In a May 19th court filing, John Eastman's lawyer claimed constitutional protection against ...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

BREAKING: In a May 19th court filing, John Eastman’s lawyer claimed constitutional protection against disclosure of THIRTY emails relating to a group he spoke with TWICE about “current events.” His release of an email today shows the group was Frontliners, the Ginni Thomas group.

Link to tweet

[Baitball Blogger]

1. Not surprised. Not in the least.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Now there is a coinky dink...

No wonder he wanted them hidden so badly. This has some far reaching potential depending on what is in them.

[ultralite001]

3. Transcript of John Eastman radio interview 11/09/2020...

Examining Politics
Hosted by Larry O'Connor
KABC 790 AM - WMAL 105.9 FM
11/09/2020

Prof John Eastman, [Tom Spencer, Dr Nicole Saphier]
Ricochet - Repost of the Larry O'Connor Show

[ https://web.archive.org/web/20201111032446/https://ricochet.com/podcast/examining-politics/prof-john-eastman-tom-spencer-dr-nicole-saphier/ ] Takes a minute to load...

Transcript of Interview with Prof John Eastman (0:00-16:50)

0:00
Larry O'Connor [LO]: I want to be clear here. It's very important to me. Uh... Ah... Over the weekend, as we saw media outlets... Boy, it-it sure happened as a domino effect... Media outlets, one after another, almost in synchronicity, proclaimed their projection that Joe Biden would be the next President of the United States. I was getting text messages from friends, phone calls from friends, messages on social media, "Oh. Is everything okay?" "What are you gonna do?" "What are you gonna to talk about?" "How does this affect your show?" It's the most ridiculous question I have ever heard. Talk radio... on this station and on any station across this country... has transcended who happens to hold political office. I-I liken it to a football game. You don't... The people who broadcast the games aren't in danger of their jobs because of the performance of the team on the field. Certainly they shouldn't be, and... and that's sort of what's happening here with th... here on this program, and certainly on this station.

Let me be clear on two fronts here. First of all, regardless of who sits in the White House, we are going to talk about the most important issues of the day and what matters most to you, and we are going to hold the President accountable for things that we don't agree with regardless of who happens to be the president. I've had plent of criticism for President Trump on things that I don't agree with. They haven't been as many had Hillary Clinton won the presidency. I suspect I might disagree with Joe Biden should he prevail in this process than I would with President Trump, but it doesn't change the way we go about our jobs. In fact, frankly, now more than ever, you need to be here every single day -- There is no news black out. I heard people saying, "Oh, wasn't it great to take a break from the news." and "I don't want to hear news right now. I don't want to focus on what's going on because I don't like the results of the election."

Well, first of all, the election is still in question, number one, through its legal process... through the constitutional process, and secondly, now is when you need to be most engaged. Now is when you need us, where we focus on the things that matter most to you, things that you might disagree with, news of the day that might not make you happy but we'll convey it to you and discuss it with you with the same passion and the same smile on our face and the same engagement and hopefully make you feel a little better about where we're going in this country and certainly make you energized about if you don't like it, how you can change it. So... So, forget about this news black out. Forget about this tuning out. Forget about this, you know, taking a break. No. We're not taking a break, and I... I certainly hope you're not either.

And then, here's the second issue that I want to get to and it brings us to our first guest. At this point right now, as we watch this process unfold... as we watch ballots still being counted, and, more importantly, ballots being validated as to whether they should be counted or not... As I said before, We don't count every ballot. We only count the legal, valid ballots that have been submitted properly. Right? Uh... As that process goes on, at this point... Yes, I have a rooting interest... I tell you who my rooting interest is all the time, and I wear my politics on the sleeve, but you might be surprised right now. My rooting interest, at this point and this game, it's less about whether Donald Trump prevails or whether Joe Biden prevails. At this point, my rooting interest is that the Constitution prevails... that the Rule of Law prevails... Regardless of who the president is, we, the American people, need to know that we have a sound and just and balanced and fair and legal system that we all adhere to and we all abide by, and I would think that anyone who supports Joe Biden would... would agree with that. You don't want a man to be sitting in the White House that you support where... where the results of that election and the process leading to his election is in some way in question. You don't want half of this country feeling like they got robbed; that's why we have a Constitution. That's why we have laws. That's why we have procedures. Right now, our rooting interest should be the Constitution over anything else.

4:00
Joining us right now to discuss that is Constitutional Law Scholar & Law Professor at Chapman University, and always a sound, reasonable mind on issues like this, John Eastman. Thanks for joining us today.

4:10
John Eastman [JE]: Thank you very much, Larry.

4:12
LO: So let's start right there. What does the Constitution say in terms of how an elector to the Electoral College, or a member of the Electoral College, is selected? Who determines that?

