Thread by @Orly_licious

⚖️ Good afternoon everybody! 🧵 It's Thu Sep 28's #EastmanTrial, CA Bar Disbarment Trial of #JohnEastman, resumes at 1:30pm EDT. 9/27 ended with another disasterous Eastman witness, Joe Fried. Will he be back? Doubtful. Trial is NOT archived, watch here: app.zoom.us/wc/97985435232…

Here's a recap of 9/27 #EastmanTrial. It began with John Yoo, then off the rails with #ElectionDenier Joseph Fried, who it seems has no admissible evidence. Usual mix of conspiracy theories, fantasies & total misunderstanding of election law & procedures. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1707086…

Joseph Fried wrote a book, DEBUNKED. Judge Roland referred to it as "the DEBUNKED book". 😅 Here's a Fried interview. "claims of a 'stolen' election, foreign infiltration of election equipment, night ballot dumps, and impossible mathematical anomalies" 🚀

Randall Miller, Eastman's lawyer, had just started Fried's direct. Fried was a percipient, not expert, witness. Fried "watched every hearing" on TV, downloaded random internet rants & opined in DEBUNKED. CA Bar objected strongly, that's not percipient. Judge Roland agreed.

Randall Miller actually tried to compare Fried's "experience" with state government officials, specifically Maricopa County Recorder @stephen_richer! Unbelievable & nobody was buying it. Judge Roland ended the hearing telling Miller to have other witnesses ready. #EastmanTrial

Eastman's ethics case is 11 disciplinary charges filed by the CA Bar. He could lose his CA law license. After hearing Fried, Judge Roland wanted to know how his testimony is relevant to Eastman's charges. Miller says rebuttal witness...Roland isn't buying. latimes.com/california/sto…

#SUSPENSE: In today's #EastmanTrial, will Joseph Fried continue? Eastman back on the stand? Or will Eastman's other crackpot witnesses like Joe Oltmann (being sued by Eric Coomer of Dominion; Joe said he "heard" an Antifa call referring to "Eric") be called? Should be fun! 🥳

#EastmanTrial In June, Joseph Fried was rejected: "No experience": Judge rejects Trump "coup memo" author's "expert" witness at disbarment hearing "I don't see how Mr. Fried is qualified to be an expert," pointing to lack of expertise. Eastman persisted. salon.com/2023/06/21/no-…

Here we go! it's 1:40pm EDT & indicted in Georgia (mugshot below) #JohnEastman's #CABar Disbarment Trial resumes. The case is In Re Eastman, Cal. State Bar, No. SBC-23-O-30029.

No more Joseph Fried. Randall Miller discussing witnesses. He proposed John Droz this morning, 2-2.5hrs, then starting at 4:30pm EDT would be Kurt Olsen. CA Bar would skip cross since not ready. Joe Oltmann is "too sick to appear" but he's doing his podcast live right now. Whoa.

Duncan Carling is prepared to cross Kurt Olsen. With Droz, CA Bar wants Prof. Justin Grimmer of Stanford to hear his testimony. No problem. Same with Olsen, since TX v Pa might come up. Grimmer will likely provide rebuttal testimony. #EastmanTrial opb.org/article/2022/1…

Miller still plans to submit to Judge Roland why Joe Fried should keep testifying, CA Bar will reply. Judge will rule after receipt. Here's info on #EastmanTrial's next witness #ElectionDenier John Droz, & other possible witnesses: americanoversight.org/in-the-documen…

Droz is sitting in front of a lake which is beautiful, but puts his face in the dark. They are working on his volume so that's what's going on. He's effusive, GOOD MORNING! He seems extremely confident & ready! We'll see how long he feels this way.

John Droz Jr. sworn. Randall Miller, Eastman's lawyer, begins direct. BS math & physics Boston College in 1968, then Syracuse Masters in physics in 1972. Worked for GE in QC & components testing. Again, NOTHING to do with election admin or law.

