>[!SUMMARY] Table of Contents >- [[John Eastman#Curriculum Vitae|Curriculum Vitae]] >- [[John Eastman#Op-ed claiming Kamala Harris wasn't a 'natural born citizen'|Op-ed claiming Kamala Harris wasn't a 'natural born citizen']] >- [[John Eastman#Talking Feds, Matthew Seligman and Harry Litman|Talking Feds, Matthew Seligman and Harry Litman]] >    - [[John Eastman#Seligman Speaking of his Testimony at Eastman's disbarment Trial|Seligman Speaking of his Testimony at Eastman's disbarment Trial]] >    - [[John Eastman#Risks to 2024 election (see timecount 25:30+)|Risks to 2024 election (see timecount 25:30+)]] >- [[John Eastman#Articles on Eastman|Articles on Eastman]] >- [[John Eastman#CO GOP|CO GOP]] >- [[John Eastman#on Fox News|on Fox News]] >- [[John Eastman#Legal troubles|Legal troubles]] >- [[John Eastman#Briefs|Briefs]] >    - [[John Eastman#CA State Board Closing Brief|CA State Board Closing Brief]] >            - [[John Eastman#Key takeaways|Key takeaways]] >        - [[John Eastman#Culpability|Culpability]] >- [[John Eastman#URLs and Additional Resources|URLs and Additional Resources]] >- [[John Eastman#See also|See also]] >- [[John Eastman#Footnotes|Footnotes]] # Curriculum Vitae [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eastman) + Founding Directory of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public-interest law firm affiliated with the [Claremont Institute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_Institute), a conservative think tank (and Staussian enclave) + Former professor at the [Chapman University School of Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapman_University_School_of_Law) + Former law clerk to Clarance Thomas # Op-ed claiming Kamala Harris wasn't a 'natural born citizen' (**racist birtherism bullshit**) Resoundingly rebutted by multiple sources. For example.... [Here’s Kamala Harris’ birth certificate. Scholars say there’s no VP eligibility debate](https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/18/heres-kamala-harris-birth-certificate-end-of-debate/) This shows her birth certificate, showing she was born in Oakland CA. > “Is Oakland U.S. soil? Yes, it is. That’s the full legal analysis,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. “**This isn’t something I would even ask on a law school exam because there’s nothing to argue.**” (emphasis mine) Eastman used to be a professor of law. But his RightWing politics has so overtaken his brain that now he can't even do that. Although his disbarrment isn't yet finalized, it's looking more and more like he'll permanently lose his license in California. In March 2024 a judge recommended his disbarment, citing 'that Eastman exhibited no remorse and posed a risk of future unethical conduct.' Well, he's certainly continued in his lack of ethics with this op-ed discounting Harris' right to run. Here's the op-ed itself. [Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility | Opinion](https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483) Eastman's legal theory turns on the meaning of '*and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *' in the statements of what a 'citizen' is. Somehow the question turns on whether her parents were 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, while living in Oakland CA on the date she was born, they were here on visas studying. But this is another example of Eastman's tortured bending of meanings of words and phrases to suit his political agenda. As Eugene Volokh argues in response to Eastman's op-ed in [# Yes, Kamala Harris Is Eligible to Be Vice President](https://www.newsweek.com/yes-kamala-harris-eligible-vice-president-opinion-1524969)[^13] the phrase 'natural-born citizen' was well known to the framers and descended from English Common Law, which was well accepted by them. Volokh gives quotes showing that someone born 'within the dominions of the crown of England, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king. ...**The children of aliens, born here in England**, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.' (emphasis mine) There may have been some broadening, he goes on to say, to include children born of U.S. Citizens abroad, but it hasn't been **narrowed # Talking Feds, Matthew Seligman and Harry Litman [Talking Feds with Harry Littman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S56K7KpUfA0&t=40s) discussion with Matthew Seligman, fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law Schoo about a dubious historical claim of John Eastman. He's an expert witness in Eastman's disbarment hearing and has written the book _How to Steal an Election_. Started teaching at Harvard in 2016 and started thinking about disputed elections, started thinking about how the legal system might be manipulated to steal an election. Co-taught a seminar at Harvard with Lawrence Lessig on this topic, fall of 