John Eastman disbarment hearing

[Foggy]

Outstanding work, Orlylicious. You are a great resource and writer. How do we buy you a coffee? I think the boogle might like to do that thing. I know I will, as long as I don't have to give Elon any more information about me than he already has.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Debunking John Droz's Michigan Report
Chapter 1 – Time Series Analysis

Most everyone is familiar with the maxim “Garbage in, garbage out.” But there’s another saying: “Your conclusions are only as good as your understanding of the data.” This chapter (for that matter, the entire report) is a perfect example of how not understanding your data leads to bogus conclusions. In this chapter, the authors analyze the vote totals by hour, looking for anomalies and zooming in on the NYT summary data within those anomalies. In the process, they reveal a woeful misunderstanding of the dataset, as well as how the data is added to the set.
They note that Trump took an early lead by what they call “hour 9” (in reality, this is 4:00 EDT). By this point, Trump votes were starting to tail off, while counts for Biden was beginning to close the gap. But then there was a sudden jump in the vote count for Biden, after which the gap closed, and then Biden took the lead.

This invites the question of whether such a change indicates an external intervention or mechanism that closed the gap between hours 11 and 12, or whether this pattern might plausibly have occurred by chance without external intervention.

Screenshot 2023-10-07 084311.png (230.59 KiB) Viewed 2250 times

To even have a chance of answering that question, you have to have a good understanding of how the data is collected. They immediately demonstrate that they don’t have a clue:

Some specifics of what happened in the black circle timeframe are shown in … Figure 2. In about 5 seconds the Biden counts increased by over 141 thousand votes – over 30 times the expected number based on preceding counts. How likely is it that over 141,000 vote increase would occur within a five second time period, late at night, with little supervision – without an external mechanism?

This just so happens to be the example entry from my Intro. 6:30 am is not “late at night” and where do they come by the claim that there was little supervision? More importantly, if they knew anything about how election results are reported, they’d know that the 5 seconds is meaningless. Ballots are not sent to a state center for counting, nor does the state make each precinct report every five minutes or so with their latest update. Instead, as we well know from the New Mexico and Arizona election results, results are sent in large clumps, many hours apart. A community that doesn’t have a large population can count quickly and report early, resulting in a bunch of small batches intermixed with occasional big batches. Of particular note, absentee ballots are counted separate from election day ballots, and in Michigan, they can’t start counting until the polls open.

The reality is that in Michigan, the in-person voting is counted quickly, since the tabulators keep a running tally as people vote. That’s why the first few hours the vote totals shoot up so rapidly. But by about 1 am, the easy tallying is done. Next comes the absentee ballots, and those take longer to process per ballot. This stretches well into the night for many communities, especially those with large populations. After that you have to deal with all the special cases: ballots that wouldn’t scan, ballots that need adjudicating, provisional ballots, write-ins, and so on. The authors utterly fail to even contemplate this as a possibility.

There’s a very simple explanation for this large tranche of data suddenly being dropped into the slow but steady stream of results. Detroit had over 174,000 absentee ballots (more than double the in-person ballots) and they were counted completely separate from the in-person ballots – they didn’t even have the same precincts. If Detroit counted all of the easy ballots (those that didn’t need special attention) before reporting the absentee ballots, the timing, total votes, and vote shares for Biden and Trump would perfectly match the entry in question. See here for the official tally: https://detroitmi.gov/sites/detroitmi.l ... 20Copy.pdf

Conclusion: the authors make absolutely no attempt to explore how a large entry could occur several hours after the count started, despite numerous examples of large entries in other states hours and even days later. They state that the “enormous increase in Michigan cumulative Biden votes (over 141 thousand) in a five second time period (around midnight) could not have been predicted based on preceding or following counting rates.” While this is technically true, they make no justification as to why it should be true – they do not understand the dataset, nor do they understand how the raw data is generated.

Just for fun, here’s a pair of entries from early in the counting, taken 14 seconds apart just after 10 pm the night of the election. Over 230,000 votes were added in just 14 seconds, yet the authors completely ignore these entries despite being a similarly large jump in a very short time frame.

{"vote_shares":{"trumpd":0.579,"bidenj":0.401},"votes":1328021,"eevp":23,"eevp_source":"edison","timestamp":"2020-11-04T03:03:52Z"}
{"vote_shares":{"trumpd":0.555,"bidenj":0.426},"votes":1565405,"eevp":28,"eevp_source":"edison","timestamp":"2020-11-04T03:04:06Z"}

Timestamp Time Trump Count T Increase Biden Count B Increase
3:03:52 NA 768924 NA 532536 NA
3:04:06 14s 868800 99876 666863 134327

[p0rtia]

Thank you Mr. V! That is enormously enlightening!

