Read on Twitter
So Eastman's "expert witness" Freid (Fried?) who is a CPA, will NOT have his "self published ebook" admitted as export testimony in his case.
Judge says "How is this dude an expert?...According to information you (Eastman's atty) gave court, he has no experience in vote audits"
Judge says "How is this dude an expert?...According to information you (Eastman's atty) gave court, he has no experience in vote audits"
Eastman's attorney is arguing he knows math because he's a licensed CPA with "40 years auditing experience"
Judge says NONE of that is in election auditing.
Judge says NONE of that is in election auditing.
Eastman's attorney is trying reeeeeeeeaaaalll hard to get the CPA's "analysis" in.
Judge is not having it.
"the 40 years of experience has NOTHING to do with the analysis of raw voter data"
"but judge, it's numbers. he knows numbers."
Good luck Eastman, you're gonna need it.
Judge is not having it.
"the 40 years of experience has NOTHING to do with the analysis of raw voter data"
"but judge, it's numbers. he knows numbers."
Good luck Eastman, you're gonna need it.
Eastman's attorney says "his work is published"
my guy, he self published an ebook. get bent.
Judge says "yeah no we're moving on. expert's out"
my guy, he self published an ebook. get bent.
Judge says "yeah no we're moving on. expert's out"
Eastman's attorney says "the CPA's relevant because Eastman thought his work was 'tenable' and as such Eastman can't be punished"
So Eastman believing some rando CPA who self published an ebook should be exonerating.
Law is so weird.
So Eastman believing some rando CPA who self published an ebook should be exonerating.
Law is so weird.
Judge is saying "where does this apply to the charges Eastman's facing" she brings up charge 9 where Eastman made specific statements in an American Mind article. How does Fried's ebook exonerate Eastman from making false statements?
Eastman's atty: uhhhhh... scope's not clear
Eastman's atty: uhhhhh... scope's not clear
Basically Eastman's attorney is saying "my client can't be guilty of any of these charges, because some dude published an ebook."
Bold strategy.
Let's see how this plays out.
Bold strategy.
Let's see how this plays out.
Bar attorney: we're talking about actual statements of fraud. Freid's stuff came later. This is bullshit.
(i may be paraphrasing)
Judge ruling on issue 2 stands. Freid's out.
(i may be paraphrasing)
Judge ruling on issue 2 stands. Freid's out.
Issue 4:
tenability issues based on Hostetler (sp?).
"time doesn't matter. facts that come out after lawsuit is filed are still applicable"
tenability issues based on Hostetler (sp?).
"time doesn't matter. facts that come out after lawsuit is filed are still applicable"
Basically Eastman's attorney is arguing "because some other dudes made up some bullsh*t AFTER we lied and filed jacked up lawsuits, homeboy must be innocent."
Judge: Nah, he made those comments and filed those lawsuits BEFORE the bullsh*t came out. Justification post action nope
Judge: Nah, he made those comments and filed those lawsuits BEFORE the bullsh*t came out. Justification post action nope
Bar attorney:
This second "expert" wouldn't even let us review his data, so f*ck that dude.
Judge: yo Eastman side, wtf dudes?
Eastman atty: uhhh...he can't just produce it
This second "expert" wouldn't even let us review his data, so f*ck that dude.
Judge: yo Eastman side, wtf dudes?
Eastman atty: uhhh...he can't just produce it
HOLY HELL
Eastman's attorney is throwing up tech smoke and mirrors "it's algorithms and data and stuff and you can't just say 'it runs on my computer'" and I am dying at this bullsh*t.
"They never asked to see it or how it works during deposition."
Eastman's attorney is throwing up tech smoke and mirrors "it's algorithms and data and stuff and you can't just say 'it runs on my computer'" and I am dying at this bullsh*t.
"They never asked to see it or how it works during deposition."
Judge is like "yeah no, f*ck that dude too, my ruling stands."
Eastman is having a bad day, 2 at bats, 2 strikeouts.
Eastman is having a bad day, 2 at bats, 2 strikeouts.
Judge: We're gonna do the witness thing now.
All witnesses may NOT access proceeding prior to testifying. However, Dr. Seligman needs to watch Eastman to testify about Eastman's testimony.
If Seligman can watch can Dr. Yoo (Yu?) watch?
All witnesses may NOT access proceeding prior to testifying. However, Dr. Seligman needs to watch Eastman to testify about Eastman's testimony.
If Seligman can watch can Dr. Yoo (Yu?) watch?
Bar atty: because Dr. Eastman didn't do a deposition, Dr. Seligman needs to watch Eastman's testimony to comment and have opinions. We're cool w/ Yoo(Yu?) to listen
Eastman's atty: no way man, no exceptions for Seligman or Yoo. Either both in or both out.
Eastman's atty: no way man, no exceptions for Seligman or Yoo. Either both in or both out.
EA (Eastman Attorney): yeah, we talked to Seligman, he's got opinions. we don't want him.
also, we don't have anyone to observe to counter Seligman.
Judge: we told you this was gonna happen. you caught lacking bro
also, we don't have anyone to observe to counter Seligman.
Judge: we told you this was gonna happen. you caught lacking bro
EA: but Judge, we don't have anyone to counter Seligman, cuz Yoo (Yu) ain't around today. c'mon, say no.
Judge: mmmmm experts gotta expert, and I'm gonna do this quick. Seligman can listen, and Yoo(Yu?) can get a copy asap. If not Yoo/Yu, you got somebody else?
Judge: mmmmm experts gotta expert, and I'm gonna do this quick. Seligman can listen, and Yoo(Yu?) can get a copy asap. If not Yoo/Yu, you got somebody else?
EA: as a conduit for Yoo/Yu?
J: nah, as another witness since Prof. Yoo/Yu ain't round.
EA: Prof Yoo/Yu is the only thing we have to counteract Seligman and literally have our pants down here. I got nothing without the Prof, mannnnnn
J: nah, as another witness since Prof. Yoo/Yu ain't round.
EA: Prof Yoo/Yu is the only thing we have to counteract Seligman and literally have our pants down here. I got nothing without the Prof, mannnnnn
J: is this an issue of timing? what's the problem?
EA: I dunno, he's unavailable rn. lemme check his outlook and get back to ya.
J: Yeah, that sucks. Dr. Seligman can observe, lemme know what's up w/ Yoo/Yu and we'll try to hook up the testimony for him. too bad for you.
EA: I dunno, he's unavailable rn. lemme check his outlook and get back to ya.
J: Yeah, that sucks. Dr. Seligman can observe, lemme know what's up w/ Yoo/Yu and we'll try to hook up the testimony for him. too bad for you.
Judge points out that Eastman will be, like, one of, if not THE, first witness called.
Judge: more witness stuff- 7 witnesses listed in pretrial statements w/ not be testifying;
Judge: more witness stuff- 7 witnesses listed in pretrial statements w/ not be testifying;
Navarro, Logan, Ramsland and a buncha other folks will NOT be testifying.
damn. was kinda hoping for some LARPing on the stand.
oh well.
damn. was kinda hoping for some LARPing on the stand.
oh well.
Ten minute break
Drink some water while we wait folks.
Hydrating is important.
Hydrating is important.
Also, little known fact-
There is NO playground equipment involved during a court recess.
I feel this is an oversight on the part of our legal system and should be rectified.
I would also suggest court juice boxes & snacks and court naps because Justice is hard work.
There is NO playground equipment involved during a court recess.
I feel this is an oversight on the part of our legal system and should be rectified.
I would also suggest court juice boxes & snacks and court naps because Justice is hard work.
Apparently I should have gotten into law instead of computers, because a 10 minute break in court is approximately 30 minutes, give or take.
And we're back.
Talking over some scheduling w/ regards to Seligman and Yoo/Yu.
BA (Bar Attorney): we are totally calling Eastman first.
EA: Yoo/Yu should be able to watch Seligman's testimony
Judge: yeah, that's kinda out there
EA: They should both watch Eastman AND each other
Talking over some scheduling w/ regards to Seligman and Yoo/Yu.
BA (Bar Attorney): we are totally calling Eastman first.
EA: Yoo/Yu should be able to watch Seligman's testimony
Judge: yeah, that's kinda out there
EA: They should both watch Eastman AND each other
Judge: you want Yoo/Yu to watch Eastman AND Seligman?
EA: yes
Judge: BA, you good with that?
BA: as long as Seligman can watch now, yeah?
Judge: Yeah. And Seligman and Yoo/Yu can watch eastman and each other. cool?
EA: yes
Judge: BA, you good with that?
BA: as long as Seligman can watch now, yeah?
Judge: Yeah. And Seligman and Yoo/Yu can watch eastman and each other. cool?
Everybody: cool
EA: Can the character witnesses watch the testimony too?
Judge: wut? how is the testimony relevant to character witnesses?
EA: it'll help them talk about how great Eastman is
Judge: Yeah no, bud. There's other ways to do that.
EA: ok, my bad. please don't hurt me.
EA: Can the character witnesses watch the testimony too?
Judge: wut? how is the testimony relevant to character witnesses?
EA: it'll help them talk about how great Eastman is
Judge: Yeah no, bud. There's other ways to do that.
EA: ok, my bad. please don't hurt me.
EA: it's just to inform the witnesses
Judge: request denied
Judge: request denied
BA: housekeeping- we're missing four respondent's exhibits (lists exhibits). Eastman also filed something with a whole bunch of exhibits we don't have so what's up with that?
Judge: did you get that stuff from EAs this morning? I thought they sent you stuff
BA: yeah, no
Judge: did you get that stuff from EAs this morning? I thought they sent you stuff
BA: yeah, no
Judge: ok, we'll get all the exhibits straightened out. btw, there's some remote stuff, don't mess about with the buttons in the zoom, ya hosers. banhammer in a heartbeat.
Judge: let's do the exhibit ante up over lunch
BA: Judge, do you have all the exhibits?
J: good question
Judge: let's do the exhibit ante up over lunch
BA: Judge, do you have all the exhibits?
J: good question
Judge: well heck, we need those too. We'll figure it out over lunch.
Eastman will testify first, then you're gonna have a second witness?
BA: yes your honor
Judge: don't know if we'll have time for that, so maybe hold that witness until later
Eastman will testify first, then you're gonna have a second witness?
BA: yes your honor
Judge: don't know if we'll have time for that, so maybe hold that witness until later
BA: EA filed something Friday, we object to the new witnesses listed last week, there's issues w/ the witnesses (listed as experts, but no expertise listed, no contact info). also, in their testimony, these witnesses are talking about docs that aren't even exhibits, so wth man
Judge: I'll get to those arguments when they come in. Anything else?
BA: yeah, we don't have exhibit 1201. Is there even one? if so, where's 1173-1200? 27 exhibits wut?
EA: yeah, exhibits are in the mail, we swear.
BA: yeah, we don't have exhibit 1201. Is there even one? if so, where's 1173-1200? 27 exhibits wut?
EA: yeah, exhibits are in the mail, we swear.
EA: scheduling question- where do we go from here? Prof Yoo/Yu isn't available until tomorrow.
Judge: we're starting in 5 mins
EA: wait, I thought we were waiting
Judge: I'm not waiting on Yoo/Yu. Your expert needs to be available. I told you this Friday. Not waiting.
Judge: we're starting in 5 mins
EA: wait, I thought we were waiting
Judge: I'm not waiting on Yoo/Yu. Your expert needs to be available. I told you this Friday. Not waiting.
EA: but we're at a disadvantage
Judge: Get an expert who can show up, homie.
EA: but but but...
Judge: Yeah no. Anything else? Let's do some opening statements before witness is called. BA, you doing opening?
BA: yup
Judge: let's do it
Judge: Get an expert who can show up, homie.
EA: but but but...
Judge: Yeah no. Anything else? Let's do some opening statements before witness is called. BA, you doing opening?
BA: yup
Judge: let's do it
BA: look you read all the stuff. court, please take a look at Dr. Eastman's ENTIRE course of misconduct. He did this for one reason: To overthrow the election.
Eastman says it's "expansive legal theory" that Pence could delay or overturn vote count.
That's bullshit and UnAmerican
Eastman says it's "expansive legal theory" that Pence could delay or overturn vote count.
That's bullshit and UnAmerican
This whole thing was a last ditch effort to overturn the election. He lied to legislators, courts, the public. He made up this "alternate electors" bs. AND he did this AFTER all the claims of fraud were shot down. Even AFTER homie lost in court case after court case.
He did this even AFTER Republican led state legislators certified their counts for Biden.
Eastman and Trump kept up the criming by trying to pressure Pence to toss the votes, stop the transition of power, delay the certification of the vote.
And Eastman, he did it through lies.
Eastman and Trump kept up the criming by trying to pressure Pence to toss the votes, stop the transition of power, delay the certification of the vote.
And Eastman, he did it through lies.
Eastman even PRIVATELY CONFESSED there's no way in hell it was gonna work. He knew his plan was bullsh*t. And even after there was violence on J6, he kept on trying to crime.
Greg Jacobs totally called out Eastman in emails.
Eastman knew he was f*ckin up.
Greg Jacobs totally called out Eastman in emails.
Eastman knew he was f*ckin up.
Greg Jacobs should go down in history and the nicest guy to ever say "JFC DUDE WTH IS WRONG WITH YOU??!"
BA: Eastman breached the most important ethical duties of an attorney. We will ask for his disbarment.
EA stepping up for opening.
EA stepping up for opening.
