[continued from previous message]

to hear some clearly meritorious cases, such as one filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The majority in that case simply noted that it did not see
any need to hear the case, over a vigorous dissent that basically said, "Are you nuts? This was illegal, and we have a duty to hear the challenge."

Two years later, that same Court took up the issues that had been presented
to it in December 2020, and it held that what happened was illegal. But by
then it was too late to do anything about it.

The 65 Project was formed -- I think I've seen reported that they received a grant from a couple of George Soros-related organizations of $100 million --
to bring disbarment actions against all of the lawyers who were involved in
any of those cases.

The head of the organization gave an interview to Axios, kind of a
left-leaning Internet news outlet, and he said in his interview to Axios
that the group's goal with respect to the Trump election lawyers is to "not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make
them toxic in their communities and in their firms" "in order to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts" to
challenge elections.

Think about that. Our system works, in part, because we have an adversarial system of justice that supports it. If groups like the 65 Project succeed in scaring off one side of these intense policy disputes or legal disputes,
then we will not have an adversarial system of justice.

We will not have elections that we can have any faith in, because if you do
not have that kind of judicial check on illegality in the election, then bad actors will just do the illegality whenever they want, and we won't be able
to do anything about it.

They are not the group that brought the bar charges against me in
California, but they did file a complaint against me in the Supreme Court of the United States. A parallel group called the States United Democracy
Center is the one that filed the bar complaint against me in California.
Nearly every single paragraph of the complaint had false statements in it.

The bar lawyers publicly announced back in March of 2022 that they were
taking on the investigation. Under California law, investigations before charges are filed publicly are supposed to be confidential. But there is an exception if the bar deems that the lawyer being investigated is a threat to the public.

So the head of the California Bar had a press conference announcing that I
was a threat to the public, and therefore they could disclose that they were conducting an investigation. Now, what is the threat to the public that I
pose? What is the old line? Telling truth in an era of universal deceit is a revolutionary act? I guess that is the threat to the public they're
asserting.

That is the threat to the public. Telling the truth about what went on in
the 2020 election. They gave me the most extraordinary demand. They
basically said we want to know every bit of information you had at your disposal for every statement you made on the radio, for every article you published, for every line in every brief you filed. It took us four months.

I said, "We're going to respond to this very comprehensively." They say I
have no evidence of election illegality and fraud. We gave them roughly
100,000 pages of evidence. 100,000 pages we disclosed to them. They went
ahead and filed the bar charges anyway against us in January of 2023.

My wife and I, since 2021, have been on quite a roller coaster.

We came to the realization that my whole career, my education in Claremont,
my PhD, my teaching constitutional law for 20 years, my being a dean, my
being a law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, probably equipped me better
than almost anybody else in the country to be able to confront, stand up against this lawfare that we're dealing with.

This is our mission now. This is what we do. This is what I do around the clock, is deal with this.

I was teaching our summer seminar at the Claremont Institute. We do a series
of summer seminars, one for recent college grads called the Publius
Fellowship Program.

You may recognize some of the names of people that have gone through
Publius. I was a Publius Fellow in 1984. Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Tom Cotton, Kate Mizelle (the judge who blocked the vaccine mandates down in Florida). We've had some pretty good folks.

We also conduct a program for recent law school grads called the John
Marshall Fellowship. We were conducting a seminar on the Constitution's religion clauses when the news of the Georgia indictment naming me as an indicted co-conspirator came down. We kept going on with the seminar. At the end of the program, the fellows always roast each other and make fun of each other, missteps they'd made during the week and things like that.

Well, this year, they roasted me a bit. One of the students noted that as
FBI agents were rappelling down from the rooftop, Eastman kept talking about the Constitution's religion clauses.

He recounted that, prior to the program, the students didn't know what to expect when they accepted the fellowship offer to study with me (among
others), given all that was going on. Then he said that what they witnessed
on that night, when the indictment came down, was a demonstration of courage they had not seen before, and that it was contagious. He then recited a line from our national anthem - the one asking whether the flag was still flying. And he noted, with great insight, that if you listen carefully to the words, the question is not so much whether the flag still flies, but what kind of
land it flies over? Is it still the land of the free and the home of the
brave, or the land of the coward and the home of the slave?