[June bug]

Thank you Mr. V! That is enormously enlightening!

Ditto from me. Getting to learn from your expertise is one more terrific Fogbow perk!

[Dave from down under]

[Luke]

Kevin, I think there's more Droz to come (trial resumes next Tue), the 1st part got a great reaction. This is excellent.

Thank you so much Foggy! I wasn't online much over the weekend and just seeing your really kind message. Buy Me A Coffee is an app site where folks can donate small amounts for content creators. I hadn't ever used it before but it's easy, payments go through Stripe.

My link is: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lukejohnson2

I guess it's like how people superchat on YouTube and other socials, it's support and thanks for the work. Anyone can sign up and immediately use it.

You're the best.

[Luke]

Eastman Trial resumes tomorrow with Kurt Olsen and then... Doug Frank!


FBI seizes phone from election denier Douglas Frank, a Mike Lindell associate
September 15, 2022 at 2:04 p.m. EDT

Hours after FBI agents investigating an alleged breach of voting machines in Colorado seized a cellphone belonging to MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, agents also served a search warrant on Lindell associate and fellow election denier Douglas Frank, Frank said early Thursday. Frank is a longtime math and science teacher in Ohio who claims to have discovered secret algorithms used to rig the 2020 election and who has done work for Lindell. In a Telegram post shortly after midnight, he said two FBI agents met him as he stepped off a plane. “They had a warrant to confiscate my phone,” wrote Frank, who did not identify the airport. Asked about his account, the FBI’s Denver field office acknowledged that a court-approved warrant was served but provided no specifics.
***
Frank met with Tina Peters at her office in April 2021 and “showed her how her election was hacked,” Frank previously told The Post. He said he told her that an upcoming Dominion software update could erase data needed to show that the election was stolen, and he relayed to someone in Lindell’s circle her request for technical help copying that data. “I did nothing illegal,” Frank told The Post via text message Wednesday morning, in response to an inquiry related to the warrant that had been served on Lindell.
***
The Post reported last year that Frank was traveling the country, trying to persuade local and state officials to join the effort to expose alleged election fraud. At the time, Frank said he had visited more than 30 states and met with 100 election administrators.Lindell acknowledged at the time that he had hired Frank for several projects but said he was not aware of all of Frank’s activities. Lindell said then and again this week that he had nothing to do with the copying of sensitive election files in Mesa County and did not meet Peters until months later, when she came to a “cyber symposium” event Lindell held in South Dakota to spread claims of fraud.

[Chilidog]

Why the fuck is this still going on so long.

There are murder trials that don't last as long.

[Luke]

With all the delays, the last trial date on Oct 6 was actually only the 21st day of trial.

Some updates about tomorrow:





I am wondering how Lt Biscuit is preparing for Doug Frank's testimony tomorrow. The 699th has had beef pup-peroni with Frank in the past.

[p0rtia]

Why the fuck is this still going on so long.

There are murder trials that don't last as long.

Because the judge is bending over backwards to let Eastman bring in as many witnesses as he wants (presumably to remove the issue from the inevitable appeal). The initial estimate for the length of the trial, if I remember correctly, was five days. Miller (Eastman att) mumbled about one or two witnesses for the defense (in the context that the judge had nixed a couple others he wanted). Then the testimony ran long. So there was a continuation because no one had set aside dates for the next week.

When the trial picked up a month later, suddenly Miller was adding witnesses, in this slow, dragged out way. Even last week, when the judge gave what to her was the final day of trial, Miller was acting all, "well I don't know if we can get everyone in by then." He wants to call a host of character witnesses, and said, oh, no more than half an hour each. Miller can't tie his shoes in half an hour.

The judge has given the date of the last day of trial. I think it's mid November. That doesn't mean it's running straight through--they're just grabbing dates everyone has available, or can make available. She was pretty stern about it. I think the end of the rope has been found. But no effing doubt that Miller will challenge it.

[Chilidog]

Thanks for that.

[keith]

Doesnt everything have to stop while they sort out the law suit complaining that its taking too long?

[p0rtia]

Watched a couple of hours of the endless direct examination of John Eastman yesterday.

Fascinating stuff--if you're in the mood to hear an erudite insurrectionist explain how brilliant and patriotic and irreproachable he it. Again.

