Trump's pal John Eastman’s Coup Memo: How to overturn a valid US election

Here’s another interesting story, another highlight of the utterly lawless totalitarian attitude that the trump crowd feels towards the rest of us Americans and the standard of our form of government.

Pro-Trump lawyer’s memo begins with a lie, then descends into madness

By Elie Honig, , September 21st 2021

The two-page memo from John Eastman, disclosed in the new book by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, begins with a lie and then descends into madness.

Eastman is a lawyer who worked with former president Donald Trump’s legal team to overthrow democracy and try to steal the 2020 election.

First, the lie: “7 states have transmitted dual slates of Electors to the President of the Senate.” What seven states? What “dual slates of electors”? How were they purportedly “transmitted” to the Senate? This is all, of course, nonsense. In fact, every single statecertified one, and only one, slate of presidential electors based on the 2020 election results.

The Eastman memo proceeds from this foundational lie to build a wild legal fantasy on top of it; in that respect, the memo is a perfect encapsulation of Trump’s overarching strategy to steal the 2020 election.

Eastman casually adopts as true a bold legal fiction that “[t]here is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes … and all the Members of Congress can do is watch.” …

The Eastman memo was alarming. Legally speaking, it was also nonsense.

By Teri Kanefield. Sept. 23. 2021 - Washington Post

After Joe Biden won the 2020 election but before the results were certified, John Eastman, a former law professor at Chapman University’s School of Law and an active member of the Federalist Society, outlined a six-step scheme to overturn the election and hand the presidency back to Donald Trump. Eastman’s scheme, which was revealed this week, …

Eastman detailed the plan for what would happen Jan. 6, the day Congress would count electoral votes. Under this scheme, Vice President Mike Pence would begin counting electors from the states alphabetically, “[without conceding]

(” that he was following the procedure outlined in the Electoral Count Act. When reaching Arizona, Pence would announce that “he has multiple slates of electors and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other states.” This, as Eastman intended, would be “the first break with the procedure set out in the [Electoral Count] Act. ” …

But as Eastman envisioned the procedure unfolding, Pence would simply set aside the electors from seven states with “ongoing disputes,” and the assembled lawmakers would sit silently by. …

Next question, who bused 15,000 wannabe immigrant from Brazil to the Mexican/American border and who bought them all brand new shinny white Biden T shirts?

Here is a copy of the memo.
But what happens if people simply don’t care anymore, too burned out and too scared about their own immediate predicaments?

7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.

The 12th Amendment merely provides that “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch.

The Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional, provides: …
(go to the link) …

This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. It allows the two houses, “acting separately,” to decide the question, whereas the 12th Amendment provides only for a joint session. And if there is disagreement, under the Act the slate certified by the “executive” of the state is to be counted, regardless of the evidence that exists regarding the election, and regardless of whether there was ever fair review of what happened in the election, by judges and/or state legislatures.

So here’s the scenario we propose: …

  1. So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
    (6 final). The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, …


It’s in the hands of American people. A vote for trumpian Republicans is a vote to destroy our government as we’ve always known it. Admittedly, not the greatest, but most it’s problems have to do quality and motivations of self-serving individuals.

What does the trump-Republican insurgency have, bullying, retribution, violence, mob law. Who wants a society like that, as though we don’t have enough problems barreling at us.

Our institutions themselves are about the best we can hope for. It sure beats the Republican . . .

It’s the people staffing them that we should be thinking about.

This next election is truly a most pivotal one. Then the one to follow, but trumpianism doesn’t get tossed out on its ears, the second won’t matter much anymore.