2020. Had John Eastman on a podcast in Oct 2021 to do a 90min debate about the legal theories proposed by Eastman in the two *Eastman Memos*. At this point, no charges have been charged against Eastman, but everyone knows that he's in some jeopardy. As expected, Eastman's ultimate theory was that the VP had the power to reject slates of voters. He claims that this is the way the founders understood the role of the 'President of the Senate.' So, Seligman went back and looked to see if there was any historical evidence for the claim. He wrote a paper and delivered [an Expert opinion, in the disbarment hearings](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=068096001126030097070086113114115117122011005035010028104091096024123025074007065091031007000042033007027067112099121000118078049007088022007111080102115126095096105024020000022075021118001069095091119095072000002004097101125069081123116088108116073091&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE) on why Eastman's claims about the role of the VP has no legal, or historical justification. Eastman makes 2 claims 1. that the VP, in his capacity as 1. President of the Senate, has unilateral authority to resolve disputes about electoral votes or to take other unilateral actions with respect to the electoral count. 2. 1. the Vice President may delay the electoral count for a state legislature to take action with respect to a state’s electoral votes and whether a state legislature may lawfully appoint electors after the electoral count commences. In rebuttal of point 1, Sigilman says that the historical evidence, starting with the ratification debates of the 12th amendment in Congress and going through the early republic, throughout the 19th century conclusively refutes the claim that the founders and those that came after believed the VP had such power, and specifically argued against it, saying... > In the ratification debates in Congress regarding the Twelfth Amendment, members repeatedly raised the concern that the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, might engage in “intrigue” to ascend to the presidency by manipulating a contingent election in the House of Representatives. The concern that the Vice President might seize the presidency through a convoluted mechanism requiring hundreds of co- conspirators in the House would be nonsensical if he might achieve the same end directly by unilaterally resolving a manufactured “dispute” about electoral votes himself. And that the Congress had **specifically** assigned itself the power of determining which votes to tally. In 3 elections immediately after the adoption of the 12th amendment, Congress appointed several of its own members as 'tellers' who would resolve disputes. Furthermore, in the drafting of the 12th amendment, Congress proposed, and both chambers passed a bill (although they weren't able to agree on the final language) that would have created a Congressional committee to resolve disputes. In particular, since the 12th used the same language as the 2nd amendment, which Sigilman claims is *settled*, the understanding was that it was **the role of Congress** to settle disputes, **not** the 'President of the Sentate', i.e. the VP. In 1805, a disupted election, the Vice President Aaron Burr stated "-You will now proceed gentleman, ... to count the votes as the Constitution and laws direct.” Then, “\[a\]fter the returns had been all examined, without any objection having been made to receiving any of the votes, Mr. S. Smith, on behalf of the tellers, communicated to the President the foregoing result.”[^11] > Accordingly, in the first count applying the Twelfth Amendment, Vice President Burr recognized that the tellers counted electoral votes. Moreover, prior to handing the results to Burr for him to ceremonially announce, the tellers gave members of Congress an opportunity to object. This proceeding thus demonstrates that Congress, not the President of the Senate, has authority under the Twelfth Amendment to count electoral votes and to resolve disputes about those votes. Sigilman goes on to produce evidence fro the years 1817, 1821, 1857, 1865, 1869, 1873 and 1877, all elections during which some dispute arose, and in none of them did anyone ever argue that the President of the Senate could resolve the dispute. Specificall - 1817: the first time the possibility of rejecting a state's electoral votes was raised, Congress '- unequivocally asserted its authority to resolve whether to count Indiana’s electoral votes. When a member of Congress objected to counting Indiana’s electoral votes, the chambers separated to debate the issue.' (Sigilman's expert report) - 1821 and 1837. Congress adopted joint resolutions that governed the counting of disputed electoral votes from MI and MO. - 1857. '- Congress debated whether to count Wisconsin’s electoral votes, which had been cast on a day other than the day prescribed by law. The President of the Senate expressly disclaimed making any decision on the validity of Wisconsin’s electoral votes and expressly stated that the sole authority to make such a decision rests with Congress.' (ibid) - 1865, 1869 and 1873: - The disputes in 1865, 1869, and 1873 were governed by Joint Rule 22. The dispute in 1877 was governed by the Electoral Commission Act. Regarding Eastman's 2nd issue, where Eastman argues that the 'President of the Senate' has the right to delay the count, and whether a state legislature may lawfully appoint electors after the electoral count commences, Sigilman says that 1. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 expressly limites the manner and duration of recesses **during electoral count**. And then it's only the House (not the President of the Senate), who has the power to do this, but not beyond the next calendar day (Sun excepted) and if they haven't finished by the end of the 5th calendar day, no more recesses are allowed. There's also a 2 hour debate limit. Therefore, Federal law **specifically** prohibits what Eastman was suggesting the VP could do: put the house into recess and send it back to the states. There's some more 'what ifs' that Sigilman dismisses as failing a chain of logic that flows from the points made immediately above. Eastman's claims make much of a law review article discussing the first 2 elections after Washington (Adams and Jefferson) in which, he claims, the President of the Senate did **exactly** what he claims they are allowed to do. When Sigilman looked at that law review article, he found the Eastman had distorted its meaning. [^12] The authors also wrote an article for the Atlantic: [How Jefferson Counted Himself In](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/03/how-jefferson-counted-himself-in/302888/) This article mostly concerns the election of Jefferson in 1801, where Jefferson and Adams ended up being tied, the vote when to the House and it took 36 ballots to finally elect Jefferson. The problem arose because of defects in the tally from Georgia **and** in the weakness in the way the Constitution handled voting for the President, the later mostly arising from the naive idea that no party system would arise in the U.S. So to suggest that Jefferson used his power in a way the founders desired is the height of absurdity, this election almost threw the government into a *full blown* constitutional crises and certainly lead to the writing and adoption of the 12th amendment, that tried to fix the process (but didn't succeed) This article concludes that the defects in the GA ballot were probably the result of 'frontier lawyering', saying > We have gone on a fact-finding mission to the Georgia archives, and have found that the defects in the state's ballot were merely the result of frontier lawyering. There is no doubt that the electors intended to vote for the Republican ticket. Therefore, Eastman using the law review article of [Bruce Ackerman](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/bruce-ackerman/) and [David Fontana](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/david-fontana/) as evidence for his claim that the founders understood that the President of the Senate had the power to resolve disputes is, at the very least, specious, if not outright dishonest. Not to mention that the electoral system in place back then is almost nothing like what we have today, and most of the changes were attempts to **fix** the problems with the electoral system of the first 3 or so elections, ## Seligman Speaking of his Testimony at Eastman's disbarment Trial 1. Eastman's lawyers cross-examined him on the Ackerman/Fontana law review article. Seligman says that there argument wasn't so much about whether Eastman was correct about the constitution, but (as related by him), that Eastman's view were 'tenable', that it was an arguable question. The discussion focused on some (what Segilman calls ) 'vague law review' discussion and late 19th century political rhetoric. He turns to discussion of the 1876 election, which was the most (legitimately) disputed election in American history (2020 doesn't count, the disputes there are fiction). This is the only time in the history of counting electoral votes that the concept of the President of the Senate having the power to 'decide' which votes count every arose in any significant way. ## Risks to 2024 election (see timecount 25:30+) #RistsTo2024Election 1. Congress - the Electoral Count Reform Act (2022) dealt with some of the risks, but not all of them. The most severe have been narrowed, but not entirely eliminated 2. States - Will the insurrectionists try to game the systems at the state level. There are states that have considered passing laws that eliminate public voting in the Presidential election, with the state