I'll sum it up: Hundreds of MAGA state legislators, whipped into a frenzy by their moral outrage, wrote to ?him? ?someone? begging him/them to Stop the Certification until after their hundreds of court cases, brought with the Highest Regard for the Rule of Law and Sure to Prove fraud and election illegalities (which only the basest and most nefarious votes thieves could possible turn a deaf ear to) were heard.

Why, he had seen hundreds of daffydavitts showing example of...

Oh, never mind. It went on the whole damn day.

Anyway, best part of the day was Judge absofuckinglutely teed off at Mr. Miller, attorney for Mr. Eastman, for what in baseball parlance, is known as Delay of Game.

I've been watching Jdge Yvette Roland all summer, and have not once heard her change her mellow, slow-paced speech, ever-polite, speech patterns. She has reproved and shut Miller down, but the speech never changed. Until today.

It started mid-way through the afternoon session, when she half a dozen times stopped the testimony to say, "We've been over this. I've told you it's not relevant. You're wasting time. Let's move on." The "wasting time" complaint got repeated all afternoon. Her point was mighty clear. However, this only seemed to encourage Miller to push back by saying he disagreed with the judge. About the tenth time this happened, Miller pushed back quite hard to get some testimony or other in, arguing when Roland said, "I've ruled on this. We're not bringing this in. It's not relevant. You're wasting time. Do you have an objection, Mr. Carling?

Carling is like, "Uh... yes, uh, this is, repetitive and you have previously ruled that this line of questioning is irrelevant."

"Sustained. Move (the fuck) on." (She didn't say that, but it was in her tone). Twice in half an hour she prompted Carling to object so that she could sustain (he's usually pretty quick with the objections, but I think even he was worn down by the inanity of Eastman's monologue).

"Well," says Miller, nothing if not annoyingly persistent, "I just want to provide a basis for entering some documents..." Roland interrupted him, "Which documents? The ones I told you on Monday that you could not not enter? Maybe you think I'm not paying attention, Mr. Miller, but I know what you're doing. Do you think that adding another five affidavits to the ones you've already entered will make a difference? It won't. " Yikes.

She was so ahead of them. She read the exhibit numbers of the documents, and Miller agreed that he was trying to lay a foundation to be able to enter those docs, and that she had already told him no. "But there is another document I would like to enter," says Miller, and gives the number. Roland is there, finds the reference. "Yes, I told you on Tuesday that you could not enter that. You're wasting time. Move on."

"Thank you, your honor," says Roland. He always says that when she slams him, but now, when she is clearing so angry, and does not care that she's showing it, it's absurd. "Not to belabor this point," he continues.

Roland's voice became cold as ice and fast. "But you are belaboring it," she says. "Right now." You're wasting time. I'm going to add another fifteen minutes onto our day to make up for this. We'll stop at 5:15" (it was about 4:55 at that point).

"Thank you your honor."

At 8:07 Miller says, "This is a good time for me to stop, your honor, I'll be shifting nere to a new topic."

"Shift to your new topic," says Icy Roland.

"What?"

"Shift to your new topic."

She made him continue questioning till about 8:20, then abruptly ended it for the day. Not much, but boy did she make her point.

They're starting at 9 Am instead of 10; taking 1 hour lunch breaks instead of an hour and 20 minutes. And she's made it clear that she'll keep them there as long as she likes.

After Eastman was off the stand, they discussed THE SCHEDULE. There were whispered mentions of needing one more day and going "after Nov. 3". "I'm not going after Nov. 3," says Icy Roland.

Carling is desperately trying to fit in his rebuttal case, and closings in one day, and failing. There are supposed to be a couple of character witnesses Thursday afternoon; they're scheduled 90 minutes apart for some reason, even though Miller said two days ago that they would be half an hour each. This should be interesting.

I wish I'd been around for court opening this morning, but alas, I was not. I did listen to an hour or so with another witness--an "expert." Not a lot of testimony, but a lot of discussion about how the witness got somebody's name wrong in the depo, didn't correct in the depo errata sheet, and how Icy Roland was not going to let him correct it now. Snarly Roland accused him of testifying for the witness at one point.

Miller simply cannot stop leading witnesses. He knows he's doing it, but he cannot--will not--stop. At this point, having heard Roland call him out for this like, more than a dozen times, I'm seeing it as incompetent and disrespectul.

Lunch break!

