“Thanks to your bullshit we’re now under siege”

As numerous outlets have reported, a January 6 Committee challenge to John Eastman’s attempt to shroud his communications regarding the attempted coup under a privilege claim laid out three crimes they want the judge to use to consider crime-fraud exceptions to the claims. Two of the crimes they say they’ve got solid evidence Trump committed are the ones I said Trump would be prosecuted for back in August.

A. Obstruction of an Official Proceeding

The evidence detailed above provides, at minimum, a good-faith basis for concluding that President Trump has violated section 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The elements of the offense under 1512(c)(2) are: (1) the defendant obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede, (2) an official proceeding of the United States, and (3) that the defendant did so corruptly. Id. (emphasis added). To date, six judges from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia have addressed the applicability of section 1512(c) to defendants criminally charged in connection with the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Each has concluded that Congress’s proceeding to count the electoral votes on January 6th was an “official proceeding” for purposes of this section, and each has refused to dismiss charges against defendants under that section.75


B. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

An individual “defrauds” the government for purposes of Section 371 if he “interfere[s] with or obstruct[s] one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924). The conspiracy need not aim to deprive the government of property. See Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 479 (1910). It need not involve any detrimental reliance by the government. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861

In spite of the fact I laid this all out in August, TV lawyers continue to assume I don’t know what I’m talking about with respect to this prosecution.

I’m starting my read of the filing with the exhibits — most notably some emails exchanged between John Eastman and Mike Pence’s Counsel, Greg Jacob, the day before and day of the insurrection. While it’s not always clear what time zone these are, I’ve tried to place these times in ET.

What they show is how even after the riot had kicked off, Eastman was badgering Pence (through Jacob) to violate the Electoral College Act. Twice, Jacob noted that Eastman’s shitty advice had led to the “siege,” emphasizing that his wife and kids were panicked about his own safety. As rioters were breaking in, Eastman badgered Jacob saying that he was wrong that Pence could not adjourn.

And then, as we know, Pence had to adjourn, so he could be rushed to safety, which Jacob reiterated was caused by Trump, “whipping large numbers of people into a frenzy over something with no chance of ever attaining legal force through actual process of law, has led us to where we are.”

Then, after Congress had reconvened, Eastman seemingly pointed to the delay caused by the mob Trump sent as proof that the ECA is not sacrosanct, and asked Pence outright to violate the ECA some more.

There’s abundant evidence that Trump used the mob in utilitarian fashion to intimidate Pence and others and — as I have laid out — equally abundant evidence that it was the intent of many of the rioters to maximize the degree to which they would intimidate him, if not to kill him.

But this suggests another utilitarian motive: that Eastman, at least, figured that by forcing the Congress to adjourn, they would effectively force Pence into breaking the ECA, which Eastman shamelessly used to demand Pence further violate the law.

Update: Fixed the typos, I think. Thanks for the help!

January 5, 9:29PM: Eastman emails Jacob referencing a “good talk earlier tonight,” attaching a commitment from PA state senators to “recertify” their vote if Pence “implements the plan we discussed” (which Jacob’s testimony makes clear was a request to throw out the certificates).

January 6, 10:44AM: Jacob responds to the email from the night before saying, “Will call,” with some legal questions.

January 6, 1:33PM: Eastman respond “this is small minded” and claims Jacob is “sticking with minor procedural statutes while the Constitution is being shredded.” He cites a law George W Bush ignored during the Iraq War.

January 6, 2:14PM: Jacob responds and notes that no Justice or Circuit Judge would approve Eastman’s plan and explains that the role for States ends as soon as they certify their vote. He ends by saying,

I respect your heart here. I share your concerns about what Democrats will do once in power. I want election integrity fixed. But I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up.

And thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

January 6, 2:25PM: Eastman responds saying,

My “bullshit” — seriously? You think you can’t adjourn the session because ECA says no adjournment, while the compelling evidence that the election was stolen continues to build and is already overwhelming. The “siege” is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened.

January 6, 3:05PM: Jacob responds to Eastman’s complaint about bullshit by pointing out he’s being moved to a secure location.

