Video Source: Midnight Rider Channel
have already pled not guilty. Trump is expected to be the first to reign next Wednesday, and then the others will come in 15-minute increments. The third to go will be Attorney John Eastman, who has nine charges lodged against him most notably under Rico. But before he heads to court to enter his plea, he decided to come on the angle. Here’s part one of my interview with Trump co-defendant John Eastman. Why did you decide to speak out tonight knowing that anything you say to the media or to this program could then be potentially used against you? Well, Laura, first thanks for having me on. Look, I’ve been speaking out all along. We did nothing wrong. We were challenging the election for what even Vice President Pence described as serious allegations of fraud and numerous instances of officials violating state law. And if we can’t speak out about that, then our freedom of speech or right to petition the government for redress of grievances are gone. But also importantly, I’m an attorney, and you know, the people that I was representing had a right to counsel. And what’s going on here with the bar complaints against everybody involved in any of the litigation, this Fulton County complaint, the unindicted co-conspirators in the federal action, they’re trying to stifle people from being able to get representation in election challenges. They’ve made that very clear that that’s what they’re up to, and we can’t allow it to happen. Their argument, I guess, on the other side of that, is you can pierce the attorney client privilege, John, if no reasonable attorney could have adopted the position, yada, yada, yada. And they cite this, I guess Mark Seligman, a bar expert who looked into, you know, both the 12th Amendment and the 1887 electoral act on the issue of the electors. But on the issue of the attorney client privilege, they claim that there was no reasonable, you know, good faith position that you could have taken here. And if, I guess if there was a reasonable possibility a crime had been committed, then that attorney client privilege goes out the window. How would you respond to that? Look, if disputed questions of constitutional law, all of a sudden become criminal, we could throw, you know, the entire legal profession, the entire legal academy in jail. Mr. Seligman, as we will, as we do our cross-examination, and we put on my expert out in the California bar thing, we’ll find out that there’s a whole lot of stuff that he omitted, including some rather significant stuff in the federal convention dealing with this issue that he doesn’t cite at all. Now, the fact of the matter is throughout our history, significant leaders in Congress have argued that Congress doesn’t have authority under the 12th Amendment, that the founders specifically designed it that way, so that the president wouldn’t owe his job to Congress. It’s a core separation of powers principle that the founders adopted, and he just doesn’t, he ignores that in his analysis. So, the notion that this is well settled is crazy. On the rico side of the Fulton County case, that would require findings of bad faith on the part of, you know, all the co-defendants that were engaged in this rico conspiracy, according to this Fanny Willis. So, on that scourge on, that would have to be, you all basically agreeing, implicitly explicitly, that you all knew that this was all Fony, and that your effort, your decision amongst yourselves was to advance a plan to overturn the election. And to that, you say? Well, they’ve got all the evidence. They’ve got all my emails. My phone was seized over a year ago, so they’ve got all that stuff as well, and I challenge them to find a single email or communication that supports that implausible theory. The fact of the matter is, oh, you know, one of the other things they said, well, Bill Barr said there wasn’t any evidence of fraud. Well, I had lots of evidence of fraud. I haven’t seen that evidence, and I’m always wanting to see everything, so I haven’t, I haven’t, I haven’t seen that evidence, and I’d love to see that evidence, but John, the thing that I always can’t come back to in this particular case is that the Trump team didn’t have the legal work done on the early side, right? The pre-election, pre, you know, whether it was mail-in ballots or ballot harvesting or the the lousy laws that were being passed in some of these states in a in a manner that should never have happened. So that that because that preliminary legal work hadn’t been done and the in really great lawyers weren’t in place, that handicapped any effort to challenge the election in a successful way in court. Then the Supreme Court said we’re not going to take this case in Pennsylvania. So that obviously hobbled you as well. Do you understand that? Did hobble turn? Yeah, it did hobble that a little bit, but I, but I want to push back a little bit, Laura. There were teams in place. There were lawsuits filed ahead of time, and until it actually happens on election day, the case is not ripe. Then when it happened on election day, the suit was re-broad, and it was thrown out on latches grounds, or you can’t wait till your guy loses and then bring the case. So there were, there were effort, there were efforts to intervene by, the campaign by state legislators that were rejected. But the problem we keep coming back to is the election was called for Biden. Biden was inaugurated, right? He’s being president of the United States. And the conversation is always going back to 2020. And I guess people want elections to be fair, and people have to believe in the outcome, or we’re going to have a heap of trouble going forward. Period, end of story. My concern about this is that this is an effort to not only stop legal representation, but to prevent people from going into public service at all. I mean, if you’re an anti-establishment person, if you don’t believe in a certain set of issues, you really are effective in doing that, then you are going to have a target on your back. Whether it’s you or some other lawyer down the road, it’s going to be very difficult for people to put their family, their education, their bar license, or whatever license up in the air because of a threat of basically what you’re going through. That’s my big concern here, and it’s a huge concern. It is, but the answer is not to just take a powder and concede, because then it’ll get worse on the next go around. The answer is to fight it with everything we’ve got, because what’s at stake here is too important. People keep asking me, why don’t you move on? Why do you keep focus on the 2020 election? I say, well, you have to put a gallery. Yeah, we don’t need to get into whether there was fraud or not. There was clearly illegality, non-legislative officials changing the rules of the game up to the election in Pennsylvania, even after the election, changing the rules of the game. And if we don’t fight back against that, we’ll never have a fair election again, and we will cease to be a people governed by the consent of the governor. Those are the stakes here. Yeah, we’re not here. No one will relitigate 2020, but as I said the day after the election, or maybe the day after that, was, you know, John Roberts decided he wasn’t going to take the case at the court. So, I mean, in Pennsylvania, that was it. There was nothing else you guys were going to do in Pennsylvania, in my view, at that point. But John, for people who don’t know how you got into the Trump mix, how did you actually become part of the legal team? I don’t even recall this. Well, you know, I had written a very prominent article on birthright citizenship. That was one of the issues he wanted to take up in the campaign. And when other law firms were withdrawing, and they needed a constitutional expert, I had that connection with him. But I’d also been retained by the Florida legislature in 2000 as an expert on these very issues. So, I would, you know, there were probably half a dozen people in the country that had ever dealt with them before, and I was one of them. So, that kind of jumped me to the front of the line, I suspect. And tomorrow, we’re going to air part two of my exclusive interview with former Trump attorney, John Eastman. I asked him what everyone was thinking about, or maybe you wanted to know as well.
Disclaimer:
This “Patriots” blog may not own some content presented.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
All posts on this video blog are my personal opinion, and they don’t in any way reflect the opinions of my employer. All materials, posts, and advice from this site are informational, researching, and for testing purposes only. You can use them at your own responsibility. I’m not in any way responsible for any damage done by following posts, advice, tutorials, and articles from this video blog.