I find more and more, as more Americans are waking up to what is going on,
that courage is indeed contagious. People are looking for ways to help fight back. When they see somebody standing up with that kind of courage, it gives them courage to join.

There are people in every county in the country, with eyes on the local
clerk's office and verifying that, "When it says 28 people are living and voting in an efficiency apartment, we know that is not true and we're going
to get that cleaned up."

I remain optimistic as people are awakening to the threat to our way of
life. This is one of the cornerstones of our Declaration of Independence. We are all created equal. There are certain corollaries that flow from that.

This means that nobody has the right to govern others without their consent. The consent of the governed is one of the cornerstones of our system of government. Our forefathers exercised it in 1776 by choosing to declare independence, and 10 years later by choosing to ratify a constitution, and
we exercise that consent of the governed principle in an ongoing way by how
we conduct our elections.

Ultimately, we are the sovereign authority that tells the government which direction we want it to go, not the other way around.

Regularly, we are instead being given the following message: "We're the government. We have spoken. How dare you stand up and offer a different
view." That has turned us from being sovereign citizens in charge of the government to subjects being owned by or run by the government.

That is not the kind of country I intend to live in. It is not the kind of country I want my kids and now my grandchildren to grow up in. This is a
fight worth everything you've got. That's why we're going to do as much as
we can to win this fight. Thank you for your support and prayers.

* * *

Question: What happened after the 2020 election with Justices Thomas and
Alito. They wanted the Supreme Court at least to hear the evidence, but were turned down. Why?

Dr. Eastman: One of the cases that was up there was one of the other illegalities that occurred in Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State
unilaterally altered the statutory deadline for the return of ballots.

Pennsylvania, like most states, says, "If you're going to mail in your
ballot, it's got to be received by the close of the poll so we're not having this gamesmanship of being able to get ballots in after the fact." She said, "Oh, we're going to give an extra week." The court said, "No, we'll give an extra four days."

That case was brought to the Supreme Court to block that clearly illegal
action by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, agreed to by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They asked for an emergency stay of that decision so the rule that had been in place would still be followed.

Ruth Ginsburg had died, there were eight people, and the court split four to four, which means the stay was denied. You had to have a majority. It was Thomas, it was Alito, it was Gorsuch, and it was Kavanaugh. John Roberts
voted with the three liberals. Then when Amy Coney Barrett joined the court,
I thought, "OK, we'll get to five."

When a motion to expedite in my case was filed in mid-December, we filed a
cert petition from three of the erroneous Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases,
we filed a motion to expedite, and that was denied. They didn't even act on
it.

Then February 12th of 2021, they denied the cert petition and the motion to expedite. The vote there was six to three on the ground that it had become moot. That meant Barrett and Roberts and Kavanaugh all voted to deny the
cert petition. But it had not become moot.

The issue of whether non-legislative actors in the state can alter election
law consistent with the Constitution remains an open issue. It should not be
an open issue. The Constitution is quite clear, but there was a news account
at one point reporting that John Roberts had yelled at Alito and Thomas, who had insisted they needed to take these cases. They were just like Bush
versus Gore.

Roberts was reported to have said, "They're not like Bush versus Gore. If we
do anything, they will burn down our cities." Which means the impact of what had gone on in the summer of 2020 in Portland and Kenosha and all these
other places, had an impact on the Supreme Court declining to take these
cases.

By the way, a little aside on that story to show you how distorted the
January 6th committee, and particularly Liz Cheney was on the evidence.

At some point during the course of all this, the legislator in Pennsylvania
who was conducting hearings on the election illegality in Pennsylvania
wanted my advice on what the legislative authority was if they found that
there was outcome determinative illegality or fraud in the election.

He sent an email to me at my email address at the University of Colorado,
where my wife and I were teaching at the time.

I responded, "If there is clear evidence of illegality, that's unconstitutional, and so you have the legal right, the legal constitutional authority to do something about it. If you think it altered the effect of
the election, you should name your own electors."