BA: I'm going to paint with a very broad brush. OCTC put a LOT out there-34 pages, 11 counts. Eastman's answer was 112 pages long. That's a lot of pages.
There's a lot at issue here, I couldn't find anything like it.
We'll try to present evidence on behalf of Eastman.
There's a lot at issue here, I couldn't find anything like it.
We'll try to present evidence on behalf of Eastman.
BA: our four points-
1. Tenability: is this shit believable
2. Advocacy: we were "helping" Pence
3. Free Speech: this was protected yo. radio, newspaper, in person, FREE SPEECH
4. Right to Petition: the two actions listed in the charges were totes legit
1. Tenability: is this shit believable
2. Advocacy: we were "helping" Pence
3. Free Speech: this was protected yo. radio, newspaper, in person, FREE SPEECH
4. Right to Petition: the two actions listed in the charges were totes legit
BA: why was Eastman involved in voting stuff? he's an expert, but then his role/capacity changed. he wasn't there to steal, he was there to uhhh.... make sure the vote was legal. Eastman says the election was hotly contested, and only because of that did he leave teaching
BA: Charges say that Eastman's opinions were baseless and had no merit. Eastman will show it was tenable. Facts will show Eastman's eventual assessment was to delay so the country could get to the bottom of the issues.
BA just said that there were "illegal votes"
BA just said that there were "illegal votes"
BAL: There was too much going on illegally at the state level. This election was mired in issues. Voting irregularities were documented under penalty of perjury. Homie just believed them. Even Pence said "after some folks said some sh*t I'm concerned too"
BA: Look man, all these other cases prove that my client's cases and theories were good to go as well, so I don't even know why we're here. The argument whether Pence had the power to overturn the certification is still up in the air, we swear. Greg Jacob even said so.
BA: Greg Jacobs said FIVE TIMES in his memo that "scholars argue whether VP has power" it's obviously a legal issue at play. And Dr. Eastman, as a lawyer guy, has every right to decide the law says what he thinks it says.
This fuck*in attorney just said there are "two sides" and this is debatable and all Eastman did was debate.
John Yoo advocated that Pence had authority.
It says what we want it to say. We're gonna argue it.
John Yoo advocated that Pence had authority.
It says what we want it to say. We're gonna argue it.
BA: a lawyer is OBLIGATED to do what Eastman did, and if ANY of the bullsh*t I threw up there is true, acquit my dude.
Point 2: advocacy. the context of the memos that have been uncovered? yeah, that was just Eastman helping advocate for Trump
Point 2: advocacy. the context of the memos that have been uncovered? yeah, that was just Eastman helping advocate for Trump
Sorry, this was ALL EA, not BA.
Anyway, EA says BA is mischaracterizing the discussions exposed in depositions. It wasn't about overturning, it was simply about delay to 'investigate'
Anyway, EA says BA is mischaracterizing the discussions exposed in depositions. It wasn't about overturning, it was simply about delay to 'investigate'
EA: All roads led through Pence. This was nothing but advocacy. Pence's power was UNCLEAR. We was just jawin about it
Freedom of speech: What he said on Bannon's show? On the radio? At the Ellipse? All Free Speech, y'all. Homie can say what he wants. It was honestly held opinion
Freedom of speech: What he said on Bannon's show? On the radio? At the Ellipse? All Free Speech, y'all. Homie can say what he wants. It was honestly held opinion
and finally: misconduct. The First Amendment squarely applies to everything my client did.
I have four points, and they will exonerate Dr. Eastman.
I have four points, and they will exonerate Dr. Eastman.
Judge: Anything else before lunch?
nope. we'll return at 1:45 pacific time.
nope. we'll return at 1:45 pacific time.
I would like to take a moment and acknowledge @Brandi_Buchman and her kickass work.
If I hadn't watched her do this during the Proudboys Seditious Conspiracy trial, I'd suck at this even worse than I currently do.
If I hadn't watched her do this during the Proudboys Seditious Conspiracy trial, I'd suck at this even worse than I currently do.
AAAAAAAND WE ARE BACK FOR #EASTMAN
EA: we went over exhibits during lunch. took a couple out. made sure BA has everything and we should be good now.
Judge: let's do a rundown
EA: 1010- withdrawn, 1039- lengthy video, sharing it, might need a thumb drive.
dude, get a cloud account ffs.
Judge: let's do a rundown
EA: 1010- withdrawn, 1039- lengthy video, sharing it, might need a thumb drive.
dude, get a cloud account ffs.
EA: here's a bunch of numbers referring to exhibits
1173-1286, we dropped those off this morning.
this reminds me of an all nighter before a paper's due.
1173-1286, we dropped those off this morning.
this reminds me of an all nighter before a paper's due.
EA: We have two additional witnesses: Patrick Colbeck as rebuttal to MI witnesses. AND WE'RE GONNA ADD EBOOK BOY FREID AS A FACT WITNESS.
that is about an end run and a half.
that is about an end run and a half.
And the State Bar calls Dr. John Eastman to the witness stand.
Homie is sworn in.
Do you believe him?
Homie is sworn in.
Do you believe him?
BA: Let's talk about you and Trump. Here's the contract for legal engagement. Dis u?
Eastman: yep
BA: Ok, check this out, we're gonna show it live
Eastman: yep
BA: Ok, check this out, we're gonna show it live
BA: Page 11 paragraph 25, filed about documents privs w/ J6 Committee.
Both Dems and Repubs have Election Integrity groups yeah?
Eastman: Trump did, don't know about Biden
Both Dems and Repubs have Election Integrity groups yeah?
Eastman: Trump did, don't know about Biden
Eastman (cont): Cleta Mitchell invited me
BA: was there a question about open litigation post election?
Eastman: Yeah, but I was doing pre election litigation. Like in PA where they tossed the signature stuff.
BA: was there a question about open litigation post election?
Eastman: Yeah, but I was doing pre election litigation. Like in PA where they tossed the signature stuff.
BA: Page 12, paragraph 29, here's some other sh*t you did, namely running some numbers to find "anomalies"
you do that?
Eastman: Yes, and Cleta's thing was "rather informal" so it was run and gun
you do that?
Eastman: Yes, and Cleta's thing was "rather informal" so it was run and gun
BA: Paragraph 30 says you met with state legistators as part of yer thing.
EM: it was to "further" the thing, not as part of the thing
BA: So you spoke to GA Senate subcommittee 12/3, was that as Trump's Lawyer?
EM: it was to "further" the thing, not as part of the thing
BA: So you spoke to GA Senate subcommittee 12/3, was that as Trump's Lawyer?
EM: Hadn't talk to Trump, but it was in "furtherance" of the thing with the stuff about votes.
BA: check this video out (we had audio but now we have video), exhibit 26. here's a transcript.
On 12/3 you reported fraudulent or legal issues w/ GA ballots, correct?
BA: check this video out (we had audio but now we have video), exhibit 26. here's a transcript.
