Joined by John Eastman's attorney,
Charles Burnham.
He is representing multiple clients
in special counsel
Jack Smith's investigation.
But we are focusing on Eastman tonight.
And I very much
appreciate your time, Charles.
So let me just start to try to understand
where exactly your client stands.
Obviously, he's
labeled coconspirator
number two in the indictment.
Just to be clear.
Has your client,
John Eastman, been indicted at this time?
I know.
Well, thank you very much
for having me on
and absolutely no
John Eastman has not been indicted
on this time,
and we very much think he should not be.
So have you been in touch
with the special counsel's office
since the indictment was revealed
yesterday? We have not.
Okay.
Now, is there any chance that your client
would cooperate with the special counsel
Jack Smith?
Well, I think
it depends on what you mean by cooperate.
Dr.
Eastman is
happy to tell his side of the story
to talk about the issues
he believes are important
to the Constitution and the country.
And under the right circumstances.
Certainly he would share those views
and share his recollections
of everything that happened in 20, 20
with the special counsel.
But if by cooperation
you mean
flipping on Donald Trump or providing
incriminating information
then absolutely not, simply
because those aren't the facts
of this case as it pertains to Dr.
Eastman.
And I want to get to those in a moment.
But you say
under the right circumstances,
but you don't want to
you don't describe it as flipping.
What are the right circumstances?
Would that be immunity
from prosecution or from indictment or.
I mean, obviously,
he is in this indictment
listed as a coconspirator.
So people
anticipate that
there likely will be an indictment.
So I'm just trying to understand
what does under the
right circumstances mean?
Well, I think if we thought
there was an opportunity
to engage with special counsel
in a manner
that we could be assured
that they had an open
mind about the truth,
and we could attempt
to explain
some of the circumstances
that might have led them to name him
as an unindicted
coconspirator,
because we do believe
there are some serious misunderstandings.
If you read the indictment, there's
there's much
I could talk about about that.
And under the right circumstances,
we'd be happy
to have that dialog with Mr.
Smith or with his assistant.
Certainly we would. Okay.
All right.
But if I
if I am trying to understand
what you're saying to that,
there would be some sort
of immunity involved.
If you're talking about
the misunderstandings
as you see them in here,
that would be fair.
Sort of.
I mean, immunity would be great.
We'd be happy to receive it.
But I'm not sitting here saying
we would insist on that. Right.
So you do it for less than immunity?
Oh, certainly. Certainly. Like.
Because from us, Dr.
Richman has nothing to hide
in this situation.
He's been very open about his role.
He's made numerous
TV appearances.
He's written articles on it.
He's been very,
very much an open book,
as his attorneys
have to a certain extent,
about his activities. In 20, 20.
He has nothing to hide.
He committed no crimes.
And as I said, under
the right circumstances,
we look forward to having that dialog
with the special counsel.
So let me get to the heart of this then.
Because what I just played
and I know you heard him a moment
ago, Mr.
Laura Trump's current lawyer
speaking this morning.
He hears his defense
the former president's
defense is to say that
your client told him what to do
and he just did it.
He said, and I
and I quote him this morning
there you saw him with Savannah.
You had one of the leading
constitutional scholars
in the United States,
John Eastman,
say to President Trump,
This is a protocol that you can follow.
It's legal
that eliminates criminal intent.
So he's blaming your client, not his.
Is Trump throwing Eastman under the bus?
Absolutely not.
And thank you for giving me
the opportunity to talk about that.
And I respectfully disagree with
with the phrasing that he's
blaming our client.
In fact,
I have absolutely no qualm
with any of the statements from Mr.
Lauro on your show,
and he's made a couple other statements
to that effect.
Dr.
Eastman was President
Trump's attorney, and Mr.
Trump
did have a right to rely on his advice.
Dr.
Eastman stands by that advice,
and he'd give largely the same advice,
I think,
if the situation repeated itself today.
And that's really
is the heart of this case.
I agree with you.
Dr.
Eastman is now looking at possibly
the threat of indictment
for acting as an attorney,
making arguments on behalf of his client,
prosecuting attorneys for doing that,
which is their jobs,
I submit,
would be a very troubling prospect
if the special counsel indeed takes that
step, which is
okay.
So you dispute that.
Trump's lawyer saying that
that that his counsel told him to do this
and therefore it's fine.
It's not Trump's problem
that is not throwing Trump under the bus
I don't think it's throwing
John Eastman out of the bus.
I don't interpret it that.
I'm sorry.
Throwing Johnnie's under the bus.
I misspoke. Yeah,
that's correct.
I don't interpret
it as throwing him under the bus at all.
I have no problem with Mr.
Laura statements. Okay.
All right.
So let me understand why then,
because what
the indictment
alleges that your client did, of course,
in terms of the advice,
he's crucial advice.
They lay out meetings
they talk about who is in these meetings
early in January,
before January 6th, January 4th
and January 5th.
Eastman,
your client meets
with the president,
the vice president, and
and the defendant, Trump and Eastman
asked the vice president to either
unilaterally reject
the legitimate electors
from the seven targeted states
or send the question
of which electors slate was legitimate
to the state legislatures.
So they say that happened the next day.
They say
it happened again
on the morning of January 5th
at Trump's direction.
There's this meeting
with Eastman Eastman advocates
at the vice president do it.
The defendant had said
he preferred the day before
unilaterally reject electors
from the targeted states.
This is the heart of the matter
that Trump is
saying that your client told
Pence
to go ahead and
do it, reject the electors
from the states.