4:22
JE: Well, th-th-the Constitution is very clear on this, and the Supreme Court has... has recognized the clarity in a number of cases. Article II says th-the manner of choosing electors shall be decided by the legislature of each state... Um... and-and... You know, the state can do it however it wants. Um... ah... All states now have... uh... the legislatures have chosen to have their electors picked by... through an election and popular vote, but-- but it has to be an election in accord with the procedures the legislature has set out, and one of the things that is going down in a number of jurisdictions... um... Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina... Not a surprise... Those are all the swing state things that we are very much focused on.

5:10
Uh... Uh... Uh... Either unelected officials of the state or elected officials in the Executive Branch or... um... or state courts, or in some cases, even a federal court, have altered the... um... statutory requirements for the election, either by eliminating signature verification processes, uh... eliminating requirements on eligibility for applying for absentee ballots, extending the deadline... uh.. the statutory deadline for... by which your absentee ballot had to be returned in order to be counted.

5:42
Um... And so, those kind of changes means that in those states... um... the process set out by the legislature, with its Constitutional authority, what the Supreme Court has called a "plenary" authority, was-- was violated.

5:57
Um... And the reason those statutory provisions are there in order to minimize the risk of fraud, and therefore help increase the sense that we had a fair election after the facts. So, when we change the rules midstream, as a number of these jurisdictions did, that raises all sorts of questions, and the legislature's process is therefore not being followed...
uh... and--and raising significant Constitutional problems as well.

6:20
LO: So, in the case of Pennsylvania, you had a legislature that--that--that had set the rules about when ballots needed to get in, how absentee ballots are handled, how one requests an absentee ballot... The governor there, he wanted to change those things, and the legislature didn't work with him, so... Is it... It it the case that basically his office then approached the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, and that's how these changes were put in place?

6:43
JE: Well, there... Uh... You know... It's... It's hard to tell where the collusions in these suits were. So... So, the legislature did reach a compromise with the governor. They said, Okay. We will allow everybody to vote by mail if they want. We'll get rid of the... of the more limited criteria that our state constitution specifies for who can get an absentee ballot, but we're gonna keep the deadline... um... that these ballots have to be returned by before the polls close on election day, and we're gonna add -- since this is a compromise bill now -- We're gonna add a provision that if any part of it is struck down or altered, the entire... uh... uh... compromise goes out the window. So, if you're going to change the deadline, then you don't get the... the expanded access to the mail-in ballots. Now, what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did was strike down the deadline, said, We're just gonna unilaterally extend the deadline three more days, and... and... and, you know... By the way, you know, if you can't prove that it was postmarked before the election, uh... we're gonna deem it counted unless the government can prove that it was not postmarked before the election. And, it ignored the severability clause that said, Aah... You known, don't worry. We're gonna keep the expanded mail-in ballots as well, and, of course, you know...

7:57
It's bad enough that we're now no longer operating under the mechanism that the legislature had set out. We've got lots of evidence in Pennsylvania when people show up to vote on election day and they're told they can't vote because they've already received an absentee ballot... and... and... it had been voted, and they say, I didn't apply for an absentee ballot, and I certainly didn't vote for one.

8:20
Now, you know... The combination of changing the electoral statutes that were designed to prevent fraud, and then the evidence of actual fraud really calls into question... Then you look at statistical anomalies... um... with some counties, um... by Biden getting more than 35 points higher than Democratic registration in the county, you know... That might be explained by Democrats deciding to vote by mail and Republicans voting in person, but in those counties it wasn't.

8:48
LO: Yeah, and... and based on that, I have two questions for you, Professor Eastman.

8:52
The first is, based on what appears to me, the way you lay it out here, to be a clear violation of the intent of that Pennsylvanian legislation and certainly a violation of who within a state... What body within a state is appropriately constitutionally empowered with selecting the mechanism to choose the electors. In this case, it couldn't be clearer. You called it a plenary right of the legislature, not of the Supreme Court and not of the governor. Um... It... It seems to me that there's... that there's at this point almost a legal concern, a criminal concern, over the idea of counting ballots that clearly should not be counted. I mean... In the same way we are worried about election... uh... uh... duplicity -- I don't want to use the word "fraud" because that's a legal term -- an... an... and it's fraught with a whole lot of connotations, but y-you don't stuff the ballot box with illegal votes, and you don't vote... you don't count ballots after the fact that you know aren't supposed to be counted. That's a criminal act.

9:54
JE: That's correct. Part of the problem is once you separate that absentee ballot from the outer envelope, um... and put it into the general mix of ballots to be counted, you can no longer determine which votes you have to remove... from the total or not.

10:09
LO: That brings me to my second question which is your interpretation, please, of Justice Alito's order late Friday to ensure that Pennsylvania does segregate, uh..., the ballots in question.

10:20
JE: Well, uh... Yeah, but that's just on the one issue. That's on the issue of ballots that are received after the close of polls in violation of state statutes, and Justice Alito issued an order that the Supreme Court unfortunately itself had previously declined to issue... um... about th-the validity of those after-the-fact ballots, and Alito said, At least segregate 'em. And what happens if they don't? Okay. Somebody will get their hand slapped, right? And you've got several other problems that have been documented.

