Eastman: 'No doubt in my mind' 2020 election was stolen

FPI / April 24, 2024

John Eastman, one of the many lawyers in President Donald Trump's contesting of the 2020 election results who have been targeted in the Democrats' lawfare campaign, said he still has "no doubt" that the election was stolen from Trump.

Last month, a California judge formally recommended that Eastman lose his law license. In response to the decision, attorney Randall Miller, who represented Eastman in the State Bar proceedings, stated that Eastman will appeal: "Dr. Eastman maintains that his handling of the legal issues he was asked to assess after the November 2020 election was based on reliable legal precedent, prior residential elections, research of constitutional text, and extensive scholarly material."

The following are excerpts from Eastman's April 21 analysis for the Gatestone Institute:

• In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, signed a settlement agreement in March of 2020 in a suit that was filed by the Democratic Committee that essentially obliterated the signature verification process in Georgia. It made it virtually impossible to disqualify any ballots no matter how unlike the signature on the ballot was to the signature in the registration file. The most troubling aspect of it, to me, was that the law required that the signature match the registration signature. When Brad Raffensperger, who is not part of the legislature, unilaterally changed the rule from what the legislature had adopted by statute, that change was unconstitutional, not just illegal.

• Unilaterally, [the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathy Boockvar] got rid of a statute that election officials in Pennsylvania had been applying for 100 years to require signature verification. She then asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to approve what she had done....In other words, all of the statutory provisions that were designed to protect against fraud were obliterated in Pennsylvania. We ought not to be surprised if fraud walked through the door left open by the unconstitutional elimination of these statutes.

• To this day, there are 120,000 more votes that were cast in Pennsylvania than their records show voters who have cast votes. Think about that: 120,000 more votes than voters who cast votes. The margin in Pennsylvania was 80,000.

• Election officials in heavily Democrat counties [in Wisconsin] also set up drop boxes. They even set up what they called "human drop boxes" in Madison, which is the home of the University of Wisconsin. For two or three consecutive Saturdays before the election, they basically ran a ballot harvesting scheme at taxpayer expense with volunteers – whom I suspect were actually supporters of the Biden campaign -- working as "deputized" county clerks to go collect all these ballots, in violation of state law. A lot of these came in with the witness signatures, but the address not filled in. The county clerks were directed by the Secretary of State to fill the information in on their own. In other words, they were doctoring the evidence. They were doing Google searches to get the name, to fill in an address to validate ballots that were clearly illegal under Wisconsin law. All told, those couple of things combined, more than 200,000 ballots were affected in a state where the margin victory was just over 20,000.

• Then in Michigan, we had similar things going on. We probably all saw the video of election officials boarding up the canvassing center at TCF Center in Detroit so that people could not observe what was going on. There were hundreds of sworn affidavits about illegality in the conduct of that process in Detroit. The judge, without holding a hearing on a motion to dismiss, at which the allegations of the complaint are supposed to be taken as true, rejected all the sworn affidavits from all the witnesses who actually observed the illegality, and instead credited the government affidavit – without the government witness even being subject to questioning on cross-examination.

• There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the law was actually violated, the case was not ripe -- and it got dismissed. Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, "You can't wait until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It's barred by a doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team was dealing with in those 65 cases.

• Of the cases that actually reached the merits — there were fewer than a dozen of them, if I recall correctly — Trump won three-fourths of them. You have never heard that in the "New York Times."

• 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... 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.

• 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.

• 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." 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 are still there, but 2020 had been deleted.

• 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. 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.

• [W]e subsequently learned that despite [Former Attorney General William] Barr's public statement that U.S. attorneys could investigate election illegality, anytime somebody did, he called him on the phone and order them not to.

• One of the FBI investigators who was actually getting to the bottom of this got a call that said, "Stand down."

• You have people out there saying, "Oh, we're investigating. Everything's fine," while behind the scenes ordering people not to do the investigation that would actually get to the bottom of it.

• I call it the uniparty. You can call it the deep state. You can call it the administrative state. You can call it the corrupt state, but it sees the MAGA movement as the biggest threat to its syndicators. It is going to do everything it can to destroy the people who are going to try and publicize what is going on.

(Read Eastman's full analysis here.)

---

Your Choice

---

Free Press International
[Publish This Content]