Read on Twitter
PART III ⚖️ Oct 30, 2023: "Join The Circus" More of CA Bar's @StateBarCA #EastmanTrial #JohnEastman. CA Bar's Duncan Carling's continues his Cross Examination of suddenly forgetful John Charles Eastman. His law license is at stake. #LukeCrew Watch here: app.zoom.us/wc/97985435232…
Part I of today's #EastmanTrial: CA Bar's @StateBarCA #EastmanTrial #JohnEastman threadreaderapp.com/thread/1719009…
PART II of #EastmanTrial: CA Bar's @StateBarCA #EastmanTrial #JohnEastman threadreaderapp.com/thread/1719064…
Back on the record. Duncan Carling asks John Eastman about his Bill of Complaint in Intervention. #EastmanTrial 
DC: Besides your intent, didn't you know your words would incite people further?
JE: My 3-minutes wouldn't sway them. I didn't have any belief one way or another.
JE: My 3-minutes wouldn't sway them. I didn't have any belief one way or another.
DC: Do you remember talking with Trump 1/3?
JE: I don't recall.
DC: Are you aware the National Archives released the 1/3/21 phone logs that Trump called you at 2:26pm?
JE: I've heard.
DC: Does this refresh your memory?
JE: It does not. I might have been on a plane.
#EastmanTrial
JE: I don't recall.
DC: Are you aware the National Archives released the 1/3/21 phone logs that Trump called you at 2:26pm?
JE: I've heard.
DC: Does this refresh your memory?
JE: It does not. I might have been on a plane.
#EastmanTrial
DC: Here's the White House switchboard call log from Jan 5, 2021. Do you recall having a 4 minute call with Trump?
JE: I don't recall. I don't remember.
DC: During this time period, were you in phone contact with Trump?
JE: Don't recall... was in Dec but not 1/1-1/6.
#EastmanTrial
JE: I don't recall. I don't remember.
DC: During this time period, were you in phone contact with Trump?
JE: Don't recall... was in Dec but not 1/1-1/6.
#EastmanTrial
Duncan Carling is about to bring up testimony of John Yoo and...
(Suddenly) JE: I do have a recollection of a New Year's Day call. Maybe with/about state legislators. Don't recall...um, Mark Finchem was on, 1-2 GA legislators... lot of people on call.
#EastmanTrial
(Suddenly) JE: I do have a recollection of a New Year's Day call. Maybe with/about state legislators. Don't recall...um, Mark Finchem was on, 1-2 GA legislators... lot of people on call.
#EastmanTrial
DC: Do you recall Yoo's testimony that Adams & Jefferson were bound to count the Vermont electoral votes?
JE: Don't recall testimony or legal authority addressing that.
DC: Do you agree Ackerman & Fontana were speculating?
JE: Educated assessment, not as strong as "speculation".
JE: Don't recall testimony or legal authority addressing that.
DC: Do you agree Ackerman & Fontana were speculating?
JE: Educated assessment, not as strong as "speculation".
DC: Yoo said you were "good friends & colleagues", right? 20 years?
JE: Yes, closer to 30.
DC: When Yoo was facing criticism about waterboarding, you wrote articles agreeing with him?
JE: Don't recall, 22 years ago
DC: Came to his defense?
JE: Don't recall, don't remember
JE: Yes, closer to 30.
DC: When Yoo was facing criticism about waterboarding, you wrote articles agreeing with him?
JE: Don't recall, 22 years ago
DC: Came to his defense?
JE: Don't recall, don't remember
DC: Remember inviting Yoo to be visiting prof at Chapman U?
JE: Yes.
DC: It was Yoo's article that changed your view on 12A, right?
JE: Yes.
DC: Why didn't you call him about it?
JE: I did my own analysis, didn't have any need to call him. Only so many hours in a day.
JE: Yes.
DC: It was Yoo's article that changed your view on 12A, right?
JE: Yes.
DC: Why didn't you call him about it?
JE: I did my own analysis, didn't have any need to call him. Only so many hours in a day.
DC: You were discussing this with state legislators?
JE: Don't recall having discussions about VP's role.
DC: No citations to authority in the American Mind article?
JE: No. I knew John to be a thorough scholar, did my own assessment of historical authority.
#EastmanTrial
JE: Don't recall having discussions about VP's role.
DC: No citations to authority in the American Mind article?
JE: No. I knew John to be a thorough scholar, did my own assessment of historical authority.
#EastmanTrial
DC: Did you hear Prof Yoo say it was "weird" you didn't talk?
JE: Don't remember, my memory...
DC: Did you know Yoo was talking with the VP's office?
JE: Well after, months, Summer...
DC: Did it occur to you to discuss with Judge Luttig?
JE: Not an expert on these issues.
JE: Don't remember, my memory...
DC: Did you know Yoo was talking with the VP's office?
JE: Well after, months, Summer...
DC: Did it occur to you to discuss with Judge Luttig?
JE: Not an expert on these issues.
