Thread by @SethAbramson

Every single one of you should be *ashamed* of yourselves, @ClaremontInst. John is a disgrace to the law—and for you to be defending what he did is almost as disgraceful. I'm not going to get into all the ways your thread is misleading but it is, you know it is, and shame on you.

https://twitter.com/ClaremontInst/status/1447557329092763652

(PS) For those curious, I outlined all the ways in which even Eastman's current version of events is disgusting in the article below. sethabramson.substack.com/p/breaking-new…

(PS2) Suffice to say, regarding the Claremont thread, that there was *no* "acknowledged" illegal conduct by elections officials, that *no* legislatures were calling for a delay, and that Pence doesn't have a British queen's power to prorogue parliament.

That's just for starters.

(PS3) What Claremont is saying is that *months* after any presidential election, after all the safe-harbor deadlines have passed, a handful of insurrectionist state legislators can get the election overturned if they have the *juice* to do it.

It's a despicable, seditious ethos.

(PS4) When an institute stands by treachery against the United States of this magnitude, it deserves whatever happens to it (institutionally). I'd lose no sleep whatsoever if the Claremont Institute were to collapse under the weight of its continued loyalty to an insurrectionist.

(PS5) Absurdly, Claremont hangs its hat on the idea Eastman didn't advise Pence to "decide the validity of electoral votes"...

...even as it concedes Eastman wanted to make it impossible for a peaceful transfer of power to occur at the demand of *a handful of state politicians*.

(PS6) That's like saying, "I would never damage your property!—I was just going to empty a bucket of grenades with the pins out into your garden."