482 Comments

I believe Ron White had it best when he said "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability." John Eastman's conviction doesn't need any other evidence than his Fox interviews. I'm going to be mildly entertained to see how his lawyers try to get that dismissed.

Expand full comment

No wonder he’s being disbarred. He’s a terrible lawyer.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Sep 1, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Not any more. The school kicked him to the curb.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Sep 1, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Not sure if you can be a law professor if you’ve been disbarred.

Expand full comment

I asked lawyer who had just successfully defended my friend what would he say if I told him that I just killed someone. He said, and I quote "How much money do you have? An did anybody see you?"

Expand full comment

all these weirdos in PAB's orbit don't know when to shut up. perhaps one of the reasons they got hired?

Expand full comment

They also have no problem telling TFG exactly what he wants to hear and finding ways to do what he wants even when it is illegal.

Expand full comment

> He wrote, “The Senate and House have both violated the Electoral Count Act this evening – they debated the Arizona objections for more than two hours.” Guess that means “the Electoral Count Act is not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed,” he said.

(a) It means that the Electoral Count Act is a law like any other. People can violate it if they choose, **and* *face* *the* *consequences.**

(b) IMHO, the far more serious violation was debating the Arizona objections in the first place. They are only supposed to debate which slate of purportedly valid electors to use, if a state has submitted more than one. *WHICH NONE OF THEM DID.*

Expand full comment

Among other reasons, I read Wonkette for the correct use of all-caps, as in yelling at Eastman about the cause of the two hour debate of the Arizona electors slate.

Expand full comment

A good example of the perils of relying on an echo-chamber, populated by YES MEN who tell you only what you want to hear.

Expand full comment

After all this has been sorted out, and they write the definitive history of this event, John Oliver is going to be swimming in dough, because the only name they can possibly use for this is "Stupid Watergate".

Expand full comment

And drunks CF Roodles.

Expand full comment

Talking traitors, a nice info sheet on "Who's the J6 Nicest Judge of All".

https://twitter.com/AlisonR61423986/status/1697291180235432018

Expand full comment

The true believers are the worst. Yeah, Mitch put a fuckload of right wing shit heads on the bench, but they all went to law school, and some of them had valid legal experience outside some corporate boardroom before being nominated. Those are the ones who suddenly realize, "I'm here for life. I'll have a legacy. It doesn't just have to be 'Trump Appointed Judge'."

Expand full comment

If we lawyers can't tell our clients how to break the law, why even have lawyers????

Expand full comment

It took me a while, but I finally figured out who he reminded me of in that clip: the animated version of Don Knotts in the film 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘔𝘳. 𝘓𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵.

https://doyouremember.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/MCDINMR_EC003-2048x1504.jpg

Expand full comment

Pretty chatty guy for someone who pled the Fifth a gazillion times when questioned by people who matter. These people are shit.

Expand full comment

That's pretty much the strategy they follow on everything, including the "election fraud". Talk it up on TV, promise on TV that you have lots of evidence, then when you're under oath and a judge asks you if you have any evidence, you shrug and say, "No, your honor. But we should win anyway."

Expand full comment

And Fani Willis does not have to prove that they either implicitly or explicitly knew their claims were bullshite because IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

Expand full comment

Specially....since dude's a (checks notes) Constitutional Lawyer for a living.

Expand full comment

My hypothesis to explain this behavior is that people like this are so used to getting on TV, spouting fabulist bullshit, and never getting called on it, that they just reflexively go there again, seemingly unaware that a criminal indictment completely changes their legal landscape.

I am ANAL -- what, that didnt' come out right, but I am not a lawyer -- but my understanding is that Rules Number 1, 2, and 3 for a criminal defendant are (a) SHUT UP, (2) SHUT UP, and (III) SHUT UP.

Expand full comment

The Latin term for (III) is: SHUT UP! SHUT UP! FOR GOD'S SAKE, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Expand full comment

Rules 1, 2 and 3 for a criminal defense lawyer are (1) make sure your client can pay you, (2) order your client not to talk about the case and (3) get paid.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Aug 31, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Would not surprise me at all if many of the big fish in the 19 are counting on the Roberts Supreme Court to overturn all the convictions.

Expand full comment

The mild, innoccuous face of fascism.

We all know that he doesn't believe what he was proposing was legal. We all know he would never have raised the idea if Trump had carried those swing states.

The sooner he's disbarred, the harder it will be for anyone, including MAGA scum, to assert that what he was proposing was legal.

Expand full comment

MAGA scum will never find it difficult to claim their god-king's plans were legal. I mean, he was the president. So anything he did was legal per the constitution, or something similar.

Expand full comment

Well, some MAGA scum, but not all. And no one else.

Expand full comment

Waitaminute waitaminute, need to check...oh, Pres at the time was Republican, yup checks out.

Carry on.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Aug 31, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Am I not able to make an observation without you assuming said observation is directing my behavior, or that I'm using that observation to tell others what to do?

Expand full comment

And yet Ingraham still found a way to make his confession into a furtherance of the stolen election narrative.

Expand full comment

That's my former student! Always a clever one, that Laura.

Expand full comment

She must have thought that she was taking a class in astrology.

Expand full comment

She actually took an astronomy class?

Expand full comment

Without confirming or denying, a lot of people take astronomy for their science distrib.

Expand full comment

I went to an Ivy partially because of a certain rockstar astronomer and wanted to major in planetary astronomy, even though they didn't have an astronomy major at the time - you'd have to pick either physics or mathematics. That particular rockstar taught a class in the spring that was Astro for Poets, as opposed to Geology 102, aka Rocks for Jocks. Even though I was taking the tougher courses, I would meet up with a couple of friends who were taking the course and listen to him lecture. He was really good. I know that he wasn't held in high esteem by his colleagues, a lot of which was sheer jealousy.

Expand full comment

At my small liberal arts college I took "Rocks for Jocks" with PhD in Geology who also happened to be the football coach. Great class, lots of field trips to see the rocks in their natural habitat.

Expand full comment

Not everyone is going to be a scientist. I just want to shout out my appreciation to all those scientists who teach introductory courses to first-years on plants and birds and rocks and things who may teach these young folks to look up, look down, or look outward for the rest of their lives.

Expand full comment

Question for the lawyers out there... do lawyers have a tendency to ignore legal advice from *their* lawyers?

Asking for a talkative accused felon.

Expand full comment

I’m a lawyer who was represented by a well-known NY criminal defense firm. (Subject of a grand jury but, justifiably, never indicted.) I followed my lawyer’s advice, even when he told me to plead the Fifth on one occasion. His reasoning was that he hadn’t had time to prepare me, and even though I thought I had done nothing wrong, he wouldn’t know until he had had time to interrogate me. He wasn’t just worried about whether I would inadvertently confess something; he also wanted to make sure that my recollection matched the documentary record. We laugh at Eastman, but from the perspective of the established white collar defense bar, his behavior is insanely outside the norm.

Expand full comment