Days on end have left me with little free time recently. So, it’s taken me way longer than I expected to write up the continued bullshit being thrown about by witnesses for the Respondent, John Eastman, in the California State Bar trial. His goose is almost cooked with the expectation of winding down testimony soon, the final day for closing arguments being set for Nov 2nd. Eastman’s lead attorney, Randy Miller, has been stretching it out as much as possible with his dallier drivel, rehash of testimony and asks for extra time adding days to the calendar. It’s his and Eastman’s misery extended, each day digging a deeper hole, imv. Though she will take some time to consider all the factors, please join me then in a grand toast that I anticipate to be the loss of his privilege to practice law in California. That said, Eastman does have the right to appeal. Why he would, I can’t fathom. I imagine one may be allowed to practice law from the prison he’ll be assigned once Fani gets ahold of him in court, no?
Kurt Olsen returned to the witness stand to continue the State Bar’s cross examination. Points made in direct testimony for Eastman as a percipient witness were limited to his pro bono work on the Texas v Pennsylvania complaint about alleged constitutional violations in the 2020 election. The State Bar focused first on the change in Georgia’s process for signature verification and the early curing of ballots in an agreed consent settlement. The reduction in rejection rate of ballots was examined and clearly a highlighted annoyance for those grasping for any reasoning to view bs skewed election results in favor of Trump.
The State Bar asked if a new Georgia election law added to a lower rejection rate that was reflected in Cicchetti’s analysis with his comparison of 2016 to 2020. Olsen was unaware of a 2020 change in Georgia election law relative to the oath envelope and didn’t know if the difference in the signature rejection rate was related to that change.
Olsen testified he had relied on Cicchetti data that alleged a 17 times greater rejection rate in 2016 than in 2020 and used those calculations to support the Texas v Pennsylvania complaint. The State Bar asked why Olsen hadn’t confirmed that data to be accurate with a source additional to Cicchetti because of the change in law. Olsen testified he had relied on Cicchetti as a qualified expert. When asked who qualified Cicchetti as an expert, Olsen testified, in his opinion, he himself thought Cicchetti was qualified by having read his work and consulted with him on his election analysis. No other source of expert status for him was given to support Olsen’s claim of Cicchetti as an expert.
The State Bar inquired about Cicchetti’s election experience. Olsen couldn’t recall any at all, saying there’s some likely in his work if you look. Next, Olsen was asked if he was familiar with the GA Trump v Raffensperger case, which he stated he was not.
A Bryan Geels affidavit was embedded in the Trump v Raffensperger litigation. Established was that Geels is an expert in data analysis and statistics who offered opinions on the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. His data showed an overall rejection rate that was like Cicchetti’s. Back and forth it went. The State Bar pulled apart Olsen’s Bill of Complaint in Georgia’s opposition to the Texas lawsuit that suggested unlawful actions which resulted in the lower absentee ballot rejection rate and also clouded the Cicchetti declaration. He was unable to distinguish between absentee ballots and mail-in ballots in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Olsen testified that he recollected a distinction but couldn’t recall what it was. Apparently, absentee ballots require an excuse, and mail-in does not, per the State Bar. Olsen was unaware that in 2020, Georgia had no excuse mail-in ballots, though he knew the number of mail-in ballots had increased significantly.
In the Texas complaint, Olsen’s highlighted focus was on alleged law violations by non-legislators in changing election rules such as opening early mail-in returns.
Olsen testified that he found Heather Honey, an attorney and propagator of baseless claims in the Pennsylvania 2020 election, to be a reliable information source. Honey heads a Pennsylvania investigation company that sought a digital copy of Lycoming County’s “cast vote record” for the 2020 General Election in which Democratic challenger Joe Biden unseated Republican President Donald Trump. She was a major contributor to the Ryan Report which purported that more votes were counted in the 2020 presidential election statewide in PA than were cast.
According to Olsen’s testimony, he claims the state of PA had promised Supreme Court Justice Alito to segregate and count separately late arriving ballots that were received within a 3-day extension period and that PA did not comply with that court order. The Ryan Report alleged numerous violations all related to mail in ballots. It was attached to a complaint signed by 15 PA state legislators.