RM: Anything with data around the 2020 election?
JD: Got a call from a woman from group of attorneys (doesn't remember who): Would you put statistical experts together to analyze election integrity? Sure. (RM leading again) Found 4 "Statistical PhDs" around 11/10. #EastmanTrial

She asked them to d/l & analyze Edison data from PA from a website. JD: "They were HIGH LEVEL experts". Looked individually & JD wrote a "statistical" report. JD didn't look at the data much. Here's a report, 2020 Presidential Election Contrast Analysis:
scribd.com/document/49845…

My buddy @tomryanlaw is providing great commentary about John Droz & the #EastmanTrial, give him a follow & check replies to my tweets. John Droz is full of himself, "pretty impressive we got this report to them in 4 days, they wanted it in 2". RM asking what lawyers looking for.

The 4 data experts: Dr. Tony Cox, Dr. Stanley Young, Dr. Eric Quinnell & Dr. William Briggs. RM says Messrs, Droz says they are DOCTORS! RM sorry. Droz "extensively modified" their reports & submitted. Judge asks abut relevance, was Eastman copied? Eastman contacted him.

Judge notes her copy of John Eastman's exhibits are "a mess, someone from your office needs to come and sort these out". Here's the cover of the report, posted on Scribd (he can't pronounce it). There so he can make changes.

When asked what the "Time Series Analysis" means, John Droz says, "you have to read the chapter" (he didn't analyze the data & sounded like he said somebody else wrote the TOC). Duncan Carling objects, sustained. Then objection, leading, sustained. Droz was "editor".

RM: Did you approve everything in the report? JD: Well, I didn't analyze it, looked if it was "kosher"... Duncan Carling Objection: Doesn't know how they did analysis, Chapter 3 & 4 were written by folks JD didn't ID (may be pseudonyms)... They are discussing.

😅 JD: The 12/11 version would be better... (they kept updating it, including using real names instead of revolutionary war names, all of whom were Dr. Eric Quinnell). Judge: Objection pending on exhibit. Judge will take under submission (under after cross). Add'l info needed.

John Droz calls Eastman's lawyer, Randall Miller, "Randy". First time I've heard him called that. Goes along with Droz' blowhard attitude, of course he's pals with "Randy". An ignorant, self-absorbed #ElectionDenier. He must be popular with election subverters. #EastmanTrial

CA Bar objects again.. this exhibit was first shown to us THIS MORNING. Trial's been going on for three months. Judge sustains objection, move on.

On the report website, Droz put a note, "If ANYBODY has a comment, LMK". Then they did revisions, "Improvements, clarifications" Ex: last page has a summary. Previously no summary. Judge wants the exhibit down until she has a copy. JD: No further analysis after a few weeks.

Lots of objections by Carling. Judge wants to know if he analyzed the report. JZ looked if they "made sense". Judge: How? JD: Looked at comparative #s by Stan Young... Sustains, strikes. Again, RM is calling for expert testimony & JD isn't approved for that. #EastmanTrial

Droz, testifying remotely, begins rocking. Arms crossed. Something about a "Spikes" report of all 50 states. 10th report was an "audit" report for all 50 states. PA & MI were only 2 specific reports. Team varied, like Eastman wanted to be on distribution. Others wanted to help.

RM: Were all new members doctoral statisticians? JD: No, like Tom Davis is an IT expert... RM moves to Michigan report. JD: Lawyers thought it was "so great", want to do another? Same procedure. [This CA Bar cross is going to be epic.] Bringing up MI report... #EastmanTrial

Same thing, this was 1st release. There was a 12/11/20 version (Droz knows they're looking for info before #J6). Latest was 4/10/21. RM: Different data for new versions? JD: No. [Finally!] RM: Did the report show anomalies? JD: Yes

Another CA Bar objection. Foundation, calls for expert testimony. JF saying data "made sense" not the same as "accurate". Sustained. RM compares again to Stephen Richer! @stephen_richer "He was allowed to testify about reports done by others...scope of testimony is inconsistent!"

Judge: Exhibits under submission. If Miller wants to find particular exhibits.. RM: We objected to exhibit 79, 80, 81, 82..CA Bar: 6/21 those were judicially noticed as gov't records. Judge: Difference bet authenticity vs. truth of the matter. CA Bar: Met req for judical notice.

