John Eastman disbarment hearing

[June bug]

Great work! Thanks sooo much, p0rtia!!!

[RVInit]

Great work! Thanks sooo much, p0rtia!!!

[p0rtia]

Back in court:

Scroll down to the Friday Eastman hearing:
https://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/Portal ... Events.pdf

Ms. Bo Dul on the stand, lawyer, State Elections Dir., Sec of State Office, AZ, during 2020 election. Oversight of elections for the State. Sounds like she (her office) did all the damned front line work: creating manuals, checking machines, recruiting poll workers, doing the poll book. All during COVID (getting PPE for poll workers, providing info to vote safely). She talks for a good ten minutes procedures to protect election integrity pre and during and after the election.

Conclusion: Dul believes elections were accurate and secure.

[p0rtia]

Miller for Eastman.

Miller - Asking about Dul's previous work at Perkins Coie law.

Oblection

Overruled -- You brought it up in her C.V.

Miller - What sort of work did you do at PC?

Dul - Corruption work

M - Did you work with Mark Elias?

Objection

M - Plaintiff brought up the mention of partners.

Judge - No, they did not. Sustained.

M - Did State Elec Office work with Mark Elias in his later work?

Objection

Overruled.

D - No. I think he sued us a couple of times, but we didn't work with us.

M - What do you mean?

D - He repped clients who sued the Sec of State's Office.

M - Are you affiliated with States United Democracy Center?

D - Yes.

M - Were you aware that SU had initiated a bar complaint to CalBar for Eastman?

D - Generally aware; was not involved with complaint.

M - Were you aware of Eastman in 2020?

D - Can't recall -- maybe?

[p0rtia]

M - Were you aware that Eastman was involved in 11/12 cases brought against Sec of State in 2021?

D - Can't rule it out, but can't remember.

M - What does ST Dem Ctre do?

D - Non partisan group that works to assist state and local officials running elections.

M - Did you have any role in any complaint about Eastman when you were with ST Dem Ctre.

D - Not that I can recall. I participated in meetings of the Accountability Group that discussed complaints, but that was not in my area.

M - Were you aware of cases brought against Hobbs regarding voting machines?

D - Yes, I'm aware of that.

M - What type of voting machines were used in AZ?

D - Counties had different systems, but has central tabulators and regional tabulators and handicap assisted systems.

M - Was there an audit stemming from the Sec of St office in pres elect?

D - No (with explanation).

M - Exhibit showing letter to Mike Pence Jan 1, 2021 From ??? legislators???

D - It probably came to our office, and I probably saw it at the time, but I don't recall specifically.

M - Letter discusses multiple election violations...

M - Were you aware that there was a resolution made by AZ legislature to hold AZ electors?

Judge -- What is "to hold"

M - It's the title of the resolution, so I use that terminology.

D - Can you tell me where and when this resolution was made?

M - Sure (puts resolution on screen).

D - Can you scroll through this doc?

M - Sure. (he does so--it's like 20 pages long). What is your understanding of resolution?

D - Based on quick skim, I believe I would have seen this doc at the time, and I interpret it to be a rehash of many of the allegations to the election for which no evidence was ever brought.

M - Did the Sec of State office take any action regarding this letter?

D - I don't think so. It is a rehash of allegations.

M - Did the Sec of State office ever take action against those who committed fraud?

D - Sec of State is not the place to take action. We pass it to ..?

M - Were there any credible allegations of fraud in the 2020 election?

D - No. Not that would have impacted election results.

[p0rtia]

Miller drills into credible allegations of voter fraud that did not impact outcome.

D - Yeah, the reason I qualified that question is that we did an analysis of potential double voting and made referrals to the AG's office. Number of cases very little.

M - What other types of voter fraud?

D - That's all that I can recall here.

M - Did you become aware of State of AZ decertifying the elector

D - Can you show me the document?

M - Does this doc look familiar to you?

D - Yes, I wanted to see the date. 2022. I'm sure I saw this doc. Don't have recollection of content.

M - Do you recall what action was taken by Sec of State?

D - I think the same as previous. We would continue to put out info to assure voters of security and accuracy of election.

M - Do you recall a case re Familia? Vote deadline case.

D - Yes.

[discussion about deadline being changed for voter registration because of Covid and then changed back)

[Miller trying to get various documents into record with some success, more failure)

M - [brings up exibit again and highlight para about pattern analysis]

Objection

Judge - I'll strike if the court doesn't allow it in.

M - Do you see "pattern analysis"? Do you know what issue that's about?

D - Not that I can recall sitting here.

M - Duplicates arising from 17,000 unique voters. Do you reacall?

D - Not that I recall.

M - Is that because Sec of State would not investigate allegations like this?

D - Not our area, but we would have discussed with County ??? where this might have arisen.

M - Do you remember what vote margin was in 2020 pres?

D - Under 11,000 votes.

M - What sort of safeguards did AZ have in place for signature match?

