Last night, indicted attorney and former University of Colorado conservative scholar John Eastman appeared on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle, the coziest confines this side of Newsmax for the embattled accused mastermind conspirator in the plot to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump.
But as HuffPo’s Josephine Harvey reports, infamous Fox News prime-time misinformation maven Laura Ingraham left Eastman to twist in the wind on a central point of both his and Trump’s defense in their upcoming criminal trials: any actual evidence of election fraud to back up Eastman (and Trump’s) continuing insistence that the 2020 presidential election was in fact stolen:
Eastman was one of 18 Trump allies indicted alongside the former president by the Fulton County District Attorney’s office in Georgia earlier this month. According to the indictment, Eastman and others tried to establish a slate of fake electors to falsely certify that Trump won the 2020 election in order to change the outcome.
In Tuesday’s Fox News interview, Eastman continued to double down on lies about the election, and insisted he “had lots of evidence of fraud.”
“I haven’t seen that evidence, and I’m always wanting to see everything,” Ingraham said. “I’d love to see that evidence.” [Pols emphasis]
Nearly three years after the 2020 elections, and the exhaustive investigations into the Trump campaign’s allegations of outcome-determinative voter fraud that all found no evidence to support them, Laura Ingraham doesn’t expect to see the evidence that Eastman claims to possess. The reason is simple: Ingraham knows that evidence does not exist. Ingraham as we know now after the disclosure of her desperate attempts on January 6th to persuade Trump to tell the rioters to leave the Capitol, flat-out telling Mark Meadows that the attack was “destroying his legacy,” is much more lucid about what happened in 2020 than she can ever admit to her Trump-adoring audience. And while Ingraham was quick to shovel misinformation about “Antifa” responsibility after the insurrection, subsidizing the “Big Lie” that Eastman and Trump are now relying on to prop up their criminal defense appears to be something she is not willing to do.
And as the Daily Beast reports, the damage for Eastman in this supposedly friendly interview wasn’t over:
On The Ingraham Angle, Eastman was asked by anchor Laura Ingraham about whether the prosecutors can prove the case, which Ingraham said revolved around Eastman and the other defendants “all basically agreeing—implicitly, explicitly—that you all knew this was phony and that your decision amongst yourselves was to advance the plan to overturn the election.”
Eastman responded that the prosecution has “all the evidence” and “all my emails.”
“My phone was seized over a year ago. They have got all that stuff as well. I challenge them to find a single email or communication that supports that implausible theory,” he claimed.
Yet emails show that after the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection, Eastman persisted in trying to get Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the electoral votes, begging his counsel to break the law. [Pols emphasis]
Which is 100% accurate: back in March of 2022, the January 6th Select Committee released emails from Eastman to Vice President Mike Pence’s lawyers acknowledging that they would be breaking the law to implement his strategy, even asking for “one more relatively minor violation” to delay the certification of Joe Biden’s victory for ten days beyond January 6th. Ingraham of course didn’t challenge Eastman on this point, but everyone following this story knows that Eastman’s conscious and deliberate legal advice to break the law was exposed long ago. For Eastman to not remember this raises the most basic questions about his credibility and judgment.
Or, maybe the guy just makes stuff up, and the problem is how far you can get in the field of law by doing so.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: ClubTwitty
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Three Votes: A Margin Worth Taking To Court
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Three Votes: A Margin Worth Taking To Court
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: bullshit!
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: bullshit!
IN: Three Votes: A Margin Worth Taking To Court
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Are Fixed News viewers asking whose side Ingraham's on yet?
I'm watching the Wretched Witch right now. She is going to town on Mitch McConnell's senior moment today.
I've not had a great deal of need for an attorney's advice, but having one tell me I should commit “one more relatively minor violation” would raise more than one red flag.
Of course, that approach to the law may have been nearly normalized during his time as a clerk for Justice Thomas in the 1990s.
A lot of former Thomas clerks have turned out to be cut from or molded into the same seditious lot. Sadly, many of them populate the federal appellate courts.
"“He literally just confessed to the crime,” national security attorney Bradley P. Moss wrote, while Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis noted Eastman was “admitting to committing federal crimes on television” and “should keep his mouth shut for his own benefit.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/08/31/indicted-trump-attorney-john-eastman-admits-on-fox-news-he-pressured-pence-to-delay-certifying-election-results/?sh=1c4cb529495c
Gob-smacking stupidity for an indicted criminal defendant. The right to remain silent should be used much more frequently and liberally.