[Luke]

Beautifully done, P0rtia! Brava! OK if I include those in tomorrow's thread? I include people's comments and it's fun. People seem to really enjoy it, there's now a #LukeCrew some created.

I've put 7 hours a day in all week on these... learned ThreadReaderApp has a 100 tweet limit so today's and don't have TRA's. Wrote to tech support, not sure if I can delete under 100 after and how to do it without busting the threading. Twitter is a prima donna anyway. But for now there's links, maybe even without Twitter it'll work since it's threaded?

Here's today's. It includes Dr. Stan Young whom P0rtia was talking about, part of John Droz' & Ray Blehar's "Election Integrity Morans". Stan, who election deniers think is SAVING AMERICA with their fabulous data, started with Zoom and... and... could NOT figure out how to get his iPhone on SPEAKERPHONE. I am NOT kidding. It was a 20 minute delay while court staff and even Judge Roland tried to help him PRESS A BUTTON.

During his 1st day of testimony 10/4, Randy Miller spent a TON of time on his education and background. It's here:

10/4 Ray Blehar & Stan Young
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1709 ... 74529.html

Today, Duncan Carling during cross-ex asked, "Dr. Young, is it true you were on a Trump Admin EPA Committee and then removed by the Biden Admin? And there was a LAWSUIT? Why didn't you mention that?"

The little weasels were BUSTED! Randy Miller was like, oh did I miss that?

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 9h
DC: When did you 1st speak with Dr. Eastman?
SY: Got a call asking if I would testify in this case
DC: Sometime this year?
SY: I don't recall but this case
DC: Did he ask if you had experience analyzing election data?
SY: No. He was aware of Contrast Report & my credentials.
DC: How did he know?
SY: (changes answer) Don't know
DC: Did he ask about your methodology on the Contrast Report?
SY: No.
DC: Were you a Trump Admin appointee to EPA board in 2017? Then removed by Biden Admin?
SY: Yes
DC: Any reason you left it off your bio?
SY: ...
RM: Were you hiding it? (Miller didn't bring it up on SY's 1st day).
SY: No, it's subject of a lawsuit.. firing of scientific advisory board was not legal. Federal district level
Judge: Ruling?
SY: Court ruled against me, denied, appealed but not ruled on: Young v EPA
[Stan Young said made no difference to his analysis.] Yeah, right, dude.
5:38 PM · Oct 19, 2023

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious
This totally came across as fishy and Randall Miller sounded disingenuous today. He did NOT bring up Stan Young's political appointment from the Trump Administration, I transcribed all that and would have remembered. Not buying it was a "slip", that's a big thing.

7:09 PM · Oct 19, 2023

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 7h
Well well well, it's Stan Young's pal Tony Cox the Expert [Young used him as an "expert" on election bunk but gave no indication he can Cox were KICKED by Scott Pruitt from EPA during Trump Admin!!] who also "may have financial conflicts of interest, may risk an appearance of impartiality and may lack the scientific expertise necessary to serve". This was DURING the Trump Admin by Scott Pruitt.

FRAUDS & LIARS WITH ETHICAL AND FINANCIAL CONFLICTS. Yup, sound like TRUMP ERA ELECTION DENIERS.

EPA document shows public commenters warned EPA officials that two Advisory Committee Appointees had potential financial conflicts of interest and a potential lack of necessary expertise
January 9, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Tom Carper (D-Del.), top Democrat on the Environment and Public Work Committee, and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) questioned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt on his appointment of two advisors to serve on EPA’s Federal Advisory Committees even after public commenters warned that Drs. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., a researcher for the petroleum industry, and S. Stanley Young, a researcher for the pharmaceutical and petroleum industry, may have financial conflicts of interest, may risk an appearance of impartiality and may lack the scientific expertise necessary to serve. These appointments were made days after EPA began excluding qualified scientists who have received EPA funding from the agency’s nonpartisan scientific advisory committees, citing conflicts of interest.

The senators’ letter to EPA comes after Senator Carper received a redacted document in December, titled “Executive Briefing Summary”, as part of EPA’s response to his May inquiry on EPA’s abrupt dismissal of more than a dozen scientists from one of EPA’s scientific boards. The two-page document, relayed to agency decision-makers, warned of the potential for conflicts of interest for two recent advisory committee appointees.

