For example, Attorney John Eastman represented President Trump regarding the results of the 2020 election. Eastman is highly credentialed and experienced. He’s not an attention-whore crackpot reciting a desired outcome while unable to offer specifics to back it up. And that’s why we had to be destroyed.

An attorney discipline judge in California has rejected a request from ex-Trump election lawyer John Eastman to reactivate his law license following her recent recommendation that he be disbarred, which rendered him unable to practice law for now. Eastman, who devised a multi-step plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election and was part of the effort to appoint fake electors in several states, wants to keep practicing law so he can represent clients and pay his own legal bills as he fights criminal charges stemming from the 2020 election efforts.

Judge Yvette Roland, who oversees state bar proceedings in California, recommended in March that Eastman be disbarred for his election subversion efforts. His license was immediately revoked while the ethics proceedings continue.
— CNN, 5/2/24

Lawyers normally refrain from targeting their own because, heaven forbid, that dog get turned loose on them one day. Given their generous incomes thus lifestyles, they have a lot to lose.

Ask any host, pundit, latenight comedian, podcaster or blog writer at CNN to explain why Eastman must be disbarred, they’d probably recite that the 2020 election was “the most secure in history” because someone said so. They probably couldn’t explain the nuances with state election law and how it affected federal elections, voting machine function and dynamics, especially when state legislatures violated their own laws using the pandemic to justfy their violations meant to give basement-Joe Biden any advantage.

Democrats routinely seek to destroy anyone deemed a threat to their perks of power. They use the power of law enforcement to require an opponent to acquire pricey legal represenation that results in a prompt financial ruin of most people, let alone the very possibility of imprisonment. Rogue lawyers and firms not willing to defend Democrats are threatened with their careers.

John Eastman is one of those lawyers.

He recently spoke to a gathering in Lansing, Michigan. Hear how much of what he said are things the media never bothered to tell the public, for obvious reasons.

…
When it comes to “The Big Lie”, millions of Americans would be asking Democrats and their media just who’s telling it?

According to the deposition of a former Hennepin County prosecutor, the county’s medical examiner told her in a phone call that there “were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation.”

One would think that would be the basis for corrective headlines around the civilized world where marches, street protests and traffic disruption, looting and burning of public and private properties, and the psychotic defunding the police was a direct result.

Don’t hold your breath.

But the money line comes as a result of a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by former prosecutor Amy Sweasy. In her deposition, she quoted the medical examiner in the Floyd case….

What happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on? This is the kind of case that ends careers.
— Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker

And Baker has every reason to protect HIS career.

Hennepin County’s medical examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, has an annual salary of more than $231,000, making him the state’s top paid county employee.
— Twin Cities Pioneer Press

Wouldn’t want the truth to endanger his mortgage payments. Now, multiply that by all of the officials possibly impacted by any controversial topic.

If you think about it, how many times have we been told we must believe something despite things we’ve seen with our own eyes that doesn’t make sense and goes against everything we’re told we must believe?

One thing that comes to mind is the result of the 2020 presidential election where we are still repeated told we must believe there was “no evidence” of vote fraud.

NY Times: Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud
ABC News: No evidence of widespread fraud: Experts
Wall Street Journal: No Evidence of Systematic Fraud in U.S. Elections
The Independent: No evidence of fraud in ‘most secure’ US election in history
Daily Mail: Bret Baier Tells Trump, ‘No Evidence’ of 2020 Election Fraud

There were numerous instances that reeked of funny business on election day, night, and in the days and weeks to follow. Citizens made presentations under oath with local technical experts at legislative hearings, showing glaring anomalies to the process. Suits were filed in courts nationwide and almost all were dismissed. THAT was the basis for the media to uniformly declare that the 2020 election was devoid of fraud and anyone with an inkling of doubt was a conspiracy theorist, election denying sociopath.

And why would that be?

Because regurgitating the lie is safe, especially when generous personal incomes are involved.

What happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on? This is the kind of case that ends careers.

As previously surmised, this could explain why local and state judges declined to take or quickly dismissed cases questioning the results of the 2020 election.

It’s not because the case may or may not have had merit. It could have been because the judge simply didn’t need the hassle. He or she didn’t need unruly and unstable mobs with bullhorns staking out their homes in quiet neighborhoods. He or she didn’t need to weather calls for their firing and demands for contentious interviews with ignorant media types with their narrow minds already made up. Who needs that shit even though the job requires that all sides receive a fair hearing?

The path of least resistance is to accept the lie as truth no matter how many are harmed. Whether we’re talking about a presidential candidate or city where a reduction of law enforcement results in crime run amok and citizens become victims, as long as certain people can go on with their careers with the minimal amount of inconvenience, the truth be damned.

Our job is to control what people think.
— Mika Brzezinski, 2/22/17

So, whether we’re talking about COVID 19, UFOs, racism, Trump, or almost any narrative we’re told we must accept, remember the unrestrained declaration from one of our nation’s brightest journalistic minds and understand these arrogant people are not about the accurate dissemination of information to the public.

What happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on? This is the kind of case that ends careers.

It’s all about making sure that information is friendly to their preferred political party, opulent paychecks and pensions continue undisturbed, and the mob is kept from showing up on their manicured front lawns.

Why do Republicans insist on granting interviews to unfriendly news outlets for what will end up being a misleading presentation to a partisan audience, especially when certain facts presented are obviously wrong? Bartlett introduced Kari Lake as a “Fox News host” and we all know anything involving Fox News to a liberal is as toxic as it comes. The problem is Kari Lake has never worked for “Fox News”.

