Davin News Server

Gronk wrote:
> AlleyKaKa wrote:
>>
> 
> 1. bamboo ballots

Nobody ever seriously proposed that that's what happened, faggot shill.

> 2. magic thermostats

Nobody ever seriously proposed that that's what happened, faggot shill.

> 3. ballots from NoKo coming into a port in Maine

Nobody ever seriously proposed that that's what happened, faggot shill.

> 4. HUGO CHAVEZ

Nobody ever seriously proposed that that's what happened, faggot shill.

> 5. satellites controlled from Italy switch votes

Nobody ever seriously proposed that that's what happened, faggot shill.


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20588/most-secure-election

'The Most Secure Election in American History'

by John Eastman
April 21, 2024 at 5:00 am

* What did the founders do? They committed an act of treason by signing the
Declaration of Independence. They recognized at some point you have to take
on the established regime when it is not only unjust, but when there is no
lawful way to get it back on track. These matters frame our own nation.

* Texas had just filed its original action in the Supreme Court against
Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- four swing states whose
election officers had clearly violated election law in those states and with
an impact that put Biden over the top in all four.

* In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, signed a
settlement agreement in March of 2020 in a suit that was filed by the
Democratic Committee that essentially obliterated the signature verification
process in Georgia. It made it virtually impossible to disqualify any
ballots no matter how unlike the signature on the ballot was to the
signature in the registration file. The most troubling aspect of it, to me,
was that the law required that the signature match the registration
signature. When Brad Raffensperger, who is not part of the legislature,
unilaterally changed the rule from what the legislature had adopted by
statute, that change was unconstitutional, not just illegal.

* Unilaterally, [the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathy
Boockvar] got rid of a statute that election officials in Pennsylvania had
been applying for 100 years to require signature verification. She then
asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to approve what she had done....In
other words, all of the statutory provisions that were designed to protect
against fraud were obliterated in Pennsylvania. We ought not to be surprised
if fraud walked through the door left open by the unconstitutional
elimination of these statutes.

* To this day, there are 120,000 more votes that were cast in Pennsylvania
than their records show voters who have cast votes. Think about that:
120,000 more votes than voters who cast votes. The margin in Pennsylvania
was 80,000.

* Election officials in heavily Democrat counties [in Wisconsin] also set up
drop boxes. They even set up what they called "human drop boxes" in Madison,
which is the home of the University of Wisconsin. For two or three
consecutive Saturdays before the election, they basically ran a ballot
harvesting scheme at taxpayer expense with volunteers - whom I suspect were
actually supporters of the Biden campaign -- working as "deputized" county
clerks to go collect all these ballots, in violation of state law.

* A lot of these came in with the witness signatures, but the address not
filled in. The county clerks were directed by the Secretary of State to fill
the information in on their own. In other words, they were doctoring the
evidence.

* They were doing Google searches to get the name, to fill in an address to
validate ballots that were clearly illegal under Wisconsin law. All told,
those couple of things combined, more than 200,000 ballots were affected in
a state where the margin victory was just over 20,000.

* Then in Michigan, we had similar things going on. We probably all saw the
video of election officials boarding up the canvassing center at TCF Center
in Detroit so that people could not observe what was going on. There were
hundreds of sworn affidavits about illegality in the conduct of that process
in Detroit.

* The judge, without holding a hearing on a motion to dismiss, at which the
allegations of the complaint are supposed to be taken as true, rejected all
the sworn affidavits from all the witnesses who actually observed the
illegality, and instead credited the government affidavit - without the
government witness evening being subject to questioning on
cross-examination.

* In those four states, and in Arizona and Nevada as well, there is no
question that the illegality that occurred affected way more ballots than
the certified margin of Joe Biden's victory in all of those states. It only
took three of those six states -- any combination of three -- for Trump to
have won the election.

* Well, first of all, that mantra....: "All the cases, all the courts ruled
against Trump." First of all, that is not true. Most of the cases were
rejected on very technical jurisdictional grounds, like a case brought by a
voter, rather than the candidate himself.

* Individual voters do not have standing because they lack a particularized
injury. Those were dismissed. There is no basis for claiming that there was
anything wrong with the claims on the merits. It is just that the cases were
not brought by the right people.

* There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary
of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was
just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the
law was actually violated, the case was not ripe -- and it got dismissed.
Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated
the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, "You can't wait
until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It's barred by a
doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team
was dealing with in those 65 cases.

* Of the cases that actually reached the merits --there were fewer than a
dozen of them, if I recall correctly -- Trump won three-fourths of them. You
have never heard that in the "New York Times."

* The 65 Project was formed -- I think I've seen reported that they received
a grant from a couple of George Soros-related organizations of $100 million
-- to bring disbarment actions against all of the lawyers who were involved
in any of those cases.

* The head of the organization gave an interview to Axios... and he said in
his interview to Axios that the group's goal with respect to the Trump
election lawyers is to "not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints,
but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms"
"in order to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP
efforts" to challenge elections.

* Our system works, in part, because we have an adversarial system of
justice that supports it. If groups like the 65 Project succeed in scaring
off one side of these intense policy disputes or legal disputes, then we
will not have an adversarial system of justice.

* We will not have elections that we can have any faith in, because if you
do not have that kind of judicial check on illegality in the election, then
bad actors will just do the illegality whenever they want, and we won't be
able to do anything about

* Ultimately, we are the sovereign authority that tells the government which
direction we want it to go, not the other way around.

* The issue of whether non-legislative actors in the state can alter
election law consistent with the Constitution remains an open issue. It
should not be an open issue. The Constitution is quite clear, but there was
a news account at one point reporting that John Roberts had yelled at Alito
and Thomas, who had insisted they needed to take these cases. They were just
like Bush versus Gore. Roberts was reported to have said, "They're not like
Bush versus Gore. If we do anything, they will burn down our cities." Which
means the impact of what had gone on in the summer of 2020 in Portland and
Kenosha and all these other places, had an impact on the Supreme Court
declining to take these cases.

* What I have seen, and it pains me to say this, is that the level of
corruption in our institutions, including our judicial institutions, is so
pervasive now that it is troubling. Because many of these cases end up in
the DC courts, I cannot imagine a stronger case for change of venue than
those January 6th criminal defendants. It will cost a million, a million and
a half to defend against those charges. The poor guy who entered a plea
agreement and pleaded guilty..., one of the 19 defendants in Georgia, he is
a bail bondsman for a living. If he gets a felony, he is not only in jail
for a while, but he cannot do his trade, so they offer him a misdemeanor
conviction and no jail time. He took it in a heartbeat. Otherwise, he is
looking at a million to two million dollars in legal fees tied up in this
internationally televised drama for nothing, and he was not in the position
to undertake that.

