What exactly happens if someone is "indicted"?

[dooner]

If Cheney or Rove or xxx is indicted next week, does he HAVE to resign? Or is that just the norm to avoid damage to the president?

I believe an indictment means that a criminal trial would follow. Is that a regular jury trial? Does a trial happen immediately, or are there legal maneuverings that drag it out.

Sorry, please point me at another post if this has been endlessly explained. I'm getting the popcorn ready, and I'd like a preview of what COULD happen.

[nookiemonster]

1. Good question for the less legal savvy of us.

n/t

[Mythsaje]

2. From what I understand

they can't pursue criminal charges against the Prez or Vice-Prez until they're out of office, but Rove is fair game.

[AlGore-08.com]

6. I believe that the Paula Jones case changed that

But I defer to the lawyers on all this...

[unblock]

8. paula jones was a civil case, and so doesn't directly apply

although spiro agnew's case was criminal.

[Zensea]

3. this

They don't have to resign.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Criminal trial follows.
The vice president can be indicted -- Spiro Agnew was indicted while vice president.
There are differing opinions on whether the president can be indicted.

[unblock]

7. there's really no reason why the prez and the veep should be different

if you can indict the veep, you can indict the prez.

at least that's my read, for what it's worth. there's absolutely nothing in the constitution that would say that the prez should be treated differently from the veep in this regard.

on the other hand, there's no direct precendent; and with this supreme court, they'd probably make it a crime to INDICT the prez....

[Zensea]

11. Like I said, there are differing opinions regarding the president

There may be no reason not to, but apparently some have thought so in the past.
Regarding the president, not the vice president.

For example

Daniel Schorr refers to the Watergate precedent and what was thought at the time at the end of this article
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p09s02-cods.html

and in this article, relating to Whitewater, 2 opposite opinions are offered
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june99/indict_2-1.html

Myself, whether it is constitutional or not, I think it highly unlikely that a president would ever get indicted on criminal charges. They had a solid case against Nixon and didn't do it.
I think they would be too fearful of the results (both in terms of precedent and in terms of the immediate impact) and would defer to the legislative process of impeachment.

Of course, if the evidence were solid enough, perhaps ... but then the evidence was solid against Nixon also. I'd think that's the direction it would take again if the evidence was solid, a lot of backroom pressure but not an actual indictment.

Hey, it's just my opinion though.

[unblock]

12. they didn't stop pursuing nixon until he was pardoned

the pardon came a month after he resigned because of the ongoing investigation and probable indictment. ford's excuse for the pardon was to put and end to the ugliness.

impeachment and indictment address different things. impeachment is not punishment for a crime. rather, it's protection of the people from bad apples in positions of trust. the object of impeachment is removal from office to protect the public and the government from a bad officeholder, not to punish the officeholder.

indictment is about punishment for a crime. that's a separate question from removal from office. there's really no reason why either should 'defer' to the other because they're independent things.

i should point out that a 'pardon' doesn't prevent impeachment and removal. that is, shrub could pardon cheney to protect him from a criminal indictment, but congress could still remove cheney from office through the impeachment process.

not that this congress would....

[dooner]

15. geeze, if they don't have to resign

we could be stuck with them anyway. These shameless perps don't seem to know when to call it quits.

[unblock]

4. an indictment just means you've been officially charged with a crime

there's then an arrest and an arraignment, where they fingerprint you and set bail. in these cases i would expect them all to be released on their own recognizance.

if no plea bargain is reached, eventually there would be a trial or for each person accused.


in the meanwhile, they MAY resign or the MAY get fired or the MAY get impeached and removed from office. impeachment only applies to certain public official -- the prez, the veep, and federal judges/justices.

it's not a requirement to resign, though it often happens. it's hard to do a good job while simultaneously defending yourself against criminal charges.

[longship]

5. They are called to the bar to answer for putative involvement in crime

nt

[npincus]

9. and will Fitzgerald prosecute- or someone else?

[rocktivity]

10. According to a Jimmy Breslin column

It's what they call it when a rich person gets arrested.

:headbang:
rocknation

[unblock]

13. hahaha. that's about the size of it

although technically, the indictment is the bringing of charges and the arrest is the bringing of the accused.

but he's right, they don't report on poor people being "indicted" for robbery.

[nookiemonster]

16. LOL. So true.

You never hear "A local man was indicted for operating a meth lab" or "A young lady was indicted for prostitution"

Must be one of those "highbrow" words not made for us simple folk.

[dooner]

14. ha, that explains it! lol