Is That Legal?

My point was (meant to be) that you lower the floor for expectations, not raise it, just in case.

I can't recall, wasn't Spiro Agnew indicted before he resigned?

Yes.

We don't know the details yet, but I would think that the standard for "got the goods" on someone at the VP level would be very high, regardless of the constitutional implications. I feel for Fitzgerald, really: no matter what he does he's going to be in for a shitstorm of criticism from both sides, and second-guessing for all eternity.

I am quite sure that, if given half a chance, this administration will maintain that sitting vice-presidents cannot be indicted. In *Cheney v. United States District Court*, after all, they managed to persuade the Supreme Court that Cheney could withhold documents by virtue of vaguely specified "executive powers", despite his not actually being an officer of the executive branch in any constitutionally meaningful sense. When have they ever shied away from a constitutional interpretation, no matter how bizzare, forced, or counter-textual, that would serve their interests?

If it's possible to indict Cheney, Fitzgerald is the man to do it.

Let me make a prediction, I'll modestly call it the Marshall Maxim: When a sitting president falls to between 33 and 38% approval rating, a tipping point is reached at which time opponents will feel free to take aggressive action against the administration.

Part of the basis for my prediction is historical, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200509u/nj_schneider_2005-09-06. The other part is whimsical: I used the inverse of phi as the upper limit of my maxim. http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt669/Student.Folders/Frietag.Mark/Homepage/Goldenratio/goldenratio.html

I wonder how long a sitting president can languish in the doldrums of the 30s (in approval ratings) before the American people--a people who believe that the doctrine of second chances is a birthright--move against him?

Could someone explain why it is that a VP (or other administration official) can be indicted, but not the President? Is it something in the Constitution, or just precedent? Both could be impeached, right, so why the difference?

Mr. Marshall: I've relayed your new Maxim to my historian colleagues. I'm quite curious to see what they think.

Whether or not a president can be indicted is an open constitutional question. A trip to Westlaw will net you literally dozens of articles for and against. But the opinion of the Justice Department, unsurprisingly, is that he cannot, and I would guess about 70%-80% of academic experts on con law share that view.