legislature electing the electors themselves. Arizona has floated this idea. # Articles on Eastman [The Dangerous Journey of John Eastman](https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/04/04/the-dangerous-journey-of-john-eastman/) Washington Monthly, 2023/04/04 # CO GOP https://fb.watch/memgMfGX49/?mibextid=v7YzmG Colorado has a law that allows nonaffiliated voters to vote in partisan primaries, and the Colorado GOP doesn't like that. They are challenging that law in court, and the person they hire is John Eastman. # on Fox News 📸 Watch this video on Facebook https://fb.watch/oBK7wgX73c/?mibextid=Gd9JSz Eastman acknowledges That Pence does not have the authority to reject electors. # Legal troubles The CA bar held an evidentiary trial, lasting 34 day, found by *Clear and convincing evidence*, --- which is defined as 'evidence that leaves no substantial doubt and is sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.' -- that Eastman is guilty of 10 of the 11 articles charged by the state bar. [^1] This trial involved 23 witnesses and over 700 exhibits. [# Judge preliminarily finds ex-Trump attorney John Eastman culpable in California bar disciplinary case](https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/politics/eastman-california-bar-disciplinary-case/index.html), Nov 3, 2023 > A California judge preliminary found John Eastman, an ex-attorney of former President Donald Trump, culpable of ethics violations in a state bar disciplinary case brought against him for his efforts to help Trump cling to power after the 2020 election, according to the group that filed a complaint against him. # Briefs ## CA State Board Closing Brief [Disk File](file:///Users/whdaffer/Dropbox/Trump/Legal\ Documents/EEastmaneCADisbarment-SBC-23-O-30029 - STATE BAR S CLOSING BRIEF.pdf) [Online](https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/Index/VBqEKKzWq7BHFLcNbcYFBPwEVGppqKqRVh1jPShvzLRW-TqEo4kMqYD8POcD6IXmvjC-TMQt9Ct_mI544fmjiNq7TQItUIXPLobITmdyBQk1?caseNum=SBC-23-O-30029&docType=Pleading&docName=STATE%20BAR%20S%20CLOSING%20BRIEF&eventName=Brief&docTypeId=269&isVersionId=False&p=0) You'll have to download the document to see the entire 86 page brief. #### Key takeaways 1. Eastman conspired with Donald Trump to obstruct the Jan 6th 2020 Joint Session of Congress. (Count 1) 1. He knew his claims about election fraud were lacking. He ignored reliable evidence that fraud had not occurred sufficient to overturn the election, and he sought to bolster his claims of fraud with 'inexpert, unvetted and unreliable sources who concede they uncovered no fraud' He also knew his claims about illegal conduct by election officials was unjusitified, that he claims about the legality of dual slates of electors was false and misleading and provided no basis to reject official slates or delay the count[^2] 2. He new his and Trump's Jan 6 strategy was illegal, that he had long acknowledged that the VP lacked the authority to 'resolve disputes' and that 'contrary to the statement in his January 3 memo, there was not "very solid legal authority and historical precedent" for Pence to reject disputed electoral votes or to delay their count'[^3]. Eastman receives *no* legal support from any of the sources he claims as justification, namely: Historical electoral vote counts, the Federal Convention, which includes the 1797 and 1801 electoral counts (Adams v. Jefferson); the 1961 electoral count (Kennedy v. Nixon), Post-hoc citation of the electoral counts of 1789, 1817, 1821, 1837 and 1857; the Federal Convention; and various law review articles.[^4] After this are mentioned various other items in which Eastman made statements or other representations which the court found wanting, namely.... 1. He misled the court in his filing in *Trump v. Kemp*. The purpose, as made clear in emails between himself and on Kurt Hilbert, a member of Trump's Georgia team, it was important to have a 'pending case' in order to create enough to delay the consideration of the Georgia vote. 'According to December 31 emails exchanged among respondent, his co-counsel in the case Kurt Hilbert, and other members of Trump’s Georgia team, they believed that having the case pending “might be enough to delay consideration of Georgia, particularly if Pence has the legal ability and will to insert himself at least enough to win delay.” (Ex. 50.)74'[^5] Eastman's involvement in the case, it appears to me, to be a matter of having 'included and incorporated by reference multiple allegations respondent knew or consciously ignored were false and misleading. (Ex. 270 ¶ 9; Ex. 1048.)'[^6] All of his allegations, based on affidavits by Bryan Geels, Matthew Braynard and Mark Alan Davies, had been discredited long before his participation in _Trump v. Kemp_, yet Eastman continued to make these claims in court, knowing them to be at the very least, highly doubtful, and at the worst, out and out false.