Two Conflicting Agnew Scenarios

Though mists of scandal obscure the future of Vice President Spiro Agnew, hardly anyone seems in any great rush to dispel them. Agnew himself, after his meeting with President Nixon, spent the rest of the Labor Day weekend at the seashore. George Beall, the U.S. Attorney in Baltimore heading an investigation into Agnew's past financial dealings with Maryland engineers and contractors, was on vacation all last week, and a grand jury that might eventually hear evidence against the Vice President was marking time. Aides to Attorney General Elliot Richardson said that he had not yet decided whether there was sufficient evidence to seek an indictment against Agnew, or if there is, whether impeachment would have to be sought first. While there was little official activity, however, there was continued speculation about Agnew's fate.

Spokesmen for both Nixon and Agnew claim that their meeting on Sept. 1 was routine, and that the possibility of the Vice President's resignation was not even discussed, but other sources familiar with the case told different stories. Two such sources, both well informed, gave conflicting scenarios of what has been, and is, happening.

SCENARIO A (from a friend and adviser of Agnew): Agnew had been told by his lawyers that he will be indicted by the Baltimore grand jury, and he wanted to be the first to inform Nixon of this. He did so at the meeting and then laid out his plans for dealing with the danger. He said he would not resign and he would not take refuge behind any constitutional claim that he is not subject to indictment unless first impeached. To take that stand would only protract the proceedings, hurting the President too. But he wanted Nixon to be aware of this course because it might affect the President's own constitutional defense in the Watergate case.

Agnew intends, by this account, to seek a speedy trial and to fight the indictments head-on in court. He will admit accepting some funds from contractors and consultants, Agnew's friend says, but will claim that this money was not for his personal use but for campaign purposes. He will argue that he promised nothing, and gave nothing, in return for the contributions. If any favoritism was shown to the donors while he was Baltimore County executive or Governor of Maryland, it was done by his subordinates. Thus he will be found innocent of the charges and will be exonerated.

SCENARIO B (from other sources close to the case): Agnew's resignation was discussed with Nixon at their lengthy meeting, but the Vice President presented a persuasive case against his leaving office. This upset the tentative timetable of the prosecution in his case. Justice Department officials had anticipated Agnew's resignation, and were prepared to present evidence against him to the grand jury beginning this week. But Agnew now expects to fight any such move as illegal on constitutional grounds. This could tie up the case for many months. The moment he learns that any criminal evidence against him is going to the grand jury in Baltimore, his lawyers will lodge formal protests, asking the courts to restrain the grand jury.

Because of Agnew's stand, according to this scenario, the constitutional questions have become more significant. Particularly relevant is a pending appeal by Otto Kerner, a former Illinois Governor and federal judge convicted of bribery and fraud. Kerner is appealing, in part, on grounds that he was illegally tried while not yet impeached as a judge, an issue not raised before the trial. The Justice Department, which will oppose Kerner's appeal, must mesh its constitutional arguments with whatever stand it takes in Agnew's case. As this requires more time, the Baltimore grand jury will consider indictments against other individuals when it reconvenes this week and may not get around to Agnew's case for several weeks.

Prejudging. Under either scenario, Agnew's apparent determination to remain in office would present Nixon with a difficult political problem if the Vice President is indicted. The President, of course, has no authority to remove him since Agnew was elected to office by the people. And, partly because of his difficulties over Watergate. Nixon probably would not find it feasible to press any public demand that Agnew resign. Such an effort would also make it appear that he was short-circuiting the legal system and prejudging Agnew as guilty. Agnew could continue to carry out his constitutional duty of presiding over the Senate, but he rarely does so now and probably would not appear in the chamber under such a cloud. At the same time, impeachment would be improbable once trial had begun, and the situation would end only when a court had rendered its verdict on the criminal charges.

The determined Agnew, meanwhile, continued to show every outward sign of confidence that he will survive his crisis. At a local Republican rally in St. Charles, Ill., he assailed what he termed "the morbid preoccupation with Watergate" and claimed that one "insidious byproduct of the affair" is that there is now a "persecutorial atmosphere hanging over the American political system." The implication seemed to be that he considers himself one of the persecuted.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.