To qualify as “good faith” as I am understanding the term, an argument must be offered with a subjective belief that it is correct, and it must also be objectively reasonable. Johnson’s argument meets both of those requirements. In light of the constitutional backdrop, a good-faith argument, as I am understanding it, should be enough to absolve a president of the charge of having committed a high crime or misdemeanor. It is not a “misdemeanor” to act on the basis of a sincere and reasonable belief that one is entitled to do so. Note that if a president sincerely believes that an argument is
...more