I do apologize for that particular language, which was unbecoming of me, and reflective of a man whose wife and three young children are currently glued to news reports as I am moved about to locations where we will be safe from people, “mostly peaceful” as CNN might say, who believed with all their hearts the theory they were sold about the powers that could legitimately be exercised at the Capitol on this day. Please forgive me for that.

But the advice provided has, whether intended to or not, functioned as a serpent in the ear of the President of the United States, the most powerful office in the entire world. And here we are.

For the record, we were in the middle of an open, widely televised debate that was airing every single point that you gave members of Congress to make when all of this went down and we had to suspend.


Respectfully, it was gravely, gravely irresponsible of you to entice the President of with an academic theory that had no legal viability, and that you well know we would lose before any judge who heard and decided the case. And if the courts declined to hear it, I suppose it could only be decided in the streets. The knowing amplification of that theory through numerous surrogates, whipping large numbers of people into a frenzy over something with no chance of ever attaining legal force through actual process of law, has led us to where we are.

January 6, 6:09PM: Eastman claims that Pence only addressed the most outlandish option and didn’t address a more moderate one.

January 6, 6:29PM: Jacob asks Eastman whether he advised Trump that “the Vice President DOES NOT have the power to decide things unilaterally.”

January 6, 6:45PM: Eastman claims Jacob was on the call when he did provide that advice, but then declines to,

discuss other conversations that I may or may not have had privately on that score with someone who is a client. But you know him — once he gets something in his head, it is hard to get him to change course.

January 6, 11:44PM: Eastman responds to the most recent Jacob email stating that because the House and Senate had “debated the Arizona objections for more than 2 hours” (which may account for the time Congress had been hiding from the mob) and observed that that and other things were violations of the Electoral Count Act. He then asks that, “now that the precedent has been set that the Electoral Count Act is not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed,” he should adjourn the vote for 10 days “to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations.”

88 replies
  1. Ben Soares says:

    The license to practice law needs to at least run parallelly to other professions in the country. imho.

    No plumber can be this creative, and not suffer consequences in his or her short run. The appearance on an impropriety (remember that theory), shuts down the license in most cases. No one gets to just blow it off, due to unprecedented causes of death. There are consequences.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Perhaps still hung over from taking a drink for each lie spouted by Governor Reynolds on Tuesday…

    • Nehoa says:

      We had a plumber hook up a new toilet to the hot water line. My father made him name his next child after him. Turned out to be a girl, “Ralphina.”

    • pseudo says:

      (California) State Bar Announces John Eastman Ethics Investigation

      Actually I think I did understand the plumber reference. If a plumber was as wrong about plumbing as certain kraken flacks are about law…well, a plumber in CA can lose their license for much less than that, such as for inadvertently mishandling paperwork following payment in full of a judgment. But in court that would be a nonsequitur, and likewise to some extent in this forum.

      • bmaz says:

        Maybe one of the least effective bar associations in history. Don’t look for much value there.

        • Frank says:

          I didn’t know they allowed trolls in here.

          [Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please use a more differentiated username when you comment next as we have several community members named “Frank” or “Franklin.” Thanks. /~Rayne]

  2. Gee says:

    Couple of quick fixes :

    “What they show is how even after the riot had kicked off, Eastman was badgering Pence (though Jacob) to violate the Electoral College Act. ” (THROUGH Jacob)?

    January 5, 9:29PM: Eastman emails Jacob referencing a “good talk earlier tonight,” attaching a commitment from PA state senators to “recertify” their vote if Pence “implements the plan we discussed” (which Jacob’s testimony makes clear was a request to through out the certificates). (THROW out)

  3. Rugger9 says:

    Eastman for his part remains unrepentant even though he’s trying very hard to hide the evidence of his crimes. Eastman’s not even consistent in why Gore couldn’t challenge in 2001 but Trump could in 2021 (because there wasn’t enough ‘evidence’ dontchaknow) and the fact that W’s brother was Governor, the SoS tossed out something like 100x the 537-vote margin and when the actual final tally was done much later (according to the generally annoying Thom Hartmann) with all of the counties Gore won FL anyway. However, that was moot once the election was certified for W.

