Judge rules John Eastman should be disbarred over efforts to overturn 2020 election

[Tommy Tainant]

"But you break the law when you try to overturn the ellction."

Shitty spelling aside, cite WHAT LAWS WERE "BROKEN"!!!
All you demented avenger subverted demoralized zombies squeal about amounts to WRONGTHINK right out of 1984!

Well I am supposing that you have an insurrection act and election laws.
Not liking the result is not an excuse to overturn the election.
What laws were you crazies following ?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Well I am supposing that you have an insurrection act and election laws.
Not liking the result is not an excuse to overturn the election.
What laws were you crazies following ?

Non-answer.
Cite the LAW that makes it ILLEGAL to question election results.
None of you zombies can do that simple task.
The 1st Amendment covers your query.

 

[struth]

Well I am supposing that you have an insurrection act and election laws.
Not liking the result is not an excuse to overturn the election.
What laws were you crazies following ?

what law allows you to question an election? The First Amendment. There are no laws that make it illegal to question an election.

What the F are you talking about....

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Non-answer.
Cite the LAW that makes it ILLEGAL to question election results.
None of you zombies can do that simple task.
The 1st Amendment covers your query.

You guys are ******* mental. Tears are running down my cheeks

.

This guy is not a first amendment warrior. He should be in a facility with other loons.

 

[struth]

You guys are ******* mental. Tears are running down my cheeks

.

View attachment 924056

This guy is not a first amendment warrior. He should be in a facility with other loons.

who said he was a first amendment warrior? and isn't he in facility with other loons for violating the law? I am not sure your point. You seem to be going in circles

 

[Tommy Tainant]

what law allows you to question an election? The First Amendment. There are no laws that make it illegal to question an election.

What the F are you talking about....

There is no law to prevent you raising questions. This is another straw man. The correct course is to go through the courts.
You did that and failed 60 times. So resorted to fascism.
It isnt complicated Bubba.

 

[struth]

There is no law to prevent you raising questions. This is another straw man. The correct course is to go through the courts.
You did that and failed 60 times. So resorted to fascism.
It isnt complicated Bubba.

Maybe in your Kingdom, where you are ruled by a Monarch that's the case....but in the United States, you don't have to go through the Courts or any other govt body, to question an election.

I get that there is a push, from the Demafascist in this country to make it so people need a Govt body's permission to question things, but we aren't there, and won't be there.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Maybe in your Kingdom, where you are ruled by a Monarch that's the case....but in the United States, you don't have to go through the Courts or any other govt body, to question an election.

I get that there is a push, from the Demafascist in this country to make it so people need a Govt body's permission to question things, but we aren't there, and won't be there.

You really do. The age of lynchings and rule by the mob are over in the US.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Check the indictments, speedy. They are all online. They are good. If trials are held, Mr. Trump will be convicted.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Non-answer.
Cite the LAW that makes it ILLEGAL to question election results.
None of you zombies can do that simple task.
The 1st Amendment covers your query.

**** off, rube. You're not smart enough to be this critical of America's election system. You parrot what the orange bag O' shit & co. tells you to think.

Prove me wrong.

 

[SeaMajor7]

**** off, rube. You're not smart enough to be this critical of America's election system. You parrot what the orange bag O' shit & co. tells you to think.

Prove me wrong.

1st Amendment, stupid.

 

[Chillicothe]

• "Cite the LAW that makes it ILLEGAL to question election results".

• " The First Amendment. There are no laws that make it illegal to question an election."

• "This is another straw man"

-------------------------------------------
Indeed, Tom T. nails it. Again.
Both posters Struth and Sea7 offer 'straw man' arguments.

Anybody can and often do...."question elections". Duh!!
The distinction that defines the difference here is: breaking an actual law, or laws.

There was a concerted conspiracy among an inner circle headed by Don Trump to submit fraudulent Electoral College ballots accompanied with affidavit's that they were the real true and lawful ballots.

Doing that was criminal fraud. Fraud against the particular states where they arose, but then Federal statutes get layered on when one submits fraudulent ballots as defined by a state. It is kind of a Twofer, a Double Tap.

John Eastman was an architect of the scheme, as were other attorneys advising Don Trump. Kenneth Chesabro, being one. Don Trump knew it was a scheme. He was fully aware of the machinations and the intent. As was Eastman.

