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):
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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
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.
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):