* About electronic voting machines? There have been three audits. Antrim
County, Michigan, and one of the leading critics of voting machines and
their software is a guy named J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer
science and engineering at the University of Michigan. He testified as the
expert in litigation down in Georgia in 2018 saying these machines are not
secure. They sealed his testimony and it was only released in June. It just
says, "These things are susceptible to fraud by all sorts of bad actors."

* One of the things we discover in that Antrim audits is that in fact, the
vote logs that are supposed to be there had been deleted for 2020, not 2016,
not 2012, they are still there, but 2020 had been deleted.

* They had a convention in Las Vegas, hired a bunch of geeks, computer geeks
from around the country, to come to this convention and see who could hack
into the machines and alter the vote codes quickest. It took people about 15
minutes. The notion that these things cannot be hacked is laughable. They
have to be able to be opened if they need to be repaired. [I heard that from
an MIT graduate at the time.] The question is, how to prove that they were
hacked in this particular instance when they are destroying the evidence,
and that is where we are.

* [W]e subsequently learned that despite [Former Attorney General William]
Barr's public statement that US attorneys could investigate election
illegality, anytime somebody did, he called him on the phone and order them
not to.

* One of the FBI investigators who was actually getting to the bottom of
this got a call that said, "Stand down."

* You have people out there saying, "Oh, we're investigating. Everything's
fine," while behind the scenes ordering people not to do the investigation
that would actually get to the bottom of it.

* I call it the uniparty. You can call it the deep state. You can call it
the administrative state. You can call it the corrupt state, but it sees the
MAGA movement as the biggest threat to its syndicators. It is going to do
everything it can to destroy the people who are going to try and publicize
what is going on.

* That is what we are dealing with, and we are $2 million in. One of the
lawsuits that was filed against me by this guy down in North Carolina, I
don't know why he picked me as the lead defendant, but other defendants are
all billionaire oligarchs who are using their own wealth. That is the kind
of nonsense I'm dealing with.

I would like to discuss some of the illegalities that occurred in the 2020
election and the proposed constitutional remedies that we thought we could
advance.

I would also like to discuss the lawfare that is sweeping across the country
and destroying not just the people that were involved in those efforts, but
the very notion of our adversarial system of justice.

This fight and the dangers from it are much bigger than what I am dealing
with personally, or what the hundred or so Trump lawyers who have been
targeted in this new lawfare effort are dealing with. It seems that there is
something similar going on here, albeit to a much less lethal degree, than
what we are seeing with the October 7th attack on Israel, as that, too, was
an attack on the rule of law.

The international community that will condemn Israel's just response to
these unjust attacks demonstrates a bias in the application of the rule of
law that is very similar to what we are dealing with here.

These are not isolated instances. They go to the root of the rejection of
the rule of law. One of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, gave a
speech, the Lyceum Address, in 1838 talking about the importance of the rule
of law.

When there are unjust laws, you have to be careful about refusing to comply
with them because what you may lose in the process - the rule of law itself
-- is of greater consequence. He was not categorical about that, however,
because the example he gave was of our nation's founders and their
commitment to the rule of law.

But think about that for a minute. What did our founders do? They committed
an act of treason by signing the Declaration of Independence. They
recognized at some point you have to take on the established regime when it
is not only unjust, but when there is no lawful way to get it back on track.
These matters frame our own nation in our own time.

Let us start with the 2020 election. What do we see and how did I get
involved in this?

When President Trump, then candidate Trump, walked down that famous
escalator at Trump Tower, one of the planks in his campaign platform was
that we need to fix this problem of birthright citizenship. People who are
just visiting here or are here illegally ought not to be able to provide
automatic citizenship to their children. People laughed at him for not
understanding the Constitution.

In his next press conference, he waved a law review article, and said there
is a very serious argument that our Constitution does not mandate birthright
citizenship for people who are only here temporarily or who are here
illegally. That happened to be my law review article on birthright
citizenship.

Then, during the Mueller investigation, I appeared for an hour on Mark
Levin's television show and said the whole Russia collusion story (which
Trump rightly called the Russia "hoax") was illegitimate - completely made
up. President Trump thought that my analysis was pretty good, and invited me
to the White House for a visit.

When the major law firms were backing out of taking on any of the election
challenges, President Trump called me and asked if I would be interested.
Texas had just filed its original action in the Supreme Court against
Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- four swing states whose
election officers had clearly violated election law in those states and with
an impact that put Biden over the top in all four.

Two days later, I filed the motion to intervene in the Supreme Court in that
action. The Supreme Court rules require the lawyer on the brief to have
their name, address, email address and phone number.

Nobody in the country at that point really knew who Trump's legal team was,
but all of a sudden people had a lawyer and an email address. I became the
recipient of every claim, every allegation, crazy or not, that existed
anywhere in the world about what had happened in the election. It was like
drinking from a fire hose.

I received communications from some of the best statisticians in the world
who were working with election data and who told me there was something very
wrong with the reported election results, according to multiple statistical
analyses.

One group decided to do a counter-statistical analysis. They said the
statisticians had misapplied Stan Young's path-breaking work. Unbeknownst to
them, one of the statisticians I was relying on was Stan Young himself.

Did you ever see the movie Rodney Dangerfield's "Back to School"? He has to
write an essay for English class, the essay has to be on Kurt Vonnegut's
thinking, so he hires Kurt Vonnegut to write the essay for him.

The professor fails him. Not because it was not his own work - the professor
hadn't figured that out -- but because, in the professor's view, the work
that Dangerfield turned in was not what Kurt Vonnegut would ever say. That
is what I felt like with this supposed critique of the statistical work my
experts were conducting.

Those were the kinds of things we were dealing with. I became something of a
focal point for all this information. The allegations of illegality were
particularly significant. I'll just go through a couple of states and a
couple of examples:

In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, signed a settlement
agreement in March of 2020 in a suit that was filed by the Democratic
Committee that essentially obliterated the signature verification process in
Georgia. It made it virtually impossible to disqualify any ballots no matter
how unlike the signature on the ballot was to the signature in the
registration file.