[^9]_ 2. His Jan 2 appearance on the Steve Bannon Radio program (part of Count 5). Introduced as Trump's 'constitutional lawyer', and asked 'what should people be looking for here', he answered: 'they ought to be putting pressure on their state legislators. So, if you’re in Georgia, or Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, or Arizona, call your legislators. Demand that they call themselves into session… And then, either decertify the existing slate of electors if there’s just too much uncertainty about the results of the election, or certify the correct slate of electors if the number of ballots that are shifted if you get rid of the illegal ones are enough to affect the outcome, as we believe they are…. So, pressure. Pressure beginning now. And, rolling thunder pressure. If you find one guy saying, “Well, I can’t do anything. The leader is the one blocking it.” Then, shift the focus to the leader.' 1. Again he claimed 'Massive evidence “massive evidence” that the election was conducted illegally by “partisan elected officials” and “partisan judicial officials” in violation of state statutes resulting in “more than enough [absentee fraud] to have affected the outcome of the election.” (Ex. 28 at 1, 2, 6 [claiming the election was “meaningless because of fraud”]; Resp. X-75:24-76:11, 77:24-78:12, 85:2-6.) But respondent did not have “massive evidence” of absentee fraud. (Resp. X 79:11-22, 80:23-82:9.) When pressed at trial for the basis for this claim, respondent cited the “weakening of signature verification” rules in Georgia and Pennsylvania, claiming they “caused a dramatic decline in the disqualification of ballots.” (Resp. X 79:8-22.) But the evidence at trial showed that neither respondent nor his “experts” had even sought to ascertain the number of absentee ballots rejected on signature verification grounds—something they could easily have done using publicly available information. (Resp. X 80:15-82:9; Grimmer XXXI 226:4-228:7.)84'[^10] 2. Regarding other swing states, (MI, AZ and NV) Eastman's own emails show no evidence of 'alleged illegality, let alone fraud' (Ibid, p44) 'On the night of January 1, before his appearance on Bannon’s podcast the next day, respondent emailed Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn asking, “Has anyone identified state laws in MI, AZ and NV that were violated[.]?” (Ex. 54.)' (ibid p44). When confronted with this email at trial, Eastman replied '“I vaguely knewof things. I was not involved in any of the litigation in Michigan, Arizona, or Nevada.” (Resp. X 64:6-14.) (ibid pp44-45) 3. Jan 2 and 3: Meetings with Legislators (Count 10) 4. His actions on Jan 6 (Counts 7,8 and 11) 5. Jan 18th 2021 article in _American Mind_ ### Culpability 1. Failure to support the Constitution, secion 6068(a) (count 1) 2. Misleading a Judicial Officer (counts 2 ane 4) 3. Moral Turpitude (counts 3 and 5-11). which include, as sub-counts 1. Misrepresentations (Count 3 and 5-9) 2. Moral Turpitude (Counts 10 and 11) 4. Eastman's free speech and petition defenses fail 1. criminal speech is not protected 2. the state's interest in maintaining honesty in legal profession outweighs his first amendment interests 3. states have an interest in regulating attorney speech, which is undisturbed by _Alvares v. United States (2021) 567 U.S. 709_[^7] 5. Aggravating and mitigating factors 1. Eastman's misconduct is highly aggravated[^8] 2. Aggravation overwhelms mitigation # URLs and Additional Resources [Prosecuting Donald Trump Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/prosecuting-donald-trump/id1679657705) [State Bar Closing Brief in case SBC-23-0-30029](https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/Index/VBqEKKzWq7BHFLcNbcYFBPwEVGppqKqRVh1jPShvzLRW-TqEo4kMqYD8POcD6IXmvjC-TMQt9Ct_mI544fmjiNq7TQItUIXPLobITmdyBQk1?caseNum=SBC-23-O-30029&docType=Pleading&docName=STATE%20BAR%20S%20CLOSING%20BRIEF&eventName=Brief&docTypeId=269&isVersionId=False&p=0) The segment dealing with John Eastman's disbarment starts at about timetag 29:30 # See also [[Jack Smith Immunity Brief (Jan 6th case)]] # Footnotes [^1]: As discussed in the Prosecuting Donald Trump podcast referenced under section URLS and Additional Resources in this document. [^2]: Section II, bullet 1., sub-part a) and b), as well as bullets 2 and 3. [^3]: Section II, bullet 4, sub-parts a) and b) [^4]: Section II, bullet 4, sub-part c), sub-sub parts i - v. [^5]: Bar association Closing Brief, page 40. Footnote 74 reads that these are Exhibits 51 and 52, which were obtained through the 'crime/fraud' exception to attorney/client privilege, pursuant to court order in the case *Eastman v. Thompson* [^6]: Ibid, p 40. [^7]: Re: _Alvarez v. United States 2012_. See [this Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez) was a case before the SCOTUS where the justices ruled, 6-3, that the 'Stolen Valor Act' -- criminalizing false claims of having a military medal -- was unconstitutional, although they couldn't all agree on a reason. 