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

quote:

---

which Constitutional clause specifically makes this distinction?

---

There is no clarifying clause one way or the other.
There is no precedent, despite your claim to the contrary.
Any ruling would be subject to Constitutional interpretation.

However, as a trial would significantly undermine the president's ability to do his job, (contradistinct from the coequals judicial hierarchical structure, or that of the legislative branch) a trial could therefore hamper the country. So the chance that SCOTUS would simply lump findings in with some generic Judicial Branch treatment is remote to nonexistent.