The morning witness was Kurt Olsen, a Navy Academy graduate and attorney, Miller’s questions revealed. Touting some of his accolades in testimony, he momentarily appeared to be perhaps be of sound mind.
What was not mentioned was Olsen’s background information related to his status in the highest ranks of MAGA conspiracy players. From my brief reading, I learned his name was included in a memo that appeared to recommend having Trump resort to martial law if necessary, hand delivered by pillow guy, Mike Lindell. I do remember when journalists snapped pictures of Lindell outside the White House waiting for his special time with Trump to sling the send in the troops message. He recently was sanctioned for making “false, misleading, and unsupported factual assertions” in Lake’s 2022 election contest in Arizona.
Olsen’s dumdum antics lawyering for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on a charge to overturn the 2020 presidential election spurred his law firm to fully disassociate from him. Olsen volunteered to be one of two drafters because he was troubled by the number of published reports about battleground counties with anomalies and glitches, he stated. Co-authored with Charles Cicchetti, their flawed analysis supported a lawsuit filed by the Texas AG Ken Paxton in the Supreme Court that sought to invalidate the Electoral College votes of several battleground states that elected then president-elect Joe Biden. Olsen tried to slide in an opinion deemed expert, so the State Bar objected.
In pretrial statements, Team Eastman had designated Olsen as an expert witness, then withdrew the request. Wonder why? Judge Roland spoke about Olsen’s status as a percipient witness. She began, “Let’s be very clear…” She shared the reason Team Eastman had to withdraw Olsen as an expert witness is because Miller team failed to submit a deposition as required by rules and procedures. Miller tried to argue the point, foiled again.
Details about the failed suit focused on what research was used. Olsen described pulling the analysis together as an intense time. Some name-dropping of individuals who gathered information for the draft of the complaint included Ken Starr of Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky fame. WUT?! Now, really dead dead weight is Starr, damn if it doesn’t make me smile.
Olsen testified that his involvement surrounding the 2020 presidential election was a new area for him. An insurrection virgin of sorts, he made much ado about state election laws, muttered a compulsory constitution whine, jammered about voter ID, drop boxes, signature verification, etc. Same old MAGA shtick.
At Olsen’s agreed upon stop time, so Judge Roland directed him to connect with Miller on his availability to complete his testimony and excused him.
Judge Roland addressed calendar scheduling briefly, tried to get a timeline sense of when the trial can close out. She made mention of having other trials that cannot continue to be delayed. Miller appears to want to drag things out as long as possible, whereas the State Bar seems to be on Judge Roland’s wavelength. I’m with the latter!
Next up to be sworn in as a witness for Eastman was Raymond Blehar, a retired government analyst. Judge Roland explained to him his status as a percipient witness. His background included work as a quality assurance manager, funny enough, and also, something to do with satellite data, lots of satellites.
Blehar had no experience in election systems analysis prior to the 2020 presidential election. In his tracking election research Belhar looked at public data, with the Texas and Pennsylvania Secretary of State offices and media sources like CNN in the mix. He testified that the day after the election, Nov 4th at about 10:00 AM, he looked at PA polling data and made a back of the envelope calculation, slang, he said, for the what if voters did this or that. He stated at that time, Biden was trailing by 575,000 votes, with the remainder ballots left to count absentee mail-ins, in general.
Miller asked about Blehar’s contributions to Droz’s Election Integrity group including The 2020 Presidential Election Startling Voting Spikes report. He testified that was a collaborative effort analysis he was involved in compiling with Droz and others, then posted on the Election Integrity website. Those teaming in addition to Blehar included an engineer, a statistician, an IT expert and an anonymous statistical analysis expert.
Judge Roland asked if Blehar interacted with the anonymous person. Blehar answered, “Obviously not, I don’t know who he is.” Judge Roland snapped back fast with a not playing with you intonation that it’s not obvious if he had any contact with the phantom writer.
Blehar testified to the data pulled and shared by all contributors to which he was asked by Judge Roland what about the anonymous one. Blahar testified he didn’t know about the anonymous contributor. A lil tarnish on Blehar’s credibility bears saying, imv.
Miller asked about the Election Integrity voting spikes report. Blehar testified it was an effort by all on the team. Not letting it pass, Judge Roland asked how did he know Anonymous Expert’s effort. “Apparently, I don’t know,” Blehar answered. Reconsider your answer, the judge replied.
The State Bar objected several times to Miller probing Blehar for expert testimony related to ballot spikes, all sustained. Miller asks to designate Blehar as an expert witness. Judge Roland informed Miller that he missed the date for such a move by months. Surprise, surprise. Miller argued his case for a long while, but given facts like noncompliance with the Rules of Procedure, Team Eastman loses again.
A tongue lashing by Judge Roland telling Miller he needs to show an appreciation for the Rules of Procedures being applicable to all attorneys in front of the State Bar Court. She stated truth that it keeps happening, trying to have others designated as expert witnesses in similar conditions. Judge Roland said this leads her to believe Miller expects exceptional treatment. I imagine Miller may be coming to terms with the realization that BS moves from under his inferior attorney umbrella don’t hold water in her courtroom.
Miller put an exhibit on the screen and began his line of questioning about ballot harvesting at nursing homes in Georgia. Hold up, per Judge Roland to the witness, don’t look at that, we (she and the State Bar) don’t have a copy, so….
As testimony resumed, another familiar name identified as a contributor to a report about enhancing election transparency was devilman, Stephen Miller. A wave of serious disdain immediately fell upon me.
More focus on alleged Dominion irregularities, suggested deletion of 4 million votes, blah blah about unnamed sources of media fact checks, vote laundering and the analysis of adjudication folders involved brought State Bar multi-reasoned objections being sustained.
Blehar’s summary of his Edison data calculations included 3rd party or write in votes shifting to Biden in Pennsylvania brought an objection related to his lack of designation as an expert witness. Deadlines matter, objection sustained.
With that, Miller closed his direct with a “Nothing more.” Judge Roland inquired how much time would be needed for cross examination, the State Bar replying about 2 hours. Judge Roland made a point of other witnesses needing to complete testimony including Droz, Olsen, Young and now Blehar. She instructed Blehar to connect with Miller’s office to arrange his time to finish his, then he was excused.
After a short break, calendars were addressed with a prospective mid-to-late October winding down of this trial with my projection of Eastman’s lawyering in California soon coming to an end. One mention about an upcoming witness, Joseph Ottmann, was on Judge Roland’s radar. He had been scheduled to testify for Eastman at an earlier date, but called in sick to cancel. He later that day was on a podcast, throwing a wrench in his illness excuse.
With that, Judge Roland called it a day, have a nice weekend and see you all when slated to return on Tuesday, October 3rd.
https://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/Portals/2/documents/notices/State-Bar-Court-Public-Events.pdf
Thanks, HOS! As always, comprehensive and written with a distinct, intelligent, witty voice.
I always wonder about the great writing on both sites (SAV and FAFO) what careers the authors are (or were) in.
Curious to know if you were in journalism or in education. No need to answer, it’s just that there are so many solid, intelligent and witty voices that it makes me curious 😊 and grateful.
Thank you, HOS.
Looks increasingly like Eastman’s only chance is a pardon. Hope that opportunity won’t happen.
How often is Miller going to try to sneakily redesignate a witness as an “expert” before he grasps that it’s not going to happen? (Rhetorical question only.)