More hullabaloo regarding data in the Cicchetti analysis related to voter turnout, still more about the rejection rate of absentee ballots and then more other bullshit already outlined multiple times such as a gripe that Trump was ahead in the count until everyone at the Fulton County State Farm Arena was sent home at 3:00 AM and nefarious characters then pulled boxes of ballots out from under covered tables and continued counting.
This line of Miller’s questioning received an objection from the State Bar to which Judge Roland labeled the testimony as double hearsay and instructed Miller to move on. He again began rehashing previous points testified to previously ad nauseum under the auspice of the need for a follow up. Given his tedious presentation day after day, I imagined him as being a boring and chafing man outside the courtroom as well.
Miller was subsequently called out by Judge Roland for wasting time as he presented cases that lacked merit to the charges Eastman was facing in the State Bar court. Miller argued and argued that his exhibit showed several states had filed complaints about Trump’s loss in the election. This was an issue already visited and ruled on in previous testimony. Move on and wrap it up with Olsen, Judge Roland directed Miller. Still, he argued again and again but to no avail. She was clearly adamant that if he continued with the shit he was throwing, she would think he was done in his direct of Olsen. Miller then requested the same two exhibits he’d been arguing about moved into evidence. Denied twice came hard and fast.
Miller rambled a little more about the Alito segregating ballots and canvassing early bit, then called it a day for his direct examination of Olsen.
The State Bar picked apart in quick time Olsen’s testimony related to Alito’s order. Miller spot checked nothing which brought a done here to Olsen. Bye, then smiley creepy guy.
Next up star of the day, Eastman, returned to the stand and was sworn in to testify. The meeting he attended at the White House on Jan 4th was at issue. Attendees included Trump, Pence, Jacob as general counsel for Pence, Meadows, Short and Eastman. Trump opened the meeting by recounting a course of action people had given him. That is, if electors were invalid, the vice president could reject them, Eastman testified. He stated that he doesn’t know where Trump got that advice, speculating it could have been his campaign or others, he just didn’t know.
Long-winded testimony about alternate slates of fake electors, a historical 1856 blizzard in Wisconsin impeding the timeliness of the electoral count that went unresolved, Biden being declared winner while pending litigation lingered in 2020, a memo about legal options from the now guilty in GA Chesebro, Bush v Gore bullshit, state election rules with more ado about signature verification violations and Congressional letters alleging a perceived warranted need to assess the election outcome put Eastman’s defense to the test, one which he clearly is destined to fail. Judge Roland piped in several times for clarification’s sake as Miller and Eastman burned more time than deserved chewing on nothing burgers.
The 1887 Electoral College Act is a topic Eastman has chattered excessively about in previous testimony, so that was unsurprisingly revisited by Miller. Eastman testified that his interest in Pence’s 2020 role was triggered after reading the American Mind article by Yoo and Delahunty, What Happens If No One Wins. Eastman testified that in his research he was simply looking for information to explore Pence’s authority as President of the Senate.
Brief questioning about the Jan 4th Oval Office meeting with major players again examined Eastman’s request for Pence to reject the votes and delay the electoral count to allow legislative inquiry. Eastman testified this was taken under advisement by Pence. He stated Trump agreed with the rejection of slates and though not brought up again in the meeting, Trump tweeted about asking for a delay of the count the next day, Jan 5th.
Miller asked about the outcome of the meeting and Eastman relayed the two options: reject or delay. Eastman’s view brought continued dizzying originalist testimony of what he had already talked about previously at length. My notes at this point referred to Eastman as a droning robot Stepford attorney. For a change of pace, Miller made me smile when he affirmed to Judge Roland that we had arrived at a good place to stop for the day. Eastman was excused, though remained slated to return to the stand again.
Judge Roland wrapped up the day with a light at the end of the tunnel moment, time limits on closing arguments and page limits on written briefs. She sought input from the State Bar and Miller prior to the share of her ruling soon to be determined. Hurray for the upcoming last day of the trial!