Hell, Eastman even said as much in an email to Pence's legal counsel, Greg Jacob. He had told Trump it was breaking the law. Eastman had explained to Jacobs in an email exchange that he had fought tooth&nail to keep out of investigators hands. Investigators secured the emails anyway.

An email that confessed he had advised Trump of the risk of the violations of law of the scheme but....."But you know him ---once he gets something in his head, it is hard to get him to change course."
(Jack Smith now has those email chains.)

So that is the difference, posters Struth & Sea7, one can complain freely and frequently about an election, especially one that one believes is fraudulent; however, when one goes beyond mere complaining and takes steps....illegal steps....to change that election, well, the 1st Amendment ain't there for that.

Trust me.

 

[struth]

-------------------------------------------
Indeed, Tom T. nails it. Again.
Both posters Struth and Sea7 offer 'straw man' arguments.

Anybody can and often do...."question elections". Duh!!
The distinction that defines the difference here is: breaking an actual law, or laws.

There was a concerted conspiracy among an inner circle headed by Don Trump to submit fraudulent Electoral College ballots accompanied with affidavit's that they were the real true and lawful ballots.

Doing that was criminal fraud. Fraud against the particular states where they arose, but then Federal statutes get layered on when one submits fraudulent ballots as defined by a state. It is kind of a Twofer, a Double Tap.

John Eastman was an architect of the scheme, as were other attorneys advising Don Trump. Kenneth Chesabro, being one. Don Trump knew it was a scheme. He was fully aware of the machinations and the intent. As was Eastman.

Hell, Eastman even said as much in an email to Pence's legal counsel, Greg Jacob. He had told Trump it was breaking the law. Eastman had explained to Jacobs in an email exchange that he had fought tooth&nail to keep out of investigators hands. Investigators secured the emails anyway.

An email that confessed he had advised Trump of the risk of the violations of law of the scheme but....."But you know him ---once he gets something in his head, it is hard to get him to change course."
(Jack Smith now has those email chains.)

So that is the difference, posters Struth & Sea7, one can complain freely and frequently about an election, especially one that one believes is fraudulent; however, when one goes beyond mere complaining and takes steps....illegal steps....to change that election, well, the 1st Amendment ain't there for that.

Trust me.

Eastman is a lawyer, that’s allowed to have a legal opinion. It’s only a crime apparently in demafasict cali

 

[Chillicothe]

"Eastman is a lawyer, that’s allowed to have a legal opinion."

Oh, true that.
We agree. He can have an opinion and freely express it. And he did.

However, as mentioned earlier, the distinction that makes a difference is: The submission of fraudulent ballots accompanied by affidavits that they are the true and proper ballots as certified by the sitting governor, well, that was illegal.
(See the actual indictment, available on several on-line sites.)

That's bad juju for John Eastman (as recent rulings have shown); that's bad juju for Don Trump, as his indictment indicates; and bad for the other attorneys administering the scheme; and for the dozens of "fraudulent electors" themselves.

As reported: "
"After the 2020 election, Republicans in seven states that Trump had lost created their own slates of pro-Trump electors to compete with the official state slates of pro-Biden electors.

They falsely declared that Trump had won and that they were the true electors. Some of them signed official-looking documents purporting to be the real electors. Many of them tried to show up to their state capitols on Dec. 14, 2020, the day the legitimate electors met to cast their votes."
--------------------------------------------------

See, once the tallies of election day votes are completed, combed through by township, county, or precinct supervisors and affirmed to be true tallies, the governor of the state signs off (certifies) it is a true count. At that point, true and legal electors are empowered to meet and cast their ballots for the confirmed winner.
To submit...falsely.....that one is a true elector after that certification.....is breaking the law. Most especially, if the false-elector signed an affidavit; most especially if the fraudulent ballots have been submitted to Congress or its designate.

All that occurred. And it was illegal.
And karma comes.

Hope I am clear on that.

 

[struth]

Oh, true that.
We agree. He can have an opinion and freely express it. And he did.

However, as mentioned earlier, the distinction that makes a difference is: The submission of fraudulent ballots accompanied by affidavits that they are the true and proper ballots as certified by the sitting governor, well, that was illegal.
(See the actual indictment, available on several on-line sites.)

