@jlambpco Respectfully—and I think you'll agree with me—you're wrong, as the purpose of the exception is to ensure Congress governs *all* impeachments, not just a POTUS's (so, cabinet members' and federal judges' impeachments also can't be impeded by the president). Here's why it matters:
@jlambpco What it means is that the exception isn't about a *narrow* case—a president impeding his own impeachment (in which case it's just a prohibition against self-pardon)—but about balance of power and checks and balances, a much broader governmental interest. And that matters because:
@jlambpco If what the Framers were *broadly* worried about was a POTUS using executive power to usurp Congress's exclusive role in the impeachment process, they *couldn't* have intended the Pardon Clause to permit tampering with witnesses in a pre-impeachment special counsel investigation.
@jlambpco The only alternative is your *narrow* reading of the Pardon Clause—which creates a nonsense: that the Framers *didn't care* if a POTUS usurped the Congressional impeachment power in the cases of executive-branch officials or federal judges. I think we'd agree that's nonsensical.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
