John Eastman doubles down on his election denial while promising to appeal his disbarment case
Published
Citation From the March 28, 2024, edition of Real America’s Voice’s War Room
STEVE BANNON (HOST): So we saw in there that this was a complete total witch hunt. Unbelievable stuff was done. But are you saying then the judge doubled down this report? Are you saying this a 128-page report has a lie on every page, sir?
JOHN EASTMAN (GUEST): Just about, I've, you know, I mean, I've read it through, quickly the first time, but, I mean, it's just stunning. You know, and she acknowledges that she blocked numerous of our witnesses and much of our evidence.
…
But the other thing that'll be a focus of our appeal is I mean, several of the counts against me, you know, include, claiming that I made false statements in public, including on your show, Steve. This is such vintage protected First Amendment right stuff, and she says, well, lawyers aren't allowed to make misrepresentations.
Of course, the claims of misrepresentations are themselves false. My favorite of them was one of the charges against me said, I claimed on January 6th in my speech before the ellipse that dead people voted, which was true. And they acknowledge it in the paragraph, the Michigan inspector general admitted 1,100, 1,500 dead people voted.
And they said my claim was false, and the judge said it was false because what I really meant by that was more dead people voted than were necessary to affect the outcome of the election. Of course, I never said any such thing. You know, another example of the falsity that we called them on, they falsely claimed that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act. That was not true.
The issue never even got to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The case they were citing was the DC District Court, which doesn't have any precedential force, and the case didn't involve the Electoral Count Act at all. It involved completely different state election laws. The quotation was doctored to make it appear as though the case said something that it didn't say. We called them on that in a responsive pleading, and yet the judge repeated that doctored quotation as if it was true in her opinion.
…
One only hopes that the upper courts that will consider this on appellate review will step in and fix this problem because it's a travesty. I mean, what the essence of the ruling is that the government has spoken, and, you know, we said the election was the most secure in history, that there wasn't any evidence of fraud.
These are the things that they said. And because I kept offering evidence that there was, I must be lying. This is – this is Orwellian. It's authoritarian. The government has spoken, and you better bow to our claims or we're going to destroy you. This is not the America that we grew up in. This is not the America that our founders bequeathed to us. And, by God, I'm going to fight with everything I've got to make sure that we fix this problem before we pass the baton to the next generation.