That's bad juju for John Eastman (as recent rulings have shown); that's bad juju for Don Trump, as his indictment indicates; and bad for the other attorneys administering the scheme; and for the dozens of "fraudulent electors" themselves.

As reported: "
"After the 2020 election, Republicans in seven states that Trump had lost created their own slates of pro-Trump electors to compete with the official state slates of pro-Biden electors.

They falsely declared that Trump had won and that they were the true electors. Some of them signed official-looking documents purporting to be the real electors. Many of them tried to show up to their state capitols on Dec. 14, 2020, the day the legitimate electors met to cast their votes."
--------------------------------------------------

See, once the tallies of election day votes are completed, combed through by township, county, or precinct supervisors and affirmed to be true tallies, the governor of the state signs off (certifies) it is a true count. At that point, true and legal electors are empowered to meet and cast their ballots for the confirmed winner.
To submit...falsely.....that one is a true elector after that certification.....is breaking the law. Most especially, if the false-elector signed an affidavit; most especially if the fraudulent ballots have been submitted to Congress or its designate.

All that occurred. And it was illegal.
And karma comes.

Hope I am clear on that.

Show me a link to Eastman submitting fraudulent ballots…

 

[Chillicothe]

Show me a link to Eastman submitting fraudulent ballots…

-----------------------------------------------
Well, I can't do that.
I'm not at all convinced that such a video exists as you seemingly presume there is.
But, if it does exists, I doubt that Jack Smith is gonna share it with me prior to trial.

However......

It's goes kinda like this poster Struth: It's a conspiracy. With different players doing different things. But all of the 'things'.... are in done in advancement of the conspiracy.
And, in this case, a Special Prosecutor has alleged a "criminal" conspiracy.

And thus the pendulum swings towards poor Eastman as a contributor to the crime. A co-conspirator in the crime.

I'm sure you understand the nuance. But also the gravity of co-conspirators acting in concert. And how the law may look at such activities. And look at each individual as part of the whole.

No?

 

[struth]

-----------------------------------------------
Well, I can't do that.
I'm not at all convinced that such a video exists as you seemingly presume there is.
But, if it does exists, I doubt that Jack Smith is gonna share it with me prior to trial.

However......

It's goes kinda like this poster Struth: It's a conspiracy. With different players doing different things. But all of the 'things'.... are in done in advancement of the conspiracy.
And, in this case, a Special Prosecutor has alleged a "criminal" conspiracy.

And thus the pendulum swings towards poor Eastman as a contributor to the crime. A co-conspirator in the crime.

I'm sure you understand the nuance. But also the gravity of co-conspirators acting in concert. And how the law may look at such activities. And look at each individual as part of the whole.

No?

Yes cause it didn’t happen.


Eastman is being targeted because of his legal opinion…not for any thing he did

 

[Chillicothe]

Eastman is being targeted because of his legal opinion…not for any thing he did

And you know that how?

More importantly, do this: Go read the actual indictments. Read the charging documents.

It'll ground you.
Make you a better informed contributor to this venue.

 

[struth]

And you know that how?

More importantly, do this: Go read the actual indictments. Read the charging documents.

It'll ground you.
Make you a better informed contributor to this venue.

Because I’ve read the post by people like yoj here. You all can’t point to anything but his legal opinion that you disagree with for why he’s being targeted

 

[Chillicothe]

You all can’t point to anything but his legal opinion that you disagree with for why he’s being targeted

?????????
Ummm?
What?

You must have missed the post that directed you to the actual indictment and the cataloging of specific charges. No?

If you skipped that step you can find it here:

Read: Full text of Trump indictment in Jack Smith's 2020 election probe

A federal grand jury voted to indict the former president in the special counsel's election interference investigation.

www.msnbc.com

---------------------------------------------

And, if that ain't enough, then go to the separate but similar charges in the Fulton County (GA) indictment. Here:

Read the full Georgia indictment against Trump and 18 allies

Former President Donald Trump was indicted Monday on racketeering, conspiracy and other charges by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia.

www.pbs.org

---------------------------------------------

Look, poster Struth, we here at USMB can desire and strive to inform you, but.....but you gotta lift some of the bale yourself.
Remember the horse led to water?
Trust me, the horse has a real responsibility in that scenario, too.

Good luck. We think you could be a better contributor here.