"Mike" wrote in news:XfPsk.830$lf2.338@trnddc07:

"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/fullpage.html?res=
9D03E7D6173BF935A3575
1C 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.

Not so, it could also, and more accurately, be described as an apricot.


Bertie