The senators wrote, “We are concerned that some of the newly-appointed members of these nonpartisan scientific advisory committees and boards may have financial and ethical conflicts of interests. In addition, some of these individuals may not possess the appropriate level of scientific expertise or credentials. This underscores our concern that your actions to replace many highly-qualified members of these committees—including the unprecedented action to remove any scientist who was a recipient of EPA grants from eligibility—has led to Federal Advisory Committees that are not balanced in viewpoints, and to the appointment of committee members who are either not qualified or not impartial. This approach undermines the process of providing sound, science-based advice that EPA can use as a basis for environmental regulations that are aimed at protecting human health and the environment.”

In July, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) accepted a request from Senators Carper and Whitehouse to review EPA’s process for selecting federal advisory committee members after EPA abruptly dismissed scientists from more than a dozen advisory positions. The EPA is home to 23 scientific advisory committees, which advise the agency on environmental science, public health, safety and other subjects central to the EPA’s work. Federal law requires the committees to remain balanced in the viewpoints they represent and functions they perform.

The text of the letter to Administrator Pruitt:

January 9, 2018
Dear Administrator Pruitt:

We write to request information about the process used to select members for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 23 Federal Advisory Committees. As you know, these Committees were established to advise the agency on environmental science, public health, safety, and other subjects central to the EPA’s work. We are concerned that some of the newly-appointed members of these nonpartisan scientific advisory committees and boards may have financial and ethical conflicts of interests. In addition, some of these individuals may not possess the appropriate level of scientific expertise or credentials. This underscores our concern that your actions to replace many highly-qualified members of these committees—including the unprecedented action to remove any scientist who was a recipient of EPA grants from eligibility—has led to Federal Advisory Committees that are not balanced in viewpoints, and to the appointment of committee members who are either not qualified or not impartial. This approach undermines the process of providing sound, science-based advice that EPA can use as a basis for environmental regulations that are aimed at protecting human health and the environment.

On May 9, 2017, one of us (Ranking Member Carper) sent you a letter requesting information about the EPA’s dismissal of 12 scientists from its Board of Scientific Counselors. Included in your response to that request was a two-page redacted document titled “Executive Briefing Summary” which summarizes public commenters’ concerns about several candidates the EPA ultimately appointed to some of its Federal Advisory Committees (attached).

Specifically, it appears that public commenters warned that Drs. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr. (a researcher for the petroleum industry) and S. Stanley Young (a researcher for the pharmaceutical and petroleum industry) may have financial conflicts of interest, may risk an appearance of impartiality, and may lack the scientific expertise necessary to serve on one or more Federal Advisory Committees. According to this “Executive Briefing Summary” document, these concerns were relayed to agency decision-makers, but it is unclear what steps were taken by EPA to address any of these concerns. On November 3, 2017, Dr. Cox was named Chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a member of the Scientific Advisory Board and Dr. Young was named to serve on the Scientific Advisory Board.

The “Executive Briefing Summary” document additionally references concerns that the list of nominated candidates includes candidates who are not physicians or National Academy of Sciences members—contrary to the Federal Register Notice solicitation. Finally, despite the references in the “Executive Briefing Summary” document that describe the input EPA received as “public comments,” the comments EPA received were not posted publicly, making it difficult to determine what informed the EPA’s selection of Federal Advisory Committee members and how the concerns submitted to EPA by the public were resolved.

So that we can understand more about the process that was used to nominate and select EPA’s advisory committee members, we ask that you provide responses to the following requests for information:

For Drs. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr. and S. Stanley Young, please provide all documents received or obtained by EPA (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) that are related to their appointments to any EPA Federal Advisory Committee.
For Drs. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr. and S. Stanley Young, please explain what specific steps were taken to address potential conflicts of interest, appearance of impartiality, lack of scientific expertise, and lack of scientific credentials. Please provide copies of all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) memorializing these steps.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index ... f-interest

DE MINIMIS: THEY SUED THE BIDEN ADMINSTRATION! Lost in federal district court, Jones Day repped them. They've filed an appeal.

Jones Day
Jones Day represents Dr. S. Stanley Young, a scientist challenging the composition of two United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advisory ...
https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/e ... committees

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigatio ... 021-10-07/

S. Young, et al v. EPA, et al Appeal
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... EPA,_et_al

Not letting these rat bastards get away with trying to hide it, will be posting these links in today's transcript thread.



Here's today's threaded transcript. Please give it a try of you can and let me know...


Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 16h
Oct 19 2023: Today's plan: More testimony from Dr. Stan Young, Eastman character witnesses & maybe Eastman. At NOON EDT, the 24th day of the #EastmanTrial, CA Bar Disbarment Trial of #JohnEastman resumes.