    To your other point about TV lawyers, Signorelli was on complaining about how DoJ is setting up to let Individual-1 walk, however I think his ire is better directed at DA Bragg in NYC, who actually did. The J6SC has issued their interim report and AFAIK hasn’t referred the matter to DoJ. We still don’t have the public testimony phase yet.

  4. harpie says:

    That first item is a new entry [the first two times as yet unknown]:

    [??] HANNITY to MEADOWS text: “Pence pressure. WH counsel will leave.”
    [??] Scott PERRY [R-PA] to MEADOWS text: “Please check your signal”
    9:29 PM EASTMAN emails JACOB:

    Good talk earlier tonight.
    Major new development attached. This is huge, as it now looks like PA Legislature will vote to recertify its electors if Vice President Pence implements the plan we discussed.

    10:00 PM [approx]TRUMP says in a [FALSE] statement:

    […] The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act. [Pence can] decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification or send them to the House. […]

    • Eureka says:

      An important point re PA State Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward, one of the signatories to that 1/4 PA legislators letter that Eastman attached to Jacob 9:29 PM 1/5:

      A month* prior [12/3/2020], she had skated out of signing a similarish (in the context of the rolling scheme) Trump-exhorted letter to US Congress by claiming she had not seen it. At the same time she said she otherwise could not *avoid* signing onto such docs or publicly declaim them because she’d “get [her] house bombed”:

      Kim Ward, the Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania Senate, said the president had called her to declare there was fraud in the voting. But she said she had not been shown the letter to Congress, which was pulled together hastily, before its release.

      Asked if she would have signed it, she indicated that the Republican base expected party leaders to back up Mr. Trump’s claims — or to face its wrath.

      “If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” she said about signing the letter, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

      After this interview, Ward did sign on to misc. election-related docs (like amicus/i for dumb suits & such as I recall).

      I hope she and others like her have quietly testified to J6 Committee.

      *Thursday, December 9, 2020 byline refers to a Friday letter, which would have been 12/3/2020

      Even in Defeat, Trump Tightens Grip on State G.O.P. Lawmakers
      In Pennsylvania, the president’s false claims of a rigged vote may inflame the party base for years to come. One lawmaker said that refusing to back up his assertions would “get my house bombed.”
      By Trip Gabriel Published Dec. 9, 2020 Updated Feb. 15, 2021

        • Eureka says:

          Ooof; merde. I forgot about the French people gossiping about us (as if we would need textual evidence).

          [And from my contemporaneous note, Ward signed onto the amicus for the TX suit Dec. 10, the day after this interview published.]

          Thanks for the context reminder. [Eastman! Down the page… of course he reps Trump in that POS “suit”. But I don’t recall hearing the name of (plaintiff’s atty _and_ Trump amicus) brief author Lawrence Larry Joseph lately. Hmm. Makes me think J6 might go digging in TX later…loose-end cleanup.]

          More importantly, keep scrolling for the Janis! [Courtesy of harpie’s creative contempt for this cabal.]

  5. WilliamOckham says:

    The “Thanks, John. Will Call” email (from Jacob to Eastman) was definitely at 10:44am EST. If you look at Exhibit N (page 4), you can see it is listed that way. In that document, it’s part of an email thread with Jacob’s time zone. I’ve spent entirely too much of my life examining email threads…

      • Leoghann says:

        There has been a god-awful amount of important stuff going on, even without the Ukraine invasion. You really needed to be like Cerberus, with three heads.

    • Joberly says:

      WO and Emptywheel– I thought the time stamps are Pacific Standard. Remember, the emails are from Eastman’s @chapman.edu email account, in Orange County, CA. If I am correct, then add 3 hours to each time stamp to get the Eastern Standard time zone. Look at the one from Greg Jacob to Eastman stamped “1:05 p.m.” where Jacob says “when all of this went down and we had to suspend.” The Capitol breach and suspension had not yet happened in Eastern Standard Time, but the message makes sense if it was sent at 1:05 Pacific/4:05 Eastern.