OK, this is the "Spikes" report. These are the bogus claims with people who have zero understanding of how ballots are counted & in what order. News reported CONSTANTLY that with mail-in ballots, the order counted would be different. But #ElectionDeniers & MAGAs don't watch news.

🤣 During an objection, John Droz says, "I don't think so!" Judge says "um, it doesn't matter what you think, Mr. Droz." Judge patiently explains how percipient vs expert witnesses work. "You're not an expert." Not qualified. Objections sustained & testimony struck. #EastmanTrial

Earlier in this thread, I posted an article where Judge Roland did not approve John Droz as an expert. Randall Miller tries to pretend it didn't happen. Judge reminds Miller Rule 5.65.1: 50 days prior for experts. they didn't. Miller tries to argue. Judge raises voice: THAT'S IT.

#EastmanTrial is what happens when you only have liars, election deniers, grifters & clowns willing to testify with BS for you. John Eastman is bottom of the barrel. Randall Miller asks John Droz about "spikes". CAL Bar: Objections, vague, lacks foundation, expert...Sustained.

John Droz during testimony: "I'm having a senior moment". Objections. Move to strike "vote spikes way out of norm". Sustained. Then: calls for expert testimony. Sustained. Droz asks for break. Judge says lunch break till 5pm EDT. JD left cam on, he's on the phone.☎️ #EastmanTrial

My observations on today's #EastmanTrial so far: Obviously John Droz' testimony is worthless. None of these people know about election mechanics, practices or law, but they watch YouTube videos and bloviate to other #ElectionDeniers who are sore losers and can't accept they lost.

Duncan Carling of the CA Bar doesn't even really need cross, John Droz is so incompetent (about these issues) that Judge Yvette Roland will give it the weight it deserves: NONE. Eastman's lawyer Randall Miller beclowns himself with these irrelevant witnesses in #EastmanTrial.

I'm tweeting #EastmanTrial because a) the trial isn't being archived & b) it's vital we get the word out about the absolutely insane lies these #ElectionDenier grifters & sore losers keep peddling. None of their claims are true. 2022 was the 5th election in a row the GOP lost.

🇺🇸 It's our job as Americans to help our fellow citizens understand elections are safe & secure. #ElectionDenier claims are misguided or intentionally false. After #Election2020, Trump & allies filed 64 lawsuits. They lost 63. If so many problems, how did any GOP candidates win?

Please help me get the word out. It's important all Americans know our elections are safe & decentralized. Unqualified sore losers like John Droz, Garland Favorito, Michael Gableman & others are hurting the country we love. Don't let the grifters get away with it. #EastmanTrial

On a lighter note, check out #ElectionDenier @DeclareUrBallot hilariously coping & seething about Eastman's bogus witness Joseph Fried. He says #EastmanTrial needs JOVAN PULITZER to win! Some of these folks are so far in Fantasyland it's hard to figure how to get them to reality.

Reply from @DeclareUrBallot with an election debate challenge! Referred him to "Lost, Not Stolen: Conservative Case that Trump Lost". If he & his pals agree to debate ONLY this report, I'll set up a thread. Will y'all join me in the debate if he agrees? 🥳 lostnotstolen.org

Back on the record In Re Eastman, Cal. State Bar, No. SBC-23-O-30029. Judge Yvette Roland (YR). Eastman's lawyer Randall Miller (RM) on direct with John Droz (JD). CA Bar Duncan Carling (DC) ready to pounce. Funny tweet about John Yoo's testimony, how it's going in #EastmanTrial:

Randall Miller asks John Droz when he was 1st in contact with John Eastman. After the election. JD was given his name & email by "the attorneys". JD reached out him on "election integrity" & emailed link to the PA report. (Leading again.) First email:

The website John Droz & his team created is . "Our team of authors of 2020 election-related analyses are unpaid volunteers, whose expertise covers a wide range of fields (Cyber Security, IT, Statistics, Physics, Economics, etc.)." #EastmanTrialelection-integrity.info

Showing this & PA Report cover page. Duncan Carling: Objection, late discovery (only received 2 days ago). Miller: But our schedule changed... Judge: Exhibits were to be exchanged by late May. Will take under consideration. DC: Same objections on the report. WIthdraws attachment.

