Sure, it is different... That doesn't mean there could not be made an equivalence.
Despite my earlier post to the contrary, I have to concede there is a major difference between a private citizen having certain disabilities while under indictment (or a police officer, or office employee being placed on administrative leave while an issue is investigated), and an elected official being forced from office because of what is potentially a politically motivated charge or indictment.
I suspect the elected official is subject to impeachment if the legislature decides he needs to be forced from office before the trial. But I'm not real fond of the idea of letting one or two officials over-ride the will of the electorate.
Under a felony indictment, the AG should be barred from owning or carrying a gun just as the rest of us would. But he should not be forced from an elected office automatically. If the legislature wants to impeach or the electorate wants to recall (if either/both are permitted by law) so be it. Until then, elected officials should serve out their terms. Obviously, felony convictions should be cause to impeach/recall. Maybe some indictments to, but not automatically.
I can just imagine some city, State, or federal prosecutor working up politically motivated charges against political enemies/opponents. I doubt then US Senator Obama could have obtained even a low-level security clearance. I don't like the guy's politics at all. But if my fellow citizens want to make him president, I don't want some low level city prosecutor in Utah to be able to force him from office with a bogus indictment. If there is real evidence of wrong doing, present it to congress for impeachment. Prosecute once he is removed from office.
Charles
