Hmmmm…is she going to Hogwarts in the fall?
4 Likes
Eastman pooh-poohed his memos in a pair of phone interviews with National Review.
13 Likes
OT: I guess this is good news???
Shenanigans again:
Senate Republicans Stall Critical Vote on Fed Nominees - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
7 Likes
IIRC, a perjury trap is where a prosecutor is setting up a witness to perjure themselves. In this case, Eastman isn’t trapped - he can choose to renounce A-C privilege if he or DT can’t truthfully say they had that relationship. Having said that, the judge set the bar pretty low, and I can’t see how anyone could prove they didn’t have that relationship if they don’t have to provide any documented proof.
1 Like
I’ll be the guy at the booth selling PBR.
3 Likes
hahahahahahahaha 
3 Likes
A diuretic can fix that…
4 Likes
Does TFG have any grounds to refuse verifying or rejecting Eastmook’s claims of an attorney client relationship? The legal grounds don’t have to be defensible, they just have to consume 11 months of time.
1 Like
It sure is! I just love THIS:
The judge ordered Eastman to file a brief supporting his privilege claims for each document in question
5 Likes
“I don’t wanna” is perfectly valid. It’s not like Eastman is going to try to subpoena Trump on this.
5 Likes
I don’t know if CA disciplinary hearings are conducted with a court recorder (though I would assume they are). But my memory may be conflating Eastmook’s press statements with his statements in the hearing.
1 Like
Good one, but she hasn’t been sanctioned for anything she’s done in her defense vs. Dominion and Smartmatic. She got sanctioned in MI for bringing an election fraud lawsuit and failing to produce any evidence of fraud.
2 Likes
Whatever Eastman’s selling, this judge ain’t buying. He’s been more than a little skeptical of Eastman since day 1, which is certainly refreshing.
10 Likes
Zimbabwe dollar value is $0.002763194 to one US dollar
4 Likes
Yes, agreed. But what is needed (for them) is something requiring 11 months of litigation, with Eastmook’s legal dilemmas stayed for the duration.
1 Like
Or at least the beginning of it.
From that article specifically mentioning the dates that the J6 Committee is asking about and the topic. Jaw dropping:
Eastman tells National Review it was “accurate” to say that Trump and some other legal advisers’ position shifted from arguing that Pence had the authority to outright reject electoral votes to focusing on giving states time to certify alternate slates of electors in the final 24 to 48 hours before January 6.
4 Likes
I saw that, but wondered if that just locks in perjury charges for anyone swearing to something that someone else might have evidence is untrue.
IANAL, but couldn’t it pose a problem for a bad guy if a document from some other person showing this person was demonstrably at a specific place engaged in a specific activity with a specific person at the same time (s)he just swore he was with this other person doing something else? e.g., TFG or Eastman say they they met and discussed lawful things, when there is evidence showing that couldn’t have been because one or both were elsewhere engaged in another activity at that time. I’d love to see FatAss and everyone who likes him get nailed for perjury.
2 Likes
And since objecting to the 6 “disputed” state electoral slates would only buy them a maximum of 12 extra hours, Trump almost undoubtedly gave the go-ahead to Roger and/or Rudy to unleash the mob against the Capitol.
4 Likes