President Biden did not correct his false statements today and instead told Georgia to "smarten up ... and stop it" by yielding.…
...There was no effort for Biden to "smarten up" his false characterization of the Georgia law -- statements leading even the Washington Post and CNN to cry foul. Biden not only has not corrected his past comments but continues to claim that this is a worse than Jim Crow.
...Biden only allowed three questions but no one asked him about his false claim or to explain how this law is worse than Jim Crow when many states like New York, Delaware, and Colorado have similar or more stringent limits.

• • •

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!


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

7 Mar
Additional women have come forward against Cuomo.… However, there should be an investigation before a sentencing on such questions, even if Cuomo warrants little sympathy.…
There is legitimate outrage but these remain accusations, not proven claims. The calls for immediate resignation dismiss any possible countervailing claims or information from Cuomo. While he showed little such concern for others in the past, poetic justice is not really justice
Unlike many, I was no fan of Andrew Cuomo and was highly critical of him in columns (Conversely, I was a big fan of his father). Yet, there has to be a modicum of due process in such controversies even in our hair-triggered political and media environment.
Read 4 tweets
13 Feb
There is talk of just stipulating to allow Rep. Beutler's statement into the record. If so, it would be odd since Rep. Raskin already discussed the statement in the record. It would be an exit ramp back to where the Senate was before Raskin threw the Senate trial into disarray.
...If this is the result, it would clearly show that Raskin sandbagged the Senate Democrats who did not want to be seen as opposing the managers (despite just saying that they did not want witnesses).…
...It is a stipulation. The resolution shows that Raskin sandbagged the Senate Democrats. This merely enters hearsay into the record. However, the statement of Beutler also contradicts the House managers that this is truly new evidence.
Read 5 tweets
12 Feb
Questions are likely to start tonight. A few questions for the managers would help clarify some of these issues...
1. You did not give the President a chance to formally respond and did not call witnesses before or after the snap impeachment. You then told us that we should consider due process a "privilege" and not required in a Senate trial, but ....
...shouldn't due process be the expectation of both the Senate and the American people in a constitutional trial? The Senate should consider basic principles of fairness and due process in judging the House case, correct?
Read 6 tweets
11 Feb
Raskin is detailing reckless comments by Trump for years and is suggesting that he has been inciting violence for years. It is an argument that opens the door for similar pictures and arguments of rioting for years from the left by the Trump team.…
Again, this is not an argument designed to convict on the specific charge of incitement to insurrection. It is more of an argument to enrage than to convict on the specific article of impeachment...
...Raskin is now detailing the Whitmer kidnapping plot and suggesting culpability by Trump. The plot was uncovered and prosecuted under the Trump Administration. This is the type of argument that would be barred in an actual court...
Read 5 tweets
10 Feb
Raskin just did precisely what I discussed in this column in citing the news story just before the trial. The House did nothing for weeks to lock in such testimony in hearings but is now citing witnesses from media reports.…
...The House could have called a dozen witnesses to lock in their testimony on what Trump said and did during this period. Why? It seems to prefer to try the case largely on circumstantial evidence and media accounts of what these witnesses have…
The managers are again quoting aides from statements in the media, the very witnesses that the House has declined to call for testimony for the last four weeks. Why?…
Read 4 tweets
9 Feb
More heat than light from the defense so far. The team needs to focus on the constitutional claims and history. David Schoen is tearing into the Democrats when the Senate needs argument on the constitutional issues.
...The defense has eaten roughly half of its time without landing a glove on the constitutional questions. Schoen was said to be the one who would present an "erudite" analysis of the constitutional issue.
...It is interesting that the defense team is focusing more on the prudential concerns not the constitutional issues related to retroactive trials.… Certainly, such prudential arguments might be able to pick up a couple votes.
Read 6 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!