The most troubling aspect of it, to me, was that the law required that the
signature match the registration signature. Secretary Raffensperger's
settlement agreement required three people to unanimously agree that the
signature did not match, and it had to be a Democrat, a Republican and
somebody else, so you were never going to get the unanimous agreement. That
means no signature was ever going to get disqualified - and in Fulton
County, election officials did not even bother conducting signature
verification

Even more important than the difficulty of disqualifying obviously falsified
signatures was that, under the settlement agreement, the signature would be
deemed valid if it matched either the registration signature or the
signature on the ballot application itself. That means that if someone
fraudulently signed and submitted an application for an absentee ballot and
then voted that ballot after fraudulently directing it to a different
address than the real voter's address, the signature on the ballot would
match the signature on the absentee ballot application and, voila, the
fraudulent ballot would be deemed legal..

How do we know that went on? Well, we had anecdotal stories. A co-ed at
Georgia Tech University, if I recall correctly, testified before Senator
Ligon's Committee in the Georgia Senate. She said she went to vote in person
with her 18-year-old sister. They were going to make a big deal about going
to vote in person because the 18-year-old sister was voting for the first
time. They did not want to vote by mail. They wanted to make an event out of
it, get a sticker, "I voted," and all that stuff. They get down to the
precinct and the 22-year-old is told that she has already voted. They said
she had applied for an absentee ballot.

"No, I didn't," she said. "Oh, Deary," they said, "you must have forgotten."
Very patronizing. "No, I didn't forget.," she said. "We have been looking
forward to this for months. I know I did not apply for an absentee ballot."

They subsequently found out that somebody had applied for an absentee ballot
in her name, had it mailed to a third-party address, not an address she
knew. She never recognized it, didn't understand it, and then she testified
that she later learned that the fraudulent ballot was voted.

We had that kind of anecdotal evidence to prove that this change in the
signature rules that Secretary Brad Raffensperger signed on to had actually
resulted in fraud. The disqualification rates statewide, because of this
change in the law, went down by about 46%.

Why is the change in the rules through a settlement agreement a problem?
Article II of our Constitution, the Federal Constitution, quite clearly
gives the sole power to direct the manner for choosing presidential electors
to the legislature of the State.

When Brad Raffensperger, who is not part of the legislature, unilaterally
changed the rule from what the legislature had adopted by statute, that
change was unconstitutional, not just illegal.

Another alteration of the rules set out by the legislature occurred in
Fulton County. Election officials there ran portable voting machines in
heavily Democrat areas of Atlanta, which was contrary to state law.

Pennsylvania. One of my favorite cases comes out of Pennsylvania. The League
of Women Voters, which claims to be non-partisan but is clearly anything
but, filed what I believe was a collusive lawsuit against the Democrat
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathy Boockvar, in August of
2020.

The premise of the suit was that the signature verification requirement that
election officials had been applying in Pennsylvania for a century violated
the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment because voters whose ballots
were disqualified were not given notice of the disqualification and an
opportunity to cure the problem.

The premise of the lawsuit was that there was a signature verification
process but that it violated federal Due Process rights. The remedy the
League of Women Voters sought was to have the court mandate a notice and
opportunity to cure requirement.

The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided to resolve the
lawsuit by providing something the League had not even requested. She
decided, on her own, that Pennsylvania did not really have a signature
verification requirement at all, so the request relief - notice and
opportunity to cure - would not be necessary.

Unilaterally, she got rid of a statute that election officials in
Pennsylvania had been applying for 100 years to require signature
verification. She then asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to approve what
she had done.

She filed what was called a Petition for a King's Bench Warrant to ratify
what she had done. If I ever bump into her, I'm going to say, "You know, you
have not had a king in Pennsylvania since 1776, maybe you ought to change
the name of that."

The partisan elected Pennsylvania Supreme Court obliged. Not only is there
no signature verification requirement in Pennsylvania, the Court held, but
all those statutes that describe how election officials are supposed to do
signature verification are just relics; they really do not have any meaning.
So the Democrat majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, at the urging of
the Democrat Secretary of the Commonwealth, just got rid of the whole
signature verification process.

Then the court went on to say: And since there is no signature verification
requirement, there is no basis on which anybody would be able to challenge
ballots, so we are going to get rid of the challenge parts of the election
statutes as well, and since there is no basis to challenge, the statute that
requires people to be in the room while things are being counted, that
really does not matter. It does not have to be meaningful observation. Being
at the front door of the football field-sized Philadelphia Convention Center
was sufficient even though it was impossible to actually observe the
counting of ballots.

The statute actually requires that observers be "in the room," but it was
written at a time when canvassing of ballots would occur in small settings,
like the common room of the local library, where being "in the room" meant
meaningful observation of the ballot counting process. Obliterating the very
purpose of the statute, the court held that being "in the room" at the
entrance of the Philadelphia Convention Center was sufficient.

In other words, all of the statutory provisions that were designed to
protect against fraud were obliterated in Pennsylvania. We ought not to be
surprised if fraud walked through the door left open by the unconstitutional
elimination of these statutes.

To this day, there are 120,000 more votes that were cast in Pennsylvania
than their records show voters who have cast votes. Think about that:
120,000 more votes than voters who cast votes. The margin in Pennsylvania
was 80,000.

Wisconsin. One of the people who has testified for me in my California bar
proceedings was Justice Mike Gableman, former Justice of the Wisconsin
Supreme Court. He was hired by the Wisconsin legislature to conduct an
investigation.

His investigation efforts were thwarted at every turn, with the Secretary of
State and others refusing to comply with subpoenas, etc. Nevertheless, he
uncovered an amazing amount of illegality and fraud in the election. For
example, the county clerks in Milwaukee and Madison had directed people that
they could claim "indefinitely confined" status if they were merely afraid
of COVID.

That is clearly not permitted under the statute, but voters who followed the
county clerks' directive and falsely claimed they were "indefinitely
confined" did not have to submit an ID with their absentee ballot as the law
required -- again, opening the door for fraud.

Although the Wisconsin courts held that the advice was illegal and ordered
it to be withdrawn, the number of people claiming they were indefinitely
confined went from about 50,000 in 2016 to more than a quarter of million in
2020. The illegal advice provided by those two county clerks in heavily
Democrat counties clearly had impact.

Election officials in heavily Democrat counties also set up drop boxes. They
even set up what they called "human drop boxes" in Madison, which is the
home of the University of Wisconsin. For two or three consecutive Saturdays
before the election, they basically ran a ballot harvesting scheme at
taxpayer expense with volunteers - whom I suspect were actually supporters
of the Biden campaign -- working as "deputized" county clerks to go collect
all these ballots, in violation of state law.