On 12/3 you reported fraudulent or legal issues w/ GA ballots, correct?
EM: I don't remember what I said about that
BA: Did you say 66,000 underage people registered?
EM: Yeah, that was from Brian Gehls for Trump v Raffensberger in a supplemental declaration thing.
Oh, and Gehls fuxxored up some numbers. It was more like 2000.
gee, oops.
BA: Did you say 66,000 underage people registered?
EM: Yeah, that was from Brian Gehls for Trump v Raffensberger in a supplemental declaration thing.
Oh, and Gehls fuxxored up some numbers. It was more like 2000.
gee, oops.
BA shows Affidavit of Bryan Geels.
Check out page 10, pra 24. it says 6,635
When did you meet Mr. Geels?
EM: I don't remember
BA: 12/20 you didn't speak to him?
Check out page 10, pra 24. it says 6,635
When did you meet Mr. Geels?
EM: I don't remember
BA: 12/20 you didn't speak to him?
BA: did you review this affidavit before you testified on 12/3?
EM: Yes
BA: let's look at page 5, paragraph 6, summary of Geels education and background. He's a CPA with a data analytics consulting firm.
Did you know he didn't have a degree in statistics?
EM: don't know
EM: Yes
BA: let's look at page 5, paragraph 6, summary of Geels education and background. He's a CPA with a data analytics consulting firm.
Did you know he didn't have a degree in statistics?
EM: don't know
BA: did you know he never audited an election?
EM: don't know
BA: you summarized this guy's education for GA?
EM: yes
BA: you realize this guy sucks, right?
EM: i dunno
EM: don't know
BA: you summarized this guy's education for GA?
EM: yes
BA: you realize this guy sucks, right?
EM: i dunno
BA: when did you learn Geels changed his numbers from 6635 to 2200 something?
EM: sometime around 1/7/21
BA: let's look at your exhibit 1029.1, a filing in Trump v Raffensberger on 1/7/21, page 26
Geels Report, yes?
EM: yes
BA: now page 37, updated to show 2525 underage regs
EM: sometime around 1/7/21
BA: let's look at your exhibit 1029.1, a filing in Trump v Raffensberger on 1/7/21, page 26
Geels Report, yes?
EM: yes
BA: now page 37, updated to show 2525 underage regs
BA: So you took Geels at his word? What about Raffensberger?
EM: Raffensberger told a fib. He said "it was claimed 66 hundred VOTED, and no evidence was found." I was saying 6600 underage had REGISTERED. completely different things.
BA: How about this letter from 1/6/2021?
EM: Raffensberger told a fib. He said "it was claimed 66 hundred VOTED, and no evidence was found." I was saying 6600 underage had REGISTERED. completely different things.
BA: How about this letter from 1/6/2021?
EM: I don't remember seeing this letter.
BA: What about what Raffensberger said on TV?
EM: He said VOTED, I said REGISTERED
BA: this letter says "Trump allies have alleged that 2056 felons voted illegally. That actual number is like 74, dude"
EM: Look man, Geels was telling me
BA: What about what Raffensberger said on TV?
EM: He said VOTED, I said REGISTERED
BA: this letter says "Trump allies have alleged that 2056 felons voted illegally. That actual number is like 74, dude"
EM: Look man, Geels was telling me
EM: that 6600 underage voters registered
BA: and you said that to undermine the election, correct?
EM: hey, I was just saying what the expert said man
BA: so your issue w/ Raffensberger is that he used the wrong words not that underage people voted?
EM: I have no data, and
BA: and you said that to undermine the election, correct?
EM: hey, I was just saying what the expert said man
BA: so your issue w/ Raffensberger is that he used the wrong words not that underage people voted?
EM: I have no data, and
EM: I'm just going at the expert's word
BA: did the lawyers working on your side on this ask for those records?
EM: yes, but we were never given them
BA: You also told subcommittee that 2000 some felons voted, correct?
EM: sounds right, don't have it in front of me
BA: did the lawyers working on your side on this ask for those records?
EM: yes, but we were never given them
BA: You also told subcommittee that 2000 some felons voted, correct?
EM: sounds right, don't have it in front of me
EM: of course, there were caveats on all of this concerning the analysis, but is was based on Geel's testimony
Judge: HOW MANY?
EM: i don't remember
BA: Let's roll tape, yo (exhibit 26)
Judge: HOW MANY?
EM: i don't remember
BA: Let's roll tape, yo (exhibit 26)
Clip: Eastman saying 66000 underage people voted, contrary to state law, 2200 some felons voted, contrary to state law
BA: Returning to this document- Trump's allies said 2200 some felons, the ACTUAL NUMBER POSSIBLE is approximately 74. You see that?
EM: I don't believe that.
BA: Returning to this document- Trump's allies said 2200 some felons, the ACTUAL NUMBER POSSIBLE is approximately 74. You see that?
EM: I don't believe that.
EM: We never got the data that Raffensberger is referencing and never put it through analysis
BA: how long between when you got Geels testimony and when you testified?
EM: I dunno, maybe a few hours earlier that day, or the night before
BA: did you do anything to assess the info?
BA: how long between when you got Geels testimony and when you testified?
EM: I dunno, maybe a few hours earlier that day, or the night before
BA: did you do anything to assess the info?
EM: I communicated with the attorneys on the case who were "particularly adamant" about not turning over bs.
Guess what homie? They handed you bs.
Guess what homie? They handed you bs.
BA: After it was submitted, after you testified, WHAT did you do to verify Geels information after that?
EM: We had a lengthy exchange on the accuracy of the data before we filed federal claims on new years eve. I can't go into it because attorney client privs.
EM: We had a lengthy exchange on the accuracy of the data before we filed federal claims on new years eve. I can't go into it because attorney client privs.
BA: You said in 12/2020 you got information opposing Geels info, correct?
EM: yes, opposition tried to toss his info
BA: did you read those reports opposing Geels info in 12/20?
EM: I think so, probably, yeah
EM: yes, opposition tried to toss his info
BA: did you read those reports opposing Geels info in 12/20?
EM: I think so, probably, yeah
BA: here's Charles Stewart, filed 1/4/21, that addressed Geels analysis
oops. that's page 3 of the case.
BA: Did you read ANYTHING from Charles Stewart re: Geels info?
EM: I dunno
oops. that's page 3 of the case.
BA: Did you read ANYTHING from Charles Stewart re: Geels info?
EM: I dunno
BA: did anything from Charles Stewart cause you to question Geels info?
EM: nope. I know there's lots of ways for data to be massaged. Geels acknowledged that. He said he was looking for more data. The criticism is addressed by Geels caveats.
EM: nope. I know there's lots of ways for data to be massaged. Geels acknowledged that. He said he was looking for more data. The criticism is addressed by Geels caveats.
BA: Geels only used Year and Name to ID people?
