Posted on 11/12/2020 5:16:05 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In this Jan. 17, 2013 file photo, attorney Jonathan Turley talks with reporters in Salt Lake City. Obama administration attorneys are urging a federal judge to throw out an election-year lawsuit by House Republicans over the president's health care law. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, File)
As the “Great Presidential Election Fiasco of 2020” remains unresolved, I thought it might be a good idea to check in with noted legal scholar, attorney, and commentator Jonathan Turley for his thoughts as to where we now stand, nine days after election day.
Turley’s post-election commentary has been calm and reasoned — his M.O. —which stands in contrast to the histrionics on display across the country over the last nine days, as nerves have remained frayed and the anxiety level high, with much at stake in what many see as the most important presidential election in at least modern history.
During an appearance on Fox News — we’ll talk more about Fox at the end of this article — Turley shared his thoughts on possible systemic election fraud with host Sean Hannity.
“We haven’t had any of the information to judge anything about voter fraud. We still don’t. We’re still in the tabulation stage. We wouldn’t have evidence of systemic problems until we’re into the canvassing stage in most elections. And that has created this frustration in court; a Trump attorney was asked by a judge ‘are you saying there was massive fraud’ and he said ‘honestly, no.’ But the reason he said that was because it’s the election officials who hold this information.”
Turley then compared trying to determine the degree of voter fraud without having access to information held by election officials with trying to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar without seeing the jar.
“It’s like not just being asked to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, but you have to do it without actually seeing the jar. So in order to find system problems, you need access to the system. Now does that mean we have seen evidence that would establish systemic violations? No.”
But Turley suggested that where there’s election-fraud smoke, there might very well be election-fraud fire.
“[But] I’ve been reading these complaints and these affidavits. I think it’s clear at this point that voting fraud occurred. There is obviously a record here of dead people voting. There are obviously problems of keeping observers in places where they really couldn’t observe, very effectively. We still don’t know. But we wouldn’t know — unless we had greater access to the system itself. That is held by election officials and that requires a court to order that information to be turned over.”
Nailed it. And keep in mind, Jonathan Turley is not a conservative with a dog in the fight.
"I think it's clear at this point that voting fraud occurred.
There's obviously a record here of dead people voting." – @JonathanTurley pic.twitter.com/6fmW27LtsI
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) November 12, 2020
In an op-ed for The Hill last Saturday, Turley said Americans should welcome review of close elections. In an analogy to “dead people voting,” he suggested that the Democrats’ protestations of the “death” of President Trump have been premature.
“[I]f the Trump campaign is premature in claiming a deceased electorate, the Biden campaign is premature in claiming Donald Trump is deceased in the race. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has referred to him in the past tense and Joe Biden as president-elect. Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney called on the president to “put his big boy pants on” and concede like Al Gore even after local officials said they were still counting votes.”
“Trump is not deceased just yet,” Turley said while stressing: “The public should welcome close scrutiny.” Particularly in close swing states.
“We are finishing only the second of four stages of the election. After the voting stage, states entered the tabulation stage. We will soon begin the canvass stage, in which local districts confirm their counts and can face challenges or recounts. Finally, there is the certification stage, for which final challenges can be raised. Trump is not deceased just yet.
“[T]he public should welcome close scrutiny of […] swing states. There are valid reasons to examine the figures based on the unknowns in a new kind of election. The outcome will be determined by millions of absentee ballots for various states, some of which have never used such a degree, and legitimate concerns were raised before the election. […] States also used rolls that are out of date and inaccurate.”
Turley also said skepticism of the 2020 election is justified precisely because of the “untested form of voting across the country.”
“Just as some remain skeptical of [the Trump campaign’s] claims of fraud, it appears as implausible that this untested form of voting was used across the country without major glitches. Officials in cities like Detroit and Philadelphia with histories of election violations said that the counts of mailed ballots were almost flawless, a claim difficult to rebut without review.
“This lack of faith in the electoral process has been fueled by the shift to mailed ballots but builds on increasing distrust of our political system. We need a review of counts in critical states to resolve the crisis of faith. A recent survey found that nearly half of all Americans lack confidence their ballots will be counted fairly.”
“We need neither concessions of defeat nor declarations of victory,” Turley said in closing. “We need transparency so that whoever is the next president can lead with legitimacy.”
Two days prior to his op-ed for The Hill — the day after Election Day — Turley observed:
“One thing, however, is abundantly clear: This is no way for any developed nation to hold elections. After the divisive 2000 election, Washington did what it always does. It created a commission that took two years and resulted in the Help America Vote Act.”
Amen, Professor Turley, amen.
One thing, however, is abundantly clear: This is no way for any developed nation to hold elections. After the divisive 2000 election, Washington did what it always does. It created a commission that took two years and resulted in the Help America Vote Act. https://t.co/OcsNiJtYoq
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 5, 2020
A few afterthoughts.
Democrats for months warned that Trump wouldn’t accept the results of the election if he lost. Biden has ridiculously said that “the U.S. government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House,” in reference to the president. The Los Angeles Times and others have warned of a “Constitutional crisis” if Trump refuses to concede and holes up in Oval Office, in a Nixonian sort of meltdown, and other such silliness.
But remember what the Democrats also told us, pre-election?
Remember the picture they painted about how Trump might lead on election night; he might very well declare victory as a result, but as mail-in ballots would continue to be counted in the days after the election, Biden would ultimately emerge the victor? Why it’s “almost” like they had it all planned out. “Almost” as if they knew what would happen. That — or the Democrat Party is comprised of a bunch of soothsayers who nailed it.
That is unless, as Jonathan Turley suggested, Trump’s lawyers ultimately get to see that jar of jellybeans.
In related election news, check out my RedState colleague Sister Toldjah’s earlier article titled Longtime Senior Biden Advisor Once Had Some Rather … Interesting Views on Recounts and ‘Rigged Elections’ for some “interesting insight” into Team Joe.
Also, RedStater Brad Slager’s article titled Fox News Moves Left and a New PR Firm is Only Part of the Reason Behind the Shift might help explain why Fox News seems to be on a hellbent mission to destroy the faith of a viewership on which the network has long counted to help it remain the king of cable news. To say that Fox’s crown is now tarnished might soon prove to be the understatement of the 2020 election season.
Finally, just for fun, check out Sister Toldjah’s piece titled Jake Tapper Becomes Triggered by ‘CNN Is Not a News Organization’ Claim, Then Receipts Get Dropped about jackass Jake’s latest snit fit.
Turley, a real liberal concerned with your civil rights. A dying breed.
“We want to investigate.”
“Do you have proof that people are guilty of a crime?”
“No. That’s why we want to investigate.”
“Sorry. You cannot begin an investigation until you have proof of someone’s guilt.”
Hopefully justice will come soon. I remember hearing somewhere “God’s justice is like a mill stone, grinding slowly but extremely fine”.
Well said.
I read there are literally dozens of volunteer tech and cyber types combing open source voter data bases and providing facts to the trump legal team
Like this. Over 109,000 mail votes logged and counted...before the ballots were mailed.
https://newstarget.com/2020-11-12-fraudulent-ballots-pennsylvania-received-before-mailed-out.html
That dump alone if tossed as fraud gives Trump the lead
Other volunteers were tracking down and calling every voter over age 100 that voted
Forget systematic it does not have to be systematic to be fraud.
Trump needs to issue spoliation of evidence letters en mass to put them on official notice.
It’s a criminal offense to destroy evidence, including deleting electronic data, ballots or emails.
But, four years ago:
“We want to investigate.”
“Do you have proof that Trump is guilty of a crime?”
“No. That’s why we want to investigate.”
“Okay. You investigate until you have proof of his guilt.”
I think we found a Unicorn—somebody with no axe to grind.
“Trump needs to...”
All day, I’m hearing this.
For the past five years I’m hearing this.
Here’s how Trump operates. He gathers information on people on events on issues.
Trump said “we won the election and I won’t allow them to steal it.”
Period. Take it to the bank, your bookie, let it be the statement that helps you sleep at night.
However he does it, that is what will happen.
“Turley, a real liberal concerned with your civil rights. A dying breed.”
Perhaps more of a classical liberal who is not a social conservative.
I’ll take him over Dershowitz any day. Speaking of which, Dershowitz seems to have disappeared.
Classic liberal was the other description I was going to use.
Obviously I don’t now how this is going to come out, but we all now that the deep divide in this country is not goint the change. Either way, 70+ million people are going to be mad as hell. As a thought experiment, ask yourself “Who would it be better to piss off, those who don’t care if cheating and fraud occurred as long as they win and who will riot and burn the country if they lose? Or, those who demand honest and fair elections, which in this case also means their guy would be declared the winner?”.
Since the baby cannot be split, it is clear that the best interest of the country is served if the courts take whatever actions are needed (i.e. tossing out a lot of ballots) because restoring confidence in our election process is more important than who wins the Presidency.
If Trump is the winner, the other side will wreak havoc. If Biden wins, what will our side do?
It’s a good question...and I’m not interested in blather about “CWII” etc - but what WILL actual people who voted for Trump DO?
Besides Turley, does anyone know of another moderate or left-leaning individual who’s willing to acknowledge that a teensy amount of fraud might actually exist? I’m certainly not aware of any other.
“Classic liberal was the other description I was going to use.”
He might even make a decent attorney general during Trump’s second term. Or some kind of watchdog role.
I’m retired now, but I was a Forensic CPA and fraud investigator for 40 years.
As a litigation consultant, I prepared the cases for court, advising attorneys and providing expert testimony.
Rod Blagovich.
Hasn’t Hillary for all intents and purposed claimed she lost due to it?
records of federal elections must be kept 22 months
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.