How do I know it is a violation of the state law? The Wisconsin Supreme
Court after the fact agreed with us that it was a violation of state law.

One last piece. Wisconsin law is very clear. If you're going to vote
absentee, you have to have a witness sign a separate under-oath
certification that the person who is voting that ballot is who they say they
are.

The witness has to fill out their name and address and sign it, under
penalty of perjury. A lot of these came in with the witness signatures, but
the address not filled in. The county clerks were directed by the Secretary
of State to fill the information in on their own. In other words, they were
doctoring the evidence.

They were doing Google searches to get the name, to fill in an address to
validate ballots that were clearly illegal under Wisconsin law. All told,
those couple of things combined, more than 200,000 ballots were affected in
a state where the margin victory was just over 20,000.

Then in Michigan, we had similar things going on. We probably all saw the
video of election officials boarding up the canvassing center at TCF Center
in Detroit so that people could not observe what was going on. There were
hundreds of sworn affidavits about illegality in the conduct of that process
in Detroit.

Then there was one affidavit on the other side submitted by an election
official who was responsible for legally managing the election. He said,
basically, that everything was fine, it was all perfect.

The judge, without holding a hearing on a motion to dismiss, at which the
allegations of the complaint are supposed to be taken as true, rejected all
the sworn affidavits from all the witnesses who actually observed the
illegality, and instead credited the government affidavit - without the
government witness evening being subject to questioning on
cross-examination.

This is a manifestation of what I have described as the increasingly
Orwellian tendency of our government. "We're the government and when we've
spoken, you're just supposed to bend the knee and listen."

That was just some of the evidence we had. In those four states, and in
Arizona and Nevada as well, there is no question that the illegality that
occurred affected way more ballots than the certified margin of Joe Biden's
victory in all of those states.

It only took three of those six states -- any combination of three -- for
Trump to have won the election.

When I was coming out of the Georgia jailhouse after surrendering myself for
the indictment down in Georgia, one of the reporters threw a question at me.
He said, "Do you still believe the election was stolen?"

I said, "Absolutely. I have no doubt in my mind," because of things like
this and because of the Gableman report, because of Dinesh D'Souza's book on
2000 Mules -- that stuff is true.

People say, "Well, it's not true. It's been debunked." No, it has not been
debunked. In fact, there have been criminal convictions down in Pima County,
Arizona, from the 2018 election, where people finally got caught doing the
same thing that Dinesh D'Souza said they were doing.

Dinesh's documentary was based on the investigative work conducted by
Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote. Her team obtained, at great expense,
commercially-available cell phone location data and identified hundreds of
people who visited multiple ballot drop boxes, oftentimes in the wee hours
of the morning, 10 or more different drop boxes. Then they got the video
surveillance from those drop boxes (those that were actually working, that
is), confirming that the people were dropping in 8, 10, 12 ballots at a
time.

In Georgia, you are allowed to drop off ballots for immediate family
members, but I think it is fairly clear that these folks - "mules" is what
the documentary called them - were not family members. They were taking
selfies of themselves in front of the ballot boxes because, as the
whistleblower noted to Engelbrecht, they were getting paid for each ballot
they delivered. In other words, this certainly looks like an illegal ballot
harvesting scheme.

What has happened since then? Well, there is a group in DC, largely
hard-liner partisan Democrats, Hillary and Bill Clinton crowd, but joined by
a couple of hard-line never-Trump Republicans, or one, so they can claim
they are bipartisan. The group is called The 65 Project, and it is named
after the 65 cases brought by Trump's team that supposedly all ruled against
Trump.

Well, first of all, that mantra, how many have heard it?: "All the cases,
all the courts ruled against Trump." First of all, that is not true. Most of
the cases were rejected on very technical jurisdictional grounds, like a
case brought by a voter, rather than the candidate himself.

Individual voters do not have standing because they lack a particularized
injury. Those were dismissed. There is no basis for claiming that there was
anything wrong with the claims on the merits. It is just that the cases were
not brought by the right people.

There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary
of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was
just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the
law was actually violated, the case was not ripe -- and it got dismissed.

Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated
the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, "You can't wait
until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It's barred by a
doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team
was dealing with in those 65 cases.

Of the cases that actually reached the merits --there were fewer than a
dozen of them, if I recall correctly -- Trump won three-fourths of them. You
have never heard that in the "New York Times." And the Courts simply refused
to hear some clearly meritorious cases, such as one filed in the Wisconsin
Supreme Court. The majority in that case simply noted that it did not see
any need to hear the case, over a vigorous dissent that basically said, "Are
you nuts? This was illegal, and we have a duty to hear the challenge."

Two years later, that same Court took up the issues that had been presented
to it in December 2020, and it held that what happened was illegal. But by
then it was too late to do anything about it.

The 65 Project was formed -- I think I've seen reported that they received a
grant from a couple of George Soros-related organizations of $100 million --
to bring disbarment actions against all of the lawyers who were involved in
any of those cases.

The head of the organization gave an interview to Axios, kind of a
left-leaning Internet news outlet, and he said in his interview to Axios
that the group's goal with respect to the Trump election lawyers is to "not
only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make
them toxic in their communities and in their firms" "in order to deter
right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts" to
challenge elections.

Think about that. Our system works, in part, because we have an adversarial
system of justice that supports it. If groups like the 65 Project succeed in
scaring off one side of these intense policy disputes or legal disputes,
then we will not have an adversarial system of justice.

We will not have elections that we can have any faith in, because if you do
not have that kind of judicial check on illegality in the election, then bad
actors will just do the illegality whenever they want, and we won't be able
to do anything about it.

They are not the group that brought the bar charges against me in
California, but they did file a complaint against me in the Supreme Court of
the United States. A parallel group called the States United Democracy
Center is the one that filed the bar complaint against me in California.
Nearly every single paragraph of the complaint had false statements in it.

The bar lawyers publicly announced back in March of 2022 that they were
taking on the investigation. Under California law, investigations before
charges are filed publicly are supposed to be confidential. But there is an
exception if the bar deems that the lawyer being investigated is a threat to
the public.

So the head of the California Bar had a press conference announcing that I
was a threat to the public, and therefore they could disclose that they were
conducting an investigation. Now, what is the threat to the public that I
pose? What is the old line? Telling truth in an era of universal deceit is a
revolutionary act? I guess that is the threat to the public they're
asserting.

That is the threat to the public. Telling the truth about what went on in
the 2020 election. They gave me the most extraordinary demand. They
basically said we want to know every bit of information you had at your
disposal for every statement you made on the radio, for every article you
published, for every line in every brief you filed. It took us four months.

