re: #11 Nyet

Ah, almost forgot. His sub-argument was based on what “the President” refers to - he was arguing it can only refer to a sitting President. We can accept this and he still fails, since Trump was impeached as a sitting President, and this further undermines his argument, based on (2), that Trump then would have to be removed, which would allegedly result in a logical contradiction; (2) however refers only to a sitting President.

He went on and on with a slippery slope argument that this would lead to impeachments of presidents like Carter, for the “Iran hostage scandal,” but that was just obvious nonsense since Trump was president when he was impeached.