The disbarment trial of constitutional legal scholar John Eastman, who advised former President Donald Trump on challenging election fraud in the 2020 presidential election, continued on Wednesday featuring cross-examination of Eastman by the State Bar of California’s attorney Duncan Carling and testimony from Jake Rollow, who was progressive election official from Michigan.
Rollow was the communications director for the Michigan Secretary of State during the 2020 election.
A constitutional attorney who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, expressed his concern to The Arizona Sun Times about the type of questions the California bar’s attorney asked Eastman.
“This is so repetitive,” he said. “There are only like five things they ever ask John about: 1) Actions in states where John was not involved. 2) Years-old articles that misquote John that he now has to defend. 3) Hearsay about advice given to someone who was not John’s client. 4) Explaining the constitution to the judge. 5) One quoted stat from one brief which John didn’t write.”
Rollow went first on Wednesday testifying.
Rollow currently works as the director of Community Services for the City of Hyattsville, where he said his goal is to stay “inclusive in our outreach.”
When asked why he took the position with the Michigan Secretary of State, Rollow said, “I have an interest in democracy, and making sure it was representative of all people and viewpoints.”
He frequently referenced “democracy” in his answers, and said there were only “low double digits” of attempted voter fraud incidents in the 2020 election.
Most of the direct examination of Rollow involved asking him about press releases he had drafted in that position, which dismissed accusations of election fraud and declared that the election was “safe and secure.” Several of them cited “audits” and “hand counts,” but they were not significant efforts. One press release was titled, “Bureau of Elections announces most comprehensive post-election audits in state history.” Eastman’s attorney Randy Miller objected to the press releases issued prior to the election, since Eastman had not been involved in Michigan until the lawsuits after the election, but the judge dismissed his concerns.
During the cross-examination of Eastman, Carling asked him about three presidential elections in the 1800s where vice presidents considered rejecting or accepting slates from disputed states. In those three cases, it was disputed whether the states had qualified electors since it wasn’t clear if they had been admitted to statehood prior to the election. Eastman said in 1817, neither house of Congress could reach a resolution, so efforts were tabled, and Congress came back into joint session, and the vice president, as president of the Senate, determined he would count the votes from Indiana — not either chamber, it was his decision.
Carling asked Eastman about papers the bar’s previous witness Matthew Seligman had written, which did not acknowledge the vice presidents’ substantive role in those three elections, and Eastman said Seligman had “left out key details” and “historical evidence.”
When Eastman was asked about a meeting he had with Trump, Pence, and others on January 4, 2021, he revealed that Pence never objected to suggestions that he could reject or delay certification of electoral slates from states suspected of election fraud. Pence said he would take those options under consideration. Eastman suggested delaying certification, since he thought the U.S. Supreme Court might be less likely to step in and throw out the move than it would rejecting the slates.
Eastman said he also discussed how the Supreme Court might not intervene at all, since the Court might not have the authority if it’s a “nonjusticiable” issue. Nonjusticiable issues are where the U.S. Constitution does not give authority to the Court to decide an issue, such as where it gives authority to a person or branch other than the Supreme Court. Eastman said at the meeting that having Pence delay or reject slates of electors was “an open question, I never said it was a viable option under the circumstances.”
Eastman cited a scholarly article by progressive legal expert Lawrence Tribe, which stated that the U.S. Supreme Court should have never gotten involved in the disputed 2000 presidential election since Tribe said he believed it was a nonjusticiable issue. None of the attorneys who represented presidential candidate Al Gore challenging the election results were disbarred.
Patrick Byrne, the founder of overstock.com who assisted with election integrity after the 2020 election, responded to Eastman’s testimony about Pence, stating that Pence soon changed his mind after the meeting and decided he would certify the disputed states’ electors.
“That’s correct,” he said. “I was informed that he had gotten over the hurdle late that afternoon. Word reached me an hour later.”
Much of Carling’s cross-examination of Eastman consisted of showing him memos and other writings by well-known election fraud deniers and asking him if he’d seen them. One was a letter from former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, which stated that there was no election fraud. Bowers was defeated in his primary race last year by almost 30 points after he blocked election integrity legislation. Carling also showed him a letter from Maricopa County Supervisor Clint Hickman, discussing how safe and secure the election was.
Regarding the Michigan election, Carling asked Eastman about the concerns that votes were switched from Trump to Joe Biden in Antrim County. Eastman said the “government’s own witness, Alex Halderman,” found this had happened. It was a result of an error from uploading a new key to the voting machine. Although Eastman said it might not rise to the level of election fraud, what concerned him was the logs were deleted.
Carling next asked Eastman about Wisconsin, and Eastman’s attorney objected, since Eastman was not involved there until the end of the U.S. Supreme Court’s involvement, but the judge dismissed his concerns.
Carling showed Eastman a press release by Wisconsin election official Meagan Wolfe. The administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission said the election was “conducted according to law.” Eastman said that was false, and cited people claiming they were “indefinitely confined” when they weren’t, illegal drop boxes, and county clerk employees illegally filling out missing information on ballots. He said the courts backed this up, ruling that the actions were illegal.
Next, Carling showed Eastman information about a recount that was done in Wisconsin that revealed no fraud. Eastman responded that a recount doesn’t look at the validity of the ballots being counted, and pointed out there were still laws broken.
When Eastman was shown a memo from Chris Krebs, the head of CISA, declaring how secure the election was, Eastman retorted, “Chris Krebs said this was the most secure election in history which I found implausible based on what we knew.” He added, “The statistical evidence points to fraud.”
Bar Disciplinary Judge Yvette Roland, who contributed recently to Democrats while serving as a judge, frequently allowed documents presented from the California bar admitted into evidence even though they had not been disclosed in a timely manner to Eastman’s team. One document, which Carling admitted he had on August 8, was withheld until now, but Roland did not have a problem with it. She defended the delay, pointing out that “the trial didn’t resume until August 24.” Miller objected, stating that he was available all the time over email, but Roland dismissed his objection.
The trial is being livestreamed and is expected to conclude the week of September 11 if not interrupted by the prosecution of Eastman in Georgia. Eastman is raising money for his defense, and has raised $522,986 of $750,000.
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