      • harpie says:

        I get quite confused sometimes, but the Eastman emails Marcy highlights above seem to be labeled as MST [Mountain Standard Time], don’t they?
        Also WaPo had this at 2:26 PM: [approx.]

        EASTMAN [from the WILLARD] emails PENCE Counsel JACOB, [hiding with PENCE] accusing PENCE of “causing the violence by refusing to block certification of Biden’s victory” “The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so that the American people can see for themselves what happened.”
        Eastman said his message was a response to an email in which Jacob told him that his “bull—-” legal advice was why Pence’s team was “under siege.”

        WaPo BLOODSHED https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/11/03/january-6-defendants-succeed-in-proving-they-were-treated-better-than-other-dc-detainees/#comment-906986

        • DrDoom says:

          With VPNs, you can use a server in any time zone. Also time on device can be set manually to desired time zone. Need that info to interpret e-mail time stamps correctly.

      • harpie says:

        OH! Maybe Marcy added that MST? [I said I get confused!]
        But, I think MST is correct…it aligns with the WaPo time, for instance.

      • harpie says:

        Just another example:
        WaPo: 2:13 PM PENCE and family are moved by Secret Service to his ceremonial office nearby

        Marcy: 2:14 PM […] And thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Eastman was a visiting professor at the University of Colorado – Boulder. That’s why the Chapman server has him in Mountain Time.

        • harpie says:

          Thanks for reminding about that, WO, [I thought there was something related to Colorado…] and for the Very Helpful info just below. :-)

    • WilliamOckham says:

      In case anyone is still reading this thread, here’s the magic decoder ring. In the Eastman-Jacob email exchanges, any time you see

      On Jan [#], 2021, at [#:## [AM/PM], [Last Name], [First Name] wrote:

      Those times are EST. That format is how Jacob’s email setup shows quoted email. Conversely, Eastman’s email shows the full [From/Sent/To/Subject] for quoted email. Those times are all MST.

  6. SilverWolf says:

    Thank you for all of the work you are doing Marcy, ’emptywheel’ is a true refuge in this misinformed and misdirected world. I check in with my morning coffee and again with my evening tea. I sleep better with a clearer understanding and confidence that the wheels of justice grind on.
    Thanks also to the great minds and scholars with their informed and knowledgeable contributions to the discussions. I am humbled by the benefits of your shared insights.
    Peace and Truth. /:-)

    • LeeNLP says:

      Seconded. I’d say this more often, but don’t want to distract from the excellent commentary ongoing. I don’t have much other than appreciation to add. Appreciation and awe. :)

    • Dotscott says:

      A long time reader/follower from afar I totally agree…even about the tea and coffee.

      [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your second user name. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  7. Edward R. says:

    Eastman appealing to the mob-induced adjournment as evidence that the ECA can be violated further is beyond cynical. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that it was part of the plan from the beginning. It could just have been a desperate observation in the moment as he realized that Congress was going to complete the certification. But certainly reason enough for the committee to have full access to his correspondence, and figure out whether the “plan” they had developed had an explicit, mob violence component.

    • JVO says:

      What I’d really like to understand on this seemingly critical point is whether it was the VP’s “decision” to delay or was it the Secret Service’s “requirement”? And, I’ve not seen any analysis of what is the definition of “delay” of this Constitutionally-required process.

  8. BruceF says:

    I hear commentators making a huge deal about Trump must actually know he lost the election to successfully prosecute him in relation to J6 insurrection. Am I missing something? Didn’t Trump lose each case brought challenging election outcomes? Do those legal defeats not qualify as proof that Trump lost?

    • glenn storey says:

      Well, if I’m doing 100 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, it doesn’t matter if I know what the speed limit is or not. I’m still going to get a bigass fine and have my car taken away from me for stunt driving. [Ontario law]
      Might not be a great analogy, but still.

      • Scott Johnson says:

        For some crimes–especially white-collar ones–mens rea (guilty mind, i.e. corrupt intent) is a required element of the crime. In other words, the prosecution must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant knew what s/he was doing was wrong and did it anyway.

