,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Several months ago, I made a case for understanding impeachment as a process for adjudicating serious claims against a president—one that is both healthy and necessary: theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
2. Impeachment moves claims against a president into a venue where they can be fairly adjudicated—the evidence publicly presented and weighed. Two sitting Vice Presidents *asked* for impeachment inquiries against them to be convened, for precisely this reason.
3. Under Department of Justice guidelines, a president cannot be indicted. This, Mueller argues, means that a criminal allegation can produce a deeply unfair situation: It "affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator."
4. Mueller was further concerned that a “federal criminal accusation” could "potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” A footnote spells this out: He’s talking about impeachment.
5. It’s going to take all of us time to read and digest the substance of this report. But one point does not rest on the specifics. The Constitution established the proper process for this sort of inquiry. It’s not a special counsel. It’s this: theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
