re: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.

Federal judge and constitutional law scholar Jay Bybee with a very thorough essay on why SFP is wrong:

LINK

Not to mention the main author of the constitution, Alexander Hamilton:

“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

quote:

---

I specified "in a criminal case".

The Constitution clearly distinguishes the impeachment-removal process from criminal process. They are not the same thing and do not overlap.

---

Not this shite again

Clinton lied under oath, and obstructed justice. Criminal offenses. Was impeached, and was acquitted. Faced no other criminal indictments to this day

Andrew Johnson willingly and opened violated a statute. He also made threats against the Congress. He was impeached and acquitted. And faced no more criminal indictments from that time forward

The President is singled out in the Constitution as being different than any other federal official. If they are not removed from office for their "High crimes and misdemeanors", and after 235 years of precedence, that ends the prosecution (or persecution, if you will).

The Constitution also clearly states, only IF CONVICTED is the person subject to further legal action

quote:

---

but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

---

There is no ambiguity to that statement. And since no President has ever been convicted by the Senate, you really are just howling at the moon, until that day