General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsExpert: Eastman knowingly broke the law to 'keep his guy in power' -- and the DOJ must act
On Thursday's edition of MSNBC's "Deadline: White House," former Solicitor General Neal Katyal broke down the significance of the new revelations about pro-Trump lawyer John Eastman's actions in the lead-up to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Eastman authored the infamous memo calling for Pence to throw out electors in states Biden won and new evidence suggests he knew all along this plan was not lawful.
"We know that John Eastman's plan was one that he knew he said this: "Well, yeah, you're right, we would lose 9-0." He knew he would lose every Supreme Court justice," said anchor Nicolle Wallace. "We know from Judge Luttig that there was no basis in the Constitution or laws of the United States at all for the theory espoused by Mr. Eastman. At all, 'none,' was his quote. And we know that Eastman's thought process, his mind had wandered to the need to be put on the list for pardons. What kind of exposure does John Eastman have criminally?"
"Well, I think as Donald Trump would say, huge. It's massive," said Katyal. "And the picture that was painted today, both with what you're saying, Nicolle, and more generally, like, you get this picture of Donald Trump going attorney shopping, trying to find an attorney who's going to say the nonsense that he wants them to say. He finds Eastman, and then Eastman goes kind of legal theory shopping. He tries to come up with whatever theory he can. That one, you know, when one gets thrown out, you know, as 9-0 loss or something like that, he then pivots to another one and another one and ultimately goes and resurrects the first one, the one that was supposed to lose 9-0. It's bad."
https://www.rawstory.com/john-eastman-lawyer-2657521936/
FakeNoose
(32,628 posts)former9thward
(31,974 posts)As a former Solicitor General Katyal should be able to tell us the exact law. But in the OP and at the link all he says is "its bad". "Its bad" will not fly in court. He would lose 9-0 with that theory.
GoodRaisin
(8,922 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,748 posts)He is speaking to the constitutionality of Eastman's theory on overturning the election. Assuming they got Pence to go along and he rejected ballots, Dem's would have immediately filed suit claiming the move was unconstitutional. It would have been fast-tracked to the Supreme Court and then the move ruled unconstitutional by 9-0 (according to Katyal).
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
GoodRaisin This message was self-deleted by its author.