‘He Just Confessed To The Crime’: Indicted Trump Attorney John Eastman Admits On Fox News He Pressured Pence To Delay Certifying Election Results

[Concerned American]

You are just a sissy boy.

Nyah, nyah, nyah, your third grade playground mentality doesn't work on me, junior.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nyah, nyah, nyah, your third grade playground mentality doesn't work on me, junior.

You bet, sissy boy.

 

[Donald H]

I know the Georgia situation better. Let me say this. If it goes to trial Trump has a roughly 80% chance of being found guilty on most of the charges.

You've offered 80% 'if' it goes to trial?

Is that what you meant to say?

In effect, I'm reducing it further on account of that question of it going to trial.

I've only offered 50/50 as a starting point and it could be wildly inaccurate.

 

[SavannahMann]

You've offered 80% 'if' it goes to trial?

Is that what you meant to say?

In effect, I'm reducing it further on account of that question of it going to trial.

I've only offered 50/50 as a starting point and it could be wildly inaccurate.

The probability of it going to trial is actually very high. Realistically the only way that it doesn’t is if a Federal Judge decides that the charges are related to Federal Service, in other words line of duty. That argument has already been heard in court regarding Mark Meadows. While a decision hasn’t been issued, it is clearly not as simple as Meadows claimed.

If it was obvious, the Judge would have ruled on the spot.

I always thought it was a much riskier move on Meadows part. He is in essence admitting that everything in the indictment is true. But it’s totally fine if a President or Staffer does it. The Nixon defense if you will.

Meadows argument was everything he did was part of his duties as Chief of Staff for the President. Any Chief of Staff would do those things.

The obvious danger is his testimony now becomes available to help prosecute him if the motion fails. Saying yes I did it and the President told me to do that makes it legal is risky.

I’d expect a plea bargain for Meadows if the motion fails. I’d bet his lawyer is already laying the groundwork for an immunity deal if this motion fails.

I doubt there is a ten percent chance of it going through. Possible. Yes. Probable? No. And if it fails an almost certain guilty verdict for himself and more likely for Trump.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The interference with Georgia's election was not in the line of federal duty.

 

[Donald H]

The probability of it going to trial is actually very high. Realistically the only way that it doesn’t is if a Federal Judge decides that the charges are related to Federal Service, in other words line of duty. That argument has already been heard in court regarding Mark Meadows. While a decision hasn’t been issued, it is clearly not as simple as Meadows claimed.

So 'if it goes to trial' calls for you to move a bit off of your 80%. Is that worth a few points?

If it was obvious, the Judge would have ruled on the spot.

I always thought it was a much riskier move on Meadows part. He is in essence admitting that everything in the indictment is true. But it’s totally fine if a President or Staffer does it. The Nixon defense if you will.

Sure, that's another wild card.

Meadows argument was everything he did was part of his duties as Chief of Staff for the President. Any Chief of Staff would do those things.

Are you positively committed to the outcome of that question going against Trump and Meadows. I would lean toward them at something like 75/25 on that.

The obvious danger is his testimony now becomes available to help prosecute him if the motion fails. Saying yes I did it and the President told me to do that makes it legal is risky.

I’d expect a plea bargain for Meadows if the motion fails. I’d bet his lawyer is already laying the groundwork for an immunity deal if this motion fails.

I doubt there is a ten percent chance of it going through. Possible. Yes. Probable? No. And if it fails an almost certain guilty verdict for himself and more likely for Trump.

You sure do present a good argument on suggesting it's more favourable to Trump than 80/20 against!

So far there are just too many wild cards for us to entertain.

I need to just remind you that IMO the biggest factor of all is government's failure to deal with the attempted coup on Jan. 6th.

You understand the reasons why both sides in America need to reject that theory??

 

[Donald H]

The interference with Georgia's election was not in the line of federal duty.

Well gee, we weren't aware of that talking point!!

 

[SavannahMann]

So 'if it goes to trial' calls for you to move a bit off of your 80%. Is that worth a few points?

Sure, that's another wild card.

Are you positively committed to the outcome of that question going against Trump and Meadows. I would lean toward them at something like 75/25 on that.

You sure do present a good argument on suggesting it's more favourable to Trump than 80/20 against!

So far there are just too many wild cards for us to entertain.

I need to just remind you that IMO the biggest factor of all is government's failure to deal with the attempted coup on Jan. 6th.

You understand the reasons why both sides in America need to reject that theory??

I am in the habit of allowing for the possibility that I am wrong. An example. Let’s say that you are a pilot and you have a problem with your landing gear. You fly by and the controller in the tower reports what he sees. He will say your gear appears down. If he will say your gear appears up.

The reason is that just because it looks down doesn’t mean it is locked and safe. He is providing you with what information he has. There is no way for the Controller to say if the landing gear is locked down and safe to land.

Doctors don’t say that you will certainly make it through surgery. They will say you have a high probability. Almost certain. Barring any number of unlikely complications. Very unlikely. I wouldn’t worry about it.

So my language is chosen to allow for the possibility that I’m wrong. For me, possible means less than even odds. Probable means better than even odds. And so on.