DC: 1787 Debates show the VP has exclusive, unreviewable right?
JE: 2 possibilities & who resolves disputes: Congress or VP. Clear discussion they didn't want to give Congress.
DC: Said Seligman did a "gross negligence" not including it.
JE: Don't recall Philly in his report.
JE: 2 possibilities & who resolves disputes: Congress or VP. Clear discussion they didn't want to give Congress.
DC: Said Seligman did a "gross negligence" not including it.
JE: Don't recall Philly in his report.
"Gross oversight" is what Eastman said, not negligence.
DC: Was it a gross oversight that Yoo didn't discuss it? JE: No.
DC: Over the last 2-3 yrs, you've written defenses of your theories right? You didn't reference the Debates.
JE: It wasn't a comprehensive report.
DC: In your American Mind article 1/18/21 you had a defense but didn't ref the constitutional convention either right?
JE: Wasn't extensive.
DC: In another article you didn't reference the convention either, right?
JE: Don't recall.
DC: You provided State Bar with 2 lengthy responses & neither make reference to the constitutional convention right?
JE: Don't recall, didn't ask for that... the convention itself doesn't address the VP, it's about Congress.
DC: In response to this cases, didn't bring up convention, right?
JE: Yes.
DC: Charged with advancing a theory without historical support, right?
JE: I'd have to look...
DC: First time this came up was when Yoo brought it up, right?
JE: Probably.
#EastmanTrial
DC: Was it a gross oversight that Yoo didn't discuss it? JE: No.
DC: Over the last 2-3 yrs, you've written defenses of your theories right? You didn't reference the Debates.
JE: It wasn't a comprehensive report.
DC: In your American Mind article 1/18/21 you had a defense but didn't ref the constitutional convention either right?
JE: Wasn't extensive.
DC: In another article you didn't reference the convention either, right?
JE: Don't recall.
DC: You provided State Bar with 2 lengthy responses & neither make reference to the constitutional convention right?
JE: Don't recall, didn't ask for that... the convention itself doesn't address the VP, it's about Congress.
DC: In response to this cases, didn't bring up convention, right?
JE: Yes.
DC: Charged with advancing a theory without historical support, right?
JE: I'd have to look...
DC: First time this came up was when Yoo brought it up, right?
JE: Probably.
#EastmanTrial
DC: Do you recall Pence ruling any objections out of order because a Senator didn't join? That's what the Electoral Count Act required, right?
JE: IF the ECA is Constitutional, must be signed by House & Senate member (version in effect 2020). If not, out of order.
JE: IF the ECA is Constitutional, must be signed by House & Senate member (version in effect 2020). If not, out of order.
DC: Talking about 1857 in Wisconsin, shows Pres of Senate (VP) asserted authority?
JE: Thought I said his actions resolved the dispute
DC: Because in your view, he resolved on his own authority?
JE: Yes.
DC: There wasn't a VP in 1857. WI was a day late because of blizzard.
JE: Thought I said his actions resolved the dispute
DC: Because in your view, he resolved on his own authority?
JE: Yes.
DC: There wasn't a VP in 1857. WI was a day late because of blizzard.
Congressional Globe from 1857. Bottom of page, Sen Mason stated session would be concurrent in resolving dispute. "Nothing can be done here but to count the votes following the concurrent order"
JE: (paraphrase) He said it but didn't do it. He determined to count the votes.
JE: (paraphrase) He said it but didn't do it. He determined to count the votes.
Carling shows Eastman Seligman's Report & the section that Mason disclaimed he did it unilaterally.
JE: He did it! Doesn't say anything about resolving disputes.
DC: Mason never said he had authority --
JE: That's why I corrected you, he doesn't assert authority, just did it.
JE: He did it! Doesn't say anything about resolving disputes.
DC: Mason never said he had authority --
JE: That's why I corrected you, he doesn't assert authority, just did it.
It's clear Duncan Carling has been waiting and preparing for this. Moves to Mail Date bullet points.
DC: Where did you get the info that the mail date was when the label was created?
JE: Your exhibit 132.
DC: If voter file contains a mail date, does it mean it had to go thru the mail?
JE: SoS says it's when there's a mailing label.
DC: So if there's a date,
JE: I'm relying on SoS. If label generated, person isn't voting in person.
DC: Did you talk to anyone?
JE: No.
DC: Not to Heather Honey or Kurt Olsen?
DC: So your understanding is entirely based on State Bar exhibit 132?
JE: State Rep Ryan thought it meant ballots were being illegally injected into the system.
DC: Do you know if there's documentation publicly available that explains what the mail date field means?
JE: That's what it says, I took that letter to be accurate. If SoS is making a false statement I'd like to know.
#EastmanTrial
DC: Where did you get the info that the mail date was when the label was created?
JE: Your exhibit 132.
DC: If voter file contains a mail date, does it mean it had to go thru the mail?
JE: SoS says it's when there's a mailing label.
DC: So if there's a date,
JE: I'm relying on SoS. If label generated, person isn't voting in person.