EM: he may have been using address
BA: is that how he came up w the wrong number
EM: it wasn't a wrong number, he said it was "as many as" so it was anything less than up to and including
that's some bullshit dude.
EM: he may have been using address
BA: is that how he came up w the wrong number
EM: it wasn't a wrong number, he said it was "as many as" so it was anything less than up to and including
that's some bullshit dude.
Judge: so you're saying these massive drops in numbers are just data errors caused by him transposing numbers?
EM: he moved a column in excel and it changed things.
oh ffs, if you can't work in excel gtfo of analysis, dorks.
EM: he moved a column in excel and it changed things.
oh ffs, if you can't work in excel gtfo of analysis, dorks.
BA: Dr Eastman, you were in Trump v Kemp yes?
EM: Yes
BA: And there was a filing of declaration by Stewart against Geels in that case?
EM: I don't remember
BA: Here's the filing homie
EM: Yes
BA: And there was a filing of declaration by Stewart against Geels in that case?
EM: I don't remember
BA: Here's the filing homie
BA: let's go a different route- when you testified on 12/3 you said rejection rates for ballots were going against Trump, right?
EM: yes?
BA: and you put that in your filing, yes?
EM: yes
BA: here's the line in our exhibit, page 65: you said "in GA loosening of signature checks
EM: yes?
BA: and you put that in your filing, yes?
EM: yes
BA: here's the line in our exhibit, page 65: you said "in GA loosening of signature checks
BA: that jacked up everything. You said proper sig checks would have added 22k votes for Trump. Where the hell you'd get that?
EM: I dunno, some analysis
BA: you said that sig verification caused all these issues, how did that work?
EM: well, this is a question still, so...
EM: I dunno, some analysis
BA: you said that sig verification caused all these issues, how did that work?
EM: well, this is a question still, so...
BA: You said this caused a decline or a change in votes. What are some other reasons absentee ballots can be rejected?
EM: well, lots of ways, but we're talking only disqualification based on lack of sig verification
BA: Did your expert (Chicetti?) say that in his analysis?
EM: well, lots of ways, but we're talking only disqualification based on lack of sig verification
BA: Did your expert (Chicetti?) say that in his analysis?
EM: I know it was in some filings, but I don't know which.
BA: You ever talk to Dr. Chicetti?
EM: sometime in the last six months
BA: how did you verify integrity of Chicetti's analysis?
EM: I trusted the TX lawyers because why not. Chicetti's stuff looked good to me.
BA: You ever talk to Dr. Chicetti?
EM: sometime in the last six months
BA: how did you verify integrity of Chicetti's analysis?
EM: I trusted the TX lawyers because why not. Chicetti's stuff looked good to me.
BA: Here's the declaration of Cicchetti (correct spelling). Look familiar?
EM: That looks right
BA: bottom of page 2: Nowhere in this does Cicchetti say what number of ballots were rejected, right?
EM: correct
BA: does GA tell people WHY ballots are rejected?
EM: dunno
EM: That looks right
BA: bottom of page 2: Nowhere in this does Cicchetti say what number of ballots were rejected, right?
EM: correct
BA: does GA tell people WHY ballots are rejected?
EM: dunno
BA: Did Cicchetti tell you how he found out how ballots were rejected?
EM: No
BA: you said you were looking at GA SOS press releases, right?
EM: I also saw his conference where he messed up the underage voting vs registration stuff
EM: No
BA: you said you were looking at GA SOS press releases, right?
EM: I also saw his conference where he messed up the underage voting vs registration stuff
BA: Do you think GA election was altered by underage voting?
EA: objection, vague
Judge: nah, answer that sh*t
EM: rumble rumble maybe i dunno, but Geels said it might have
EA: objection, vague
Judge: nah, answer that sh*t
EM: rumble rumble maybe i dunno, but Geels said it might have
BA: Here's some press release info from GA saying the voting was secured and honest. Did you read those?
EM: I didn't read every one, I was kinda busy in other states too
BA: Exhibit 84- nooooo 85
Side Note: lawyers suck at tech
EM: I didn't read every one, I was kinda busy in other states too
BA: Exhibit 84- nooooo 85
Side Note: lawyers suck at tech
BA: Did you remember seeing this press release?
EM: I had covid, I dunno
BA: Raffensberger is Republican, right? Do you have any reason to believe he lied?
EM: I was sceptical because there's an entry in a court docket saying they might have fudged
BA: did this influence you?
EM: I had covid, I dunno
BA: Raffensberger is Republican, right? Do you have any reason to believe he lied?
EM: I was sceptical because there's an entry in a court docket saying they might have fudged
BA: did this influence you?
EM: i don't recall
BA: do you remember seeing this press release from 11/18/20?
EM: had covid, don't remember
BA: this press release says sig verify rejections increased approx. 350%.
EM: That's 2018 vs 2020 data tho, I would have ignored because midterm vs pres
BA: do you remember seeing this press release from 11/18/20?
EM: had covid, don't remember
BA: this press release says sig verify rejections increased approx. 350%.
EM: That's 2018 vs 2020 data tho, I would have ignored because midterm vs pres
BA: here's exhibit 86, 11/19/21, press release. you saw this?
EM: i don't remember that, but I remember the audit it references
BA: did that make you trust the audit?
EM: NO, because they were auditing illegal votes
BA: and you think the votes were illegal because Geels
EM: kinda
EM: i don't remember that, but I remember the audit it references
BA: did that make you trust the audit?
EM: NO, because they were auditing illegal votes
BA: and you think the votes were illegal because Geels
EM: kinda
BA: on 12/3/20, you thought Trump had won the election?
EM: never said that
BA: at that time you were pushing for alternate electors, correct?
EM: no, i said be prepared if you need alternate electors
BA: so you never said that?
EM: I was caveating based on what they found
EM: never said that
BA: at that time you were pushing for alternate electors, correct?
EM: no, i said be prepared if you need alternate electors
BA: so you never said that?
EM: I was caveating based on what they found
BA: You said they should call a special election or form an alternate slate of electors, do you remember that?
EM: I was trying to caveat
BA: let's roll tape
EM on vid,12/23: HAVE SPECIAL LECTIONS, FORM SLATES, PROTECT VOTE INTEGRITY
oof
EM: I was trying to caveat
BA: let's roll tape
EM on vid,12/23: HAVE SPECIAL LECTIONS, FORM SLATES, PROTECT VOTE INTEGRITY
oof
EM: you cut off the leadin
BA: roll it back from earlier
EM: SIGNIFCANT VIOLATIONS! IRREGULARITIES! ELECTION FRAUD!
yeah, uh, that didn't help bud.
BA: roll it back from earlier
EM: SIGNIFCANT VIOLATIONS! IRREGULARITIES! ELECTION FRAUD!
yeah, uh, that didn't help bud.
BA: You were telling these people to hold special elections or drum up alternate electors, right?