I said, "We're going to respond to this very comprehensively." They say I
have no evidence of election illegality and fraud. We gave them roughly
100,000 pages of evidence. 100,000 pages we disclosed to them. They went
ahead and filed the bar charges anyway against us in January of 2023.

My wife and I, since 2021, have been on quite a roller coaster.

We came to the realization that my whole career, my education in Claremont,
my PhD, my teaching constitutional law for 20 years, my being a dean, my
being a law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, probably equipped me better
than almost anybody else in the country to be able to confront, stand up
against this lawfare that we're dealing with.

This is our mission now. This is what we do. This is what I do around the
clock, is deal with this.

I was teaching our summer seminar at the Claremont Institute. We do a series
of summer seminars, one for recent college grads called the Publius
Fellowship Program.

You may recognize some of the names of people that have gone through
Publius. I was a Publius Fellow in 1984. Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Tom
Cotton, Kate Mizelle (the judge who blocked the vaccine mandates down in
Florida). We've had some pretty good folks.

We also conduct a program for recent law school grads called the John
Marshall Fellowship. We were conducting a seminar on the Constitution's
religion clauses when the news of the Georgia indictment naming me as an
indicted co-conspirator came down. We kept going on with the seminar. At the
end of the program, the fellows always roast each other and make fun of each
other, missteps they'd made during the week and things like that.

Well, this year, they roasted me a bit. One of the students noted that as
FBI agents were rappelling down from the rooftop, Eastman kept talking about
the Constitution's religion clauses.

He recounted that, prior to the program, the students didn't know what to
expect when they accepted the fellowship offer to study with me (among
others), given all that was going on. Then he said that what they witnessed
on that night, when the indictment came down, was a demonstration of courage
they had not seen before, and that it was contagious. He then recited a line
from our national anthem - the one asking whether the flag was still flying.
And he noted, with great insight, that if you listen carefully to the words,
the question is not so much whether the flag still flies, but what kind of
land it flies over? Is it still the land of the free and the home of the
brave, or the land of the coward and the home of the slave?

I find more and more, as more Americans are waking up to what is going on,
that courage is indeed contagious. People are looking for ways to help fight
back. When they see somebody standing up with that kind of courage, it gives
them courage to join.

There are people in every county in the country, with eyes on the local
clerk's office and verifying that, "When it says 28 people are living and
voting in an efficiency apartment, we know that is not true and we're going
to get that cleaned up."

I remain optimistic as people are awakening to the threat to our way of
life. This is one of the cornerstones of our Declaration of Independence. We
are all created equal. There are certain corollaries that flow from that.

This means that nobody has the right to govern others without their consent.
The consent of the governed is one of the cornerstones of our system of
government. Our forefathers exercised it in 1776 by choosing to declare
independence, and 10 years later by choosing to ratify a constitution, and
we exercise that consent of the governed principle in an ongoing way by how
we conduct our elections.

Ultimately, we are the sovereign authority that tells the government which
direction we want it to go, not the other way around.

Regularly, we are instead being given the following message: "We're the
government. We have spoken. How dare you stand up and offer a different
view." That has turned us from being sovereign citizens in charge of the
government to subjects being owned by or run by the government.

That is not the kind of country I intend to live in. It is not the kind of
country I want my kids and now my grandchildren to grow up in. This is a
fight worth everything you've got. That's why we're going to do as much as
we can to win this fight. Thank you for your support and prayers.

* * *

Question: What happened after the 2020 election with Justices Thomas and
Alito. They wanted the Supreme Court at least to hear the evidence, but were
turned down. Why?

Dr. Eastman: One of the cases that was up there was one of the other
illegalities that occurred in Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State
unilaterally altered the statutory deadline for the return of ballots.

Pennsylvania, like most states, says, "If you're going to mail in your
ballot, it's got to be received by the close of the poll so we're not having
this gamesmanship of being able to get ballots in after the fact." She said,
"Oh, we're going to give an extra week." The court said, "No, we'll give an
extra four days."

That case was brought to the Supreme Court to block that clearly illegal
action by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, agreed to by the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court. They asked for an emergency stay of that decision so the rule
that had been in place would still be followed.

Ruth Ginsburg had died, there were eight people, and the court split four to
four, which means the stay was denied. You had to have a majority. It was
Thomas, it was Alito, it was Gorsuch, and it was Kavanaugh. John Roberts
voted with the three liberals. Then when Amy Coney Barrett joined the court,
I thought, "OK, we'll get to five."

When a motion to expedite in my case was filed in mid-December, we filed a
cert petition from three of the erroneous Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases,
we filed a motion to expedite, and that was denied. They didn't even act on
it.

Then February 12th of 2021, they denied the cert petition and the motion to
expedite. The vote there was six to three on the ground that it had become
moot. That meant Barrett and Roberts and Kavanaugh all voted to deny the
cert petition. But it had not become moot.

The issue of whether non-legislative actors in the state can alter election
law consistent with the Constitution remains an open issue. It should not be
an open issue. The Constitution is quite clear, but there was a news account
at one point reporting that John Roberts had yelled at Alito and Thomas, who
had insisted they needed to take these cases. They were just like Bush
versus Gore.

Roberts was reported to have said, "They're not like Bush versus Gore. If we
do anything, they will burn down our cities." Which means the impact of what
had gone on in the summer of 2020 in Portland and Kenosha and all these
other places, had an impact on the Supreme Court declining to take these
cases.

By the way, a little aside on that story to show you how distorted the
January 6th committee, and particularly Liz Cheney was on the evidence.

At some point during the course of all this, the legislator in Pennsylvania
who was conducting hearings on the election illegality in Pennsylvania
wanted my advice on what the legislative authority was if they found that
there was outcome determinative illegality or fraud in the election.

He sent an email to me at my email address at the University of Colorado,
where my wife and I were teaching at the time.

I responded, "If there is clear evidence of illegality, that's
unconstitutional, and so you have the legal right, the legal constitutional
authority to do something about it. If you think it altered the effect of
the election, you should name your own electors."

University of Colorado, contrary to their policy, disclosed that email
publicly. Liz Cheney announced the email, said Eastman was pressuring the
Pennsylvanian legislature to overturn the election, even though it was quite
clear that my statement about legislative authority was specifically
conditioned on a finding of illegality and fraud sufficient to have affected
the outcome of the election.