        Likely why Trump might skate on the criminal fraud charges in New York. He never writes anything down, the one person (Weisselberg) who might testify against him as to his state of mind is refusing to flip, and thus he can use the “I had no idea what my accountants were doing!” defense. Prosecution needs at least SOME admissable evidence (witness testimony, written notes found in discovery, etc) to meet this threshold. “We know he’s a crook” doesn’t cut it.

        (The civil charges are another matter–but those only carry civil penalties).

        • BobCon says:

          The thing to watch for regarding pundits will be how well they supply actual evidence, as opposed to resorting to flip assertions about Trump’s character and argument by analogy.

          I pretty strongly suspect most of the ones who argue that he will slip are going to dodge any serious examination of the record. There will be a few who raise valid questions about the challenges of proving a case, but it’s mostly going to be an exercise in PR.

        • blueedredcounty says:

          This is where I am going to call bullshit. Trump has an MBA from Wharton. Weisselberg was an accountant before he became CFO for Trump, but apparently does not have a New York CPA license.

          ANYONE with either of those credentials or in those positions knows full fucking well that the Federal tax code identifies a huge range of expense reimbursements (deductions from corporate/business income taxes) as TAXABLE income to the recipient. To keep the recipient from getting screwed over at tax time, reputable businesses “gross-up” the expense and pay the federal tax on it for the recipient. At least at the C-level of a publicly-traded company, they do this.

          For example, in the 2000’s I worked for Hewlett Packard. The annual report spelled out all of the different compensation provided to then-CEO Mark Hurd. In addition to his generous salary and special stock options, one of his taxable perquisites was over 300K a year gross payments for a private security firm for him. It would have been a lower amount, but they had to report the gross amount, including the taxes they paid on his behalf.

          I got to learn about this because I received different corporate reimbursements for a grad school fellowship. I had a lot of extra work when I filed taxes during this time period to make sure I did it right. This was in the mid-80’s, well into Trump’s business career. Again, he and Weisselberg had to know this. And by putting his signatures on all of those documents, he declared his responsibility for the accuracy of the info as the CEO. Especially after the Enron meltdown, and post-Sarbanes-Oxley.

          Trying to claim, “I didn’t know it was wrong!” or “I didn’t know it was going on!” or “I didn’t know I was responsible!” for either of them is the equivalent of saying in court, “My dog ate the filing.” Or in this case, maybe it’s “I shredded up and ate my homework.” Their not paying the taxes on this is another example of Trump knowingly and willfully stiffing someone. In this case, it’s all of us who needed to make up for the lost tax revenue.

          • LizzyMom says:

            Small correction here: Trump did NOT get a Wharton MBA, although he likes to make people believe it. He got a bachelors through the undergrad program (which he was admitted to, not based on ability, but through connection pulling by his brother Fred). The official response from Penn.

            “Donald J. Trump earned a B.S. in real estate, which was awarded on May 20, 1968,” says Ron Ozio, Penn’s director of media relations,…. “

            • Rayne says:

              “Donald Trump was the dumbest goddam student I ever had.” — William T. Kelley, professor of marketing, Wharton-UPenn

              Might explain the failure of so many Trump-branded consumer goods like Trump steaks.

    • LeeNLP says:

      NAL, and probably wrong, but wouldn’t the standard be not what Trump actually knew, but what a reasonable person in Trump’s position should have known?

      People lie to themselves all the time- the best way to deceive someone else is to first deceive oneself. That suggests that, regardless of what some part of the brain seems to believe, there’s another part that knows full well it’s all BS. Trump wouldn’t have survived so long if he really believed his own schtick IMO.

      • nord dakota says:

        Don’t forget, he was a stable genius.

        Maybe that really meant a genius IN the stable . . .after the horses were let out to run around.

    • HW3 says:

      Trump is too busy to know anything. Look at the presidential records act that he and his staff were too busy to understand despite all the training they get.

  9. Peterr says:

    Greg Jacob is remarkably restrained. I would have replied with at least “Yes, bullshit, and enormous stinky quantities of it” if not the Ukrainian Snake Island guards’ response of “Go f*** yourself” to the Russian warship.

