Attorney for alleged Trump coconspirator He will absolutely not turn on Trump
Attorney for alleged Trump coconspirator He will absolutely not turn on Trump
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00 >> I'm so glad to be here with
00:03 you.
00:04 >> Thank you.
00:05 >> We're joined by John Eastman's
00:07 attorney Charles Burnham.
00:08 He's representing multiple
00:09 clients in special counsel Jack
00:11 Smith's investigation but we are
00:12 focusing on Eastman tonight.
00:14 And I very much appreciate your
00:16 time, Charles.
00:17 So let me just start to try to
00:19 understand where exactly your
00:21 client stands.
00:22 Obviously he's labeled
00:24 co-conspirator number two in the
00:25 indictment.
00:26 Just to be clear, has your
00:28 client been in touch with the
00:30 special counsel?
00:31 >> Thank you for having me on.
00:33 Absolutely no.
00:34 John Eastman has not been
00:35 indicted on this time.
00:36 And we very much think he should
00:37 not be.
00:38 >> So have you been in touch
00:40 with the special counsel's
00:42 office since the indictment was
00:44 revealed yesterday?
00:45 >> We have not.
00:46 >> Okay.
00:47 Now, is there any chance that
00:49 your client would cooperate with
00:51 the special counsel Jack Smith?
00:53 >> Well, I think it depends on
00:55 what you mean by cooperate.
00:57 I think that Dr. Eastman is
00:59 happy to tell his side of the
01:01 story, to talk about the issues
01:03 he believes are important to the
01:05 constitution and the country.
01:07 And under the right
01:08 circumstances, certainly he
01:09 would share those views and share
01:11 his recollections of everything
01:12 that happened in 2020 with the
01:14 special counsel.
01:15 But if by cooperation you mean
01:17 flipping on Donald Trump or
01:19 providing incriminating
01:20 information, then absolutely not
01:22 simply because those aren't the
01:23 facts of this case as it
01:25 pertains to Dr. Eastman.
01:26 >> So you say under the right
01:27 circumstances, but you don't
01:28 want to -- you don't describe it
01:29 as flipping.
01:30 What are the right circumstances?
01:31 Would that be immunity from
01:32 prosecution or from indictment
01:33 or -- I mean, obviously he's in
01:35 this indictment listed as a
01:37 co-conspirator, so people
01:39 anticipate that there likely
01:41 will be an indictment.
01:42 So I'm just trying to
01:43 understand, what does "under the
01:45 right circumstances" mean?
01:46 >> Well, I think if we thought
01:47 there was an opportunity to
01:48 engage with special counsel in a
01:50 manner that we could be assured
01:52 that they had an open mind about
01:53 the truth and we could attempt
01:55 to explain some of the
01:56 circumstances that might have
01:57 led them to name him as an
01:59 unindicted co-conspirator,
02:00 because we do believe there are
02:01 some serious misunderstandings.
02:03 If you read the indictment,
02:04 there's much I could talk about
02:06 about that.
02:07 And under the right
02:08 circumstances, we'd be happy to
02:09 have that dialogue with Mr.
02:10 Smith or with his assistants.
02:11 Certainly we would.
02:12 >> Okay. All right.
02:13 But if I am trying to understand
02:15 what you're saying, too, that
02:16 there would be some sort of
02:17 immunity involved with -- you're
02:18 talking about the
02:19 misunderstandings as you see
02:20 them in here.
02:21 That would be fair?
02:22 >> Certainly.
02:23 I mean, immunity would be
02:24 great.
02:25 We'd be happy to receive it, but
02:26 I'm not sitting here saying we
02:27 would insist on that.
02:28 >> So you'd do it for less than
02:29 immunity?
02:30 >> Oh, certainly, certainly.
02:31 >> Like what?
02:32 >> Because Dr. Reisman has
02:33 nothing to hide in the
02:34 situation.
02:35 He's been very open about his
02:36 role.
02:37 He's made numerous TV
02:38 appearances.
02:39 He's written articles on it.
