Spiro Agnew's attorney says YES, a President can be indicted -- and tried.

[pnwmom]

He bases his conclusion on the fact that the Justice Department rejected his argument, while representing Spiro Agnew, that the V.P. couldn't be indicted while in office and could only be impeached.

http://time.com/5123598/president-trump-impeach-criminal-constitution/

Can the President avoid indictment while in office? But again, there is no language in the Constitution saying he enjoys any such protection. The Department of Justice itself has made this argument before with regards to Article I Officers. I saw it first-hand. During the then–Vice President Spiro Agnew bribery investigation, our legal team argued on behalf of the Vice President that because he was subject to impeachment under Article II, Section 4, he was immune from criminal prosecution unless and until he had been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. In effect, we argued that the Vice President had to be impeached and removed from office first — and then criminal charges could proceed. The Department vigorously rejected that claim. They insisted there was nothing in the Constitution that said impeachment was the exclusive remedy for crimes committed by Article I Officers: the Vice President and, by logical extension, the President could be subject to both impeachment and indictment, even if those proceedings were pursued simultaneously. Surprising no one, the Department was quick to nonetheless urge that President Nixon was immune yet Vice President Agnew was not. But that was based on derived argument — not on the hard Constitutional language that self-proclaimed “conservative” jurists insist is the only real guide to Constitutional interpretation. And the current president has certainly made clear that “conservative” judges are the only ones he will appoint.

SNIP

If Special Counsel Mueller finds evidence to bring criminal charges against the sitting President, he should obtain a Grand Jury indictment and proceed. If the President wants to fight the legality of the indictment, he should do so in court — not by means of craven Congressmen publishing spurious claims about the integrity of Mueller and his team. That campaign is more than divisive. It smacks of political venality and is a threat to the architecture of our constitutional democracy.

[hlthe2b]

1. I honestly don't see how the Founding Fathers could have imagined our current situation, but then

they had to deal with a lot of traitorous conduct. I am convinced they never intended for the President to be above the law and thus would have agreed that they COULD be indicted while in office. While that doesn't necessarily mean that they would be "TRIED while in office" in the absence of an impeachment vote, I still believe strongly those legal minds (including but not limited to Laurence Tribe) who say YES, the President can be indicted.