University of Colorado, contrary to their policy, disclosed that email publicly. Liz Cheney announced the email, said Eastman was pressuring the Pennsylvanian legislature to overturn the election, even though it was quite clear that my statement about legislative authority was specifically conditioned on a finding of illegality and fraud sufficient to have affected the outcome of the election.

The other gross distortion that came out of the J6 Committee involved an
email exchange I had about whether to appeal the Wisconsin case to the
Supreme Court. The campaign staff, money guys in the campaign said, "We're trying to be good stewards of the funds we have. What are the chances that they're going to take these cases? Is it worth filing these cert petitions?"

I wrote in the email, "The legal issues are rock solid. It therefore doesn't turn on the merits of the case. It turns on whether the justices have the
spine to take this on. Then I said, "And I understand that there is a heated fight underway and whether they should take these cases. We ought to give
the good guys the ammunition they need to wage that fight."

Liz Cheney or someone on the J6 Committee puts out a portion of this email. They ignore that I say the legal issues are rock solid. They say instead
that Eastman, knowing his case had no merit, was pressuring the Supreme
Court to take the case and obviously had inside information from Ginni
Thomas, because three weeks earlier, Ginni had sent me a note saying, "I
heard you on Larry O'Connor's show giving an update on the election
litigation. Can you give that same update to my Zoom call group? By the way, what's your home address? I need it for the Christmas card."

That was the email. All of a sudden, Liz Cheney and the J6 Committee puts
those two things together as if there was something nefarious about it.

My understanding that there is an intense fight underway at the Court was
based exclusively on the news accounts in The New York Times about Roberts yelling at Alito for insisting that the Court needed to take these cases.
The dishonesty, the combination of the dishonesty, the whole thing, this narrative is out there and it is the government narrative.

No matter how false the narrative is, we are supposed to just accept it or
bend the knees. "It's like, the government says, 'We've increased your funds this year from four to three,'" and we're just all supposed to accept it.
This is lawfare, but it is support of totalitarianism, of authoritarianism.

The government has spoken, and we are all supposed to accept it as true, no matter how obviously false it is. I'm sorry, free people should not and
never have and never will if they continue to be a free people tolerate that kind of thing.

Q: I have two questions. One, when Raffensperger did that in Georgia, was it expressly to defeat Donald Trump? Do you think he knew what the ramification
of that ruling was going to be? The second thing is, in this upcoming trial,
is there an opportunity to lay out publicly for a jury?

Is this a jury situation, the talk you just gave us? Because there has to be
a moment where people pay attention to this, and so far it has not happened.

Dr. Eastman: So far it has not come, I agree. I mean, it has come, but in
ways that are immediately shut down. We are laying out the case now in my California bar trial, which next week enters its eighth week. My defense of
my California bar license will have cost us a half million dollars before
all is said and done.

Being a full trial team for eight weeks, it's gone on. It is insane, but we
are laying out the case to the extent the judge permits. She has already blocked about a dozen of my witnesses, but I'll tell you some of the
stories. We have a guy named Joseph Freed, retired CPA, professional
auditor, auditing Fortune 500 companies his whole career.

He said something doesn't smell right here, and so he applied his tools of
the trade to look at the elections and wrote a book called "Debunked." It's
a brilliant book. I told my wife, "This is the book I would have written if
I hadn't been on my heels playing defense the last year."

The book was written and published in January of 2023, so the judge ruled it was not relevant because even though it discusses all the evidence I had
before me, the analysis he did was after the fact and I could not have
relied on it, therefore it was not relevant.

Two days later, the government offers a witness to introduce into evidence government reports that were done in September 2022. My lawyer objected,
"It's not relevant on your prior ruling." The lawyer for the bar actually
said, "Well, these are government reports. They are different." So the judge let them in.

Part of the problem is, trying to prevent the story from getting out, even
in a trial where the rules of evidence are supposed to come to play. I don't think they'll be able to get away with that in the Georgia criminal
litigation.

This full story probably will come out more clearly there and it will have a bigger viewership there than my California bar trial has had because Trump
is one of the defendants. The California bar trial is exposing a lot of
this.

A reporter for the "Arizona Sun," Rachel Alexander, is doing a terrific job covering the case in daily articles in Arizona Sun, but she also she has a Twitter account.