02:41 He's been very much an open
02:43 book, as his attorneys have to a
02:45 certain extent, about his
02:46 activities in 2020.
02:47 He has nothing to hide.
02:48 He committed no crimes.
02:49 And as I said, under the right
02:50 circumstances, we'd look
02:51 forward to having that dialogue
02:53 with the special counsel.
02:54 >> So let me get to the heart of
02:56 this, then, because what I just
02:58 played -- and I know you heard
02:59 him a moment ago -- Mr. Laureau,
03:01 Trump's current lawyer, speaking
03:03 this morning, his defense, the
03:06 former president's defense, is
03:08 to say that your client told him
03:10 what to do, and he just did it.
03:12 He said -- and I quote him this
03:14 morning.
03:15 There you saw him with Savannah.
03:17 "You had one of the leading
03:18 constitutional scholars in the
03:19 United States, John Eastman, say
03:21 to President Trump, 'This is a
03:23 protocol that you can follow.
03:24 It's legal.
03:25 That eliminates criminal intent.'"
03:28 So he's blaming your client, not
03:31 his.
03:32 Is Trump throwing Eastman under
03:33 the bus?
03:34 >> Absolutely not, and thank you
03:35 for giving me the opportunity to
03:37 talk about that.
03:38 And I respectfully disagree with
03:40 the phrasing that he's blaming
03:42 our client.
03:43 In fact, I have absolutely no
03:44 qualm with any of the statements
03:46 from Mr. Laureau on your show,
03:48 and he's made a couple other
03:49 statements to that effect.
03:50 Dr. Eastman was President Trump's
03:52 attorney, and Mr. Trump did have
03:54 a right to rely on his advice.
03:57 Dr. Eastman stands by that
03:58 advice, and he'd give largely the
04:00 same advice, I think, if the
04:01 situation repeated itself today,
04:03 and that really is the heart of
04:04 this case.
04:05 I agree with you.
04:06 Dr. Eastman is now looking at
04:07 possibly the threat of
04:09 indictment for acting as an
04:11 attorney, making arguments on
04:12 behalf of his client.
04:14 Prosecuting attorneys for doing
04:16 that, which is their jobs, I
04:17 submit, would be a very
04:18 troubling prospect if the
04:19 special counsel indeed takes
04:20 that step, which is...
04:22 >> Okay, so you dispute that
04:25 Trump's lawyer saying that his
04:29 counsel told him to do this, and
04:30 therefore it's fine, it's not
04:32 Trump's problem.
04:33 That is not throwing Trump under
04:34 the bus.
04:35 >> I don't think it's throwing
04:36 John Eastman under the bus.
04:37 I don't interpret it that way
04:38 at all.
04:39 >> I'm sorry, throwing John
04:40 Eastman under the bus.
04:41 I misspoke, yeah.
04:42 >> That's correct.
04:43 I don't interpret it as throwing
04:44 him under the bus at all.
04:45 I have no problem with Mr.
04:46 Laureau's statements at all.
04:47 >> Okay, all right, so let me
04:48 ask you then why then, because
04:49 what the indictment alleges that
04:50 your client did, of course, in
04:51 terms of the advice, key,
04:52 crucial advice, they lay out
04:54 meetings, they talk about who is
04:55 in these meetings early in
04:57 January, before January 6th,
04:58 January 4th, and January 5th,
05:00 Eastman, your client, meets with
05:03 the president, the vice
05:04 president, and the defendant,
05:08 Trump, and Eastman, ask the vice
05:10 president to either unilaterally
05:11 reject the legitimate electors
05:13 from the seven targeted states
05:14 or send the question of which
05:16 elector's slate was legitimate
05:18 to the state legislatures.
05:20 So they say that happened.
05:22 The next day, they say it
05:23 happened again on the morning of
05:25 January 5th at Trump's
05:26 direction.
05:27 There's this meeting with
05:28 Eastman.
05:29 Eastman advocates that the vice
05:30 president do what the defendant
05:31 had said he preferred the day
05:33 before, unilaterally reject
05:34 electors from the targeted
05:35 states.