Here Tue & Wed's transcript:

10/17 More Kurt Olsen & John Eastman No ThreadReaderApp, just tweets:


This is the Icy Roland day (LOVE how P0rtia described it) and it's with TRA
10/18 John Eastman
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1714 ... 81042.html

So more character witnesses today, then more colossally dull Eastman & chronically boring Miller. (Have used a few of the suicide animated gifs from the movie Airplane if you remember those funny scenes).

And there's going to be MORE! But mercifully, not much more. But it's been a great experience and fun to see folks pop around every day to follow along.

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 6h
Hey hey #LukeCrew: Woot! #EastmanTrial is going longer. Duncan Carling has been patient, but he needs time with Eastman, a couple of rebuttal/aggravation witnesses & closing arguments... CA Bar travels for this. Looking now at Monday 10/30, possibility for 11/2 or 11/3.

[RVInit]

So glad you are following this. Your summaries are appreciated! Eastman should stick a fork in his law license.

[p0rtia]

Beautifully done, P0rtia! Brava! OK if I include those in tomorrow's thread? I include people's comments and it's fun. People seem to really enjoy it, there's now a #LukeCrew some created.


Thank you for asking, Orly -- I actually prefer you not use anything I write here, elsewhere.

[pipistrelle]

Why the fuck is this still going on so long.

There are murder trials that don't last as long.

I asked that eons ago when it had already gone on too long. Beyond ridiculous.

[Luke]

Of course, P0rtia! Totally respect that. I've always wondered about Fogbow content in other places on the web. It's public here, so it's not secret (unless it's in member's only), but huge respect for everybody's wishes. I always try to recommend coming to look at and join the best doggone forum here.


Here's today's coverage, Day 25:

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious
Oct 20, 2023: Happy Friday #LukeCrew!
Today: Character witnesses & John Eastman. It's Day 25 of #EastmanTrial, CA Bar's @StateBarCA Disbarment Trial of #JohnEastman resuming NOON EDT. Watch-along live link since the trial is NOT archived:
https://app.zoom.us/wc/97985435232/join ... wKjo6tZnUa

[johnpcapitalist]

Why the fuck is this still going on so long.

There are murder trials that don't last as long.

Could it be that they want to appeal-proof the decision to pull his license, by making sure he can't argue that he didn't get to put on a defense?

[bob]

Could it be that they want to appeal-proof the decision to pull his license, by making sure he can't argue that he didn't get to put on a defense?

Yes. Too also: There's no jury to inconvenience.

Having said that, if the trial judge was ... "more aggressive" in limiting testimony, the appellate court likely would defer to the trial court's rulings.

[p0rtia]

I wonder how John Eastman is feeling today.... cough *Chesebro plea* cough.

[chancery]

[

Could it be that they want to appeal-proof the decision to pull his license, by making sure he can't argue that he didn't get to put on a defense?

Yes. Too also: There's no jury to inconvenience.

Also, too, this is an unusual case, indeed an extraordinary one. Even though it's clear to me that pursuing a fake elector scheme in real life is a crime and a bad one, lots of the components of the overall scheme look in isolation like ordinary lawyer work. The distinction between advocating for a new interpretation of the law, or for a change in the law, on the one hand, and violating the law, on the other, can be a subtle one.

Particularly with hundreds of Trumpy judges around who would like nothing better than to sanction, disbar, or imprison the lawyers who attempt to hold them to account, it's terribly important that the disciplinary court get this right, and that there's no hint of unfairness.

[Frater I*I]

So more character witnesses today, then more colossally dull Eastman & chronically boring Miller. (Have used a few of the suicide animated gifs from the movie Airplane if you remember those funny scenes).

If you run out, there were more from Airplane II...

[bob]

The distinction between advocating for a new interpretation of the law, or for a change in the law, on the one hand, and violating the law, on the other, can be a subtle one.

Even if Eastman's defense was "I in good faith made a bad call," the bar doesn't a decision saying all wrong attorneys are criminals, or even incompetent. There must be a place for some error to be competent, some error to be and wrong and incompetent, and some "error" to be criminal.

Without these distinctions, it'll chill zealous advocacy.

[Suranis]

So more character witnesses today, then more colossally dull Eastman & chronically boring Miller. (Have used a few of the suicide animated gifs from the movie Airplane if you remember those funny scenes).

If you run out, there were more from Airplane II...

Are you saying he might be coming apart?