Here’s an Eastman trial update for any FAFO Chronicles members who are following the trial. I had posted it on SAV, also, but don’t know all who check in there or not. The trial resumes Tuesday 10:00 AM PST. Hopefully, it’ll wrap up by the end of the month. I plan to keep track of it to the end as best as I can. The process of law license revocation in CA for Eastman has a while to go after the trial, with Judge Roland taking time to decide the outcome, generally a few weeks to my understanding. She is detailed oriented and smart as a whip real deal, so I’m speculating it will not work in Eastman’s favor when all is said and done. There’s also the opportunity for Team Eastman to appeal. I like to imagine his lawyers will be too busy in the midst of the GA RICO trial to pursue such an ill fated waste of time.
My first look at the Eastman session notes taken a week ago Friday had me think back to why “Beautiful Bouquet” was its first notation. Judge Roland had a lovely mixed arrangement on her bench. I wondered who had sent it, and with a quick process of elimination, I knew for certain it wasn’t from friends of Team Eastman.
Next on the agenda was a calendar confirmation that court was to be in recess for a week, then the ask by Miller for an early stop which got an immediate hell, yeah from Judge Roland, though in judge words. Way to start the day!
Kurt Olsen was sworn in to continue his direct examination by Miller. Â Olsen is an attorney who was part of a litigation team trying in the courts to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election. He is a percipient witness restricted to testimony of his involvement with the Texas v Pennsylvania case.
Olsen worked pro bono in the case and played a significant role in drafting the Bill of Complaint. The team had a great sense of urgency, he said, working through the night to get it done. Time was of essence because this was the week of Dec 7th and the electors were meeting in their respective states to cast their votes for President and Vice President, then sign Certificates of the Vote to occur Dec 14th. The suit requested an expedited review for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to full stop that in treason time.
The basis of the complaint alleges that actions taken by non-legislative actors were in constitutional violations of the law. Sustained objections were on free flow for two reasons. Extensive testimony had already been given regarding non-legislative actors and their role in the 2020 election process. Then, after allowing Miller to restate, which proved to be ineffective in his attempt, Judge Roland insisted Miller stop wasting court time and told him to move on.
The ultimate conclusion of the Texas v Pennsylania case was the Supreme Court ruled Texas had no standing, so the complaint could not move forward, with Alito and Thomas writing the dissent opinion. The State Bar objected on points of Olsen not being an expert witness and that the line of questioning in the Supreme Court ruling was not relevant to the charges agiainst Eastman in this trial. This led Judge Roland to ask Miller for relevance.
Miller searched his notes and brought in an original jurisdiction argument. Judge Roland allowed some testimony on it, stating if Miller wasn’t able to show clear relevance, she would strike Olsen’s testimony. Olsen testified he recalled conversations with Eastman, but none about orignal jurisdiction. In the end, Miller was foiled again, with the judge telling him to wrap it up. Eastman was the witness to testify about this, not Olsen, she noted.
Still on Texas v Pennsylvania, Miller denied wasting time when Judge Roland called him out once again on needing  relevance. He attempted a supposition related to Count 2 of the State Bar charges which cite Eastman’s violation of provisions in the Business and Professions Code section 6068(d). Count 2 charges that Eastman had sought, on Trump’s behalf, to block the electoral vote count of four states won by Biden with false and misleading allegations. Miller contends that Eastman may have looked at the complaint and noted other attorneys viewed election malfeasance similar to his in a tenable legal theory or some bullshit like that.
Moving on reluctantly, Miller changed paths to the Georgia absentee ballot conjecture. Olsen’s issue with the processing of ballots was a statute that allowed ballots to be open up to 3 weeks before election day, violating the statute by non-legislative actions that had been taken. A suit was filed by Democracy Party of Georgia v Raffensperger. A settlement agreement was reached, however Olsen contends the change resulted in Biden’s benefit because more Democrats vote by mail. Judge Roland asked for his factual basis for his statement, that is specific references.
Olsen spun for a minute with a don’t recall response, then seemed he thought better of it and disclosed his research was from public records including news reports, google, SOS offices, polling entities and the Cicchetti analysis that alleged the Georgia election needed closer scrutiny because Trump’s lead in swing states was overturned as more ballots were counted after 3:00 AM.
Also, in the Cicchetti analysis comparing 2016 and 2020, Olsen testified, was data showing absentee ballot signature rejection rate went down and indicated another plus for Biden. He alleged that had the rejection rate been the same in 2020 as 2016, Trump would have received a net gain of 25,587 votes. Oh my, say it ain’t so, I thought with a chuckle!