10:51
So, the... the Secretary of State issues a directive saying, Don't bother with the signature verification. We've got too many absentee ballots coming in. Well, that's contrary to state law. Uh... Don't... you know... Don't treat as invalid ballots that come in without the address of the witness on it. Well, that's contrary to state law, and yet... yet they're separating them from the envelope and putting the ballots in the general population, and if even after the fact you got a court to say that was illegal... Those votes can't count. You can't confirm which candidate those were votes for.

11:24
Now, we can make statistical analysis of it depending on which county those kinds of illegal acts were going on, but it is a huge problem about the certainty of the election, particularly one that is close as Pennsylvania's is... You know... a 29-30 thousand vote difference right now.

11:41
LO: Can you speak now, Professor Eastman... We're speaking with Professor John Eastman, Chapman University. He's a Constitutional law scholar and professor at that fine institution. Uh... Can you speak a little bit about the... this larger question here... Where it does in fact transcend party politics... It transcends the candidates in question. Why is this so important? I... eh... you tell me...

12:00
I think it's important for the President to ensure that he utilizes every legal means at his disposal to ensure the validity of this election. If you disagree, I'd love to hear... Go ahead...

12:10
JE: I... I... I do agree. Look. W-w-we've been tolerating certain levels of fraudulent activity for far too long. I mean... even to the point of joking about it: dead people voting in Chicago, nursing home people voting who, you know, who have no mental capacity to be able to cast a vote and yet somebody is voting on their behalf. This has been going on for basically for a very long time, and its just kind of been part of the noise of elections that we've learned to live with, um... because elections haven't been close enough where it really didn't matter to... to pursue. This election is close enough where it matters to pursue, and those kind of systematic and pervasive routine frauds really need to be exposed, because, if they are not, we really no longer have a say as the people in deciding the course of our government.

13:00
This is our one chance to do it for the next four years, and if... and if... and, if th-th-the process itself is corrupted, um... then it's no longer a self-governing... Somebody else is making the decisions for us... when... when... when these things are happening.

13:15
LO: That brings me to sort of the final scenario here, and I hate the whole prediction game and prognostication game, and, you know... a hypothetical game; however, uh... In terms of our Constitution, in terms of our rights and responsibilities of our state legislatures, I think that it's worth playing this out.

13:34
Maybe it's the Electoral College nuclear option here. Is... Is there a precedent, or is there room within this system... as you said, Professor Eastman... There may not be a way to figure out if ballots are valid to be counted in Pennsylvania. It may be the same in Nevada. It may be the same in Atlanta. I don't know the situations in those states. Uh, Can these state legislatures basically step in and say, We have enough concern about this process that we are going to disregard the popular vote in this case, and we, as a body, will determine who our electors are.

14:09
JE: They... They... They do have that authority, and, uh... uh... There... There... There are a couple... There are a couple of options here. If you've got... We-we-we have confirmed fact that a number of these states did not follow the statutory election laws. Um... That, I think... That, I think, triggers the... the ability of the legislature to reclaim it's plenary power to choose the electors. You're right, though, that is a fairly, um..., aggressive outcome. You... you... you... you... you could have... If it was still possible to redo the count with the right election procedures in place, you could have that done. We've seen that, but you know... And... and Justice Alito's order on the post-deadline ballots is aimed at allowing for a recount properly under the law as it should have been. But there are some... some... some recounts that are just not... some violations of the law that are going to be impossible to recover.

15:05
You could do what happened in North Carolina two years ago in the congressional district there. Um... One of the candidates... The Republican candidate... had a campaign consultant that illegally did ballot harvesting. Now, there was no evidence that the ballots he turned in, um..., were fraudulently cast, but he did not comply with state law. You know... Only the person casting the ballot or immediate family member was allowed to turn in those ballots under state law. This was designed to protect against the risk of fraud. Uh... And because the risk of fraud law was not complied with, the state Board of Elections ordered a new election. So, you can have a whole new election in these states, although in a presidential election with certain deadlines and transitions and all that, that... that is hard to play out.

15:50
The third option is the legislature to take it back into its own hands. The Florida legislature, in 2000, had voted resolutions in both the senate and the... the lower house of the legislature to authorize the legislature to do just that, and votes on the floor of each house were already scheduled for the week that the Bush v Gore decision came down and... and effectively ended the need for that. But the Florida legislature was already prepared to take that step in order to protect, uh..., the electoral vote of its state... the state Supreme Court was ignoring the existing election law.

16:26
LO: We will continue to cover this in the sober and, uh..., focused manner that this issue deserves. Uh, uh... That's the least we can do here, and Professor John Eastman's voice will be a part of that process. We're lucky to have him.

Professor Eastman, I keep saying it almost every time we finish our conversations. May you live in interesting times. Here we are...

16:48:
JE: Well, thanks very much.

16:50

[ultralite001]

4. OMG... This interview...

in tandem with the RTumpster's rant at Nashville Faith & Freedom on 06/17/2022...

[link:

|

This is beyond a screw loose...