DC: Did you talk to anyone?
JE: No.
DC: Not to Heather Honey or Kurt Olsen?
DC: So your understanding is entirely based on State Bar exhibit 132?
JE: State Rep Ryan thought it meant ballots were being illegally injected into the system.
DC: Do you know if there's documentation publicly available that explains what the mail date field means?
JE: That's what it says, I took that letter to be accurate. If SoS is making a false statement I'd like to know.
#EastmanTrial
Moves to Gilles' Report.
DC: Did you talk to anyone about the first 2 lines referring to not returned ballots?
JE: No I didn't talk to anybody.
DC: Did you ask Gilles if line one referred to not returned ballots? You talked to him
JE: He was going to be a witness but decided not to testify?
DC: You never talked to him if the overall rejection rate contains late arriving ballots?
JE: No. Maybe the Cicchetti Declaration, something about late arriving ballots not being including.
DC: You testified there's political science lit that demonstrates that the sig rejection rate in 2020 is the same as 2016?
JE: Don't recall the years. But off-year elections are very different (can't compare).
DC: Can't compare what? Consensus is should be only like elections (general to general etc). Any papers on that?
JE: Not off the top of my head.
#EastmanTrial
DC: Did you talk to anyone about the first 2 lines referring to not returned ballots?
JE: No I didn't talk to anybody.
DC: Did you ask Gilles if line one referred to not returned ballots? You talked to him
JE: He was going to be a witness but decided not to testify?
DC: You never talked to him if the overall rejection rate contains late arriving ballots?
JE: No. Maybe the Cicchetti Declaration, something about late arriving ballots not being including.
DC: You testified there's political science lit that demonstrates that the sig rejection rate in 2020 is the same as 2016?
JE: Don't recall the years. But off-year elections are very different (can't compare).
DC: Can't compare what? Consensus is should be only like elections (general to general etc). Any papers on that?
JE: Not off the top of my head.
#EastmanTrial
DC: Back to Ramsland & Oltmann's report: Showing results, were they showing a fraction? Where did the 95% figure come from?
JE: Yes, Candidate X has 45%...
DC: A fraction and a %?
JE: Yes, didn't see a numerator or denominator but saw % of votes in
DC: So not a fraction, a % and that was the numerator?
JE: You can calculate that. I was watching total # of votes increasing but % of votes received counted. Watched vote totals go up but % remained the same for an hour.
DC: Did Ramsland & Oltmann predict when that would happen?
JE: No, not exactly.
#EastmanTrial
JE: Yes, Candidate X has 45%...
DC: A fraction and a %?
JE: Yes, didn't see a numerator or denominator but saw % of votes in
DC: So not a fraction, a % and that was the numerator?
JE: You can calculate that. I was watching total # of votes increasing but % of votes received counted. Watched vote totals go up but % remained the same for an hour.
DC: Did Ramsland & Oltmann predict when that would happen?
JE: No, not exactly.
#EastmanTrial
Carling moves to a GA Hearing Report that Eastman participated in. Carling is trying to determine if this Scott Hall is the same Hall that was a co-defendant in the GA RICO case until he took a plea deal for 5 misdemeanors related to election fraud. ⚡️ #EastmanTrial
DC brings up Tribe's Mirrors report about the 2000 election, they're talking about the "substantial compliance" doctrine.
The "In Re Canvass" case decided by the PA Supreme Court, is this the "substantial compliance" doctrine?
JE: No. It doesn't address intentional malfeasance, these measures should be strictly enforced to stop fraud.
JE: No. It doesn't address intentional malfeasance, these measures should be strictly enforced to stop fraud.
DC: Isn't the intent voters' enfranchisement should override technical violations?
JE: Well, if you're not at the address & fraud, it would dilute other votes. These alterations of election law were done DELIBERATELY to open the door to fraud. Done by officials without authority!
JE: Well, if you're not at the address & fraud, it would dilute other votes. These alterations of election law were done DELIBERATELY to open the door to fraud. Done by officials without authority!
Judge: Was Doctrine of Substantial Compliance in the 2 & 6 page memos?
JE: No.
DE: In your spreadsheets, were you tracking the Doctrine?
JE: No. Because it was DELIBERATE MALFEASANCE by election officials.
#EastmanTrial
JE: No.
DE: In your spreadsheets, were you tracking the Doctrine?
JE: No. Because it was DELIBERATE MALFEASANCE by election officials.
#EastmanTrial
Whew! That's it for today. Carling needs another hour with Eastman, Miller says he might need 2 hours of redirect. Tomorrow Carling wants to get through Prof. Grimmer as well so he'll balance time. NEXT TRIAL DATE IS NOON ON THU 11/2.
Another #EastmanTrial day of NO SMOKING GUNS for John Eastman, but a LOT of information dug up by the CA Bar to refute much of Eastman's direct testimony. My opinion is these are the CA Bar's SMOKING GUNS today. 💪 Thanks for joining me & your support! Thu 11/2 NOON EDT for more!
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
