Can Shrub be indicted?

Like most of us here at DU, I believe that Shrub's ordering of illegal wiretaps rises to the level of an impeachable offense. I also believe that impeachment simply will not happen as long as the Repugnicans hold both houses of Congress. Here's my question:

Can Shrub be indicted for this? Basically, if a crime was committed, and it's pretty clear to me that one has been committed, does Shrub, in his capacity as President, possess some sort of immunity from prosecution as long as he holds office? Can a federal prosecutor begin an investigation, take his case to a federal grand jury, and indict Shrub, Crachcart, or any of the others in the neocon death cult for their conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Americans?

Am I missing something here? Is this an option, or is a Congressional impeachment action our only option for redress here?

This charge is, unfortunately, a bit too far from Fitz's original brief. Anyone disagree?

But, wasn't Ken Starr's original mandate to investigate Clinton's actions relating to the Whitewater land deal? Somehow, though, that blossomed into the Paula Jones/sexual harrassment/Lewinsky/blowjob/blue dress nightmare we all had to live through a few years back. I don't think those 2 actions were related in any way.

indicted for crimes...including war crimes.

He will then declare that since he admitted it on national TV, he framed himself, and will than have the case thrown out on the grounds that "I incrimated myshelf."

Thus will his legacy as the most "ignernt preshident, ever" be written in schtone.

Peace - :)

concluded that a sitting president cannot be indicted. That's why Nixon was named as an unindicted coconspirator in Jawarski's indictments. The question was revisited during the Clinton impeachment imbroglio; most authorities concur with Jaworski.

The reasoning is that, under Article II of the constitution, the president is the executive branch and indicting him would essentially decapitate the government.

It's not like bush has a brain....

but in all seriousness - I actually think in this case it would be a good thing.

:donut: <== I don't know what this means but I think it's neat.

the John Does whose rights were violated?

I thought the reason the Clinton sexual harassment suit went forward was because the Supreme
Court wanted the primciple that no one, not even a sitting President, is above the law.