"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote:
He was never
indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
President.

False.

I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars?
Has any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not
even Agnew was indicted while he was VP:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...73BF935A35751C
0A96F958260

In effect, Agnew was indicted.

Hmmm. Not sure how I could have presented any clearer evidence except by
one who was intimately familiar with the sequence of events. He does not
appear to have been indicted while sitting as VP.

I didn't claim as much. The Agnew case was an example you gave. I merely
filled in the blanks missing from the article. As far as I'm concerned the
Agnew case was an excellent example of how the implied immunity argument
failed. Agnew tried it and abandoned it. If the argument had any merit, he
most certainly would not have.

The web page you referenced states
Agnew wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however the
only way a person can be charged by an information is if they waive
their right to a Grand Jury.

An observation irrelevant to the issue of indictment. The same reasoning
you use that denies any relation, even as possible analogs, between
indictment and impeachment would seem to deny any relation between an
information and an indictment. To do otherwise would be an exercise in
special pleading.

Hardly. A McIntosh and a Granny Smith may have two different flavors, but
they are both apples. An indictment and an information are both formal
charges of a crime and are merely two different flavors of the same thing.
An impeachment is a formal charge of official misconduct and can only lead
to removal from office. It has nothing to do with criminal law and can only
be described as an orange compared to the other two. Just because the two
have parallel processes doesn't mean they are the same or even close to
being the same. The rules of evidence mean nothing in an impeachment. Case
law means nothing in an impeachment. The potential punishments stemming
from the two aren't even close. There's no right of appeal in an
impeachment. I could go on and on. It's apples and oranges.

What the story doesn't say is that Agnew
tried to use the argument that he couldn't be indicted per the
Constitution, and he KNEW that argument was going to fail. He also
knew the Grand Jury was going to indict him as the case against him
was overwhelming. To say Agnew wasn't indicted is very misleading.

Prognostication is no substitute for facts and actual events. I'm mildly
surprised you used the "misleading" line as that is an appeal you've
shown no quarter when made by others.

Example?

So it's OK for you to speculate that a sitting president can't be indicted
by using the Agnew case, but I can't speculate based on the same case that
he most certainly would have had he not cut a deal? You might want to be
more careful before you cry goose and gander.

All that said, since Aaron Burr was indicted while still VP for the
murder of Alexander Hamilton (in two states, no less), that argument
appears to have been settled for some time. ;-) Not sure why you didn't
bring Burr up sooner as a counterpoint to my mention of Agnew. The Agnew
case was ambiguous - Burr wasn't. :-)

Because this is not my assertion to prove or disprove in the first place and
I feel no obligation to do so.

The Burr case is probably less relevant. Burr was indicted by a state Grand
Jury many years before the 14th amendment was ever written.

Ah - but can a sitting president be indicted? Even if he could be, the
constitution grants him the power of pardon - so he could pardon himself!
You should note that the constitution explicitly excludes pardons for
impeachments, so that appears to make it clear that indictment of a
sitting president is a concept void of utility. He first has to be
removed by impeachment. The DoJ argued similarly in 2000 in this long
analysis:

http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

"Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune
from indictment and criminal prosecution."

And who does the DOJ work for? Do you honestly expect them to write an
opinion that says their boss can be indicted expecially during a time when
they may be indicted? That would be kind of like your own lawyer selling
you out.

There's lots of problems with the Bork opinion. It wouldn't hold much water
if ever tested. Bork also presided over the Saturday Night Massacre around
the same time. I regard his opinions as highly as I would the village
idiot's. Furthermore Ken Starr concluded he COULD indict Clinton while
still in office, although he never tested that. Numerous law professors
agreed. There may have been a few that went the other way, but I never saw
any.

A sitting president could pardon himself even before an indictment. So the
utility of an indictment before or after impeachment is the same.