agrees, looking at the legal basis that he did not have the ability to do. and it sounds like he had politics in mind. on january 6th. all i can say is i can t read the vice president s mind. i don t know what his internal discussions were, but at the trial,. you see what he did. what were the incentives? and i think it is clear i don t think it is debatable that the vice president and his allies have an incentive to discredit as best they can the theories that dr. eastman put forward on that date. none of which i continue to insist were foreclosed by any supreme court or binding precedent. you may not like his theories but the important point for these purposes is they were not foreclosed by any binding law at all. well there is no supreme court precedent for this. thank you for your time tonight. thank you for coming on. and with the news you do not
statements along the same lines. his chief counsel has made statements along those lines and dr. eastman does very much still maintain that view today. the secretary of states, they had a right to change the way the elections were administered. there wasn t anything illegal about that. it doesn t mean the 2020 election was stolen. if he is indicted over the role he played in trying to overturn the 2020 election, does it help for him to continue claiming the election was stolen? i would say two things. one is dr. eastman if you look at his whole record, he is very much a man of principle and a man not afraid to call it like he sees it so when he makes a comment like that, it is not some sort of strategy. that s what he really thinks. i think when you look at the trial, the issue that will be presented some day to a georgia jury is was there a good faith basis to challenge various aspects of the 2020 election? and did dr. eastman and the
was knowingly putting forward false material? i ll respond as best i can within the confines of privilege. there s an olds old saying for trial lawyers, maybe you re familiar with it, the ultimate move in a trial is to take the government s best evidence and turn it around and say that s the best defense evidence, and i think that s what s going to happen with that particular overt act. i m a little bit constrained by privilege to say here s this e-mail that s going to come out and this discussion that happened, but in summary, what the evidence surrounding that filing is going to show is the exact opposite of what the d.a. thinks. in fact, it shows john eastman, and other attorneys, but scrupulous to ensure that no knowingly false statements were included in legal filings, including the filing in federal court as none were. one of the things we discussed last time was the fact that donald trump los angeles the election. president biden was president-elect at the time of the activi
who s paying the bills. that s privileged obviously, i would never take on a representation unless my only sole is to do what s best for the client. and what about what ms. ellis is saying, someone like mr. eastman did advocate all theway down the line for trump, she seems to be suggesting, it s a one way loyalty, and she s going to be sold out. i m going to let ms. ellis speak for herself. everybody is in a different position, and different views, and she has a platform to give her views, and i ll let her do that for herself. i m doing my job, which is raising this stuff. we told you we would have you back if there was news on the case. you said you would come back and you did, i appreciate you making time tonight. mr. burnham. thank you very having me. we wanted to get that in, interesting, that s one of the first lawyers who has spoken out on msnbc to do any kind of interview since the georgia case came down. we have put other invites out there. people are welcome to come
exactly what his duty was. i understand that defense. have you ever knowingly filed false materials with the court or knowingly lied to a judge about a material matter? i certainly haven t, and neither did john eastman. i know the overt act you re referring to there and i think as the evidence unfolds, the picture of that is going to be markedly different than presented in the indictment. let s get into that as you say, you know what i m referring to. they say they have the evidence, did eastman put it in writing that the trump campaign basically was making filings, the knowledge of which verified in the complaint were not accurate. i want to put that up there as you see, and it then says this filing was one of the acts of racketeering activity. in addition, you and i discussed previously that mr. eastman at one point said, oh, here s the law, and then reversed and said the opposite. what is your response to their specific allegation as part of the racketeering case that he