Thread by @ASFleischman

I wouldn't mind these arguments if they were good, or based on some kind of principle. But there's no reference to history or text here.

And in the absence of those things, it's not the Constitution you're defending. It's Donald Trump.

https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1350884944466370562

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.

jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/cli…