Do you regret
attaching your name
to the former president?
None whatsoever.
The president calls
and asks for representation.
I think every citizen in my position
should be willing to stand up
if we got a in the representation
Eastman was a key
figure in the fake elector scheme
in Georgia and other states,
and the alleged mastermind
behind the six step plan
for having then-Vice
President Mike Pence overturn
Joe Biden's election victory.
The indictment reads in part, quote,
During a telephone call, Trump
and Eastman
attempted to persuade Pence
to reject slates of presidential electors
or return the slates
of presidential electors
to state legislatures.
This was an overt act
in furtherance of the conspiracy.
And as CNN has reported,
John Eastman is also unindicted
coconspirator number
two in special counsel
Jack Smith's federal election case.
Against Trump.
CNN also learning exclusively tonight
that Rudy Giuliani, Trump's
onetime lawyer
and one of his co-defendants
in Fulton County,
still has not found
a Georgia based lawyer
to negotiate his surrender.
We Apollo Reid OUTFRONT
at the Fulton County Courthouse.
Paul, let's start with your brand
new reporting here about Rudy Giuliani.
Why is he having such a hard time
securing a Georgia lawyer?
And what happens if he doesn't by Friday?
Will he just be arrested
Well,
Brianna, he's currently facing
seven figure legal debt.
He's had trouble
paying many of his attorneys,
which, of course,
makes it hard to retain or even attract
a new counsel down here in Georgia
to help him through this prosecution.
We've learned, though, that former
New York Police Commissioner
Bernie Kerik
one of his longtime closest
friends, has agreed to sort of
help him through this.
Now, Bernie Kerik is not an attorney,
but he does have extensive experience
in the criminal justice system.
Both as a police commissioner
and also as a defendant.
He was convicted
and then pardoned by former
President Trump.
But he is helping Rudy through this,
reaching out to lawyers here in Georgia
to try to get someone
who will agree to represent them.
But, Brianna, as of now,
all Rudy needs
is someone with a Georgia law license
who's willing to just sign
a bond agreement
so that Rudy can go and surrender.
Now, this doesn't have to be a long time
relationship, right.
This is not going to be
a permanent representation.
Right now,
all they need is one lawyer
who will sign that bond agreement.
And it does appear likely
they'll be able to find that.
But then they need to continue
to hunt
for someone
who will represent Rudy
throughout the course of this case.
Now, if he was to not surrender
by Friday.
Yes, he could potentially be detained,
which I mean, that would be something.
So we'll be watching to see
how this plays out.
What are we finding out about what
may await
former President Trump on Thursday
based on his co-defendants
who surrendered today?
So, Brianna,
we saw two of his co-defendants
surrender today.
The choreography down here
in Fulton County
is that you negotiate a bond agreement
and then you go through that process
of surrender today.
We saw bail bondsman Scott Hall
and conservative attorney
John Eastman, who you were talking about
in the introduction.
They both went through this process
and as part of this process,
they were fingerprinted.
They had to fill out a lot of forms.
And then
each of them had a mug shot taken.
And we're actually waiting any minute
we could get those mug shots.
Now, the former president,
his process will be similar.
With the caveat that he has Secret
Service protection.
So it's likely that the facility,
the Fulton County Sheriff's
Office, will be restricted
during the time he's in there.
That could help him
just a little bit quicker.
But the D.A.
is adamant
that he will be treated
like any other defendant.
All right, Paula Reid,
thank you so much, live
for us from Atlanta.
OUTFRONT tonight,
John Eastman's attorney,
Harvey Silvergate, is with us.
Harvey,
thank you so much for being with us.
Can you give us a sense
of how it went today?
Is your client turned himself in a client
or completely as predicted?
He turned himself in
and put up the bond and was released.
That was what all that happened
or what was supposed to happen.
And all that did happen
He had a mug shot taken.
And any other details
you can share with us about the process?
No, it was completely unremarkable.
Eastman made clear
in his comments today
that he still believes
the election was stolen.
He is very loyal
still to President Trump.
Why is he confident
that Trump will not hang him out to dry
and try to make him the scapegoat
for these alleged crimes?
Well, remember that
Eastman is unique
among all these defendants.
His role was 100% that of a lawyer
trying to come up with creative ideas
that pushed the margin of the law
in order
to reverse the Electoral College count.
So he is unique.
He is on trial for being a lawyer
who is coming up with creative ideas.
He is unique
and he doesn't
And of course, Trump might say
he relied on Eastman's advice
because he did.