The McMichaels trial here in Georgia. I pretty much avoided saying they were certainly guilty. I did say if they were found guilty, which I considered just short of certain, they would spend the rest of their lives in Prison. I also said that of the three only Roddy had a chance at any leniency from the Judge. Only Roddy got Life with the possibility of Parole. That was the limit of the Judges ability to be lenient. The charge had a mandatory sentence of Life. The only option for the Judge was with or without parole.

That is the thing about Georgia Law. The charges may have odd names, but they tend to be strict and almost all have mandatory sentences in the language.

It is possible. If only barely so that Meadows and then Trump will be saved by a Federal Judge. I doubt it. I consider it highly unlikely. But Hail Mary’s do hit from time to time. Somebody hits the lottery now and then. Nothing is impossible.

But honestly. You have better odds of hitting the trifecta than Trump has in Georgia.

 

[Donald H]

I am in the habit of allowing for the possibility that I am wrong. An example. Let’s say that you are a pilot and you have a problem with your landing gear. You fly by and the controller in the tower reports what he sees. He will say your gear appears down. If he will say your gear appears up.

The reason is that just because it looks down doesn’t mean it is locked and safe. He is providing you with what information he has. There is no way for the Controller to say if the landing gear is locked down and safe to land.

Doctors don’t say that you will certainly make it through surgery. They will say you have a high probability. Almost certain. Barring any number of unlikely complications. Very unlikely. I wouldn’t worry about it.

So my language is chosen to allow for the possibility that I’m wrong. For me, possible means less than even odds. Probable means better than even odds. And so on.

You sure do like to spend a lot of time saying F.A!

The McMichaels trial here in Georgia. I pretty much avoided saying they were certainly guilty. I did say if they were found guilty, which I considered just short of certain, they would spend the rest of their lives in Prison. I also said that of the three only Roddy had a chance at any leniency from the Judge. Only Roddy got Life with the possibility of Parole. That was the limit of the Judges ability to be lenient. The charge had a mandatory sentence of Life. The only option for the Judge was with or without parole.

That is the thing about Georgia Law. The charges may have odd names, but they tend to be strict and almost all have mandatory sentences in the language.

You sure do spend a lot of time saying F.All!

It is possible. If only barely so that Meadows and then Trump will be saved by a Federal Judge. I doubt it. I consider it highly unlikely. But Hail Mary’s do hit from time to time. Somebody hits the lottery now and then. Nothing is impossible.

But honestly. You have better odds of hitting the trifecta than Trump has in Georgia.

You should be appreciative of being able to hear a foreigner's unbiased opinions.

A portion of my 50/50 estimate for Trump is contained in the possibility that it won't take place in Georgia.

Once that is settled in favour of the prosecution then maybe I would amend it to 60/40 against Trump.

You don't even understand that 'if it goes to trial or not', calls for a move off your 80%.

What % if it does?

What % if it doesn't?

Or maybe just never mind until you get your head out of your ass and stop talking from your bias.

 

[SavannahMann]

You sure do like to spend a lot of time saying F.A!

You sure do spend a lot of time saying F.All!

You should be appreciative of being able to hear a foreigner's unbiased opinions.

A portion of my 50/50 estimate for Trump is contained in the possibility that it won't take place in Georgia.

Once that is settled in favour of the prosecution then maybe I would amend it to 60/40 against Trump.

You don't even understand that 'if it goes to trial or not', calls for a move off your 80%.

What % if it does?

What % if it doesn't?

Or maybe just never mind until you get your head out of your ass and stop talking from your bias.

You want it short and sweet here you go.

Less than 5% chance that Trump manages to get it moved to Federal.

At that time the trial is 98% probable to go next year. Then the trial is more than 80% probable to result ins. Conviction.

 

[Donald H]

You want it short and sweet here you go.

Less than 5% chance that Trump manages to get it moved to Federal.

O.k. then that's putting your money where your mouth is!
We'll assume that goes for Meadows too. If Meadows can can do it then Trump does for sure.

At that time the trial is 98% probable to go next year. Then the trial is more than 80% probable to result ins. Conviction.

We're miles apart. So I'll just repeat that the biggest wild card is in the government not dealing with the attempted coup, immediately and with convincing finality.

Neither side in America can entertain that fact and it's not surprising why.

The Trump side won't/can't accept that it was an attempted coup and the other side insists that America's system gives them a second chance.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It's less than 1% if Trump's trial is moved to federal court.

 

[SavannahMann]

O.k. then that's putting your money where your mouth is!
We'll assume that goes for Meadows too. If Meadows can can do it then Trump does for sure.

We're miles apart. So I'll just repeat that the biggest wild card is in the government not dealing with the attempted coup, immediately and with convincing finality.

Neither side in America can entertain that fact and it's not surprising why.

The Trump side won't/can't accept that it was an attempted coup and the other side insists that America's system gives them a second chance.

We are a nation governed by the Constitution. We don’t summarily execute people. Even when they try and destroy that nation. We follow the laws. And we insure those accused of such action are afforded every right that anyone else is.