It's fine. There's no problem with it.
Did that not happen?
Well, I would
I would add a little bit of nuance there.
Dr.
Eastman is on record several times
stating that
his recommended course of action
was not to unilaterally reject
the electors.
Peremptorily, on January 6th,
his recommendation,
this was repeated by President
Trump in his remarks at at
the Ellipse was simply to send
the matter back to the states,
many of the legislatures
of which had yet
to complete their investigations
of the various allegations
that were out there
for them to do whatever investigation
they thought they saw fit pursuant
to their powers, state legislatures,
and then report back
to Vice President Pence
and the electoral college on
whatever their findings were.
And Dr.
Eastman's longer memo,
which has been in the public domain
for a long time, spells out
several situations,
three or four situations
in which this process
might have resulted in affirming
now President Biden's victory.
So it wasn't simply a scheme to
keep President Trump in power
by whatever means necessary.
Everybody involved
knew that this process
could result in nothing other than Biden
and Vice President Harris being
inaugurated as there were.
So let me there's
a further point, though,
then, that happens in this indictment.
It says on January 4th that your client,
John Eastman, met with the president
and vice president. Right.
And then asked
Pence to unilaterally reject
or send the slates back to legislatures,
as you and I are talking about.
The indictment then goes on to say,
Charles, on that same day
when Eastman acknowledged
to the defendant's
senior adviser that no court
would support his proposal,
the senior adviser told Eastman,
you're going to cause riots
in the streets.
Eastman responded
that there had previously been points
in the nation's history
where violence was necessary to protect
the republic
Now, on this point, Charles, the takeaway
here, of course, is not Vail.
The line says that your client felt
that this was a point in history
where violence could be justified
to protect the republic.
Is that accurate?
Does he stand by that?
No, absolutely not.
And I have two points to make about that.
The first is those allegations
being familiar
with with the investigation of this case
are drawn
from the one sided
recounting of that conversation from Mr.
Jacob, as the individual
referred to there.
So I would just ask your viewers
to answer.
That's right.
The chief counsel
to Vice President Pence.
So I would just ask your viewers to
imagine
if they were ever involved
in a contentious argument
how they would feel
if the substance of that argument
were to be communicated
to the world solely by their adversary.
Right.
I'm not accusing Mr.
Jacob of anything,
but that's just his version.
Of what happens. Right.
And there is significant nuance there.
Dr.
Eastman never called for violence
or anything close to that.
It was simply a discussion
of what would likely happen
if some of the issues
that the two gentlemen were debating
were to make their way
through the courts.
And there's much more
we would add
to the highly selective
presentation of that conversation.
Included in the indictment.
That's a common problem
that we've seen in this indictment,
that there's a quote here,
a quote there, and the full context
isn't there.
And of course, Jack
Smith doesn't
have to put the defense case
in his indictment.
There's no obligation for him to do that.
But I think it's important
for everybody to understand that
when you see these three
and four word quotes in the indictment,
there's more
that will eventually be
added to that story
and the conversation with Mr.
Jacob is a perfect example of that.
All right.
So just to understand, though,
you're just saying context is missing.
You're not saying he didn't say
what's in here.
I'm not conceding the quote that that
at all.
That that that some aspects of Mr.
Jacobs characterizations are accurate
or at least roughly accurate,
some are not.
And anything involving
calling for violence,
we would dispute certainly.
And that's completely inconsistent
with everything else
the world knows about. Dr.
John Eastman.
That's and I do.
And obviously, he has been
world renowned constitutional,
nationally renowned
constitutional scholar,
which is why he is at the heart of this.
Let me just ask one other thing,
though, to understand,
because there are
some very specific allegations in here
we've just talked about a couple of them.
There are others.
When Jack Smith lays out
accusations involving your client
in terms
of organizing
the fraudulent slates of electors,
just in Arizona,
he says, the Arizona House speaker
explained that state investigators
had uncovered
no evidence
of substantial fraud in the state
easement concedes that he didn't know
enough about facts
on the ground in Arizona,
but nonetheless told
the Arizona House speaker to decertify
and let the court sort it out.
The Arizona House speaker refused,
stating that he would not play
with the oath
he had taken to uphold
the United States Constitution
and Arizona law.
The Arizona House
speaker, Charles,
of course, is Rusty Bowers.
Did your client
tell him to decertify the results
and let the courts sort it out?
No, no, not in those terms
or anywhere close to that.
And I think that's an important point.
Is Dr.
Eastman's role
in this,
as he was not a forensic investigator,
he wasn't there,
you know, examining the machines
or going through the ballots.
He was the constitutional scholar
so his main role
with respect to state legislatures
in particular, as you mentioned,
was to educate state legislators
on their constitutional power
in elections,
which many of them just through
no fault of their own,
just certainly weren't familiar with.
So with respect to Arizona
and other states, Georgia, Dr.
Eastman educated the legislatures on
what the Constitution said
about their power in elections,
and it was largely up to them
to look at the investigations,
consider the evidence, and decide
if there was any basis
to exercise that authority.
And the important thing to remember
is before any state legislature
could take any action with respect
to the election,
a majority of that body,
these are representatives
elected by the people,
accomplished individuals,
would have to vote in favor of that.
If Dr.
Eastman or whoever else was making
similar arguments couldn't
convince a majority
of the state legislature
that they had the power
and grounds
existed to use it,
then nothing would happen,
as ultimately nothing did happen.
All right.
Well, Charles, I appreciate your time.
Thank you very much.