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

Even that quote doesn't state, or imply, a causal relationship/requirement.

I just read that portion of the Federalist Paper from where it emerges and he's countering the liability of a President to the British monarchy. to distinguish the two.

He's just using efficient language to say that the Constitution has a remedy and the President would still even face potential criminal liability, as opposed to the monarch.