college certified that. he is, as you know, president. if you re going to cling to some of these arguments as they get later, as the votes are certified, as the electoral college act, it seems to me, and i m curious the response, that you have two problems for your client. yes, people can make aggressive, as you call it, legal arguments, but they can t, of course, commit forgery and fraud, and can t foment an insurrection. at what point does he go beyond providing professional legal services, forgery is mentioned, or lying to the government is certainly not covered as you know, as we know by law, and then two, is there sort of a pseudo delusional insanity defense. this came up earlier in the broadcast in a different context with a different person, but is your defense going to boil down to try to convince a jury in georgia that mr. eastman s arguments, which failed, they didn t of course prevail in the supreme court, arguments that he said at the time would lose in the supreme court we
MSNBC The Beat With Ari Melber June 4, 2024 22:40:15 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
that that is why there is in the insurrection act. professor eastman, sometimes violence is necessary to preserve the republic. it is clear that the endgame here is intended to be a military would intended to go into the protests. chance in your question, it would be a legally order given for an immoral purpose. it would ve put our generals untenable purpose of breaking the unbroken tradition to civilian authority or turning their guns on american citizens. they were understandably. you wrote him being unthinkable position. how would this have played out? i think as a practical matter every military officer that i now would ve refused to follow the order however there shouldn t have been a disagreement between units able
have asked federal troops to put down protests over stolen action could trump have legally used troops against citizens lawfully protesting alex, alarming is the word. the insurrection act of 1807 gives the president great authority to use federal armed forces to reestablish order in the states if the federal laws are not being enforced. for example, if the federal courts are unable to operate. two paragraphs in the indictment set out that professor john eastman, who is the academic behind the false theory that vice president pence could refused electoral votes, assistant secretary general wanted to make assistant general were both warned that there could be riots in every major city in america if the election was decided on an unconstitutional basis. assistant general clark replied
out the popular vote and replace it with something that trump wanted, his own slate fake electors. that is fully undemocratic. every day, it has always been throughout our history. and their defense is, listen to john eastman, i am sorry, john eastman is a constitutional nobody. and there was a person after person who told trump from his own attorney general bill barr to the white house counsel, to all the other lawyers in the white house counsel s office, all thoughts of people said, you lost this election. you ve got nothing here. trump shopped with one lawyer john eastman, who said something he didn t believe it because he thought he d lose 9 to 0 in the supreme court as the indictment says. harry litman, george stephanopoulos repeatedly tried to get an answer to the question that, will donald trump take the witness stand and testify that he did not say to mike pence, you are too honest. and john lauro absolutely ran away from that question multiple times, as far as he