This article from 2005 also reminded me about the issue of possibly sealed indictments. Wouldn't it be interesting if Dick's name was on one ?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/27/1451223SNIP
SCOTT HORTON: Well, there are a number of reasons why you would put -- it's a rather unusual process, putting indictments under seal. We should state that up front. The most traditional cause for it is that -- is to not let slip the fact that someone's going to be indicted so they can be apprehended. You're afraid that they're going to flee. That doesn't make sense when we are dealing with public officials, frankly. What would make sense with public officials is that the fact of the indictment would tip people to the fact that they and people who are working with them are targets of the investigation. And, you know, and I think, obviously, of all the things we’ve seen, the Italian side of this is the most intriguing. I think it's most likely that that part of the investigation hasn't been finished. But this is just speculation.
AMY GOODMAN: Can a vice president be indicted?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, vice presidents have been indicted. In fact, Aaron Burr was indicted twice and Spiro Agnew was indicted. But there is a question of executive immunity. And how far does executive immunity go? And on that issue, actually, the leading authority is probably Robert Bork, a former judge and Yale Law professor who wrote quite in great detail about this, saying that the vice president does not have immunity, that that's really limited to the president. But that's not really a settled question.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But how would it be possible to have sealed indictments? Would the actual people indicted be notified, or even they would not know that they had been indicted?
SCOTT HORTON: They would not be notified of the fact that they’d be indicted, and neither would the public.
SNIP
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