What I've seen this far from the state trial judge down in Georgia is that
he is going to hold the line on what the law is and what the law requires.
That is a very good thing and we'll be able to see it. Fingers crossed.

About Raffensperger, look, I don't know what his motives are, all I can see
is the consequences of them. There are the consequences of that, which
should have been obvious on its face. More importantly, there is the
continued falsity claims in his public statements, and I'll give you one example.

One of the expert reports on the election challenge that was filed -- which never got a judge appointed, by the way, for nearly a month, and by then it
was too late.

One of the allegations based on an expert analysis was that 66,247 people
had voted who were underage when they registered to vote.

Now, he goes out and does a press conference and says, "We checked, nobody voted when they were underage," but that was not the allegation made by the expert. The allegation was that they registered to vote when they were 16.
You have to be 17 and a half before you can register.

If they had not re-registered, that meant they were not legally registered
and not legally allowed to vote. He routinely mischaracterizes the actual allegation in the case, deliberately lying. Whatever his motives were with whether he's anti-Trump or not, he is clearly lying, and we ought not to
give him any credence whatsoever.

Q: You had said before that President Trump had won three quarters of the
real cases. I'm wondering what that means to win, what are the implications
of that and what is correct, if anything. What, then, then is the way
forward?

Dr. Eastman: The way forward is a legal system. Now, the Trump cases that
were won only involved small components like the statutory right in Pennsylvania to be there to observe the counting. They were blocking even minimum observation. The court ordered, "Yeah, you've got to let them into
the room and observe."

That was not one that was the grand enchilada on the outcome determinative issues, but he won the case. We won ultimately on the indefinitely confined ruling up in Wisconsin. They said that, "Just being fearful of COVID does
not mean you're indefinitely confined under the statute."

It's not as if the Wisconsin legislature didn't have an opportunity to alter that. If they wanted, they determined, they considered alterations in the
law as a result of COVID, made some, but this was not one of them.

What I have seen, and it pains me to say this, is that the level of
corruption in our institutions, including our judicial institutions, is so pervasive now that it is troubling. Because many of these cases end up in
the DC courts, I cannot imagine a stronger case for change of venue than
those January 6th criminal defendants.

Yet their motions for change of venue were uniformly denied because they
wanted this in the DC jury pool, which is like 95% hostile to Trump. This is not a jury of peers. This is not a jury that is likely to lead to a just and true result. This is a partisan political act, a loaded dice system in DC.

The same thing I think they were gambling on being true in Georgia, in
Fulton County. But I don't think the dice is as loaded there as it is in DC.

It will cost a million, a million and a half to defend against those
charges. The poor guy who entered a plea agreement and pleaded guilty last week, one of the 19 defendants in Georgia, he is a bail bondsman for a
living.

If he gets a felony, he is not only in jail for a while, but he cannot do
his trade, so they offer him a misdemeanor conviction and no jail time. He
took it in a heartbeat. Otherwise, he is looking at a million to two million dollars in legal fees tied up in this internationally televised drama for nothing, and he was not in the position to undertake that.

We have raised over a half million on my legal defense fund site. It's
probably going to end up being three million total that we need, but he did
not have the ability to do a hundredth of that.

In international news: "Oh, one of Trump's co-defendants is turning the
tables on Trump. This is bad news for Trump." No, it's not. The guy made the most sensible decision he could.

My lawyer got a call from ABC, they said, "Have they reached out to you to offer a plea agreement?" I told him to say "No, I suspect they're not going
to, but I'll tell you what. I'll make a suggestion to them. I will agree to
a plea agreement that says they drop all the charges, and I will agree to testify truthfully on their behalf. In exchange, I agree not to file a
lawsuit for malicious prosecution against them."

I thought that was a pretty good offer.

Q: You're paying with your money. They're paying with the...

Dr. Eastman: Yeah, they're paying with my money too, taxpayer money.

Q: What about the ability to manipulate electronic voting machines? It was
on every single broadcast for weeks.