The other gross distortion that came out of the J6 Committee involved an
email exchange I had about whether to appeal the Wisconsin case to the
Supreme Court. The campaign staff, money guys in the campaign said, "We're
trying to be good stewards of the funds we have. What are the chances that
they're going to take these cases? Is it worth filing these cert petitions?"

I wrote in the email, "The legal issues are rock solid. It therefore doesn't
turn on the merits of the case. It turns on whether the justices have the
spine to take this on. Then I said, "And I understand that there is a heated
fight underway and whether they should take these cases. We ought to give
the good guys the ammunition they need to wage that fight."

Liz Cheney or someone on the J6 Committee puts out a portion of this email.
They ignore that I say the legal issues are rock solid. They say instead
that Eastman, knowing his case had no merit, was pressuring the Supreme
Court to take the case and obviously had inside information from Ginni
Thomas, because three weeks earlier, Ginni had sent me a note saying, "I
heard you on Larry O'Connor's show giving an update on the election
litigation. Can you give that same update to my Zoom call group? By the way,
what's your home address? I need it for the Christmas card."

That was the email. All of a sudden, Liz Cheney and the J6 Committee puts
those two things together as if there was something nefarious about it.

My understanding that there is an intense fight underway at the Court was
based exclusively on the news accounts in The New York Times about Roberts
yelling at Alito for insisting that the Court needed to take these cases.
The dishonesty, the combination of the dishonesty, the whole thing, this
narrative is out there and it is the government narrative.

No matter how false the narrative is, we are supposed to just accept it or
bend the knees. "It's like, the government says, 'We've increased your funds
this year from four to three,'" and we're just all supposed to accept it.
This is lawfare, but it is support of totalitarianism, of authoritarianism.

The government has spoken, and we are all supposed to accept it as true, no
matter how obviously false it is. I'm sorry, free people should not and
never have and never will if they continue to be a free people tolerate that
kind of thing.

Q: I have two questions. One, when Raffensperger did that in Georgia, was it
expressly to defeat Donald Trump? Do you think he knew what the ramification
of that ruling was going to be? The second thing is, in this upcoming trial,
is there an opportunity to lay out publicly for a jury?

Is this a jury situation, the talk you just gave us? Because there has to be
a moment where people pay attention to this, and so far it has not happened.

Dr. Eastman: So far it has not come, I agree. I mean, it has come, but in
ways that are immediately shut down. We are laying out the case now in my
California bar trial, which next week enters its eighth week. My defense of
my California bar license will have cost us a half million dollars before
all is said and done.

Being a full trial team for eight weeks, it's gone on. It is insane, but we
are laying out the case to the extent the judge permits. She has already
blocked about a dozen of my witnesses, but I'll tell you some of the
stories. We have a guy named Joseph Freed, retired CPA, professional
auditor, auditing Fortune 500 companies his whole career.

He said something doesn't smell right here, and so he applied his tools of
the trade to look at the elections and wrote a book called "Debunked." It's
a brilliant book. I told my wife, "This is the book I would have written if
I hadn't been on my heels playing defense the last year."

The book was written and published in January of 2023, so the judge ruled it
was not relevant because even though it discusses all the evidence I had
before me, the analysis he did was after the fact and I could not have
relied on it, therefore it was not relevant.

Two days later, the government offers a witness to introduce into evidence
government reports that were done in September 2022. My lawyer objected,
"It's not relevant on your prior ruling." The lawyer for the bar actually
said, "Well, these are government reports. They are different." So the judge
let them in.

Part of the problem is, trying to prevent the story from getting out, even
in a trial where the rules of evidence are supposed to come to play. I don't
think they'll be able to get away with that in the Georgia criminal
litigation.

This full story probably will come out more clearly there and it will have a
bigger viewership there than my California bar trial has had because Trump
is one of the defendants. The California bar trial is exposing a lot of
this.

A reporter for the "Arizona Sun," Rachel Alexander, is doing a terrific job
covering the case in daily articles in Arizona Sun, but she also she has a
Twitter account.

What I've seen this far from the state trial judge down in Georgia is that
he is going to hold the line on what the law is and what the law requires.
That is a very good thing and we'll be able to see it. Fingers crossed.

About Raffensperger, look, I don't know what his motives are, all I can see
is the consequences of them. There are the consequences of that, which
should have been obvious on its face. More importantly, there is the
continued falsity claims in his public statements, and I'll give you one
example.

One of the expert reports on the election challenge that was filed -- which
never got a judge appointed, by the way, for nearly a month, and by then it
was too late.

One of the allegations based on an expert analysis was that 66,247 people
had voted who were underage when they registered to vote.

Now, he goes out and does a press conference and says, "We checked, nobody
voted when they were underage," but that was not the allegation made by the
expert. The allegation was that they registered to vote when they were 16.
You have to be 17 and a half before you can register.

If they had not re-registered, that meant they were not legally registered
and not legally allowed to vote. He routinely mischaracterizes the actual
allegation in the case, deliberately lying. Whatever his motives were with
whether he's anti-Trump or not, he is clearly lying, and we ought not to
give him any credence whatsoever.

Q: You had said before that President Trump had won three quarters of the
real cases. I'm wondering what that means to win, what are the implications
of that and what is correct, if anything. What, then, then is the way
forward?

Dr. Eastman: The way forward is a legal system. Now, the Trump cases that
were won only involved small components like the statutory right in
Pennsylvania to be there to observe the counting. They were blocking even
minimum observation. The court ordered, "Yeah, you've got to let them into
the room and observe."

That was not one that was the grand enchilada on the outcome determinative
issues, but he won the case. We won ultimately on the indefinitely confined
ruling up in Wisconsin. They said that, "Just being fearful of COVID does
not mean you're indefinitely confined under the statute."

It's not as if the Wisconsin legislature didn't have an opportunity to alter
that. If they wanted, they determined, they considered alterations in the
law as a result of COVID, made some, but this was not one of them.

What I have seen, and it pains me to say this, is that the level of
corruption in our institutions, including our judicial institutions, is so
pervasive now that it is troubling. Because many of these cases end up in
the DC courts, I cannot imagine a stronger case for change of venue than
those January 6th criminal defendants.

Yet their motions for change of venue were uniformly denied because they
wanted this in the DC jury pool, which is like 95% hostile to Trump. This is
not a jury of peers. This is not a jury that is likely to lead to a just and
true result. This is a partisan political act, a loaded dice system in DC.

The same thing I think they were gambling on being true in Georgia, in
Fulton County. But I don't think the dice is as loaded there as it is in DC.

