Trump biographers—including me—and many Washington journalists are telling America that (a) Trump will never stop his coup attempt, (b) there's no bottom to what he's willing to do, therefore (c) there's no final "victory" over Trump we can celebrate.

I hope America will listen.

Donald Trump is a profoundly damaged mind. Everyone close to him who gets escape velocity from his madness says so. Friends. Employees. Family members. Trump's pathologies make him an ongoing danger to America that Biden's DOJ and intelligence officials *cannot afford* to ignore.

Too many journalists wrote pieces tonight calling the SCOTUS decision in the Texas lawsuit a "fatal blow" to Trump's coup. Listen—the coup was never going to succeed and Biden was always going to be sworn in. The question is what the country will look like when (and after) he is.

So you have a man on a mission to destroy this country who has it within his power to do so and you think his pathological scheme will cease because of a court decision? The "coup" concept will unfold over as long a period as Trump needs for him to get what he wants: total power.

Lara Trump will run for the Senate in North Carolina, they say. Ivanka Trump is mulling a Florida Senate run. Donald Trump Jr. is mulling the Montana governorship. The GOP may be the "Trump Party" by 2024.

This is an ongoing effort to build an autocratic dynasty and end America.

@LambeJerry Question for you: On Monday, Congress announces it's going to vote to impeach a federal judge on Wednesday. The president of the United States decides to issue a preemptive pardon of the judge on Tuesday. According to you, there's no problem, right, as there was no impeachment?

My thinking on this is identical to that of a law professor at Northwestern University who published his opinion in the NYT. But that wasn't mentioned in your piece. It's also odd that you believe the impeachment exception has nothing *really* to do with separation of powers.

You couldn't possibly think the impeachment exception has anything to do with separation of powers, as according to you and the small number of attorneys you cited, the impeachment exception isn't *actually* about keeping the president from interfering in the impeachment process.

Per you, the impeachment exception to the Pardon Clause of the United States Constitution is just a *narrow administrative cutout* to make sure that a President doesn't cause the Congress to have...what, have wasted their time? I'd love to see an argument for that interpretation.

I've read the documents surrounding the creation of both the Pardon Clause and the impeachment exception. The framers were explicitly concerned about the sort of situation we have encountered now—which is entirely unlike the situation in Garland. Your legal analysis is facile.