Dr. Eastman: I quickly became a triage nurse. Once I filed that brief on
behalf of Trump and everything started coming in. I had to try and make the best judgment I could about what kind of allegations were credible and what allegations were not credible. What things that would appear credible that
we could prove versus the one that seem credible, but we cannot prove them. I'll give you one example.

Early in January, Mike Lindell from MyPillow said he had a list of the
Chinese intrusions. He has got 50 pages of spreadsheets purporting to show
IP addresses in Beijing connecting with IP addresses in county election
offices all over the country, and then altering Trump down 45 votes in this precinct or altering the totals as they are getting transmitted to the secretaries of state that then become part of the reported vote totals.

I had the first 10 lines of that spreadsheet on January 2nd, and I had some
of the best security experts in the world that I was working with, and I
said, "Can we verify this?" -- because they commonly describe how many Trump votes were lost, but obviously just typed in. I said, "I need to see the
data, I need to see the packet that you say is sending instructions to make these alterations."

They wanted me to go to the president with this stuff and I said, "If in
fact this is true this is an act of war by the number one other superpower
in the world against the United States." Taking that information into the president without confirming it would be an imprudent thing to do.

I wanted to confirm it and my experts, who had access to IP address
registries, said none of the IP addresses were valid. This is made-up stuff. So, I was not able to confirm it. Now, maybe this occurred, but the data I
was looking at was not the silver bullet of evidence that we needed to be
able to take it.

Other stuff, do you know...how many saw the vote spike charts? Some entrepreneur started making T-shirts out of them. Those big vote spikes, you saw that chart over the Internet.

Well, think about that for a moment. Atlanta, which is about 90% Democrat,
if they are not reporting partial returns all night long the way the rest of the state is, and then they report all of their returns all at once, you are going to see a vote spike for the Democrat.

If they are reporting partial returns all night long, the way the rest of
the state is, and then you see that kind of vote spike, that is pretty good evidence of fraud. I asked, "The data we are looking at that gives us that
vote spike chart, that famous Internet graph that everybody saw is based on state-wide aggregate time-series data. I need to know whether Atlanta is reporting what we would expect or whether it's fraud." How do I get that information? I need the county level time series. Let's see what was going
on in Fulton County alone."

I'm told that Georgia officials locked access to the county level
time-series data that would have helped me determine whether it was evidence
of fraud or evidence of something that we should have expected. To this day,
I do not know, but those are the things I was trying to do to get to the
bottom of this information.

About electronic voting machines? There have been three audits. Antrim
County, Michigan, and one of the leading critics of voting machines and
their software is a guy named J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan.

He testified as the expert in litigation down in Georgia in 2018 saying
these machines are not secure. They sealed his testimony and it was only released in June. It just says, "These things are susceptible to fraud by
all sorts of bad actors."

He was the government witness in Antrim County, and he demonstrated that, in his opinion, what really happened in Antrim County was that some of the
local clerks had done an update. One of the cities in the county had omitted one of the school board races, and so they had to redo the ballot.

Unbeknownst to the county clerks, every line in the machine code was consecutively ordered throughout the whole county. If you add one line in Bailey Township, it doesn't affect the cities in the county that began with
A, but it affected everything else.

All the votes for Jorgensen were cast for Trump, all the votes for Trump
were cast for Biden. All the votes for Biden were cast for the line marked "President" and didn't count. When they unraveled that error and counted the actual ballots, it looked like this was an update in the software error and
it was explainable.

Halderman goes out of his way, however, not to distance himself from his
prior concerns about the vulnerability of election.

One of the things we discover in that Antrim audits is that in fact, the
vote logs that are supposed to be there had been deleted for 2020, not 2016, not 2012, they're still there, but 2020 had been deleted.

We also found that the password for access to the machine, that give you,
the administrator, rights that would allow you to delete logs, was the same password that everybody had access to anywhere -- from county clerk to
anybody -- they had the same password. 123456 or something simple like that
was the password. It had been that way since 2008.

The audit uncovered huge vulnerabilities, but because the logs had been deleted, no proof. A second audit was done in Mesa County, Colorado. A woman
by the name of Tina Peters was the county clerk in Mesa County, Colorado.