Eastman was his lawyer.
So I wouldn't call that
throwing anybody
under the under the truck.
So, I mean,
he certainly is making the case
that he was unique today.
Your client said he was targeted
for, quote,
zealous advocacy on behalf of his client,
something that attorneys
are ethically bound to provide.
I'm sure that you are familiar
with the federal indictment
of former President Trump
that says that on December 31st 2020,
your client, John Eastman, submitted
a filing on Trump's behalf
affirming false election
fraud allegations in Georgia,
and that before that Eastman
before he filed that,
according to the indictment,
he acknowledged in an email in writing
that he had, quote, been made aware
that some of the allegations
and evidence proffered by the experts
has been inaccurate
and that signing a new affirmation
with that knowledge,
and I'm quoting here,
and incorporation
by reference would not be accurate
Does Eastman think
that he was ethically bound to make those
knowingly inaccurate statements
in court on behalf of Trump
First of all, you use
the word
knowing, knowingly inaccurate
a little bit loosely.
These were way out theories
that could change the result.
And Eastman was throwing them out.
And nobody was threatened.
Nobody was bribed.
Nobody was coerced.
It is not a crime to try to
weed out
threats, to try to convince somebody
to change their mind about something.
And that is the difference
between this case
and traditional RICO cases,
which are used against organized crime
in order to
try to get criminal enterprises
that rely on murder
and mayhem and blackmail
and all kinds of things like that.
Nobody was blackmailed.
Nobody was threatened.
Well, I'm not the one using
the term inaccurate.
You're your client is saying
would not be accurate.
And that's a quote.
That's his quote from an email
from
Right.
But that is not a crime.
He didn't coerce
or bribe or threaten
anybody to take his word.
He was throwing them out.
The authorities.
I thought it was going to fly.
Harvey, just to back up
a little bit here, I'm talking about
the fact that he was submitting in court
a filing that he had prior to that
admitted would be inaccurate.
Inaccurate.
So if he if this was an inaccurate
filing,
a judge could hold the contempt hearing.
This is not a person.
This is not a case justifying
a racketeering indictment.
If if there is a if he was inaccurate,
that could be taken up in
contempt hearing.
It could be taken up in a bar proceeding.
But this is a gigantic RICO,
which is trying to put on Eastman's lap
everything done by everybody else.
And I'm not saying
everybody else committed a crime.
I'm agnostic on that question.
I'm only interested in Eastman.
Well, I mean, you're a lawyer.
Do you knowingly make false statements
in court on behalf of your clients?
Because this will be up to the court
to determine
how significant those statements were
and what the charges would be for that.
I mean, that is what we've seen
from the D.A..
Would you make false statements knowingly
No, I never have.
I consider myself
in a vulnerable position.
I'm a civil liberties
and criminal defense lawyer,
and I got my eyes
and crossed my Ts very carefully.
But that doesn't mean that if somebody
is less
careful that they've committed a federal
or a state RICO offense.
So I do want to ask you about the federal
case in this,
because he is right now
the unindicted coconspirator number two
in that we have the D.C.
grand jury still meeting.
I know you're watching that as well.
Do you expect that
Eastman is going to be indicted
in the federal case?
Do you have any reason to believe
that he might be in the clear
Well,
I'm sort of puzzled that he's an
unindicted coconspirator.
An unindicted
coconspirator could be indicted
at any time.
My suspicion is
I've become a little bit of a cynic in my
in my 50
something years of doing this work
is that
the feds are going to approach us,
hoping to turn him into a witness
and saying
that they're going to indict him
if they if he doesn't turn to a witness.
Now, if you and I
engaged in this conduct,
that would be a crime.
It's called extortion.
When prosecutors do it,
it's par for the course
The same is true of plea bargaining.
They'll say to you,
If you go to trial,
we're going to recommend to the judge
a 20 year sentence
if you become a government
witness will represent
will recommend
that his sentence be suspended.
If you and I did that,
we would be indicted for extortion,
for making threats
in order to get the person to act
as you want.
The prosecutors do it all the time.
The system is riven with this kind of
of misbehavior
But because they're the prosecutors,
they don't care you. Right.
So you're saying you anticipate that.
So
I am assuming that you
have not been approached
you anticipate that would
what would he do?
What do you do?
What would he do?
I'll tell you one thing
about John Eastman.
He's a very religious man.
He will not testify falsely.
He will not take an oath
up to his God and his government
to the test of testify truthfully
and then testify falsely.
He is not going
to be a government witness.