EM: I meant based on what investigations found
BA: One of the points you made was that GA had plenary power to form alt elector states, yeah?
EM: maybe
EM: I meant based on what investigations found
BA: One of the points you made was that GA had plenary power to form alt elector states, yeah?
EM: maybe
BA: when you say plenary power, that's power OUTSIDE/GOING AROUND the Governor, correct?
EM: depends on the circumstances. as i said one time, maybe, maybe not, Supreme Court said maybe, depends on remedies. IF election was illegal, what are the remedies?
BA: so if court found NO
EM: depends on the circumstances. as i said one time, maybe, maybe not, Supreme Court said maybe, depends on remedies. IF election was illegal, what are the remedies?
BA: so if court found NO
BA: issues, would they still have plenary power?
EM: depends. Moore v Harper is still arguing that in SCOTUS.
BA: so your view is the legislature can do that (choose slate of electors) at ANY TIME, regardless, yes?
EM: SCOTUS said they have the right to decide what to do about
EM: depends. Moore v Harper is still arguing that in SCOTUS.
BA: so your view is the legislature can do that (choose slate of electors) at ANY TIME, regardless, yes?
EM: SCOTUS said they have the right to decide what to do about
EM: The illegal election
BA: and they could do that...a YEAR into someone's presidency?
EM: uncharted territory
BA: you told that to WI legislature in 2021, right?
EM: uncharted territory, but IF the election was illegal the state leg has that right
BA: and they could do that...a YEAR into someone's presidency?
EM: uncharted territory
BA: you told that to WI legislature in 2021, right?
EM: uncharted territory, but IF the election was illegal the state leg has that right
BA: here's a letter you sent 12/30/21 to WI Rep Rantham, yes?
EM: yes
BA: in this letter, you tell Rantham that WI legislature could decertify the election, correct?
EM: if certain things happened, yes. again, uncharted territory
BA: so even in 2021 you were urging legs to decert
EM: yes
BA: in this letter, you tell Rantham that WI legislature could decertify the election, correct?
EM: if certain things happened, yes. again, uncharted territory
BA: so even in 2021 you were urging legs to decert
EM: Uncharted territory
BA: what would have been the effect if they decertified in 2021?
EM: UNCHARTED TERRITORY
Judge: you realize you're fuckin whack, right?
EM: yeah, probably. but WHAT IF i was right
Judge: ...
BA: IF that happened, what happens to Office of Pres?
BA: what would have been the effect if they decertified in 2021?
EM: UNCHARTED TERRITORY
Judge: you realize you're fuckin whack, right?
EM: yeah, probably. but WHAT IF i was right
Judge: ...
BA: IF that happened, what happens to Office of Pres?
EM: UNCHARTED TERRITORY! 25th Amendment! Fraud! WHAT IF. I mean c'mon, Marks in PA, 1994- fraud after the fact. They decertified, removed dude, but the winner in.
BA: so you think it's legal for states to decertify Biden electors TODAY, they could remove him for Trump?
BA: so you think it's legal for states to decertify Biden electors TODAY, they could remove him for Trump?
EM: UNCHARTED TERRITORY. but if fraud was proved, then you unravel what was done through fraud. but again, this is...
UNCHARTED TERRITORY.
BA: ok bud. moving on.
UNCHARTED TERRITORY.
BA: ok bud. moving on.
BA: under plenary power view, it is the legislators that remedy the issue, not the governor, correct?
EM: Article 2 says the state legislatures have that power
BA: by 12/3 the Governor had certified Biden's electors, and yet here you were telling the legislature they could
EM: Article 2 says the state legislatures have that power
BA: by 12/3 the Governor had certified Biden's electors, and yet here you were telling the legislature they could
BA: appoint their own slate of electors
EM: IF THE ELECTION WAS ILLEGAL THEY COULD
I would point out the Election was not, in fact, illegal.
EM: IF THE ELECTION WAS ILLEGAL THEY COULD
I would point out the Election was not, in fact, illegal.
BA: Was Rudy Giuliani there during your 12/3 testimony?
EM: dunno
BA: Senator Ligen included your 66,000 number of underage registrants, correct?
EM: I believe so, yes
BA: were you and rudy working together?
EM: not at that time
BA: later you worked together?
EM: yes
BA: how?
EM: dunno
BA: Senator Ligen included your 66,000 number of underage registrants, correct?
EM: I believe so, yes
BA: were you and rudy working together?
EM: not at that time
BA: later you worked together?
EM: yes
BA: how?
EM: somebody reached out. Epshteyn, i don't recall
BA: did you work w/ Jenna Ellis?
EM: no, don't recall working directly w her
BA: Did GA ever decertify or certify a different slate?
EM: no
BA: did you tell them to do that by 12/14/20?
EM: by then or 12/8
BA: did you work w/ Jenna Ellis?
EM: no, don't recall working directly w her
BA: Did GA ever decertify or certify a different slate?
EM: no
BA: did you tell them to do that by 12/14/20?
EM: by then or 12/8
BA: and you told them to do that to "protect their constitutional rights" is that correct?
EM: sounds right.
JUDGE: JUICE BOXES AND SNACK TIME
i mean, short recess
EM: sounds right.
JUDGE: JUICE BOXES AND SNACK TIME
i mean, short recess
BA: let me knock this out right quick- did you call Raffensberger and Kemp a democrat plan to stop Trump?
EM: I don't recall saying that
BA: Do you believe they are blocking Trump now?
EM: I do think there are issues with the legality of the GA election
BA: let's have juice boxes
EM: I don't recall saying that
BA: Do you believe they are blocking Trump now?
EM: I do think there are issues with the legality of the GA election
BA: let's have juice boxes
and with that, we take a 20-30 min 15 minute break.
don't forget to hydrate.
don't forget to hydrate.
We're back:
Judge:
Eastman, how are electors selected and what was in your document?
EM: that there were issues w/ how the election was handled but the elections are chosen by legislature
BA: Do you know if the Charles Stewart declaration was filed in both Trump v Kemp & v Raff?
Judge:
Eastman, how are electors selected and what was in your document?
EM: that there were issues w/ how the election was handled but the elections are chosen by legislature
BA: Do you know if the Charles Stewart declaration was filed in both Trump v Kemp & v Raff?
EM: I don't recall. I was busy.
BA: here's another exhibit- 271 an order in Trump v Kemp. now here's 202- Case number matches. So we've established page 3 from above is Trump v Kemp.
Have you read the declaration of Charles Stewart III?
EM: don't recall
BA: do you know CSIII?
BA: here's another exhibit- 271 an order in Trump v Kemp. now here's 202- Case number matches. So we've established page 3 from above is Trump v Kemp.
Have you read the declaration of Charles Stewart III?
EM: don't recall
BA: do you know CSIII?
BA: Do you see his expertise there? MIT Polysci, teaches research methodology n stuff.