It will cost a million, a million and a half to defend against those
charges. The poor guy who entered a plea agreement and pleaded guilty last
week, one of the 19 defendants in Georgia, he is a bail bondsman for a
living.

If he gets a felony, he is not only in jail for a while, but he cannot do
his trade, so they offer him a misdemeanor conviction and no jail time. He
took it in a heartbeat. Otherwise, he is looking at a million to two million
dollars in legal fees tied up in this internationally televised drama for
nothing, and he was not in the position to undertake that.

We have raised over a half million on my legal defense fund site. It's
probably going to end up being three million total that we need, but he did
not have the ability to do a hundredth of that.

In international news: "Oh, one of Trump's co-defendants is turning the
tables on Trump. This is bad news for Trump." No, it's not. The guy made the
most sensible decision he could.

My lawyer got a call from ABC, they said, "Have they reached out to you to
offer a plea agreement?" I told him to say "No, I suspect they're not going
to, but I'll tell you what. I'll make a suggestion to them. I will agree to
a plea agreement that says they drop all the charges, and I will agree to
testify truthfully on their behalf. In exchange, I agree not to file a
lawsuit for malicious prosecution against them."

I thought that was a pretty good offer.

Q: You're paying with your money. They're paying with the...

Dr. Eastman: Yeah, they're paying with my money too, taxpayer money.

Q: What about the ability to manipulate electronic voting machines? It was
on every single broadcast for weeks.

Dr. Eastman: I quickly became a triage nurse. Once I filed that brief on
behalf of Trump and everything started coming in. I had to try and make the
best judgment I could about what kind of allegations were credible and what
allegations were not credible. What things that would appear credible that
we could prove versus the one that seem credible, but we cannot prove them.
I'll give you one example.

Early in January, Mike Lindell from MyPillow said he had a list of the
Chinese intrusions. He has got 50 pages of spreadsheets purporting to show
IP addresses in Beijing connecting with IP addresses in county election
offices all over the country, and then altering Trump down 45 votes in this
precinct or altering the totals as they are getting transmitted to the
secretaries of state that then become part of the reported vote totals.

I had the first 10 lines of that spreadsheet on January 2nd, and I had some
of the best security experts in the world that I was working with, and I
said, "Can we verify this?" -- because they commonly describe how many Trump
votes were lost, but obviously just typed in. I said, "I need to see the
data, I need to see the packet that you say is sending instructions to make
these alterations."

They wanted me to go to the president with this stuff and I said, "If in
fact this is true this is an act of war by the number one other superpower
in the world against the United States." Taking that information into the
president without confirming it would be an imprudent thing to do.

I wanted to confirm it and my experts, who had access to IP address
registries, said none of the IP addresses were valid. This is made-up stuff.
So, I was not able to confirm it. Now, maybe this occurred, but the data I
was looking at was not the silver bullet of evidence that we needed to be
able to take it.

Other stuff, do you know...how many saw the vote spike charts? Some
entrepreneur started making T-shirts out of them. Those big vote spikes, you
saw that chart over the Internet.

Well, think about that for a moment. Atlanta, which is about 90% Democrat,
if they are not reporting partial returns all night long the way the rest of
the state is, and then they report all of their returns all at once, you are
going to see a vote spike for the Democrat.

If they are reporting partial returns all night long, the way the rest of
the state is, and then you see that kind of vote spike, that is pretty good
evidence of fraud. I asked, "The data we are looking at that gives us that
vote spike chart, that famous Internet graph that everybody saw is based on
state-wide aggregate time-series data. I need to know whether Atlanta is
reporting what we would expect or whether it's fraud." How do I get that
information? I need the county level time series. Let's see what was going
on in Fulton County alone."

I'm told that Georgia officials locked access to the county level
time-series data that would have helped me determine whether it was evidence
of fraud or evidence of something that we should have expected. To this day,
I do not know, but those are the things I was trying to do to get to the
bottom of this information.

About electronic voting machines? There have been three audits. Antrim
County, Michigan, and one of the leading critics of voting machines and
their software is a guy named J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer
science and engineering at the University of Michigan.

He testified as the expert in litigation down in Georgia in 2018 saying
these machines are not secure. They sealed his testimony and it was only
released in June. It just says, "These things are susceptible to fraud by
all sorts of bad actors."

He was the government witness in Antrim County, and he demonstrated that, in
his opinion, what really happened in Antrim County was that some of the
local clerks had done an update. One of the cities in the county had omitted
one of the school board races, and so they had to redo the ballot.

Unbeknownst to the county clerks, every line in the machine code was
consecutively ordered throughout the whole county. If you add one line in
Bailey Township, it doesn't affect the cities in the county that began with
A, but it affected everything else.

All the votes for Jorgensen were cast for Trump, all the votes for Trump
were cast for Biden. All the votes for Biden were cast for the line marked
"President" and didn't count. When they unraveled that error and counted the
actual ballots, it looked like this was an update in the software error and
it was explainable.

Halderman goes out of his way, however, not to distance himself from his
prior concerns about the vulnerability of election.

One of the things we discover in that Antrim audits is that in fact, the
vote logs that are supposed to be there had been deleted for 2020, not 2016,
not 2012, they're still there, but 2020 had been deleted.

We also found that the password for access to the machine, that give you,
the administrator, rights that would allow you to delete logs, was the same
password that everybody had access to anywhere -- from county clerk to
anybody -- they had the same password. 123456 or something simple like that
was the password. It had been that way since 2008.

The audit uncovered huge vulnerabilities, but because the logs had been
deleted, no proof. A second audit was done in Mesa County, Colorado. A woman
by the name of Tina Peters was the county clerk in Mesa County, Colorado.

The Secretary of State in Colorado, a radical advocate named Jena Griswold,
had ordered an update to all the machines in the county shortly after the
election. The update destroys all the election evidence, and that is a
violation of federal law.

All election information is supposed to be kept for 22 months, and the
people that are on the hook for the violation of that federal law --and it
is a felony -- are the county clerks. Tina Peters said, "I'm not going to
allow them to put me in way of a felony indictment of letting this
information be destroyed."

She made a mirror-image copy of all the data so that when they did the
upgrade, she could say, "I haven't violated federal law. I've got it." She
had the mirror image, and she hired forensic analysts to look at.

They are now charging her with nine felonies for illegally accessing the
information, but what they discovered in that audit, they actually
identified computer code that was changing votes. Now, Jeff O'Donnell was
the guy that did it. He published three reports, the three Mesa County
reports. I called Jeff O'Donnell as one of the witnesses of my California
bar trial. The judge has barred him from testimony. We had not identified
him up-front because this was going to be rebuttal to their claims that
everything was fine. The third audit has occurred down in Georgia. There's
one case still pending from all of these things from three years ago. The
case is called Favorito vs. Raffensperger.