John Eastman sits at counsel table every day, watching these bozos, staking his CA law license on this. 10 mins to confirm records were electronic. 😅
JD: Some "legalalities" need to be specific, it was a "word processing "pages document" then converted to a PDF...
#EastmanTrial

Droz just destroys Miller: JD: "No, there was no business established." (Miller's been trying to establish these reports as "business records". Really funny.)
Then an email chain including Ted "Felito" Cruz. Objections from DC, they saw it for the 1st time today. Overruled.

Another email, doesn't show to whom it was sent. John Droz doesn't remember. He says this links to his Michigan report. Unclear if it was even sent. Objections (basically, WTF is this) sustained. RM leading again. Judge is not amused with these shenanigans.

Replying to a request for clarification by the CA Bar, Judge Roland says these emails are not being admitted for "the truth in the matter". RM now questioning JD about some "contrast analysis" between 2016 & 2020. Solely researched by Dr. Stan Young. (RM leading again.)

JD admits Young is an "economic expert". Another election unqualified guy. RM asks any more with Eastman? JD: Don't remember. Says he wrote a "Recommendations Report". 12 team members by then, "send what could improve election integrity". [As @tomryanlaw said, cross will be lit]

BOOM. Judge require which counts of the NSC (Notice of Disciplinary Charges) EXACTLY are relevant in "Recommendations" report? Eastman had nothing to do with the report. RM is trying to use Droz to say the election was "vulnerable". This is nuts. calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/…

Judge Roland reads John Eastman's NDC charges. RM is trying to point to counts that have nothing to do with this (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11). Of course #EastmanTrial is about REALITY: Eastman's attempt to officially subvert the 2020 election. Not unqualified buffoons spouting off.

Randall Miller, John Eastman's lawyer, blown out. Objection sustained, "Recommendation" report thrown in the trash. RM moves to John Droz' "Audit Report". He had an "informal poll" to define "forensic audit". He thinks it's 3 parts: Voter, Machine & Process parts. Total nonsense.

Basically on "Audit Report" (6/21), John Droz says, "We talked about our experiences" and "looked at the internet". DC is objecting & judge is sustaining. Election, like financial, audits are expertise, whole topic calls for expert testimony.

Randall Miller says it's an "audit report" about "audit report". Judge laughs, Miller is trying to testify. Judge reminds Miller that John Droz is not an expert on election audits. Miller argues, judge gives "a little" latitude.

#EastmanTrial John Droz says the real title is "Post-Election Audits: Verifying Election Integrity". He says he used 50 references. "I did the research." Conclusion was... (Move to strike, there's no official definition, sustained.) Report at election-integrity.info/Post_Election_…

💣 This sums Eastman's witnesses up: Judge says John Droz does not have the skills, education, background, training or experience to offer opinion or analysis regarding subject matter. Some may find it interesting, but it does not qualify him to offer an opinion. #EastmanTrial

Voter Forensic Audit (nonsense with loser Jesse Binnall in NV). Judge: Nope, objection sustained
Machine Forensic Audit "manipulating votes" Did you perform analysis? JD: No. [🚀debunked Antrim County] RM: Who did it? JD: Russ Ramsland. Judge: Nope, objection sustained.

Note: Not a single bit of actual evidence about a problem with the 2020 election has been presented in #EastmanTrial. John Yoo said Biden won. All these unqualified people (Droz, Favorito, Gableman) can't present expert testimony. Maybe Kurt Olsen? But this is a disaster.

Originally, CA Bar Duncan Carling didn't plan cross on John Droz since he didn't know about him. But he thinks he can start, he's been taking notes. It's late to start Kurt Olsen. Droz not available until Tue. #EastmanTrial 15 minute break till 7:25pm EDT than DC starts cross! 🚀

Y'all, please let me know if this part was unclear... I was incredulous, laughing & getting everything accurately. Another disaster for #EastmanTrial. It's an embarrassment Randall Miller would put on such unqualified, clueless witnesses. But, guess it's all they've got.

