Last night, Rachel Maddow published a special report on her show. Between the two clips available, there are over 35 minutes of video coverage. Most of what she revealed is brand new to me, and I found it way to fascinating not to pass it on. The history of the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President, or as applies today, Resident, is particularly relevant.
In a special report Thursday Night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow dove deep into the Justice Department history and the origins of the policy that says sitting presidents can’t be indicted.
As part of her research for her podcast “Bag Man,” she and her team found that the department’s policy was first conceived of in response to the crimes of Vice President Spiro Agnew. Because of President Richard Nixon’s Watergate crisis, Attorney General Elliot Richardson was fearful of a situation in which Agnew might ascend to the presidency even while an investigation into his corruption ramped up. So Richardson sought an opinion from legal counsel about whether a vice president could be indicted.
Maddow reported that the conclusion of this work, that a vice president could be indicted but a president could not be, was specifically designed in mind for dealing with the Agnew situation. It rested on “shaky” grounds, citing no constitutional provisions, simply saying that the burden of the president’s office required that the commander in chief not face indictment. Maddow also interviewed J.T. Smith, who worked in the Justice Department when that reasoning was crafted who said: “Its purpose was to allow indictment and removal of Agnew and not to serve as the ‘last word’ on indictability of the president.”
He added: “It would be timely and appropriate for the Justice Department and Robert Mueller to reconsider the shaky policy regarding indictability of a sitting president first formulated 45 years ago.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Alternet>
Here are the clips:
Fmr VP Spiro Agnew Sought Saudi Millions To Fight ‘Zionists’: Document (20 min.)
DOJ Policy On Indicting A President Has Weak Basis In 1973 Memo (15 min.)
So the DOJ policy about indicting a sitting Resident is based on an incidental aside, not an intent to formulate policy. It was never meant to serve as the last word on indicting a Resident.
Therefore, out of deference to Richardson, we should indict Pence first. Then we should indict Trump!
RESIST!!
14 Responses to “Rachel Maddow Special Report”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I watched this last night with great interest. (OK, Rachel can be repetitive, but that is not a bug, it’s a rhetorical feature which aids in what one is communicating getting remembered.) The one place that no one, not even Rachel, went, was related to the point that “a President has so much to do that he can’t properly do the job if he is worried about defending himself in a criminal case.” Yes, that makes sense if, say the criminal case is, say, adulyery (still illegal in a few states) or failure to pay a traffic ticket. But when the crimes are directly related to the the job, or even to the way he got the job – do we really WANT him to be in office doing that job, at best badly, at worst, criminally? I say absolutely not.
I also want to mention that the Dixon who came up with this nonsense is not, to the best of my knowledge, related to me in any way, either by blood or marriage.
It would be nice if we could somehow get rid of tRump and Pence at the same time. Then guess who’s next in line for the Oval Office–
Test ?
I did not know anything about Spiro Agnew, but I sure do now! Holy Moly! Seems that this is coming to light from the past to the present, with this administration aligning itself to SA, and trying to be deceptive about it.
#2. Yeah! I agree with your comment, let’s go with Pence first, then ‘poutus’ after!!
Great videos!
*Freya, President Pelosi does have a wonderful ring to it, doesn’t it??
TC, from what you and Joanne provided, I am going to pass on the 35 minutes of video, but having been a Nixon/Agnew watcher, back in the day, I can appreciate, let’s call it distaste for the idea that SA could become president. He was taking kickback, or similar, money even while in office, was a very typical GOP bigot, not that Nixon was not. I fully agree with Joanne’s reasoning, once again. (Joanne rocks!)
I am all for Nancy becoming our FIRST female president!!
Nixon, unlike Traitor Tot, did some competent things while in office. But, yes, the “or even to the way he got the job” could equally apply to Nixon’s second term. Nixon resigned so it didn’t need to come to that, and I’m sure Dolt45 won’t, of course. Thanks for the compliment.
Test,
I knew some about Agnew because I kept up with all the news regarding Nixon/Agnew but the Saudi info was news to me.
I agree with everyone else. Let’s get rid of Pence first then Drumpf. I too like the sound of President Pelosi.
Thank you TomCat.
Great videos.
I agree with you and other about removing pEnce, then tRump.
I too agree with Freya that President Pelosi has a nice sound to it.
I second TomCat’s and Freya’s proposal to get rid of both Pence and Drumpf, in that order ?
Yes, you’all are right. I went back and re-read the 25th Amendment, and the President has a duty to nominate a VP, but that nominee cannot take office until he or she has been approved by BOTH Houses of Congress. No one, and especially no one Trump would nominate, is going to get past both Houses of this Congress. So even if there is a delay in getting Orange Judas out, Pelosi will still be the first in line of succession. (Of course, it would work the same if we went the other way and Pence tried to nominate a VP, but it might take longer – too long, in fact.)
Thanks, Hugs and Amen to all. President Pelosi is exactly what I had in mind.
Thanx TC ?