Garland Favorito runs an organization called Voter GA, which has been doing
election integrity oversight stuff in Georgia for 20 years. He is neither
Democrat nor Republican. He is a Constitution Party guy, sorry.

There was a judge down there. Apparently this judge did not get the memo
that we are not supposed to look at any of this stuff, and he authorized
Garland and his team of forensic experts to access one of the machines in
Fulton County, and he gave them forensic audit access.

They had it for about a week before somebody came down on the judge and
said, "Oh, we're not supposed to do that," and the judge revoked the order.
In that week, they discovered something very stunning. Think about how this
works:

At first in our history, it used to be that you would go to both of your
local precincts, and maybe the local library, and absentee ballots would get
mailed in and delivered to that precinct, so that the absentee people who
had voted from the same neighborhood were counted with the in-person votes.

This year in all the big cities, they had big central balloting and counting
facilities: State Farm Arena in Atlanta, the Philadelphia Convention Center,
or the TCS Center in Detroit.

This meant that absentee ballots are in from all 490 precincts in Atlanta,
in Fulton County. They are randomly put through, they do not come all "in
batches," such as, these are all the ballots from precinct number one, or
whatever. They are random.

They get put in, they get opened, and they get stacked into piles of a
hundred, and then they get scanned. Now think about that. That means you
have 490 different ballots being scanned. Every ballot, every precinct, has
different races on it, different school board races, different things.

The ballot has a code to tell the machine which key to look to in order to
know how to count those dots on the ballot box. Every 100 with that
randomized listing of precincts creates a unique digital signature for that
hundred. For mathematicians, that is 100 to the 490th power, because there
are 490 precincts.

The odds that you have a duplicate batch of a hundred are zero. 0.0000001.
Infinitely small chance that they would have anything. In their one week on
one machine, they discovered 5,000 ballots with identical digital signatures
in batches of a hundred.

The margin in Georgia was 11,779. They did this on just one machine, looking
at it only a partial bit of time for one week. These are the three audits we
had. We know the machines either have been hacked or are open to bad actors
with access to the machines, either put in a thumb chip. Halderman's the
guy.

They had a convention in Las Vegas, hired a bunch of geeks, computer geeks
from around the country, to come to this convention and see who could hack
into the machines and alter the vote codes quickest. It took people about 15
minutes.

Halderman is also the guy. What is one of the big rivalries in the country,
Michigan versus Ohio State? He had his Michigan students vote on who had the
better football program, Michigan or Ohio State.

Now, anybody that knows anything about football knows there's no way anybody
in Michigan is ever going to vote for Ohio State, but he programmed it so
that Ohio State won by 80 percent. It took him five minutes.

Michigan students voting on one of his Dominion machines, when this was the
issue, the ballot initiative, voted for Ohio State. The notion that these
things cannot be hacked is laughable. They have to be able to be opened if
they need to be repaired. [I heard that from an MIT graduate at the time.]

The question is, how to prove that they were hacked in this particular
instance when they are destroying the evidence, and that is where we are.

Q: Do the Republicans do this too?

Dr. Eastman: I don't know. There was a story that was floated that the
former Secretary of State in Arizona and former governor, who was running a
distant fifth in the primary election for governor before he signed the $100
million contract with an electronic voting machine company, and all of a
sudden he won the election, or the same thing that happened with Kemp in
Georgia.

Those speculations have been floating out there that their bribery was not
cash into their bank account but votes in their upcoming primary elections.
I do not know whether that is true or not. Those allegations have been
floated. It would not surprise me .

Stacey Abrams certainly thought Kemp stole the election. There was a whole
litigation on it. That is why Halderman was doing his expert reports in that
case.

More troubling, though, are the people that knew that there was something
amiss and refused to do anything about it because they did not like Trump,
or they do not like the Trump populist uprising movement that Trump is
leading.

Remember, Trump did not create this movement. We need to date it back to the
Tea Party movement in 2010 after Obamacare comes down. The Republicans in
charge in Congress thought that was a bigger threat to them than the
Democrats were.

They wanted to do everything they could to shut down that movement. The
movement just took on a new guise when a new leader stepped up to get ahead
of it, and it is the MAGA movement now.

Either they do not like those people in flyover country -- that may be part
of it from our release in DC -- or they do not like anybody questioning the
utter corruption that is making them all multimillionaires with having
government jobs or some combination of both.

What was most discouraging was finding people saying, "Oh, I wish we could
do something about this election illegality," and then, on the back side,
doing everything they could to stop it.

Former Attorney General William Barr is the primary example of this. Barr
goes out on December 1st, and said, "We've been investigating, and we found
no evidence of significant enough fraud to affect the outcome of the
election."

One of the charges against me in California is, "You continue to insist
there was illegality even after Bill Barr made that statement. Why didn't
you bow to him?" Well, we subsequently learned that despite Barr's public
statement that US attorneys could investigate election illegality, anytime
somebody did, he called him on the phone and order them not to.

In Pennsylvania, the US attorney in Pennsylvania, McSwain, was looking at
the truck driver incident. Barr told him, "You hand all that over to the
attorney general of the state" -- a Democrat who was part of the problem.

One of the FBI investigators who was actually getting to the bottom of this
got a call that said, "Stand down."

The investigation of the ballots coming out from under the table and being
counted after everybody was sent home down in Atlanta, the FBI did
investigate that. Guess what the purpose of their investigation was. To
determine that the statement that there were suitcases of ballots rather
than bins of ballots was false. They did not do any other investigation
about whether in fact people had been sent home.

You have people out there saying, "Oh, we're investigating. Everything's
fine," while behind the scenes ordering people not to do the investigation
that would actually get to the bottom of it.

I call it the uniparty. You can call it the deep state. You can call it the
administrative state. You can call it the corrupt state, but it sees the
MAGA movement as the biggest threat to its syndicators. It is going to do
everything it can to destroy the people who are going to try and publicize
what is going on.

That is what we are dealing with, and we are $2 million in. One of the
lawsuits that was filed against me by this guy down in North Carolina, I
don't know why he picked me as the lead defendant, but other defendants are
all billionaire oligarchs who are using their own wealth. That is the kind
of nonsense I'm dealing with.

This article is based on a briefing from John Eastman to Gatestone
Institute.