Jonathan Turley accuses Neguse leader of demise accountability of calling the 1992 post “fresh”

Constitutionalist Jonathan Turley disputed MP Joe Neguse, D-Colorado, on Tuesday after the congressman cited a decade-long essay as evidence of his “recent” views on whether a former official could still face prosecution.

“I thought he did an excellent job at everything,” Turley told Fox News on Tuesday night. “However, his statement about my latest position in favor of retrospective negotiations was untrue.”

Neguse is the head of the House in his second historic prosecution against former President Donald Trump.


Turley challenged Neguse’s choice to cite a 1992 essay he wrote for the Duke Law Journal as evidence that the constitutional researcher had a “recent position” on negotiations to prosecute officials who have already resigned.

Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School, left, and Joe Neguse of Colorado
(Getty Images)

“If I were to call my views from 21 years ago the most recent, I would at least appreciate the use of thinner photos from the 1990s,” Turley wrote in a blog post earlier this day, adding his opinion on the issue. they have evolved over the last two decades, as indicated by his scientific work.

“I have long accepted a more textual approach to constitutional interpretation, the subject of previous scholarly writings,” Turley explained.

In his early speech to the Senate in the early stages of President Neguse Trump’s second acquittal, he cited a number of scholars as evidence of the constitutionality of such a procedure against a president who is no longer in office.


When it came to Turley, he cited a 1992 essay he wrote in the Duke Law Journal about the prosecution of former Secretary of Defense William Belknap, who resigned shortly before the House blamed him. He was then tried in the Senate and acquitted in 1876.

“In the absence of such a trial, Belknap’s rush to resign could have prevented any corrective policy measures to offset the damage caused by the system’s behavior,” Turley wrote in a 1992 citation in Neguse. “Even if the only punishment is expulsion from a future office, the open presentation of evidence and witnesses represents exactly the element that was missing from the colonial indictment.”

In a blog post on Tuesday, Turley said Duke’s article could be “quite quoted” to support retrospective negotiations. But he said most scholars, including himself, viewed the issue as a “close question.”

The Senate voted 56-44 on Tuesday to declare the proceedings unconstitutional, but Turley said the deal virtually ended the complaint there too, without conviction.

“Neither party has presented its full depth and competing authorities on this issue,” he said. “It was a disappointment. Plus, there was no evidence that opinion had changed in the Senate Chamber or across the country.”

The Senate voted almost equally by 55-45 to defeat a similar measure last month after Rand Kentucky’s Senate introduced a point of order, arguing it was unconstitutional for the Senate to try to investigate a former president. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy was the only senator to change his vote on Tuesday.


“The leaders of the House had much stronger constitutional arguments,” he said in a statement. – The president’s team doesn’t.

A two-thirds majority is required for a conviction.

“The vote is closed,” Turley said. “He declared the trial constitutional and practically over. Like many other things in our politics, there was more anger on the issue than cause.”