{"id":35751,"date":"2019-02-22T11:27:28","date_gmt":"2019-02-22T19:27:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=35751"},"modified":"2019-02-22T11:27:28","modified_gmt":"2019-02-22T19:27:28","slug":"rachel-maddow-special-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2019\/02\/22\/rachel-maddow-special-report\/","title":{"rendered":"Rachel Maddow Special Report"},"content":{"rendered":"

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.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"0222Maddow\" <\/p>\n

In a special report Thursday Night, MSNBC\u2019s Rachel Maddow dove deep into the Justice Department history and the origins of the policy that says sitting presidents can\u2019t be indicted<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

As part of her research for her podcast \u201cBag Man,\u201d she and her team found that the department\u2019s policy was first conceived of in response to the crimes of Vice President Spiro Agnew. Because of President Richard Nixon\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n

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 \u201cshaky\u201d grounds, citing no constitutional provisions, simply saying that the burden of the president\u2019s 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: \u201cIts purpose was to allow indictment and removal of Agnew and not to serve as the \u2018last word\u2019 on indictability of the president.\u201d <\/p>\n

He added: \u201cIt 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<\/strong>.\u201d… [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Alternet<\/a>><\/font><\/p>\n

Here are the clips:<\/font><\/p>\n

Fmr VP Spiro Agnew Sought Saudi Millions To Fight ‘Zionists’: Document<\/a> (20 min.)<\/font><\/p>\n