Laurence Tribe, Harvard Con law prof: Yes, a sitting President CAN be indicted.

[onenote]

21. and when the president disagrees

and follows the procedure set forth in the Constitution, it would fall on Congress to agree he was unable to do the job by a 2/3 vote of both houses. Since it only takes a bare majority to impeach and a 2/3 majority to convict, why do you think invoking the 25th amendment is more likely to result in the removal of a president from power than simply impeaching.

Another question: if impeachment proceedings are commenced against a president for actions that have not resulted in his or her indictment, should the president be removed from office pending the outcome of the impeachment proceeding? At what stage of the proceeding? The commencement of an investigation (with witnesses etc), the adoption of articles of impeachment? The beginning of the trial in the Senate?

Should Clinton have been forced to step down during the impeachment proceedings brought against him?

If a president is indicted and then acquitted, what then?

Does it have to be a federal grand jury? What if its a state grand jury? Could a state where support for a president is low push through a grand jury indictment on trumped up charges in order to disrupt his or her presidency?