Claremont Institute Statement on Senior Fellow John Eastman

[PeteS in CA]

Claremont Institute Statement on Senior Fellow John Eastman

https://americanmind.org/salvo/claremont-institute-statement-on-senior-fellow-john-eastman/

The Claremont Institute does not normally comment on the work of its scholars. But a recent combined disinformation, de-platforming, and ostracism campaign requires us to make an exception. Claremont Institute Senior Fellow John Eastman, acting as counsel to the President of the United States at a critical stage during the 2020 elections in December 2020 and January 2021, offered legal advice that has since been maliciously misrepresented and distorted by major media outlets. Following this disinformation campaign, some professional organizations have imposed a blackout on the Claremont Institute or on John, making it very difficult to present the truth.

The purpose of this statement is to correct the record and state the truth about two important elements of John’s legal advice having to do with the procedure of counting electoral votes in the presidential election.

1) Contrary to almost universally false news accounts, which have done great damage, John did not ask the Vice President, who was presiding over the Joint Session of Congress where electoral votes were to be counted on January 6, to “overturn” the election or to decide the validity of electoral votes. John advised the Vice President to accede to requests from state legislators to pause the proceedings of the Joint Session of Congress for 7 to 10 days, to give time to the state legislatures to assess whether the acknowledged illegal conduct by their state election officials had affected the results of the election.

2) If the state legislatures had found sufficient illegal conduct to have altered the results, and as a result submitted a second slate of electors, John advised the Vice President that, despite credible legal arguments to the contrary, the Vice President should regard Congress, not the Vice President, as having the authority to choose between the two slates.

Inspired by deliberate misrepresentations of John Eastman’s advice on these legal and constitutional questions, various media persons and others have made false and slanderous statements about the Claremont Institute, our scholars, staff, and fellows. ...

[sneakypete]

The media lies?

Ahm shocked!

SHOCKED,AH TELLS YA!

[DefiantMassRINO]

Eastman's advice sounds quasi-extra-Constitutional.

If the states' thought there were issues with their slate of electors, their Governors should not have certified them, and should not have submitted them.

The Framers knew that aspiring despots and tyrants would attempt to "delay" electoral proceedings. They specified dates or timeframes for electoral proceedings to prevent "delay" tactics being used to subvert the Constitutional, peaceful transfer of power.

Eastman should not be cancelled.  There needs to be public discussion and debate about the Federal electoral process, and possible Federal or State reforms to encourage greater competition of ideas in public discourse.

The current system is stale.  It is not serving all the people; it only serves an entrenched establishment that seeks to increase Executive and Judicial authority, while diminishing Representative Authority.

Too much governing is done via Executive Order dictates and Political Party leadership backroom deals.

Where is the debate on the floor of the Congress?