Miller asked about the Michigan Secretary of State mailing to every registered voter an absentee ballot application. Olsen claimed that policy to be inconsistant with MI statute which requires a voter request for one to be sent. Also in MI, Olsen alleges republican poll observers were impeded from viewing whatever it was they were supposed to be watching. Olsen testified that the MI violations in election law was sufficient to affect the outcome, that is to swing the state in Trump’s favor.
Related to Wisconsin, Olsen testified about the ballots he alleges were improperly cast by the indefinitely confined, meaning voters mainly living in nursing homes from my recollection, and at issue also were those pesky unmanned ballot drop boxes. Olsen contends, per the statute, the drop box votes should not have been counted. A bit more rattle and graphs on proper procedures and a sworn affidavit he read wound down Olsen’s direct testimony.
The State Bar began his cross-examination after a lunch break. Olsen was questioned about his representation in Lake v Hobbs related to voting machines allegedly not providing an accurate count and which he disputed two courts as having made false rulings. Olsen had been sanctioned for his allegations without basis or merit. He stated the court got it wrong but there was no argument that his actions were called out in the order. I had imagined Olsen’s credibility and apparent bias were on Judge Roland’s mind. Then BINGO, she made a quick mention of exactly that ding in response to an objection from Miller on relevance after Olsen had spit out his bullshit about his vision of the naughty court rulings.
Do know that was not the end of the State Bar picking apart Olsen, whose testimony was fraught from this point on with multiple don’t know this and don’t know thats. Competence in action, organized and smooth in presentation, it was uber-interesting to watch Olsen’s take down. Night and day could characterize the State Bar talent in lawyering skills in comparison to Miller and his team.
Olsen had a prearranged hard stop, so the State Bar found a good end place and Olsen was instructed to connect with Miller for his return to complete cross-examination.
Eastman returned to the stand and was sworn in give testimony in his own defense. He testified that the Trump campaign had reached out to ask him to depict the VP role and facts of legistlature actions related to the 12th Amendment, the Electoral Count Act. Eastman testified that an Oct 2020 American Mind article, What Happens If Noone Wins, triggered his want to research historical records. He read several reports in late November and December 2020. These reports have been exhibited during the trial and all were written by right-wingers, in my view.
Eastman’s involvement in the litigation to stop the count was during the time he was very sick with COVID. Miller inquired about his work during that period related to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. For no apparent feasible reason, Miller asked at length about if Eastman had tracked his time, which he hadn’t, and what he was paid for his work, which was an undisclosed flat fee. Eastman spoke about the crazytime train they were on at that time. He testified that he was asked to configure and play out scenarios, stating he chose the most aggressive one to ponder first in the process related to stopping the electoral count. Other strategic planners in this farce to overthrow the election so Trump could remain in power were names familiar to seditionary acts, Boris Ephshteyn and Ken Chesebro. They had worked together on strategic development when things came to a head on Jan 6th, he shared.
Judge Roland spoke to Eastman about 60 similar cases that were already resolved or denied in the courts in her ask about his petition details. Eastman stated he had been chomping out related memos on cases that were still pending at that time. His attempt at keeping up with the volume of cases in short time, he testified, was like getting hit with water coming from a firehose.
Eastman went word sparred with Judge Roland related to his attorney/client privilege consideration, of which he had made a big deal of earlier in the trial. With Ephshteyn and Chesebro, he had shared info freely. Eastman testified he didn’t consider exchanging information with them a breach because they didn’t share the advice with Trump. Huh? I honestly didn’t get the rationale in his explanation. My scribbles on this discord were not detailed, simply noted, I had written, “What a dick Eastman is.”
Perceived alleged illegal conduct, the what ifs in GA, PA, MI, AZ, NV, NM and WI, were again opined regarding statutory issues with Federal and State Constitutional complaints deep in the mix. Remedies Eastman alluded to for relief included a 10-day delay to alloq completion of legal research on VP authority in the electoral process. Another familiar name working on this was Jenna Ellis, whose memo to the Trump campaign legal team was titled, The Pence Card. Gulliani was named as a participant in the internal discussions. Originalist theory was referrenced in Eastman’s goal to put 9 different scenarios on paper, he testified. Eastman patted himself on the back stating he thought he had done a good job researching historical records and available scholarship as far back as 1796.
With that, Miller called it a good stopping point, ending testimony. Judge Roland asked a quick, “Anything else?” Happy, I imagined, to get a nothing further from the parties. She requested Miller to clean up his upcoming list of scheduled witnesses left to testify and quickly went off the record after noting court to be in recess until Tuesday, Oct 17th.
https://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/Portals/2/documents/notices/State-Bar-Court-Public-Events.pdf
Thanks again Hos