.@JonathanTurley's written testimony today opposing impeachment is odd and misleading.
It is 52 pages, single spaced. (Is he going to talk for over 90 minutes?)
He refers to his dog in the conclusion in an attempted joke.
But he also grossly misinterprets the Convention debates:
It is 52 pages, single spaced. (Is he going to talk for over 90 minutes?)
He refers to his dog in the conclusion in an attempted joke.
But he also grossly misinterprets the Convention debates:
@JonathanTurley In this paragraph, Turley uses the word "rejected":
"In the end, the Framers would reject various prior standards including 'corruption,' 'obtaining office by improper means'...'perfidy,' 'peculation,' & 'oppression.'"
How did they reject these standards?
They did the opposite.
"In the end, the Framers would reject various prior standards including 'corruption,' 'obtaining office by improper means'...'perfidy,' 'peculation,' & 'oppression.'"
How did they reject these standards?
They did the opposite.
@JonathanTurley The Framers never "rejected" these words. They used them to explain what they meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors."
On July 20, 1787, Madison (a key framer of this final clause) offered this *explanation* of impeachment.
No one rejected these words in debate or by vote.
On July 20, 1787, Madison (a key framer of this final clause) offered this *explanation* of impeachment.
No one rejected these words in debate or by vote.
@JonathanTurley 4/
In Sept., Madison opposed George Mason's proposed wording of "maladministration," which was simply too vague.
This was a "rejection." And the Convention adopted "high crimes and misdemeanors" instead.
But this was no rejection of Madison's earlier understanding.
In Sept., Madison opposed George Mason's proposed wording of "maladministration," which was simply too vague.
This was a "rejection." And the Convention adopted "high crimes and misdemeanors" instead.
But this was no rejection of Madison's earlier understanding.
@JonathanTurley 5/ Turley invents a new upside-down method of interpretation:
If the framers used words to explain a proposed clause, but then didn't insert those words into the Constitution's text, that constitutes a "rejection."
Give him credit: This is an original approach to Originalism.
If the framers used words to explain a proposed clause, but then didn't insert those words into the Constitution's text, that constitutes a "rejection."
Give him credit: This is an original approach to Originalism.
@JonathanTurley 6/
Even in the shortened live remarks just now, @JonathanTurley insisted on including his embarrassing misinterpretation of Madison's explanation in the Convention.
This is just sad.
Even in the shortened live remarks just now, @JonathanTurley insisted on including his embarrassing misinterpretation of Madison's explanation in the Convention.
This is just sad.
@JonathanTurley 7/ My goodness, he really kept the dog joke in the live remarks:
"Even my dog seems mad, and she's a golden doodle, and golden doodles don't get mad."
Indeed, this is madness.
Mostly because Turley felt the need to twist the history in service of a bad argument.
"Even my dog seems mad, and she's a golden doodle, and golden doodles don't get mad."
Indeed, this is madness.
Mostly because Turley felt the need to twist the history in service of a bad argument.