    That said, this is brilliant: “But the advice provided has, whether intended to or not, functioned as a serpent in the ear of the President of the United States, the most powerful office in the entire world. And here we are.” I can see why he’s Pence’s lawyer, with the deft weaving of Genesis into this – casting Eastman as the devil and Trump as Eve.

  10. Alan Charbonneau says:

    “now that the precedent has been set that the Electoral Count Act is not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed,” he should adjourn the vote for 10 days “to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations.”

    That reasoning sounds like the old chestnut about the man who kills both of his parents and then wants the court to take pity on him because he’s an orphan. Surreal.

    • Peterr says:

      Or an old man who sends his adult children out to speak on his behalf, then lashes out at the media for picking on his children when they ask difficult questions.

  11. harpie says:

    [via nycsouthpaw]: NARA produced document showing Trump’s private schedule on the 6th with handmarked annotations https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.160.10.pdf

    P-R000285 (2021-076) Case 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM Document 160-10 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID

    [hand written]
    -11:10 – Eric Trump, Don Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle, IMT [Ivanka Marie Trump?], COS, Eric Herschmann, Gen. Kellogg ([blank])
    – 11:17 – c w/ Sen. Kelly Loeffler (~11:20)
    – 11:20 – c/w VPOTUS ([blank])

    Wednesday, January 6, 2021
    10:50 AM (5 min) Depart The White House en route The Ellipse
    Press: Open
    Location: The Ellipse
    11:35 AM (5 min) Depart The Ellipse en route The White House
    11:40 AM Arrive The White House
    RON: The White House

    TRUMP had a call with LOEFFLER…[did we know that?] just before he talked to PENCE.

    • harpie says:

      TRUMP did not even leave the WHITE HOUSE until 11:39 AM,
      and he spoke for about 70 minutes.

    • harpie says:

      Also, CALLS between DOJ and the WH in this time period:

      10:46 AM ROSEN calls HERSCHMANN [2m]
      10:55 AM ROSEN calls CIPOLLONE [1m]
      11:01 AM ROSEN call from CIPOLLONE [1m]
      12:03 PM ROSEN call from CIPOLLONE [1m]

    • harpie says:


      4:37 PM · Mar 3, 2022

      […] The Select Committee has learned that Guilfoyle met with Donald Trump and members of his family in the Oval Office the morning of January 6, 2021, which was also when the then-President last spoke with Vice President Pence (by phone) prior to the joint session of Congress. […] [screenshots]

      See ABOVE hand written notes on WH schedule for 1/6:

      -11:20 – c/w VPOTUS ([blank])

      So if GUILFOYLE [and the others?] were AT the WH, they must have returned there after they spoke at the RALLY.

      • harpie says:

        “Others” = ERIC and JUNIOR

        10:42 AM GUILIANI and EASTMAN arrive at the RALLY
        10:44 AM JACOB responds to EASTMAN’s email from the night before:
        “Will call,” with some legal questions.
        10:48 AM GIULIANI begins speaking
        10:50 AM (5 min) Depart The White House en route The Ellipse
        10:55 AM ROSEN calls CIPOLLONE [1m]
        10:55 AM EASTMAN begins speaking

        • harpie says:

          [UGGG! How did I miss:] iow, PLEASE ADD:

          10:46 AM ROSEN calls HERSCHMANN [2m]

          ALSO ADD:
          10:40 AM ERIC, JUNIOR and GUILFOYLE are done speaking

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Also, although I otherwise detested almost everything she said or did, when the senate reconvened that night, Loeffler rather gracefully bowed out of the Cruz/Hawley insurrection plan. I have to give her that.

  12. Fraud Guy says:

    “The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this”. Feels like Chigurh talking to Carla Jean at the end of “No Country For Old Men”.

  13. pseudonymous in nc says:

    That last exhibit (N) is crackerjack sociopath stuff from Eastman, basically saying that because Congress was forced to flee and the leaders gave speeches when it reconvened, the Electoral Count Act was no so “sacrosanct.”