D - Law requires sig verification of early return ballots. Sec of State does not perform sig ver. I can speak to what counties are required. (she does--we've heard this ten times in past hearings) (shout-out to Steve Richer, by title anyway!),

M - Do you recall how many early return ballots were unable to be matched?

D - No, I don't remember that number sitting here.

Judge - I'm not sure you've established that Ms. Dul has this information.

D - The Sec of State Office did receive this info from all counties.

M - Do you recall about mismatches?

D - Don't recall specific numbers, but it was not zero.

M - That's all

Redirect

B - Were you aware if resolution for electors was passed?

D - Sitting here, no.

B - What would be the impact on Sec of State's office of such a resolution.

D - It has no legal effect.

Witness excused.

She. Was. Awesome. What a brain; what focus.

[p0rtia]

Cross of Seligman, expert on contested elections, begins.

Miller: You are the author of the Disputed Pres Elections paper? (in press)

S - Yes.

M - The intent of the paper is to expose the vulnerabilities with pres elections in terms of congress / Elec Count Act.

S - Yes. to clarify. The analysis in the paper is the ways in which procedural rules could be manipulated by bad actors. (detail going by too fast) For example, if both houses of Congress didn't like the candidate, they could reject a slate they didn't like.

M - Showing just how easy it would be for unscrupulous actors could overthrow an election. Due to weaknesses in ECA.

S - Correct.

M - You're an advocate in reforming the ECA.

S - I see my role as a scholar, but yes, as a result of my work, I came to believe that the ECA needed to be reformed.

M ( rambles on sumarizing S's article)

(There's a quibble from S about procedural rules of elec count, which is what S is interested in.) (Miller is too wordy; always making unnecessary comments about what someone means and what he doesn't mean. Also trying to cherry pick individual sentences from S's article. S insisting on context of entire article.)

NB: I'm on the record as saying that Miller intends to keep on all day with this, and so far, going over S's paper line by line and asking what he means, is a good start. Getting a researcher to defend his paper is good for two or three days.

I'll check back in if it gets interesting. zzzzzzz

[Reality Check]

Seligman is an excellent witness. He is not going to be trapped by Eastman's guy.

[Luke]

The Zoom link still works too also... they're on lunch break right now.

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 43m
#FAFO: Fresh off his Georgia surrender & arrest, indicted #JohnEastman's Disbarment Trial resumes. As in GA he's accused of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election with #FakeElectors & lies. Matt Seligman is on the stand. #TrumpIndictment Zoom: https://calbar.zoom.us/wc/97985435232/j ... IRy2Dt0T7D

[p0rtia]

Seligman is an excellent witness. He is not going to be trapped by Eastman's guy.

Miller couldn't trap a dead mouse.

[Grumpy Git]

Appreciate all the updates p0rtia, you must be quite a speedy typist, unlike me and my sluggish fingers!

[p0rtia]

I just popped back in to check the action.

Of which, none, zilch, nada.

Miller is asking inane questions.

Carling is sitting staring at Miller. Then he puts his head in his hands.

Two more hours of this shit.

I'm wondering if the Judge has asked him to wrap it up.

No way.

[p0rtia]

Ooooh, action!

Miller trying to ask Seligman to assume that there was credible evidence of voter fraud or illegality that would change the result of a state's eleciton results...

Objection! Compound and sucky.

Sustained on Compound.

Miller (tries again). Further assume that administrative remedies were pursued. Further assume that litigation on the illegalities was pending on Dec. 14. What are the remedies by the aggrieved parties?

Objection. Vague.

S - So Dec. 14 is the date electors must cast votes. So, if there is an ongoing dispute about the popular election.... I think what you're getting at is, is there historical precedent? Stepping back. Given the compound process, where states appoint electors, etc. All disputes about electors are resolved, and only when disputes are resolved, electors who are definitively elected, cast their ballots. So you're asking, what if these disputes continue past Dec. 14. (gives example of Hawai'i 1961). So, I take it your quesiton is, whether and under what circs, lawfully, can electors who did not have certificate of ascertainment do... something.

M - Yes.

S - There are cases where it would be lawful for electors something something, and cases where it would not.

M - Don't do Hawai'i, go back to my hypothetical, cases involving fraud and illigality

Judge - Your question is, what would the remedy or lawful options be for those who are challenging election results if there is ongoing litigation on Dec. 14.

S - In the case of litigation ongoing on Dec. 14. What would electors lawful options be? In certain circumstances, it would be lawful for putative electors to -- and he never says. However, in the hypothetical you have constructed, it's just allegations in a complaint. Anybody can file a lawsuit saying anything. Therefore not appropriate for candidates for electors to cast votes in electoral college.

(Carling with his head in his hands again. One of his colleagues is staring at the ceiling. ) (Seligman needs to stop repeating everything Miller says in his answers.)

Judge, So you're saying there is no remedy?

S - There might be extremely limited carve-out, when there is a recount ongoing, that it might be lawful for these putative electors to cast votes. Extremely limited range of circumstances, for example, when range of lead in election is under 100 votes. This is a protective action for the putative electors to vote.

(90 minutes to go.)

M- Would a non-frivolous case based on voter fraud or illegalities be enough to allow the putative voters to...

Objection

Sustained.

Time for a break. (Gawd)

[p0rtia]

Miller abruptly ends his cross. At 8:10 CA time.

Carling up for redirect.

They are seriously in the weeds, so I won't try to follow it.
-----

Seligman released.

Miller says he thought Seligman may be called back after Eastman testifies. (Discussion on that, since I think that was way back when, when Eastman was testifying for half a day and then broke off.)

Miller bringing up a point about inappropriateness of something or other in Seligman's testimony. "No expert can testify about the ultimate issue."

Carling rebuts. He does not read the court's ruling the same way Miller does. Says Court can take whatever info it finds useful and not take what it does not.

Miller. This is going to make a "horrible record."

Judge. I'm looking at my motion in limine. I don't think it says what you have said it does. ... I will go back and look at the motion in depth. It's been a while. FIled June 20. (!) Maybe I need to clarify the ruling on that.

Moving on...

Judge does not grant motion for abatement. Next court date Sept 5 at 10 AM.

Carling: It's our expectation that as soon as info on Eastman's arraignment is available, they will let us know, as we've heard that may happen the week of Sept 5.

Miller: No info. Do not know if Eastman will be required to attend arraignment.

Judge: Anything else?

Miller: Talking about something--maybe the abatement? "The clock is ticking" (no shit, Sherlock).

Judge: Well I'm sure that you're going to do everything you can, Mr. Miller. Off the record.

[neonzx]

p0rtia, thank you for tracking this and providing updates...

[NewMexGirl]

You are just so good at this, portia. Thank you again. Can’t believe you stuck with it even when you must have been bored out of your gourd.

[Reality Check]

p0rtia, thank you for tracking this and providing updates...

Me too, also.

[Foggy]

[p0rtia]

For the inquiring minds who were wondering if Eastman would get away with delaying the resumption of his disbarment hearing today by claiming he had to be in GA:

Screenshot 2023-09-05 at 12.26.44 PM.png (86.05 KiB) Viewed 1314 times

https://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/Portal ... Events.pdf

1 PM Eastern.

[Sequoia32]

Anybody listening?

https://calbar.zoom.us/wc/97985435232/j ... -kxbmu5oTu

[p0rtia]

I've listened to most of the hearing. Alas I'm having a pretty listless day, so haven't been doing reports. Fortunately, there is nothing to report in detail.

The most interesting part of the day was Miller's lengthy whine about how they could not possible continue this trial, given Eastman's obligations to prepare for and to be in Fulton county and maybe handle the DC case. Too also, their two witnesses fear that they are un-indicted co-conspirators in Fulton, so they are no longer willing to testify for Easty, because self-incriminating. Rejecting the abatement was disastrous and the end of justice in America!

Judge Roland, with whom I am in love (the hair! the earring!) pointed out that they delayed all summer because Miller said he had no open dates. Miller said, not true! It wasn't me, it was Carling! Carling said there were four days in July that he was unavailable, but had been free the rest of July and Aug: it was Miller.

Roland said her memory agreed with Carling, and she was not going to delay the trial. Miller said he couldn't promise that Eastman might not plead the fifth if he had to, despite Roland's ruling that he couldn't, since he had already begun testimony.

And scene. Carling up for questions.

[p0rtia]

So Carling has been spending the day going over Easty's famous two page and six page memoes. He's not challenging Easty; he's just getting it all on the record.

Easty says, Yes, in December I said SCOTUS would blow us off and it was illegal for Pence to delay the vote. BUT, by Jan 5 he had reviewed the history and changed his mind.

Easty continues to hold that the corruption in the 2020 pres election was widespread and it has never been proven otherwise. He blows off various state supreme courts that disagree with him. They are just wrong because look at all the evidence! And since so many of those state cases were still in litigation, Pence had the right to pause and not accept the certified delegates.

And on and on. Reminds me of Kraken lady claiming that her "proof" had never been proved wrong. Which of course it had.

They're very deep in the weeds now, talking about various cases and arguments in Wisconsin. Easty refuses to talk about Arizona, which he didn't work on. They're doing laches now.

Easty gives nothing away. He speaks in even and convincing tones. If you're familiar with the evidence he's talking about, you realize is all hot air.

[Sequoia32]

Thanks, p0rtia.

Crazy here, just started to listen and was a little lost.

You helped a lot.

[p0rtia]

Now they're doing the "unmanned drop boxes" and other procedural irregularities.

Ah, COVID; we hardly knew you.

I assume that eventually, after they get his admissions on the record that he said and did all the things he said and did, for the reasons he's giving, they'll get around to Jan 6 speech on the Ellipse, and the attempt to force Pence to stop the count, even though he knew his justifications were specious.

[Sequoia32]

These guys twist the Constitution into a pretzel, and not the stick kind.