believed trump won, even if delusionally it was their actual belief, yet, in the new video, here is stone on january 6th casually referring to the fact that donald trump lost. as he refers to they, the trump campaign officials. so that s why they lost. they don t know what they re doing. it s why they lost. they don t know what they re doing. i m going to show you this in wider context. the outburst came as he learned how trump officials welcomed support for the march on the capitol, not him speaking at the infamous rally with the now indicted trump, and now indicted giuliani and eastman spoke to the crowd which then stormed the capitol. here it is in context. stone on the 6th learning that he was apparently not going to join them and get to speak up at that lectern that day. i don t understand how they wanted us to lead the march but
first time for racketeering and his efforts to get public officials to illegally steal the race. an update on the case, the georgia judge ordered a thousand dollar bond for defendant eastman, no objections from his side. eastman s transition from a lawyer to the president to someone who needs a lawyer was foretold in those riveting january 6th hearings. get a great. [ bleep ] criminal defense lawyer, you re going to need it. that was a trump white house lawyer recounting his blunt advice and warning to eastman, who is now represented by defense lawyer charles burnham. you may recognize him there because he joined us before these new georgia indictments came down, and john eastman s lawyer, charles burnham returns to the beat tonight. thanks for coming back. thanks for having me back. absolutely. since we last spoke, your client
6th that donald trump had magically won a race he lost, and there was secret fraud and alien laser beams and all of this other stuff, does that mean what your best bet is to try to tell at least one or more jurors that your client, mr. eastman, was just really off base, to put it kindly? i think your reference perhaps in jest, i don t know, to a delusional insanity defense is a pres taj of a dynamic that will play out over and over again. john eastman, present company included, as other sources as a raving unhinged madman, and i think what the jury is going to learn, dr. john eastman is a academic, a grandfather, relationships with liberal professors over many decades and his scholarship and legal theories about the constitution were aggressive, certainly controversial, all sorts of counter arguments for them but well thought out based on
scholarship. his parenting is not called into question, whether he has kids or grand kids, i get it with a jury you might want to humanize. before i run out of time, interesting post today online by another lawyer who s also been indicted, who has also been on this program, jenna ellis who says, quote, i was reliably informed trump isn t funding any of us who are indicted. this is a bigger principal than one man. why isn t maga inc. funding everyone s defense. like others who have clearly done a lot for trump, the court and others can judge what they did, boy did she do a lot, she seems to be learning the hard way like so many others, it s a one-way thing, one-way loyalty as i read that. i m curious, a, if you can tell us who s paying you for mr. eastman s counsel, and, b, do you have any response to what codefendant ellis says? i could never, with any client, i could never get into
is charged with counts that include the rico statute as mentioned, which is a tough one. violation of oath by public officer, conspiracy to commit forgery, conspiracy to commit false statements in writing, and other filings of false documents, part of the hook there being they say they have evidence that he knew it was false. i want to give you a chance to respond to these charges here first, so what do you say to them? sure, i think in summary, i would say this, the georgia indictment is more extensive than the federal indictment that as you mentioned named professor eastman as an unindicted coconspirator. it doesn t change the essential picture of what his role is here, which is what we have contended from the beginning, and we continue to contend today, he s being unjustly criminally charged for acting as a lawyer, making aggressive and creative arguments on behalf of a client, none of which were fore closed by the law, which is