    It’s like setting a McDonalds on fire and then saying that by evacuating, the employees violated company regulations that it should never be left unstaffed.

    • Rugger9 says:

      That analogy is remarkably similar to an actual opinion Neil Gorsuch wrote before joining SCOTUS, where his view was that a trucker stuck in the snow was required to freeze to death because contracts are inviolate. Senator Franken took him to the woodshed about that at his confirmation hearings but Gorsuch was confirmed anyway.

      • Rapier says:

        How about the most obvious analog. That of the guy convicted of killing his parents pleading for mercy at sentencing, because he’s an orphan.

        No doubt about it. That’s some smart lawyering.

  14. Dopey-o says:

    “I respect your heart here. I share your concerns about what Democrats will do once in power. (Greg Jacob)”

    What were the Democrats going to do that Eastman and Jacob felt justified armed mobs storming the Capitol? I occasionally hear from RWNJ relatives that the “woke democrats and progressives are trying to destroy America” but my friends don’t detail the specifics.

    Biden, Schumer and Pelosi have been in power for over a year, and I haven’t seen the dangerous overreach they threatened.

    I know these guys traffic in FUD, but please could they cite some specifics?

    ETA: blockquote tag doesn’t seem to be working.

    • Fraud Guy says:

      Based on my in-house Q follower, it will consist of socialism, letting the invaders come in over the southern border, and China.

    • Scott Johnson says:

      The Democrats might try to, you know, govern.

      Because they’re largely a coalition of lower-caste folk, “urban elites”, and other Non-Real Americans, governing is something they’ve no right to do, according to right-wing political thought. Real Americans may tolerate them as dhimmis, but they shouldn’t have any franchise, let alone access to the levers of power.

      The Democratic Party forfeited its right to govern in 1964, according to this strain of logic. And 2008 was the last straw.

  15. BROUX says:

    I find it amazing that Eastman writes “… the compelling evidence that the election was stolen continues to build and is already overwhelming.” I don’t know the guy, but does he really believe this crap (then he is insane) or is this just hyperbole to create the proper context to get what he wants (keep TFG in power). But why direct hyperbole at Jacob? Is it possible that even within a very partisan person (“I share your concerns about what Democrats will do once in power”) repeating a false narrative has an insidious effect? Like, we create a lie, but none of us actually admit it is a lie, even we were are alone being closed doors. Maybe that’s necessary to really do this kind of awful stuff?

    • Scott Johnson says:

      You need to read up on the Big Lie, and what it entails.

      Among other things:

      * The bigger and more shameless and outlandish the lie, the better. Keeps others on their toes. Moves the claims from the realm of objective reality (where lies can be disproven) to the realm of religious belief (where whatever is ordained by God, as revealed by His prophets and priesthood, is true). Truth is nothing more but the proclamations of Power.
      * Never back down, never admit the truth, never apologize.
      * Always double down.
      * Any evidence against the Big Lie is fabricated. It is always the other side, in fact, who is doing the lying.
      * Belief in the lie will identify your allies from you enemies. It is a token of group solidarity, and a sign of commitment to the cause, like a gang initiation rite.

    • Richieboy says:

      Or you know the email may someday come to light, so you don’t even hint that you don’t believe your own bullshit.

  16. Zinsky says:

    Those exchanges between Jacobs, Pence’s attorney and Eastman seem extremely damning to me, and I am admittedly not an attorney. They also provide a pretty clear, first-hand third party viewpoint that Trump knew the election fraud claims were bogus, or at least, unsustainable in any courtroom. Excellent summary and analysis, as always.

  17. Caliban says:

    So would it be fair to say that all of this was being done under the orders of Trump? Or being done because they felt like it? It amazes me that so many talk as if this was not coordinated by Trump. Mind you, I do not think Trump will face any punishment for this at all but boy it should at least be on the record before he is installed as president by republicans in 2025.

  18. Douglas Erhard says:

    As soon as the violence started, any pressure put on Mike Pence to unilaterally reject electors, turned from persuasion to break the law, to extortion to break the law.

    “See those violent people? They’re not stopping until you do what we say”

Comments are closed.