Pelosi put on a bizarrely gleeful press conference to a largely supportive press corp, even claiming “I think Joe Biden has . . . a bigger mandate than John F. Kennedy.” Where is Senator Lloyd Benson when we need him?jonathanturley.org/2020/11/07/pel…
Pelosi’s comments would ordinarily be viewed as delusional. But this is Washington. They were not delusional; just dishonest. That is never a problem in D.C. These elections are not about the voters or even the party. It is about power and who can use it and who can keep it.
...Pelosi can engage in utter fantasies about “tremendous mandates” to dupe voters while offering juicy committee assignments and campaign donations to entice members. Washington will soon be back to normal with a "tremendous mandate" for the resilience of the establishment.
Indeed, Lloyd Bentson's "you're no Jack Kennedy" might be a good thing in this context. Kennedy's win in 1960 was secured by widespread fraud in Illinois and Texas. Hardly the election you want to reference when the Democratic Party is opposing court review in places like Nevada.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JonathanTurley

8 Nov
I am still unclear on the insistence to end any challenges before we actually see the extent of alleged irregularities. I have expressed skepticism on past claims, but we now have sworn allegations of fraud. Why not look at the evidence? jonathanturley.org/2020/11/08/pul…
Again, we would not know if we have systemic rather than episodic problems until we look at this evidence. It is not about sharpies or poll watchers. It is about possible problems in software and authentication systems. What is the harm in allowing courts to review such claims?
...The demand for clear evidence of systemic violations during the tabulation stage is bizarre. We would not necessarily have such evidence, which is largely held by election officials. As expected, we have a series of localized affidavits and allegations of intentional fraud...
Read 4 tweets
3 Nov
The litigation ramped up today in Nevada with an emergency appeal to the state Supreme Court to order Clark County to stop processing mail ballots. The issue is the use of an automatic signature verification machine and “duplication” of mail ballots thehill.com/opinion/judici…
USPS just told the federal court in DC that it will not meet the court order to sweep mail processing facilities for delayed election ballots in parts of Georgia, Pennsylvania, New England, South Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Alabama and Wyoming, Texas, and Michigan.
...The judge in that case is U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan who has been criticized for bias against the Trump Administration and Michael Flynn. That could be an explosive combination in an election dispute. jonathanturley.org/2020/06/28/mak…
Read 7 tweets
22 Oct
Breaking tonight: The Hunter Biden laptop was reportedly part of a money laundering investigation. foxnews.com/politics/lapto… That would seem to support that this was Biden's laptop and the emails were viewed as likely authentic. jonathanturley.org/2020/10/20/the…
...It would also explain why the Biden camp has not claimed that the laptop and emails were fabricated. If they are authentic, there are troubling emails referring to meetings with Joe Biden and even a reference to a possible future payment to the former Vice President.
...While virtually every news outlet has refused to investigate these emails, they were apparently viewed sufficiently important to be seized as part of a criminal investigation. That does not mean that there is a proven crime, but that there is ample reason for media scrutiny.
Read 4 tweets
14 Oct
Sen. Coons again hit Barrett on her willingness to revisit precedent. It is an incomprehensible position and Barrett hit Coons effectively on cases like Lawrence.  jonathanturley.org/2020/10/14/bar…
...Coons said those were "grievously wrong cases." He then said she should look at precedent through a "Ginsburg lens" rather than a Scalia lens." That sounds not as much as a defense of precedence but precedence that he or Justice Ginsburg would like to preserve.
...The standard of only overturning "grievously wrong cases" is code for overturning cases like Heller but promising not to touch other cases like Roe.
Read 4 tweets
13 Oct
Durbin just expressed confusion on "where does this notion that you would violate your oath come from?" He then pulled out another giant photo and possible victims of her voting against the ACA. jonathanturley.org/2020/10/13/the…
...The clear message is that her expected vote in the case is the key issue for confirmation. It is entirely inappropriate for Senators like Booker to say that they will vote against her on the basis of her expected vote in the case -- absent an assurance of a contrary vote.
Durbin just set up a question that resulted in one of the best moments for Barrett. Asked about what she felt in watching the George Floyd video, Barrett said it had a huge impact on her as the mother to two black children. She said that she wept with her children over the video.
Read 7 tweets
13 Oct
Feinstein noted that Ginsburg stated that the Constitution supports abortion in her hearing. That is a good set up for the question since it negates the impact of the "Ginsburg Rule."  However, Barrett pivoted to cite Kagan instead.jonathanturley.org/2020/10/13/the…
...Kagan refused to answer the same question saying that she would not give “a thumbs up or thumbs down” on abortion questions. The Democrats supported her in refusing to answer the questions.
Sen. Leahy is actually questioning Barrett on whether she knows the cost of insulin and then added "I would not expect you to." Precisely. She is not the nominee for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!