• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TRUMP LAWYER JOHN EASTMAN LITERALLY TOLD A LAWMAKER TO TOSS ABSENTEE VOTES, UNSEAT BIDEN ELECTORS

Thank you !!!!
So you can't prove ANY of my Statements wrong, so you have to divert the conversation with silly pictures!
That's an omission, by you, that I'm right, and you know it!

I did - did you see the MAGA tin foil hat........it's the perfect answer for your "post"

please note, post is in parenthesis because that garbage isn't even close to being called a post - - CT ideology, absolutely!

please, carry on so i may laugh some more
 
From where I sit, the mounting evidence against John Eastman continues to grow that further supports the T-Right's effort to overthrow the election result. In this recent trove of emails, Eastman recruits PA State Rep Russ Diamond to be a major part of his plan. May justice do what it's supposed to do and bring these guys down.



Before he urged Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally hand the 2020 election to Donald Trump, right-wing lawyer John Eastman, who represented Trump after the election, floated a somewhat subtler, but no less extreme plan to undermine Joe Biden’s victory: Throw out absentee ballots, recount the votes, and use the new totals to “provide some cover” for Republican legislatures to appoint their own electors. “Having done that math,” Eastman wrote in a December 2020 email to a Pennsylvania state lawmaker, “you’d be left with a significant Trump lead that would bolster the argument for the Legislature adopting a slate of Trump electors.”


The Pennsylvania plan, which Eastman proposed from his email account at University of Colorado, where he was a visiting professor, provides yet another glimpse into the Trump team’s relentless efforts to subvert democracy in 2020. It was part of a trove of emails obtained by the Colorado Ethics Institute and sent in April to the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack, which has been fighting in court to obtain more than 3,000 documents from Eastman related to the probe. The Denver Post first reported on his proposal to recalibrate the Pennsylvania popular vote.


In the December 4 guidance to Republican State Representative Russ Diamond, one of 26 pro-Trump radicals in the Pennsylvania legislature who had already pushed for the state’s results to be decertified, Eastman suggested GOP lawmakers “adopt a resolution that has the Legislature simply affirming what appears to have been the result of the popular vote untainted by the illegal votes.” Adjusting the total without those so-called “illegal votes” — absentee ballots, those with supposed “signature verification violations,” and “perhaps the banning of observers” — could give “cover” to Pennsylvania Republicans seeking to appoint new electors, Eastman said.
Lol, Vanity Fair!!!!!
 
Please share the US Supreme Court ruling that overturned the PA SC decision. If not, it is just your opinion that is was Unconstitutional .
Of course it's my opinion. The Court, unwisely IMHO, chose not to involved in any election issues.
 
No, the Democrats on the PASC changed the deadline for acceptance of Absentee Ballots all by themselves.



No. What Thomas actually said was that "That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election," The actual number of ballots was not before the Court, only the legal question.

As long as they were postmarked ON election day, they could be received for up to 3 days after and counted, provided they all passed all the checks they were legal. With the way the postal service was running at the time, what's the big deal if they were postmarked on time?

Do you not want as many people to vote as possible, while making it easier for those folks?
 
Trump’s activities in Georgia Are currently under investigation there.
????....
The Status Quo Swamp people leaked that audio (evidence) to the Media around Jan 2021....
Nothing happened! Just the Audio Leak, and the Propagandist in the Media making the Brain Dead Sheep think "TRUMP BAD MAN"....

You do know Brad had his legal team on the line? Trump was talking to the Lawyers!!!????.....
What more do you think they need for a conviction????..... UNLESSSSSSSS....... Trump is telling the Truth!

Also you know that Brad opened a new voter fraud investigation (which supports Trumps Claims!) .
Go see the documentary "2000 Mules".
 
As long as they were postmarked ON election day, they could be received for up to 3 days after and counted, provided they all passed all the checks they were legal. With the way the postal service was running at the time, what's the big deal if they were postmarked on time?

Not what the statute says. Statutes says the ballots had to be received by election day.

Do you not want as many people to vote as possible, while making it easier for those folks?

My and your feelings are quite irrelevant. The statute is quite clear. The Partisan Dems on the PASC changed the rule to favor their party.
 
