Brian Kalt Profile picture
Jul 11, 2020 8 tweets 2 min read Read on X
I see confusion on Twitter about pardons b/c of Roger Stone. Here's a thread—tell a confused friend.

This is for those who
1) didn't think Trump had the power to do this (wrong); or 2) think he shouldn't have it (misses some points).

("Pardon" here means pardon OR commute)

1/7
* "I thought impeached presidents can't pardon anyone"

Impeachment by itself does nothing to a president's powers. Only a conviction affects them. It's all or nothing.

Trump pardoned several people back in February, and Clinton and Johnson pardoned plenty post-impeachment.

2/7
* "I thought impeached presidents can't pardon people for crimes that the impeachment was about"

A widely tweeted column confidently claimed this, and there is an impeachment exception to the pardon power. But the standard interpretation of that exception is that pardons…

3/7
…just can't stop or undo the impeachment process itself; related criminal consequences are still pardonable. Moreover, Stone's crimes were connected very indirectly (if at all) to the impeachment.

* "Maybe the standard reading is wrong"

OK, but lots of evidence supports…

4/7
…the standard reading. Regardless, the alternative view is unlikely to be tested in court.

* "Impeached presidents should lose their pardon power"

Imagine the president is from your party and the House isn't. Still OK with House majorities stripping presidents of powers?

5/7
* "Presidents should not be able to pardon co-conspirators"

Such actions (e.g., Weinberger, McDougal, Stone) are objectionable, but the Framers knowingly accepted that risk. Rather than restrict pardons, they chose to rely on Congress and the impeachment process.…

6/7
…That reliance now seems misplaced. But it's part of a larger structure: the voters get their say in 35 Senate races this fall.

For better or worse, that's our system. Amending the Constitution to change this (or other problems with the pardon power) is not in the cards.

7/7
Postscript (8/7): Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Brian Kalt

Brian Kalt Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfBrianKalt

Jul 13, 2021
This gambit is just the latest example of why the statutory line of succession shouldn't include the Speaker.

This isn't a partisan issue; it'd be nuts to have a D Speaker in the line of succession of a R administration, and equally nuts w/ a D administration and R Speaker.

1/5
Scholar-commentators (including me) have been arguing for reform here for decades, consistently—regardless of which party was in power.

It makes no sense to have a line of succession that could change partisan control of the presidency like this in the middle of a term.

2/5
The old statute had the Sec'y of State next in line. The current law passed in 1947, favoring the Speaker b/c of a notion that it should be someone elected, not appointed.

But that rationale was demolished in 1967, when 25A2 provided for filling VP vacancies by appointment.

3/5
Read 5 tweets
Feb 14, 2021
My initial tally (subject to change) of the 43 acquitters' post-vote statements:

16 relied entirely on jurisdiction, w/o criticizing Trump (Barrasso, Blunt, Crapo, Daines, Ernst, Fischer, Inhofe, Lankford, Lummis, Marshall, Risch, Rounds, Rubio, Shelby, Tuberville, Wicker).

1/
4 said there was no jurisdiction but mentioned other objections, w/o criticizing Trump (Braun, Hyde-Smith, Kennedy, Sullivan).

3 said the trial was unconstitutional but were not specific, w/o criticizing Trump (Blackburn, Hagerty, R. Scott).

2/
2 rested on objections other than jurisdiction, w/o criticizing Trump (Graham, Young).

1 said the Senate could proceed but shouldn't have, and reached the merits, w/o criticizing Trump (Cruz) .

1 was unclear as to reasons, w/o criticizing Trump (Johnson).

3/
Read 9 tweets
Feb 12, 2021
Thread on late-impeachment related questions asked in the trial.

Q1. Given that some pre-1787 state constitutions provided expressly for late impeachment, does the Framers' failure to do so suggest they didn't mean to allow late impeachment?

1/
A1: No pre-1787 state constitutions expressly ruled out late impeachment. Some did later—using direct language.

The Framers ruled out *other* things using direct language.

Their silence here thus does not suggest an intent to rule out late impeachment.

2/
Q2: If disqualification is not derivative of removal, is it possible to disqualify a sitting president without removing him?

A2: No. Art. II, §4 requires removal of sitting officials, separate from anything Art. I, §3 says about DQ and removal.

(thread extended as needed)

3/
Read 8 tweets
Feb 8, 2021
Trump's brief cites my 2001 article on late impeachment a lot: int.nyt.com/data/documentt…

The article favored late impeachability, but it set out all the evidence I found on both sides--lots for them to use.

But in several places, they misrepresent what I wrote quite badly.

1/4
One odd thing they do is cite me citing other sources instead of just citing those sources (e.g., p.17 & n.47). Another more problematic thing: they suggest that I was endorsing an argument when what I actually did was note that argument--and reject it (e.g., p.21 n.57).

2/4
There are multiple examples of such flat-out misrepresentations. The worst is page 30. They write, "When a President is no longer in office, the objective of an impeachment ceases."79

N.79 starts: "Kalt at 66."

What I actually wrote on 66 (discussion continuing onto 67):

3/4
Read 4 tweets
Jan 9, 2021
I try to answer questions (25th amendment, impeachment, pardons) people tweet at me but this week I haven't been able to get to every one.

Here's an FAQ thread-of-threads. Some link my books for more detail, but obviously I'm happy to answer questions on Twitter for free.

1/5
25th AMENDMENT

* 25A4 flowchart:

* What happens if there are acting secretaries?

* If 25A4 isn't used now, what's it even for?

* Where is the bar set for things like this week?thehill.com/opinion/white-…

2/5
25A (cont.)

* Who is in charge while the president contests a 25A4 action?
The VP definitely is: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

IMPEACHMENT

* How can people be impeached if they've already left office?
(links only)

3/5
Read 7 tweets
Jan 6, 2021
For the "amazing demographic shifts" files:

It looks likely* that of the president, VP, and all 17 people in the line of succession, not one will be a straight white male Protestant.

* Assumes nominees are confirmed and front-runners are picked for Commerce and Labor.

1/3
Biden (Catholic)
Harris (Black/South Asian female)
Pelosi (Catholic female)
Leahy (Catholic)
Blinken (Jewish)
Yellen (Jewish female)
Austin (Black)
Garland (Jewish)
Haaland (Native American Catholic female)
Vilsack (Catholic)
Commerce front-runner Raimondo (Catholic female)

2/3
Labor front-runners Walsh (Catholic) and Su (Chinese female; don't know her religion)
Becerra (Latino Catholic)
Fudge (Black female)
Buttigieg (gay)
Granholm (Catholic female)
Cardona (Latino Catholic)
McDonough (Catholic)
Mayorkas (Latino Jewish)

3/3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(