'Four justices concluded that a statement's falsity is not enough, by itself, to exclude speech from First Amendment protection. Another two justices concluded that while false statements were entitled to some protection, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was invalid because it could have achieved its objectives in less restrictive ways.' (from the Wikipedia article) [^8]: Both during and after. The final judgement discusses how he's shown absolutely no remorse, nor acknowledged any wrongdoing. [^9]: The footnote on this section of page 40 reads...: *'Allegations purportedly supported by the Geels affidavit included that Georgia election officials allowed: “as many as 2,560 convicted felons still serving their sentence to vote;” _at least_ 66,247 underaged individuals to register and then vote; _at least_ 2,423 unregistered or late registered individuals to vote; accepted as many as 10,315 votes cast by deceased individuals. (Ex. 265 at 28 ¶¶ 60-61, at 29 ¶¶ 67-68, and at 36 ¶¶ 101-103 (Emphasis added).) Allegations purportedly supported by the Braynard affidavit included that Georgia election officials allowed: _at least_ 1,043 individuals to vote who had registered at a P.O. Box, church, or courthouse rather than their residence. And allegations purportedly supported by the Braynard affidavit included that Georgia election officials allowed _at least_ 40,279 individuals to vote who had moved across county lines. (Ex. 265 at 33 ¶¶ 85-88 (Emphasis added).)'* The rebuttal (in the body of the text) reads...: *'Braynard’s lack of qualifications and unreliability were evident from the face of the filing. (Ex. 1048 at 70-84; Resp. V 24:16-19.)76 Moreover, by the time of respondent’s December 31 filing, the trio’s conclusions had been discredited by the December 14 and 15, 2020 declarations, filed in _Trump v. Raffensperger_, of Charles Stewart, an MIT political science professor with expertise in election administration and election science, and Chris Harvey, the Elections Director for the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office. (Ex. 202 (Stewart); Ex. 97 (Harvey); Resp. I 102:15-21, Resp. V 26:12-29:10, 30:17-20.) Stewart concluded that Geels, Davis and Braynard relied on database matching “procedures that are known to be unreliable and to produce a preponderance of ‘false positives;’” the “anomalies” Geels uncovered were either “benign errors” not indicative of fraud or “suggest[ed] errors of analysis or ignorance of Georgia law;” and finally that Geels drew unfounded negative inferences from the decline of ballot rejection rates. (Ex. 202 ¶¶ 13-16.)77 Harvey likewise undermined the accuracy of Geels’ and Braynards’ conclusions, citing concerns about their data and their assumptions. (Ex. 97.) At trial, respondent claimed he had “likely” read the Stewart and Harvey declarations prior to December 31, but he dismissed their significance, cavalierly contending they were simply part of the “adversarial process,” and further, that the allegations at issue “had the necessary caveats to make the statements all true.” (Resp. V 29-47, 52:8-53:1, 63:25-64:3.)'* [^10]: Footnote 84 reads: 'On October 24, 2023, respondent attempted to calculate the number of votes in Georgia effected by changes to signature verification and testified that “6,500 votes . . . resulted from a decline in the rejection rate.” (Resp. XXIX 100:16-22.) He reached that number by applying the signature rejection rate to the “roughly 5,000,000 votes that were cast in Georgia,” an enormous miscalculation because 74% of those ballots were not verified by signature. (Grimmer XXXI 205:2-206:17). Respondent’s erroneous belief that all ballots in Georgia were subject to signature verification reveals his conscious disregard of Georgia election administration, and his failure to consult a real expert on this issue reveals that he had no serious interest in learning the actual non-material effect of changes to signature verification.' [^11]:[Sigilman's expert report](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=068096001126030097070086113114115117122011005035010028104091096024123025074007065091031007000042033007027067112099121000118078049007088022007111080102115126095096105024020000022075021118001069095091119095072000002004097101125069081123116088108116073091&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE) summary of the report,in the bullet beginning "In 1805, during the first electoral count after the Twelfth Amendment was ratified" [^12]: See Bruce Ackerman & David Fontana, Thomas Jefferson Counts Himself into the Presidency, 90 VA. L. REV. 551 (2004). [^13]: **Published** Aug 13, 2020 at 1:12 PM EDT**Updated** Aug 13, 2020 at 8:31 PM EDT