1/4 Assuming reporting of widespread atrocity by RU soldiers in Ukraine is accurate, most surprising part is not the evil (because men at war are often evil), but combined lack of command control & sheer stupidity of this behavior - a pt Russians in particular should appreciate.

https://twitter.com/yogital/status/1513635930808201216

2/4 In WWII, many Ukrainians initially welcomed Germans as an improvement over horrors of Stalinism. Then, unleashed by Nazi propaganda about Slav untermenschen, German troops brutalized populace. Result: Tenacious partisan bands & a generation of bitterness against Germany.

I bloody well hope not. Decision makes no sense regardless of what interpretive approach one takes to either the 14th Amend or the 1872 Act.

https://twitter.com/GerardNMagliocc/status/1499810550385188865

1/4 Though I defer to your superior expertise here, opinion would seem to create multiple absurdities: Among them - if 1872 Act is read as hyperliterally as judge must be reading it, that means Act voided 14th's disqualification provision permanently as to everyone EXCEPT:

1/15 All the folks hotly debating whether Trump committed some particular crime (obstruction, sedition, whatever), and if so whether DOJ can or will prosecute him, ought to pause to consider why it matters so much to them. 2/15 Some may simply think that Trump is a bad man who committed crimes and thus ought to be punished for them. Nothing wrong with that. Retribution is one proper purpose of criminal law. But I suspect…

1/5 Indictment for firing Comey was always improbable. As Rosenstein correctly concluded, Comey should have been fired for his conduct in Hillary email case. Trump's admission that his real reason was to protect himself would certainly help to prove "corrupt" intent...

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1467957828065366021

2/5 But it would hardly be a slam dunk. It would not be criminal, for example, for a president to fire FBI Director who was pursuing an unfounded, politically motivated investigation of that president. I, of course, don't think that's what FBI and later Mueller were doing...

@arenella1 1/ I certainly agree w/ @arenella1 's characteristically excellent analysis, so far as it goes. I'd only add that, in the case of a president, a number of other factors add to the near-impossibility that a president would ever be charged or convicted on these facts ... @arenella1 2/ The first is that presidents are entitled by virtue of their office to make choices that endanger life, even on a large scale. And that's true even if the choices are ones many would disagree with or even find morally repulsive.

1/4 Not boasting. Just responding, perhaps ill-advisedly, to commenter who disparaged my opinion as that of a law prof who had never tried cases. Which I have. A lot. Including homicides...

https://twitter.com/glennkirschner2/status/1460279129866227717

2/4 But here's the thing. Your emphasis on homicide cases gives away your game. You were a homicide prosecutor in DC Superior Ct, the DC equivalent of a state trial court. A tough assignment. And a worthy one.

1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...

https://twitter.com/rossgarber/status/1352635014735925249

2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see washingtonmonthly.com/2021/01/17/wha…

1/6 I've spent a good part of last 6 months boning up on pardons & writing about them. But if Trump issues no more than those announced so far, there's really not much more to say. Bannon's is deplorable because he has been Trump ally and will skate from ... 2/6 federal charges, at least, when he oughtn't. Others put a repugnant exclamation point on Trump's affinity for rich crooks and corrupt politicians who have supported him. But there is no apparent constitutional means of reversing any of those pardons.

1/20 A thread on the impeachment/25th Amend frenzy:

I spent the best part of three years writing about impeachment (and to lesser extent the 25th Amendment) and in the end advocating for Trump's impeachment & removal. 2/20 He was properly impeached in 2019 for an undoubted "high crime & misdemeanor." And if Republican Senators other than Mitt Romney had any courage or patriotism, we would have been rid of Trump a year ago & much agony & perhaps many deaths could have been avoided.

1/7 This is precisely the problem. You are a guy who practiced state crim law (which is terrific, so did I in my youth). But you are not someone who has ever done the work of studying the pardon clause, its origins & how it relates to rest of constitution....

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1342004022362968064

2/7 So the fact that you can spend an hour and produce 6 theories about invalidity of pardons is just as useful as if I spent an hour producing 6 theories about the Dormant Commerce Clause or the fine points of English property law in the 17th Century.

1/2 No. Removal of presidential pardon power requires constitutional amendment, which Congress initiates w/ 2/3 vote of both houses, but also requires 2/3 of states to ratify.

https://twitter.com/LRod_is_ok/status/1341866408846774276

2/2 It's possible Congress could place some procedural limits on pardon power. And I'm working on some proposals for that, but history & constitutional language make that very tricky. Stay tuned.

1/3 It's trickier than that, I think. As indicated in @just_security exchange linked in 2 following posts, Aaron Rappaport & I disagree on whether there is constitutional requirement of specificity in pardons. But we agree they mist be drafted w/ care if one wants broad coverage.

https://twitter.com/davidrlurie/status/1341504247557439490

Here's my opening argument that there-- justsecurity.org/73851/the-cons…

1/6 Oh, for the love of heaven, @AlanDersh claims all the (innumerable) critics of his expressed views on impeachment have responded only with "epithets" and not on the merits. I respectfully invite his attention to the entries on the following thread. 2/7 justsecurity.org/68240/constitu…