George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Sunday on FOX News that the 2020 election has not yet completed the "tabulation" stage of vote counting and much more time will be needed before a result can be certified.
FOX NEWS HOST: I know this isn't a legal concept. It is not even circumstantial evidence, but dealing with an unprecedented level of mail-in balloting, and questions in some cities that have had problems with corruption in the past, I think would it not be appropriate for everyone to look at this at least with a skeptical eye to start?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, at a minimum, I think there should be agreement that we should look at the votes. We're just completing the tabulation stage. We have not entered the canvasing stage. Much of the evidence of voter fraud would not be readily available during tabulation.
Indeed, much of the information is being held by election officials. You would think both parties would agree that we should look at these allegations. We're seeing a number of affidavits coming out with sworn statements that they witnessed voter fraud. Now that may not be enough. Many of those are episodic. We're looking for something more systemic. Something that could alter the outcome of a given state. We still have not seen that evidence. There is no basis right now to suggest that Joe Biden is not the president-elect and that he secured this position through voter fraud, but the point is unknowable.
We have a history in this country of election problems. 1960, President Kennedy is widely viewed by, I should say by some historians, not to have been elected there were allegations that he secured that narrow victory through voter fraud by the Daley machine in Chicago and Texas. In 2000, there was the allegation in Florida. Later studies suggested that Al Gore may have won Florida. There is a lot of examples where we were a bit premature. We have to get it right.
FOX NEWS HOST: That history only adds to the scene-setting I'm talking about. We have a highly irregular election. Never had mail-in balloting like this. Problems in cities that had problems in the past. You point to the 2000 election and the 1960 election as problems in the past. Let's get specific about this election. When it comes to Pennsylvania, and the president plans to file suit tomorrow, or mistakes like in Michigan, 6,000 votes tabulated in the wrong direction. Which if any of these potential suits hold the most merit on finding a systemic, as you point out fraud that could change significant outcomes in this election?
JONATHAN TURLEY: You know what is funny is, the three states I mentioned before the election remains the ones I'm most interested in: Nevada, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
In Pennsylvania, you had an order by a Supreme Court justice to compel them to separate ballots that were received after the legislative deadline. Notably, the election officials were not giving a clear answer as to whether they were doing that, and it required the intervention of Justice Alito. That is a large group of ballots. But the main thing I'm looking at is, when you talk about systemic problems is the, is how these ballots were authenticated. Because if there is a problem in the system as to authenticating ballots, that would affect the entire election. What concerns me is that we had over 100 million mail-in ballots, yet cities like Philadelphia and Detroit with long histories as you have noted of election problems are reporting virtually immaculate election. They're suggesting they have not seen virtually any problems.