#EastmanTrial Back on the record for the Disbarment Trial (looking more likely after this week) of John Charles Eastman. Now, superhero Duncan Carling of the CA Bar is going to start cross examination of unqualified #ElectionDenier John Droz. It's almost too easy. #Mincemeat

Here's a list from late August by our friends at American Oversight, @weareoversight, with potential witnesses for #EastmanTrial. Mostly, they lack the skills, education, background, training or experience to offer opinion or analysis re subject matter. americanoversight.org/in-the-documen…

By the way, thanks for being really kind about my #EastmanTrial livetweeting. 💙 Many have asked to buy me a coffee (I need it with some of those witnesses). It's just for fun if you're enjoying. To those who have chipped in, sending you a big hug. buymeacoffee.com/lukejohnson2

Here we go.
Duncan Carling CA Bar cross of John Droz.
DC: Any training in statistics?
JD: No.
DC: What did you do at GE?
JD: Not relevant. (Judge: Answer the Q.) RM: Any career reports like these? JD: No. JD retired at age 34 in 1980.

DC: (About his "experts") Did you ask if anyone had election related experience?
JD: Wasn't relevant
DC: So you didn't think that would help?
JD. No. It was data.
DC: Who was the group of lawyers? Names? (Doesn't know) Have a copy of the 1st sent email?
JD: No. Too much data.

DC: Did you submit reports to academic journals?
JF: No.
DC: Peer review?
JF: I don't pay attention to peer reviews, unreliable. 40 years scientist
DC: As scientist, any peer review submitted?
JF: No.
DC: Any data before 2020?
JF: Contrast reports with 2016

Shocking how these MAGA #ElectionDeniers have been trained to not believe news, peer reviews, scientific reports. Only RWNJ TV & web. It's almost unfair. John Droz is an elderly man & says his wife is very sick. He's in NY, 7:50pm EDT. He's getting cranky & tired (understand 🤠)

DC is asking about 2020 PA election. Droz' confirmation bias is so strong that he has no doubt that PA officials just "rubber stamped" the election certification.
DC: Did you seek officials' statements?
JF: Self serving & not based on "what needed to be done, proper audit"

DC: Why in PA was it a "rubber stamp" Basis of belief.
JF: Result of our study, had no meaningful audits. Suspect.
DC: Did you look at other years for similar anomalies?
JF: No.
DC: You haven't looked into other years?
JF: Correct.

DC: Same in Michigan?
JF: Yes, "Statistical analysis suspect & no meaningful audit".
DC: No audit?
JF: Antrim County
DC: They should do audits they aren't required to perform?
JF: Yes

DC: Has any state has ever performed a meaningful audit
JF: No.
DC: Do you doubt every election?
JF: Of course not. But in this day & age.
DC: When is that?
JF: Over the last decade or so.

Fireworks over "anomaly"
DC: How can you determine anomalies if you don't look at prior years?
JF: You don't know what anomalies means.
DC: What do you think it means?
JF: (mad) What do YOU think it means?
Judge: Answer.
JF: Something significantly out of the ordinary.

JD* (sorry, it's going fast) says they didn't use "fraud", they used words like "malfeasance".
DC: What is that?
JD: Something significantly out of the ordinary.
DC: Outcome determinative malfeasance?
JD: (Doesn't understand).
That's it for him. More cross for Tuesday.

#EastmanTrial Fri Sep 29 will start around 1:30pm EDT with Kari Lake & Mike Lindell's favorite lawyer, Kurt Olsen! Then John Eastman's team plans to call #ElectionDenier Ray Blehar (appears to be @RayBlehar). He worked with John Droz. More in the @weareoversight report above.

Another disasterous day in John Eastman World for #EastmanTrial. Judge Roland said it best: Most Eastman witnesses lack the skills, education, background, training or experience to offer opinion or analysis regarding subject matter. Back Friday with more! Unroll next. Thanks! 🥳

@threadreaderapp unroll