Jonathan Turley, electoral chaos and twosiderism

Everybody knows the story by now: at least one person shot after the Capitol was invaded. Jonathan Turley reminds us that Democrats have indeed challenged state electoral votes before, like a few did on Ohio in 2004. (Fraud claims there were as specious as any made in 2020; Kerry fortunately, unlike Trump, rejected them.) Turley also calls out some of the MSM, including Todd and Tapper by name, for pouring some of their own gasoline on the blaze.

 It's quite possible the mobocracy would have happened anyway. But, why add to its likelihood?

At the same time, Turley is wrong in other ways. None of the previous moves against individual states' electoral votes by Democrats, outside Florida 2000, asked for what Republicans like Ted Cruz have asked for now. Nobody challenging Ohio 2004 made an explicit statement that a new version of an 1876 electoral commission should meet, let alone that it should possibly extend after Inauguration Day.

Turley also ignores that, contra 1876, you did not have a sitting president who ran for re-election awaiting the outcome of a special electoral commission.

And, it goes with Turley's attempts to frame previous Trump statements, like his call to Raffensperger, in the narrowest legal light possible. 

Turley also ignores that Trump said and did nothing today, while PENCE eventually gave the order to call out the National Guard.

In short, Turley is acting like a milder, legally buttoned up version of Matt Taibbi.