The Secretary of State in Colorado, a radical advocate named Jena Griswold,
had ordered an update to all the machines in the county shortly after the election. The update destroys all the election evidence, and that is a violation of federal law.

All election information is supposed to be kept for 22 months, and the
people that are on the hook for the violation of that federal law --and it
is a felony -- are the county clerks. Tina Peters said, "I'm not going to
allow them to put me in way of a felony indictment of letting this
information be destroyed."

She made a mirror-image copy of all the data so that when they did the
upgrade, she could say, "I haven't violated federal law. I've got it." She
had the mirror image, and she hired forensic analysts to look at.

They are now charging her with nine felonies for illegally accessing the information, but what they discovered in that audit, they actually
identified computer code that was changing votes. Now, Jeff O'Donnell was
the guy that did it. He published three reports, the three Mesa County
reports. I called Jeff O'Donnell as one of the witnesses of my California
bar trial. The judge has barred him from testimony. We had not identified
him up-front because this was going to be rebuttal to their claims that everything was fine. The third audit has occurred down in Georgia. There's
one case still pending from all of these things from three years ago. The
case is called Favorito vs. Raffensperger.

Garland Favorito runs an organization called Voter GA, which has been doing election integrity oversight stuff in Georgia for 20 years. He is neither Democrat nor Republican. He is a Constitution Party guy, sorry.

There was a judge down there. Apparently this judge did not get the memo
that we are not supposed to look at any of this stuff, and he authorized Garland and his team of forensic experts to access one of the machines in Fulton County, and he gave them forensic audit access.

They had it for about a week before somebody came down on the judge and
said, "Oh, we're not supposed to do that," and the judge revoked the order.
In that week, they discovered something very stunning. Think about how this works:

At first in our history, it used to be that you would go to both of your
local precincts, and maybe the local library, and absentee ballots would get mailed in and delivered to that precinct, so that the absentee people who
had voted from the same neighborhood were counted with the in-person votes.

This year in all the big cities, they had big central balloting and counting facilities: State Farm Arena in Atlanta, the Philadelphia Convention Center,
or the TCS Center in Detroit.

This meant that absentee ballots are in from all 490 precincts in Atlanta,
in Fulton County. They are randomly put through, they do not come all "in batches," such as, these are all the ballots from precinct number one, or whatever. They are random.

They get put in, they get opened, and they get stacked into piles of a
hundred, and then they get scanned. Now think about that. That means you
have 490 different ballots being scanned. Every ballot, every precinct, has different races on it, different school board races, different things.

The ballot has a code to tell the machine which key to look to in order to
know how to count those dots on the ballot box. Every 100 with that
randomized listing of precincts creates a unique digital signature for that hundred. For mathematicians, that is 100 to the 490th power, because there
are 490 precincts.

The odds that you have a duplicate batch of a hundred are zero. 0.0000001. Infinitely small chance that they would have anything. In their one week on
one machine, they discovered 5,000 ballots with identical digital signatures
in batches of a hundred.

The margin in Georgia was 11,779. They did this on just one machine, looking
at it only a partial bit of time for one week. These are the three audits we had. We know the machines either have been hacked or are open to bad actors with access to the machines, either put in a thumb chip. Halderman's the
guy.

They had a convention in Las Vegas, hired a bunch of geeks, computer geeks
from around the country, to come to this convention and see who could hack
into the machines and alter the vote codes quickest. It took people about 15 minutes.

Halderman is also the guy. What is one of the big rivalries in the country, Michigan versus Ohio State? He had his Michigan students vote on who had the better football program, Michigan or Ohio State.

Now, anybody that knows anything about football knows there's no way anybody
in Michigan is ever going to vote for Ohio State, but he programmed it so
that Ohio State won by 80 percent. It took him five minutes.

Michigan students voting on one of his Dominion machines, when this was the issue, the ballot initiative, voted for Ohio State. The notion that these things cannot be hacked is laughable. They have to be able to be opened if
they need to be repaired. [I heard that from an MIT graduate at the time.]

The question is, how to prove that they were hacked in this particular
instance when they are destroying the evidence, and that is where we are.

Q: Do the Republicans do this too?

Dr. Eastman: I don't know. There was a story that was floated that the

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)