Thread by @benjaminwittes

Actually, no. It doesn’t turn on what the word “president” means at all. The command of this passage is that the president SHALL be removed on impeachment and conviction. It says nothing whatsoever about whether a former president, having already left office, is subject to...

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1353161289556754432

...Senate trial, having been impeached while still in office. It actually says nothing either about whether a non-official is subject to impeachment at all. All it says is that if impeached and convicted a president SHALL be removed.

Where does the Constitution answer the question of who is subject to impeachment? It actually doesn’t. We infer that only officials are, though there may be some room to debate that around the edges. But the Constitution says only three things—none of them direct—about what...

...happens if an impeached official leaves office.

This first is that punishment may not extend beyond removal and disqualification. This actually suggests to me that an impeachment is not mooted by an official’s leaving office.

The second is that the House—not @ByronYork—has sole power of impeachment. This means that the House of Representatives in the first instance gets to decide the jurisdictional question of the applicability of the impeachment power to soon-to-leave-office officials.

The third point is that Senate—and again, not @ByronYork—has the sole power to try those impeachment. So again, the power to ratify or rebuke the House’s position is textually committed to a specific actor.

In short, @ByronYork is misreading the passage he’s citing, and he’s not reading the other key passages. Taken together, they are indecisive on the key substantive question, though I think they lean against Byron’s view. They are, however, quite clear on whose decision this is.

That’s all I got.