Lotsa cred from where I sit.
EM: yes
BA: on page 14, it says Geels in unreliable and w/out merit. see that?
EM: yes
BA: now if an MIT prof says you're boy's fake af
EM: experts both sides
Lotsa cred from where I sit.
EM: yes
BA: on page 14, it says Geels in unreliable and w/out merit. see that?
EM: yes
BA: now if an MIT prof says you're boy's fake af
EM: experts both sides
BA: this didn't make you say woah?
EM: just that I needed better data.
Judge: yo, that's no answer. did something in there make you say woah?
EM: no your honor, it's an opposition expert. I found Geels addresses criticism in opening, i'm good
BA: so Geels and MIT dude are same?
EM: just that I needed better data.
Judge: yo, that's no answer. did something in there make you say woah?
EM: no your honor, it's an opposition expert. I found Geels addresses criticism in opening, i'm good
BA: so Geels and MIT dude are same?
EM: I said he addressed MIT's concerns re: incomplete data
BA: so what did CSIII criticize about Geels?
EM: I don't know
BA: so how do you know about the incomplete data criticism
EM: don't recall, just remember that one
BA: so Geels addressed everything CSIII said?
BA: so what did CSIII criticize about Geels?
EM: I don't know
BA: so how do you know about the incomplete data criticism
EM: don't recall, just remember that one
BA: so Geels addressed everything CSIII said?
EM: I don't recall
Judge: did you read this whole thing EM?
EM: I wasn't in Raffensberger
Judge: but it's in this one and the Kemp case
EM: I might have missed it, I don't recall
BA: on page 15, CSIII breaks it down, see that?
EM: yes
BA: page 28, "the claims of Mr Geels cannot
Judge: did you read this whole thing EM?
EM: I wasn't in Raffensberger
Judge: but it's in this one and the Kemp case
EM: I might have missed it, I don't recall
BA: on page 15, CSIII breaks it down, see that?
EM: yes
BA: page 28, "the claims of Mr Geels cannot
BA: be borne by facts..."
BA: CSIII points out a fatal flaw re: datetime stamp of Geels files (tech talk: they're f*cked up)
BA: Do you see all these points where CSIII nails Geels? You didn't read that?
EM: Didn't read it wasn't lead attorney
BA: but he's your witness 4 this cs
BA: CSIII points out a fatal flaw re: datetime stamp of Geels files (tech talk: they're f*cked up)
BA: Do you see all these points where CSIII nails Geels? You didn't read that?
EM: Didn't read it wasn't lead attorney
BA: but he's your witness 4 this cs
BA: So is there anything to state Geels wasn't an expert witness?
EM: he wasn't an expert witness he was a backup witness
Judge: did you review everything the bar has produced?
EM: I haven't. And I don't remember this discrediting Geels
BA: have another exhibit- 202
EM: he wasn't an expert witness he was a backup witness
Judge: did you review everything the bar has produced?
EM: I haven't. And I don't remember this discrediting Geels
BA: have another exhibit- 202
BA: do you recall the name Harvey in this case?
EM: I do know there was a declaration in that case
BA: here's the affidavit of Chris Harvey. remember this?
EM: don't recognize the name but I know there were things filed in the Trump v Raffensberger case
EM: I do know there was a declaration in that case
BA: here's the affidavit of Chris Harvey. remember this?
EM: don't recognize the name but I know there were things filed in the Trump v Raffensberger case
BA: but don't you point to the expert declarations in Trump v Raffensberger in this support of your case?
EM: I do
BA: did you read the responses to the plaintiff's experts?
EM: I don't recall. There was a lot. I didn't review every one. I do know Trump's atty in that case filed
EM: I do
BA: did you read the responses to the plaintiff's experts?
EM: I don't recall. There was a lot. I didn't review every one. I do know Trump's atty in that case filed
EM: Geels response
BA: but you knew that Trump v Raffensberger experts declaration were used as evidence of fraud or illegality, right? isn't it important to read those?
EM: Every litigation I've been in I haven't read every filing that's up to judge to decide.
BA: but you knew that Trump v Raffensberger experts declaration were used as evidence of fraud or illegality, right? isn't it important to read those?
EM: Every litigation I've been in I haven't read every filing that's up to judge to decide.
BA: do you evaluate the respectability of the expert declarations?
EM: If I have time I try to get as much as I can
BA: putting Chris Harvey affidavit back up- Elections Dir w/ GA SOS, ring a bell?
EM: nah
BA: w/ respect to Geels affidavits, Harvey tears Geels apart.
EM: If I have time I try to get as much as I can
BA: putting Chris Harvey affidavit back up- Elections Dir w/ GA SOS, ring a bell?
EM: nah
BA: w/ respect to Geels affidavits, Harvey tears Geels apart.
BA: Geels wanted to disqualify voters based on "risk buckets," that is improper wrote Harvey
EM: well if it's an illegal vote, like if underaged, that's illegal and shouldn't count
BA: Did you call Ronna McDaniel w/ Trump?
EM: didn't call her
BA: you didn't talk?
EM: didn't call
EM: well if it's an illegal vote, like if underaged, that's illegal and shouldn't count
BA: Did you call Ronna McDaniel w/ Trump?
EM: didn't call her
BA: you didn't talk?
EM: didn't call
BA: and what did you talk about
EM: don't recall
BA: did you tell her RNC should gather contingent electors?
EM: don't recall
BA: exhibit Ronna McD J6 interview, page 8
she says- prior to 12/14, phone call w/ Trump "meet John Eastman"
EM: don't recall
BA: did you tell her RNC should gather contingent electors?
EM: don't recall
BA: exhibit Ronna McD J6 interview, page 8
she says- prior to 12/14, phone call w/ Trump "meet John Eastman"
BA: page 9, line 7/8
he said he was a professor. professor told me it was important to gather electors. ring a bell, yo?
EM: doesn't, but that was my position at the time, deadlines man, deadlines
judge: put that sh*t back up. page 9, do you AGREE with her statement 7-13,
he said he was a professor. professor told me it was important to gather electors. ring a bell, yo?
EM: doesn't, but that was my position at the time, deadlines man, deadlines
judge: put that sh*t back up. page 9, do you AGREE with her statement 7-13,
judge: you agree you said that to her?
EM: doesn't refresh my memory of the call, but that was my position
BA: you don't recall?
EM: this is what i believe to be true
BA: was there a call Trump put in to others stating this?
EM: I don't recall
EM: doesn't refresh my memory of the call, but that was my position
BA: you don't recall?
EM: this is what i believe to be true
BA: was there a call Trump put in to others stating this?
EM: I don't recall
BA: was her statement on page 9 "gathering electors" consistent w/ what you were doing?
EM: well Trump had other people for that. plus attorney client privs.
BA: did you have comms w/ others other than your client, having that discussion?
