four states -- WI, MI, PA and AZ. And Congress persons went along with him as Accessories After the Fact. Voter Nullification is unconstitutional.
...On February 1, 2010, Eastman resigned as Dean of the Chapman University School of Law to pursue the Republican nomination for California Attorney General.[27] On April 1, a Superior Court judge denied Eastman's choice for ballot designation, "Assistant Attorney General", fearing that use of this title, granted by South Dakota for his work on a lawsuit, would be misperceived as a California title. The judge further denied Eastman's second choice, "Taxpayer Advocate/Attorney", but accepted his third choice, "Constitutional Law Attorney". Such designations typically reflect a candidate's current employment or elected office.[28] Eastman finished second in the three-way Republican primary with 34.2% of the vote, behind Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, who received 47.3%.[29] Cooley advanced to the 2010 California Attorney General election, where he was defeated by Kamala Harris...
August 2020, Newsweek published an op-ed by Eastman questioning 2020 vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris's eligibility for the office. He asserted she could not be a U.S. citizen by birth despite being born in Oakland, California, if neither of her parents was a permanent resident at the time of her birth. Eastman said that she could have subsequently obtained citizenship derived from the naturalization of her parents if one of them had become a citizen prior to her 16th birthday in 1980, which would have allowed Harris to fulfill the nine-year citizenship requirement required to become a senator.[41]
Many prominent legal scholars disagreed with Eastman's position, and many compared it to the birtherism theory against President Barack Obama. Newsweek defended the column, while acknowledging that it was "horrified that this op-ed gave rise to a wave of vile Birtherism directed at Senator Harris".
Eastman represented U.S. President Donald Trump in a motion to intervene in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a case filed directly in the U.S. Supreme Court by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, in which the state of Texas sought to annul the voting processes and, by extension, the electoral college results of at least four other states. Eastman’s brief included an array of unfounded claims and asserted “It is not necessary for [Trump] to prove that fraud occurred” and asserted it was enough to show that elections “materially deviated” from the intent of state lawmakers, adding, “By failing to follow the rule of law, these officials put our nation's belief in elected self-government at risk.”[48][49][50] Two days later, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, finding that Texas did not have standing. It did not address the merits of any of Texas's claims...
January 2, 2021, Eastman reportedly participated in a Zoom call that Trump joined in which legislators from Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin talked about allegations of voter fraud.[53][54] On January 5, 2021, Eastman met with Vice President Mike Pence in the Oval Office to argue incorrectly that the vice president has the constitutional authority to alter or otherwise change electoral votes.[55] Pence rejected Eastman's argument and instead agreed with his counsel, Greg Jacob, and conservative legal scholars and other Pence advisors, such as John Yoo and J. Michael Luttig. Pence later released a letter stating he would not attempt to intervene in the certification process...
Eastman is a lousy lawyer and a crazy person. He should lose his license for fomenting rule of men over rule of law.
= new reply since forum marked as read