUOTE]
The White House has issued a directive to executive branch agencies, saaying that, except on an emergency basis, no rulemaking proceedings should begin after July 1, 2008, and no final rules should be promligated after November 1, 2008. So, given that, I think a bunch of late, controversial, executive orders is unlikely.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I’m sure even W understands he would have zero public support for a full-on war. The most he could do on his own authority would be an airstrike, which would likely stir up something too hot to handle, which his successor would have to deal with. It would be the equivalent of Saddam Hussein setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells before pulling out his troops, just from pure spite.
[/QUOTE]
While I think the chances of a war with Iran, even including an air strike are about nil at this point (which is pretty much the position I’ve taken for the last year or so as the level of fretation and handwringerage over this has finally started to drop), I disagree with your analogy.
Saddam lighting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells was pure spite. There was no possibility of Kuwait using their oil wells as a potential weapon in the future either against Iraq or against whatever Iraqi allies there may have been. The same is not true of Iran or Iran’s nuclear program. IF Bush did indeed order a strike against the Iranian nuclear program it wouldn’t be ‘just from pure spite’ but because those targets are actually militarily and strategically significant to the US. Unlike Saddam who burned those wells just because he couldn’t have them and didn’t want anyone else to play with them either…which is pretty much the definition of ‘pure spite’.
-XT
Which would be worse, from a moral point of view?
It’s a dilemma for Bush either way. He lets his loyalists be exposed for doing no more than his bidding, or else he implies (by the act of pardoning them) that they were breaking the law. The same is true if he includes himself.
More likely, he’ll count on a “Let’s move on” mentality to keep them/him from being prosecuted in the first place.
[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Which would be worse, from a moral point of view?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
More likely, he’ll count on a “Let’s move on” mentality to keep them/him from being prosecuted in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
No, first it will be a “Let’s wait 'till all the facts are in,” then, when all the facts are in, it will be a “That’s old news,” such as with the recent report that Goodling et al broke the law by politicizing career Justice Department hirings.
[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Which would be worse, from a moral point of view?
Can the President issue blanket pre-emptive pardons, or can he only pardon individuals one at a time after they’ve been convicted?
[QUOTE=sqweels]
Can the President issue blanket pre-emptive pardons, or can he only pardon individuals one at a time after they’ve been convicted?
[/QUOTE]
Ford gave Nixon a blanket pre-emptive pardon; Nixon had not even been indicted at the time.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Ford gave Nixon a blanket pre-emptive pardon; Nixon had not even been indicted at the time.
[/QUOTE]
On a related note, can pardons be issued secretly ?
I’m imagining a scenario where Bush, on his last day in office, signs pardons for everyone (including himself) who might be in legal jeopardy, but doesn’t tell anyone and just files them away. The relevant pardon would be produced in the event of actual conviction.
Anything to prevent this ? Do pardons have to be listed in some official publication, for example ?
I know of no historical example of it, but there’s nothing to keep a pardon from being kept secret until needed. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush does so, for himself or for others. The President has broad pardon powers and could even, I believe, pardon himself. It would be a bad thing to do and would rightly be condemned by history, but there’s nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it (we’ve already debated this at some length in other threads). I know of no legal requirement that a pardon be listed in the Federal Register or any other official publication.
I tend to think Bush will run out the clock, but I wouldn’t put it past him to do (or try to do) some funny business between the election (esp. if Obama wins) and Inauguration Day. If it gets ugly, it could get very ugly, incl. an attack against Iran.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
I wonder if Bush really is counting down his time remaining in office at this point…and looking forward to being off the hot seat all the time. If I were him (well, besides being smarter and more handsome I’d be the first Hispanic President!) I would be looking at things like someone coming up for retirement looks at counting down the last days until they are free to do something else. Maybe setting up book deals so he can tell it his way (with a ghost writer of course), speaking tours (ok, maybe not) and other such ex-Presidential activities. I think I’d give a hearty FUCK YOU! to the American people and retire to my ranch to chase the wife around, swill some homebrew, ride my horses and generally spend all of my money on doing fun things that wouldn’t take me to Europe where I might have a bag thrown over my head to wake up in a cold and damp French prison cell being gently asked questions for my up and coming war crimes trial…
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Bush will sell the ranch & move to a gated community in the Metroplex. One with a golf course. He doesn’t ride.
Bush delivered that FUCK YOU to us all back in 2001.
:mad: Dammit, you can’t always tell! Sometimes a horse says “no” but she means “yes”! It’s the truth!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:mad: Dammit, you can’t always tell! Sometimes a horse says “no” but she means “yes”! It’s the truth!
[/QUOTE]
Heh – that’s what Ben said the last time he dumped me. 