EM: I had a number of clients then
EM: well Trump had other people for that. plus attorney client privs.
BA: did you have comms w/ others other than your client, having that discussion?
EM: I had a number of clients then
judge: nah bro, answer that sh*t- did you have comms w/ others other than your clientS around that gathering contingent electors?
EM: I can't answer that in line w/ atty client privs
Judge: hol up. this is about anybody OTHER than any of your f*ckin clients bro
EM: I can't answer that in line w/ atty client privs
Judge: hol up. this is about anybody OTHER than any of your f*ckin clients bro
EM: well atty client privs goes BEYOND client
Judge: fuck it does. answer my question
EM: well I'll have to review that
Judge: did you communicate w/ ANY OTHER individuals who weren't YOUR CLIENT
EM: nope, I have to be broader than that
Judge: bud.
Judge: fuck it does. answer my question
EM: well I'll have to review that
Judge: did you communicate w/ ANY OTHER individuals who weren't YOUR CLIENT
EM: nope, I have to be broader than that
Judge: bud.
BA: So Trump and Trump campaign HAVEN'T waived atty client privs
EM: nope
BA: has any ONE of your clients waived atty client privs
EM: no
BA: so you didn't talk to anyone outside clients or agents
EM: don't recall
EM: nope
BA: has any ONE of your clients waived atty client privs
EM: no
BA: so you didn't talk to anyone outside clients or agents
EM: don't recall
BA: what else did you do outside gathering electors
EM: I made 12/14 deadline to have electors meet, and if there's alternate electors they have to meet by 12/14 too
BA: Is that normal to have conversations like that
EM: That question is incorrect
Judge: stop reframing, answer
EM: I made 12/14 deadline to have electors meet, and if there's alternate electors they have to meet by 12/14 too
BA: Is that normal to have conversations like that
EM: That question is incorrect
Judge: stop reframing, answer
BA: did you have conversations w/ anyone OUTSIDE of everything atty client agent etc
EM: probably
BA: so what if they waived privs
EM and the Judge are going back and forth now
EM: probably
BA: so what if they waived privs
EM and the Judge are going back and forth now
Judge: STOP REFRAMING QUESTIONS BRO, repeat question
BA: Please identify who, OTHER than Donald Trump would be subject to atty client privs
EA: Nah, this is spelled out in CA Evidence Code
Judge: look it up
EA: Asking who, and what conversation, ties them together
BA: Please identify who, OTHER than Donald Trump would be subject to atty client privs
EA: Nah, this is spelled out in CA Evidence Code
Judge: look it up
EA: Asking who, and what conversation, ties them together
Judge: Asking WHO, if they were a client, and if anyone a non-party or non-client, had that convo, that's legit
EA: Atty Client Privs Atty Client Privs
Judge: state the question again
BA: Dr. Eastman can you identify the person, the client who you spoke to about gathering elector
EA: Atty Client Privs Atty Client Privs
Judge: state the question again
BA: Dr. Eastman can you identify the person, the client who you spoke to about gathering elector
EA: Atty Client Privs
Judge: fine, first q tomorrow, let's move on
BA: GA MI WI PA, you tried to fuck around too yeah?
EM: yeah
BA: have an exhibit- motion to file bill of complaint from Tx in PA
This was when Paxton got stupid
Judge: fine, first q tomorrow, let's move on
BA: GA MI WI PA, you tried to fuck around too yeah?
EM: yeah
BA: have an exhibit- motion to file bill of complaint from Tx in PA
This was when Paxton got stupid
BA: is this your motion to intervene?
EM: yeah
BA: and you were atty of record
EM: yeah
BA: you filed this 12/9, and adopted all of TX bs too yes
EM: yes
BA: You adopt this TX complaint?
EM: not everything, but yeah, I took it, but there were issues
EM: yeah
BA: and you were atty of record
EM: yeah
BA: you filed this 12/9, and adopted all of TX bs too yes
EM: yes
BA: You adopt this TX complaint?
EM: not everything, but yeah, I took it, but there were issues
BA: anything involving TX accusation you shouldn't have adopted?
EM: not to my knowledge
BA: TX page 24 pgh 52-
various election codes were violated to favor Biden. what evidence do you have of that?
EM: well I went with what was in TX lawsuit- no sig check, mail in ballots
EM: not to my knowledge
BA: TX page 24 pgh 52-
various election codes were violated to favor Biden. what evidence do you have of that?
EM: well I went with what was in TX lawsuit- no sig check, mail in ballots
EM: Second, Democrat (thought stopping cult word) officials were going to allow pre-canvasing and there's regulations and they were gonna violate em. Democrat officials were advertising for employees to support ballot curing. It was enough evidence
BA: but there's no support
BA: but there's no support
BA: for either side there
EM: well I could make the assumption there was
BA: but what's the evidence?
EM: DEMOCRAT OFFICIALS ADVERTISED ON SOCIAL MEDIA
EM is getting quite testy during this
EM: well I could make the assumption there was
BA: but what's the evidence?
EM: DEMOCRAT OFFICIALS ADVERTISED ON SOCIAL MEDIA
EM is getting quite testy during this
BA: and you have evidence for this?
EM: I have them in my exhibits
BA: and you added 114 exhibits today
EM: i think i added it before
BA: are you presenting from Molly Bawl the article as evidence that there was collusion
EM: well it came later but it proves collusion
EM: I have them in my exhibits
BA: and you added 114 exhibits today
EM: i think i added it before
BA: are you presenting from Molly Bawl the article as evidence that there was collusion
EM: well it came later but it proves collusion
BA: right, let's take a look at that
The Secret History of the Campaign to save America
cites part where Trump was trying to spoil election
blah blah he did f*cked up gangster sh*t, culminating in J6
You agree w that
EM: I do not
The Secret History of the Campaign to save America
cites part where Trump was trying to spoil election
blah blah he did f*cked up gangster sh*t, culminating in J6
You agree w that
EM: I do not
Judge: you realize this is your exhibit right?
EM: uhhhhh
BA: you cite this article multiple times as a conspiracy by leftist groups and anti-Trump Replublicans. you believe that?
EM: yes
BA: but you disagree with the part about Trump's people (YOU BUD) trying to throw a fascism
EM: uhhhhh
BA: you cite this article multiple times as a conspiracy by leftist groups and anti-Trump Replublicans. you believe that?
EM: yes
BA: but you disagree with the part about Trump's people (YOU BUD) trying to throw a fascism
EM: well I can cherry pick what I want because rules.
JUDGE: OK, I'M CALLING IT.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaand we are out.
maybe I'll do this tomorrow too.
JUDGE: OK, I'M CALLING IT.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaand we are out.
maybe I'll do this tomorrow too.
If you’d like to read on to DAY TWO of #Eastman’s #Disbarment, head right on over here:
https://twitter.com/hifilofipod/status/1671563582754914335
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