Lol, Vanity Fair!!!!!
Lol, pennlive ;)



Trump has lost a string of legal challenges to the election results in Pennsylvania. The latest occurred Friday when a federal appeals court panel refused to block certification of Pennsylvania’s vote. Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote there is no proof to back his assertions that the 2020 presidential election was unfair.



“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” Bibas wrote in the opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
 
Lol, pennlive ;)



Trump has lost a string of legal challenges to the election results in Pennsylvania. The latest occurred Friday when a federal appeals court panel refused to block certification of Pennsylvania’s vote. Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote there is no proof to back his assertions that the 2020 presidential election was unfair.



“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” Bibas wrote in the opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
The court's we're in on the coup.
 
That we should throw out votes cast by American citizens? Yes, I understand the argument. It's monstrous, as is anyone defending it.
They don't care, Trump and his henchmen wanted to fix the election by any means possible, and if throwing out legal votes cast could have been done, they would have done it.

Un-American dictator wannabee's.
 
Then you should be able to quote him, in context.
From Politico



Per the exchange, Eastman suggested that GOP legislators could simply cite their concerns with Pennsylvania’s absentee ballot procedures and then use historical data to “discount each candidates’ totals by a prorated amount based on the absentee percentage those candidates otherwise received.”
“Having done that math, you’d be left with a significant Trump lead that would bolster the argument for the Legislature adopting a slate of Trump electors — perfectly within your authority to do anyway, but now bolstered by the untainted popular vote,” Eastman wrote in a Dec. 4, 2020 email to Pennsylvania Rep. Russ Diamond. “That would help provide some cover.”

Basically throw out the losing number and replace it with a number where Trump wins.

Totally legit legal reasoning
 
From Politico





Basically throw out the losing number and replace it with a number where Trump wins.

Totally legit legal reasoning
The pinhead Politco reporter is citing him out of context. You want to make your case, go the his words in his emails to see his legal argument for throwing out he invalid ballots (which I already gave to you). Of course he wanted his client to win. Would you hire a lawyer that comes up with a strategy to lose?
 
You can believe what you want.

Eastman knows better... and he pushed this.

In a just world he would be branded what he is... a traitor.
At least this thread has identified the people who want to throw out votes cast in good faith.
 
Of course it's my opinion. The Court, unwisely IMHO, chose not to involved in any election issues.
The State courts ruled. imo, The US SC made the right decision.

/sarcasm on
Sorry to inform you. I am the supreme adjudicator of the World. Trump lost a fair election.
 
The pinhead Politco reporter is citing him out of context. You want to make your case, go the his words in his emails to see his legal argument for throwing out he invalid ballots (which I already gave to you). Of course he wanted his client to win. Would you hire a lawyer that comes up with a strategy to lose?
Those words between the quotation marks WERE Eastman's words. The article quoted Eastman.
 
The State courts ruled. imo, The US SC made the right decision.

/sarcasm on
Sorry to inform you. I am the supreme adjudicator of the World. Trump lost a fair election.
Nah. Just your opinion. Trump got screwed - woe is all of us. They just have to make sure it doesn't happen again in 2024.
 
That is not his legal opinion.

I think that it was his legal opinion at the time, but even if it was not a legal opinion it shows his frame of mind, his intentions and his perspective on the situation that is a clear example of how he thought it was as simple as pretending that real voters don't count if they didn't vote for trump. He thinks it's ok to just raise an issue and pretend long enough to fool the public so that they can buy enough time to reverse the election. That's shameful to even plan that.
 
It was the plan that he put forth.

To throw out votes and replace that number with a prorated number pulled out of his butt based on previous elections.

That is not a way to determine the winner.

It am surprised that people would defend this.
They don't care. Cheating is celebrated.
 
what is his legal opinion?
provide a source
I already have, scroll back. It's the same argument made to the SC. It's in his leaked emails.
 
I think that it was his legal opinion at the time, but even if it was not a legal opinion it shows his frame of mind, his intentions and his perspective on the situation that is a clear example of how he thought it was as simple as pretending that real voters don't count if they didn't vote for trump. He thinks it's ok to just raise an issue and pretend long enough to fool the public so that they can buy enough time to reverse the election. That's shameful to even plan that.
Get back to me when you understand the legal argument, nothing pretend.
 
Back
Top Bottom