Considering how wildly implausible "24" gets in so many ways, I thought it was a nice touch that Monday's (5/15) episode included a discussion of why it was necessary to seek impeachment of Charles, er, President Logan -- "because you can't indict a sitting President."
According to the Con Law casebook that I use (Sullivan & Gunther), however, Ken Starr, as independent counsel, had concluded that he could indict President Clinton without seeking impeachment. Because President Clinton was in fact impeached (but not removed), this was never tested. Similarly, note that when the Watergate burglars were indicted, President Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Of course, I'm not sure why CTU would go to the Attorney General -- seems like the Speaker of the House would be a better bet. . . .
So what is the rule? Regarding indicting a sitting president, I mean.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 17, 2006 at 06:26 PM