In Defense of Dr. John C. Eastman, Esq. Who Questioned the 2020 Election – Part 2

A Suggested Winning Strategy.

Please see Part 1 for an introduction to this matter.

Another significant foundational piece is this: “The major components of the election procedure are: 1) voter, 2) machineand 3) process  (e.g., ballot handling). Election Integrity means that ALL the major aspects of the election procedure are done accuratelyhonestly, and transparently, in a timely fashion.”

I’m not an attorney, but am rather knowledgeable about the election integrity issue, and the 2020 election. From that perspective (and without knowing all the details that have happened to date at the Eastman disbarment trial), I’m suggesting what I believe is his best defense to the competent lawyers he hired to defend him.

The layperson summary is that there are two (2) major issues being contested here:

  1. Did John Eastman have a reasonable basis to believe that the certified 2020 Presidential election results of some states, were likely inaccurate?
  2. If yes, what should have been his legal advice to VP Mike Pence regarding how such likely inaccurate certifications should be dealt with?

I am not qualified to address the second matter, but the most effective defense for the first issue would be to rely on three pillars. They are (in order of importance):

a) Post-2020 Election Audits,

b) Post-2020 Statistical Reports on the 2020 election, and

c) Post-2020 Misc Evidence about the integrity of the 2020 election.

Briefly, regarding each of these three items —

A) Post-2020 Election Audits of the 2020 election (see our Post-Election Audit Report for details):

To date, based on inadequate state requirements, US post-election “audits” are relatively superficial checks like recounts, canvassing, risk-limiting “audits,” etc. These are lightweight, very limited “double checks” that were chosen because of their simplicity and low cost — NOT effectiveness!  For example, none of these checks assure us that all the people who voted were legitimate voters, or that there were no machine manipulations of ballots cast, or that there were no subsequent ballot process irregularities. Etc.

The only legitimate way any state official can claim that there were no consequential irregularities in a prior election, is if the state conducted a timely Forensic Audit.  A Full Forensic Audit consists of three key elements: i) a voter audit, ii) a machine audit, and iii) a process audit (i.e., audits of the three elements of the election procedure!).

Note: No precinct, county, or state in the US did a Full Forensic Audit following the 2020 election. ZERO.

A step-down is a Partial Forensic Audit, where one or more of the elements of a Full Forensic Audit is done.

There were only three (3) examples where a Partial Forensic Audit of the 2020 elections was done in a precinct, county, or state, prior to January 6, 2021. These are:

  1. A Voter Forensic Audit: Nevada
  2. A Machine Forensic Audit: Antrim, Michigan
  3. A Process Forensic Audit: Rep Claudia Tenney

The results? ALL THREE of these Partial Forensic Audits (done by different people, in different locations, on different aspects of the election procedure) concluded that there were catastrophic failures in the 2020 election process:

  1. The Voter Forensic Audit: Nevada — concluded that there were “130,000± instances of voter fraud” (and they have the names of those parties).
  2. The Machine Forensic Audit: Antrim, Michigan — concluded “The Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results…”
  3. The Process Forensic Audit: Claudia Tenney — a judge ruled that the state of NY committed nine violations of state laws in processing just one federal contest.

So the takeaway from the “A” pillar is that EVERY meaningful audit done in 2020 following the 2020 election indicated widespread major election integrity failures.

B) Post-2020 Statistical Reports on the 2020 election. The following were done by my team of statistical, etc. experts, prior to January 6, 2021:

  1. The Pennsylvania Report
  2. The Michigan Report
  3. The Spikes Report

The results? ALL THREE of these statistical reports concluded that there were significant statistical anomalies in the 2020 election process.

  1. The Pennsylvania Report — concluded that there were some 300,000 suspect ballots (where the Presidential vote differential was 80k±).
  2. The Michigan Report — concluded that there were some 200,000 suspect ballots (where the Presidential vote differential was 150k±).
  3. The Spikes Report — concluded that there was a net of 3± million votes for Biden attributable to unexpected vote spikes.

So the takeaway from the “B” pillar is that EVERY one of these statistical analyses of the 2020 election indicated widespread major issues. [Note for the rest of the election reports done by our team of experts, see here.]

C) Post-2020 Misc Evidence about the integrity of the 2020 election. The following are sample reports from other experts, all prior to January 6, 2021:

  i – Dr. John Lott’s Report,

ii – Security expert Seth Keshel’s information,

iii – Report about Dominion Voting Machines,

iv – Report on Mail-in Ballots, and

v – Report on Wisconsin.

So the takeaway from the “C” pillar is that miscellaneous reports from different experts about the 2020 election also indicated widespread serious election issues.

The bottom line is that ALL three of these pillars independently indicate that there were significant integrity issues with the 2020 presidential election.

What is disconcerting is that in many cases the state certification process seems to be more of a rubber stamp, rather than a meaningfulindependent verification that the election process just held was accurate. For example, it appears that none of the underlying evidence in the above-referenced reports was addressed by the certification process of the states involved.

That John Eastman expressed concerns about the 2020 certification process of some states, was not only reasonable — but if he had not done so (knowing the above information) it would have been an abdication of his legal and fiduciary responsibility.

Again, this is my opinion as a non-attorney who is quite knowledgeable about the 2020 election.

PS — One of the many disingenuous assertions that the mainstream media has spread about the 2020 Presidential election is that fraud and malfeasance would only make a consequential difference if they were “widespread.” That is totally false. Consider the important table on page 40 of our Spikes Report.

There are two powerful takeaways here: 1) if the results of three of these four states were reversed, the results of the entire election would have changedand 2) just looking at one thing (vote spikes) the results of all four states are likely different.

Since John Eastman likely knew this, it was eminently reasonable that he was suspicious of the certifications provided by each of these states.

PPS — When I was on the witness stand, the prosecutor tried to communicate that my team’s reports were outliers — as state officials reported that there were no meaningful election problems. I pointed him to Appendix A of our Recommendations Report. Here we listed dozens of reports by other sources about the failings and vulnerabilities of the US election system. Two key points: 1) these reports were all done PRIOR to the 2020 election, and 2) these are not just conservative complaints, as many of these reports were done by Left-leaning sources. He had no answer to this.

PPPS — To read more about this interesting hearing that involves our civil rights, there are several articles about what transpired on this website, written by an independent attorney who attended the entire several months-long spectacle…

©2023. John Droz, Jr.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *