Breitbart News reported Tuesday (Feb. 9) that constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley (R-Texas) on Tuesday refuted in real Time the claims of Rep. Joe Neguse (D-N.Y.), the House impeachment manager. Earlier, the Democratic congressman tried to argue that Professor Turley believes the former president is impeachable and justiciable.
Jonathan Turley is an American lawyer, legal scholar, author, commentator and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is a professor at George Washington University Law School and has testified in U.S. congressional proceedings on constitutional and statutory issues. He has participated in numerous federal House impeachment hearings and Senate impeachment hearings, including the -Clinton impeachment and the first Trump impeachment investigation.
Professor Turley replied on Twitter, “Rep. Negus just cited my article and added that until two weeks ago I still supported retroactive impeachment hearings. I appreciate the quotes, but that is not the case. That article is 21 years old…”
Professor Turley goes on to write, “As noted, my views have evolved not on the value of impeachment hearings, but on the text of impeachment. Others, such as Laurence Tribe (R-Texas), who has also been cited by the House, have evolved in their views over the past twenty years. Most of us have said that it remains a thorny issue. “
Professor Turley links to an article he wrote on the subject in January of this year, in which he talks about his past views. Professor Turley says that while retroactive hearings are historically valuable, the increasingly lenient way in which the House uses its impeachment power means that hearing former officials creates more problems than hearings can solve, and that such impeachment hearings may be unconstitutional.
I still stand by my historical views and values on retroactive impeachment hearings. But I believe that the language and implications of impeachment trials outweigh the benefits of trials. Indeed, I have found that deviations from the language of the Constitution have often produced greater dangers and costs over the past few decades. …… retroactive impeachment hearings are historically permissible, but I don’t think they are constitutionally justified. The facts we have seen in the two Trump impeachments further support my argument against retroactive impeachment.
Professor Turley adds the following at the end of his article: “I think Negus has done an excellent job of finding supporting material for his arguments, but Negus’ claims are incorrect. His reliance on what I have written in the past is not misplaced; it is only his description of my position that has led to misunderstandings.”
Recent Comments