(TeaParty.org Exclusive) – Among the House impeachment managers are relative newcomers such as Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) who is a rising star among the Democratic Party.
Neguse presented arguments against President Trump on Tuesday and in doing so may have dinged up his stellar reputation, though not likely since Democrats have no problem with lies or misleading statements.
Neguse, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, used the opinion of constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley of George Washington University but totally mischaracterized it.
He claimed that Turley’s opinion on the validity of retroactive trials for people who are no longer in office was a “recent” opinion. However, the opinion Neguse cited was one that Turley expressed 21 years ago.
Not exactly recent but no matter. Democrats don’t care much for accuracy.
Turley wrote on his website that “Neguse cited my Duke piece at length to support the basis for retroactive trials after saying that I supported such trials until the last few weeks.”
He went on to say that while he felt Neguse did an “excellent job” in his argument his statement “is simply not true.”
Turley says that while Neguse was correct in saying that Turley sees the value in such retroactive trials but that Neguse’s characterization of his position was “misleading.”
He also joked that if his views from 21 years aro are going to be considered recent he would appreciate the use of his “thinner photos from the 1990’s.”
Above: Jonathan Turley
Turley also pointed out that another analyst, Laurence Tribe, also oddly asserted that “not long ago” Turley argued in favor of retroactive trials. He was also referring to the Duke Law Journal article Turley wrote 21 years ago.
Turley explains that his views have since evolved. Surely you would think that if Democrats wanted to use Turley’s opinion on retroactive cases they could have requested he give one considering it seems his most “recent” opinion is 21 years old.
Turley goes on to explain on his website that his views on the matter have since changed as his thinking and interpretation have become more textualist.
He says, “When I addressed the textual issues raised by this controversy in the recent impeachment, I favored the same textual and formalist view. Again, I still believe in the values of retroactive trials and that this remains a close question. However, my default remains more textualist on such questions and I believe the text militates against retroactive trials.”
He states that he now believes that while retroactive trials were “historically allowed” he does not believe they are “constitutionally sound.” He added that this view has been “strengthened” by what has gone on in the two Trump impeachments.
He also noted that there were big differences between the use of retroactive trials in Great Britain and the US and that the “open presentation of the evidence and witnesses represents the very element that was missing in colonial impeachments.”
He also acknowledged that resignation would be a means for an official to escape corrective political action.
Perhaps in the future Democrats will try to actually make an effort to be more informed on what someone thinks about a particular subject matter before using decades old quotes as in an argument to justify their point of view.
Copyright 2021. TeaParty.org