Those rights are enshrined in our Constitution. And we understand that if we ignore those rights once. Just once. It is lost for all time.

A majority believe in the system. Partly that is fear. We know the system is flawed but we keep working to make it better. It is still the best system anyone has. Far superior to the alternatives.

The actions on January 6 have been and continue to be dealt with using those laws. Last week two leaders were sentenced to more than ten years each for their criminal actions.

I’m one of those who absolutely opposes what they tried to do. I believe it was an attempted coup. But I also believe that if we ignore the system to get those, the nation does anyway.

Treating them as common criminals is preferable.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Meadows will not get his trial transferred to federal court.

His lawyers will fail massively in trying to show his behavior was part of his official federal duties.

 

[Concerned American]

Meadows will not get his trial transferred to federal court.

His lawyers will fail massively in trying to show his behavior was part of his official federal duties.

So says Sammy the soothsayer, LOL. Now what will the weather be tomorrow in your corner of the shithouse?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So says Sammy the soothsayer, LOL. Now what will the weather be tomorrow in your corner of the shithouse?

 

[sealybobo]

Dang..these guys should know better. Shut-up and don't talk to the press!

MSN

www.msn.com

Former Trump attorney John Eastman defended his efforts to block or delay Congress from certifying the 2020 election results in an interview with Fox News Wednesday night, claiming he wanted former Vice President Mike Pence to stop Congress from certifying the votes for a week even as he’s now been indicted in Georgia for his post-election efforts.
Eastman claimed to Fox host Laura Ingraham that he “explicitly” told Pence on January 4, 2021, that rejecting the electoral votes entirely would be “foolish,” but he advocated for the vice president to give state legislators in battleground states “a week to try and sort out the impact” of purported “illegality” in the election results (which there is no evidence to support).
Legal experts on X, formerly known as Twitter, questioned why Eastman would admit to asking Pence to delay the results, given the attorney has been indicted on charges related to his efforts to block Congress from certifying the election results on January 6, 2021.
"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.”
Eastman has been indicted for racketeering, with the indictment citing his attempts to pressure Pence to reject or delay the results as furthering that alleged crime, and has also been indicted on separate charges for his role in the “fake elector” scheme, in which GOP officials submitted false slates of electors to Congress claiming Trump, rather than President Joe Biden, had won their states, which Eastman and others pushed as a way to help stop the results from being certified.

Trump admits he crossed lines. Still thinks he should have total immunity.

Trump Pushes For Total Immunity — Including For Events That ‘Cross The Line’

The criminally charged ex-president who incited the Jan. 6 insurrection says that “sometimes you just have to live with ‘great but slightly imperfect.’”

www.huffpost.com

“EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD,” Trump wrote in all capital letters on his social media platform, Truth Social.

 

[sealybobo]

Dang..these guys should know better. Shut-up and don't talk to the press!

MSN

www.msn.com

Former Trump attorney John Eastman defended his efforts to block or delay Congress from certifying the 2020 election results in an interview with Fox News Wednesday night, claiming he wanted former Vice President Mike Pence to stop Congress from certifying the votes for a week even as he’s now been indicted in Georgia for his post-election efforts.
Eastman claimed to Fox host Laura Ingraham that he “explicitly” told Pence on January 4, 2021, that rejecting the electoral votes entirely would be “foolish,” but he advocated for the vice president to give state legislators in battleground states “a week to try and sort out the impact” of purported “illegality” in the election results (which there is no evidence to support).
Legal experts on X, formerly known as Twitter, questioned why Eastman would admit to asking Pence to delay the results, given the attorney has been indicted on charges related to his efforts to block Congress from certifying the election results on January 6, 2021.
"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.”
Eastman has been indicted for racketeering, with the indictment citing his attempts to pressure Pence to reject or delay the results as furthering that alleged crime, and has also been indicted on separate charges for his role in the “fake elector” scheme, in which GOP officials submitted false slates of electors to Congress claiming Trump, rather than President Joe Biden, had won their states, which Eastman and others pushed as a way to help stop the results from being certified.

Trump For The First Time Concedes That His Actions May Have Been Illegal​

In an all-caps, middle-of-the-night rant about his Jan. 6 case, the former president said that he deserved total immunity, even for things that "CROSS THE LINE."

So for all you USMB Republicans who said he dindo nuthin wrong, fuck off.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump admits he crossed lines. Still thinks he should have total immunity.

Trump Pushes For Total Immunity — Including For Events That ‘Cross The Line’

The criminally charged ex-president who incited the Jan. 6 insurrection says that “sometimes you just have to live with ‘great but slightly imperfect.’”

www.huffpost.com

“EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD,” Trump wrote in all capital letters on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Not to worry, Orange Donald, the courts will make the determination.

 

[sealybobo]

Not to worry, Orange Donald, the courts will make the determination.

I'm doing a search for anyone who ever posted the words witch hunt and I'm showing them these headlines.

Trump For The First Time Concedes That His Actions May Have Been Illegal​

In an all-caps, middle-of-the-night rant about his Jan. 6 case, the former president said that he deserved total immunity, even for things that "CROSS THE LINE."