And, this argument sucks. There were 29 votes that the Senate lacked authority to convict Belknap after he resigned (with the specific intent to avoid impeachment).
But there's no mention of the fact that there were 37 votes that the Senate did have that authority.
Weird.
Turley's a renowned scholar who's done great work in the past. But great work is work.
Before January 2021, is anyone aware of Turley ever forming a strong opinion anywhere about whether only sitting officials could be impeached?
Here's a rebuttal to the notion that impeachment is limited by the Constitution, written by Turley back when he used to cite authority for things he said.
I'm thrilled to see Josh Hawley shunned. If you see him in the streets, I urge you to ask for a selfie, and then ostentatiously delete it in front of him, making a farting sound with your mouth.
Georgians are, as far as I know, only eligible for a pardon five years after having completed their sentence. The board of pardons in Georgia is actually pretty generous with this, and you don't need a lawyer to fill out the form.
At the point where you're saying a President can't be impeached for speech that can't be criminally punished, for instance, if he said the time had come to put people in concentration camps, I have to wonder whether you understand that impeachment is a political remedy.
At that point, why not just say that impeachment is a bill of attainder?
Some have memorably said that if the electoral college were not in the constitution, it would be unconstitutional. That seems to be the argument here.
Also, if there were ever an absolutely radioactive political question that no court would touch, it would be whether the grounds for impeachment were legally permissible.
Trump's lawyers dismissed their case, saying they had reached a settlement with Brad Raffensperger. Not only was this a lie, say Raffensperger's lawyers, who SPECIFICALLY TOLD THEM there was no settlement, but you talked to our client without our consent!