In 1999, Kari Lake became an evening anchor for KSAZ-TV (Fox 10 Phoenix), working there until resigning in 2021 to run for governor of Arizona.
—– Wikipedia

Working for an affiliate is different than working for the network channel, especially given how local stations are manned by more liberals than conservatives; something Bartlett knows but withheld from his 60 Minutes Australia audience.

It also sounds as if Liam Bartlett has never been to a Tea Party or Trump rally prior to January 6th. There have been hundreds of those gatherings nationally and there consistencies: the police were there only because it was a public gathering and for the most part, they were greeted with smiles and thanks. Another consistency was wherever conservatives met, the area was almost always cleaner than when they first arrived; something that can’t be said of any liberal event.

As many of us who’ve attended both know, conservative rallies were always “peaceful”; the only exceptions being when liberals showed up to counter protest. Those exceptions became violent in 2016 during the campaign of Donald Trump. So, Bartlett’s inference that he or liberals in general are at risk of personal injury just being around Trump supporters is not only dishonest but potentially dangerous.

Conversely, it could be suggested that conservatives, be they politicians, election officials or ever Supreme Court judges, are intimidated by potentially violent liberals who were encouraged by a congresswoman to follow around members of the Trump Administration in public venues and as it turned out, even at their homes.

Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.
— Rep. Maxine Waters, 6/23/18

Like a good liberal, Bartlett made the majority of his interview with Kari Lake about Donald Trump, “The Big Lie”, and January 6th; topics he seemed to be fairly ignorant of, especially voting law controlled by the states, and the only thing he seems to have come prepared with was liberal media talking points that the 2020 election was so fair, there’s no need to even discuss the concerns of Americans.

Hopefully this “interview” will put any Trump-supporting Republican on alert. Lake, as an experienced journalist, knows all the rules and how they are broken by the media, thus having her own camera rolling provided appropriate cover. One can only imagine how 60 Minutes Australia would have presented Lake to their audience if she didn’t preempt their airing with her own release of the interview and Bartlett’s unprofessionalism.

At his memorial service at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., his daughter Robin shared some of his last words from his penned letter.

It was quite the timely and apropos dig….

No doubt there was a chuckle or two in the heavens.

In California state law, the election code is titled “Division 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS.”

In Article 1 of this code we find Election Code 13200, which reads as follows:

“Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

h/t — UncoverDC, 12/17/20

Uh oh.

One would think this ONE SENTENCE would be clear enough as we’re not talking wordy legalese or anything that requires a pertinent degree to decipher.

13205 (b) In elections when electors of President and Vice President of the United States are to be chosen, there shall be placed upon the ballot, in addition to the instructions to voters as provided in this chapter, an instruction as follows:

“To vote for all of the electors of a party, mark the voting target next to the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A mark of the voting target next to the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of the electors of that party, but for no other candidates.”

It ain’t there….

This, too, seems rather cut-and-dry and the ramifications are clear as it appears this has been going on in California for quite awhile.

“To vote for all of the electors of a party, mark the voting target next to the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A mark of the voting target next to the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of the electors of that party, but for no other candidates.”

BTW — Hillary Clinton has gone on a four-year tear on why the Electoral College should be eliminated as she lost the 2016 presidential election despite winning the popular vote.

If you subtract Hillary’s California’s popular vote (8,753,788), that according to California law should not be counted, she received 57,090,822 votes to Donald Trump’s votes adjusted to 58,485,826. Hillary Clinton LOST the popular vote in 2016.

Have fun with that, President Trump.

“To vote for all of the electors of a party, mark the voting target next to the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A mark of the voting target next to the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of the electors of that party, but for no other candidates.”

“To vote for all of the electors of a party, mark the voting target next to the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A mark of the voting target next to the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of the electors of that party, but for no other candidates.”

“To vote for all of the electors of a party, mark the voting target next to the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A mark of the voting target next to the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of the electors of that party, but for no other candidates.

Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

The above instruction must appear on every ballot for the purpose of informing the voter. If the paragraph doesn’t appear on the ballot, back to Election Code 13200, it can’t be counted.

And guess what? According to data collected by the American Independent Party in California, those words did not appear on ballots in 53 of California’s 58 counties.

In the remaining five counties, ballots required additional wording that is outlined in California Election Code 12305 (c). Some of those county’s ballots included the wording from section (b), but ballots in all five of those counties were still missing the required wording from section (c).

This means 100 percent of California’s voting was conducted in complete violation of its state election laws.
— UncoverDC, 12/17/20

We’re not counting on this being pointed out by any Democrat-friendly media outlet, but when millions of Californians have lost jobs and incomes while most state officials and employees have yet to miss a paycheck, they should be expected to know how to do their jobs. And this doesn’t just affect the presidential election.

Think about it: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi technically has not been reelected. Congresspersons Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and Eric Swalwell technically have not been reelected. Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and 47 other congresspersons technically have not been elected and/or reelected. Alyssa Milano, Cher, Chelsea Handler, Michael Rappaport, Debra Messing, LeBron James, Bette Midler and all the other rabid California Democrats’ votes don’t count. And we go back to previous elections, according to California election law, Senator Dianne Feinstein was technical not reelected. Kamala Harris wasn’t elected either.

This could be the mother of all voter disenfranchisement and this ball-drop wasted the time and effort of 12.8 million voters.

Heads need to roll on this one. Then again, we live in the 2020 version of the United States of America and we should all know what the rules are by now. When a private citizen screws up, the government makes sure we get it right and it usually involves some kind of penalty. When the government screws up, few (if any) are ever held to any kind of accountability and we’re forced to accept their business-as-usual.

A screw up with all of the potential Constitutional ramifications as this one will be blown off because too many in power would be adversely affected and we can’t have that.