Again, this premise is not at all certain, because the Constitution is vague enough that the Supreme Court would ultimately have to decide.   

"Christianity Today" calls for Trump's removal. Interesting.

Rats deserting a sinking ship. 

**********************

It's only "vague" to those who don't want to see Trump tried in a real court.  The Constitution blatantly says in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:   "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and  shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

That's not vague in the least.  That's as direct as any law can be.

Trump's been impeached.  He cannot be pardoned.  Period.

The impeachment is moot, anyway. Because the spineless Mitch McConnell and his fellow coward Republicans in the Senate will surely not go along with the House. They *might* go with the non-removal option, but I expect them to spout the same `there's no evidence/this is political/this is a witch hunt' bs those in the House did.

That read to me as he, as President, cannot pardon after being impeached. It doesn't seem to suggest that he can't be pardoned, himself.

Edit: I see Bryon also had the same interpretation. 

Marc

It appears vague to me, and I most definitely would like to see Trump held accountable for crimes he's committed.

Does the article clearly and unambiguously say "If a President is impeached but not convicted in the Senate, then he cannot subsequently be pardoned for any crimes underlying that impeachment"?  No, it does not say that.  It says the President can issue pardons except in cases of impeachment. That's all it says, and that is vague. 

As I said, it could mean that a President simply cannot undo an impeachment conviction with a pardon.  If a President is tried for crimes related to a prior impeachment, that trial in itself would not be an impeachment proceeding, and so an argument could be made that a pardon for any conviction resulting from that trial would not be prohibited by the Constitution.  Certainly, there would be people who would make that argument, and certainly the majority of members of the SCOTUS would look favorably on arguments that support Republican positions.  It is naive to believe that the House's impeachment provides a golden ticket which now guarantees Trump cannot escape prosecution.  That just isn't the case.