Thread on late-impeachment related questions asked in the trial.

Q1. Given that some pre-1787 state constitutions provided expressly for late impeachment, does the Framers' failure to do so suggest they didn't mean to allow late impeachment?

1/

A1: No pre-1787 state constitutions expressly ruled out late impeachment. Some did later—using direct language.

The Framers ruled out *other* things using direct language.

Their silence here thus does not suggest an intent to rule out late impeachment.

2/

Q2: If disqualification is not derivative of removal, is it possible to disqualify a sitting president without removing him?

A2: No. Art. II, §4 requires removal of sitting officials, separate from anything Art. I, §3 says about DQ and removal.

(thread extended as needed)

3/

Q3: Under the precedent of this case, could a future House impeach Hillary Clinton and a future Senate have to put her on trial?

A3: The current case doesn't do that—Trump was in office when impeached.

As for the slippery slope argument, the Constitution allows a lot of...

4/

...potentially extreme things that it leaves to the judgment of the designated decision makers. For instance, the Constitution allows non-lawyers to be on the Supreme Court; the limit on that happening is the president's choice/Senate's consent.

(thread extended as needed)

5/

Q4: Late impeachment doesn't allow presidents to act with impunity late in their term, given the possibility of criminal prosecution, right?

A4: Prosecution is separate from impeachment (whether late or regular). It's not about "impunity"; only impeachment can bring DQ.

6/

Slippery slope arguments worry that making a sound decision today will require us to make a sound distinction tomorrow. But we have mechanisms to make those distinctions—don't just ignore them.

And don't ignore the effects of failing to make the sound decision today.

5a/