05:36 This is the heart of the matter.
05:38 Trump is saying that your client
05:40 told Pence to go ahead and do
05:43 it, reject the electors from the
05:44 states.
05:45 It's fine.
05:46 There's no problem with it.
05:47 Did that not happen?
05:48 >> Well, I would add a little
05:50 bit of nuance there.
05:51 Dr. Eastman is on record
05:52 several times stating that his
05:54 recommended course of action was
05:56 not to unilaterally reject the
05:58 electors on January 6th.
06:01 His recommendation, this was
06:02 repeated by President Trump in
06:04 his remarks at the ellipse, was
06:05 simply to send the matter back
06:06 to the states, many of the
06:08 legislatures of which had yet to
06:10 complete their investigations of
06:11 the various allegations that
06:12 were out there, for them to do
06:14 whatever investigation they saw
06:16 fit pursuant to their power as
06:18 state legislatures, and then
06:20 report back to Vice President
06:22 Pence and the electoral college
06:23 on whatever their findings were.
06:25 And Dr. Eastman's longer memo,
06:26 which has been in the public
06:28 domain for a long time, spells
06:29 out several situations, three or
06:31 four situations in which this
06:32 process might have resulted in
06:34 affirming now President Biden's
06:36 victory.
06:37 So it wasn't simply a scheme to
06:40 keep President Trump in power by
06:42 whatever means necessary.
06:44 Everybody involved knew that
06:45 this process could result in
06:47 nothing other than Biden and
06:48 Vice President Harris being
06:49 inaugurated as they were.
06:51 I think that's important.
06:52 >> So, let me -- there's a
06:53 further point, though, then,
06:54 that happens in this indictment.
06:57 It says on January 4th that your
07:00 client, John Eastman, met with
07:02 the President and Vice
07:03 President, right, and then asked
07:05 Pence to unilaterally reject or
07:07 send the slates back to
07:08 legislatures, as you and I are
07:09 talking about.
07:10 The indictment then goes on to
07:12 say, Charles, on that same day,
07:14 when Eastman acknowledged to the
07:16 defendant's senior advisor that
07:17 no court would support his
07:19 proposal, the senior advisor
07:20 told Eastman, "You're going to
07:22 cause riots in the streets."
07:23 Eastman responded that there had
07:25 previously been points in the
07:26 nation's history where violence
07:28 was necessary to protect the
07:30 republic.
07:31 Now, on this point, Charles, the
07:33 takeaway here, of course, is not
07:34 veiled.
07:35 The line says that your client
07:36 felt that this was a point in
07:38 history where violence could be
07:40 justified to protect the
07:41 republic.
07:42 Is that accurate?
07:43 Does he stand by that?
07:44 >> Oh, absolutely not, and I
07:46 have two points to make about
07:47 that.
07:48 The first is those allegations,
07:49 being familiar with the
07:51 investigation of this case, are
07:53 drawn from the one-sided
07:54 recounting of that conversation
07:56 from Mr. Jacob, as the
07:58 individual referred to there.
08:00 So I would just ask your
08:01 viewers --
08:02 >> That's the senior advisor.
08:03 >> That's right, the chief
08:04 counsel to Vice President Pence.
08:05 So I would just ask your viewers
08:06 to imagine if they were ever
08:08 involved in a contentious
08:09 argument, how they would feel if
08:11 the substance of that argument
08:13 were to be communicated to the
08:15 world solely by their
08:16 adversary, right?
08:17 I'm not accusing Mr. Jacob of
08:18 anything, but that's just his
08:19 version of what happened, right?
08:21 And there's significant nuance
08:22 there.
08:23 Dr. Eastman never called for
08:24 violence or anything close to
08:26 that.
08:27 It was simply a discussion of
08:28 what would likely happen if some
08:30 of the issues that the two
08:31 gentlemen were debating were to
08:32 make their way through the
08:33 courts, and there's much more we
08:35 can add to the highly selective
08:37 presentation of that
08:38 conversation, including the
08:39 indictment.
08:40 That's a common problem that
08:41 we've seen in this indictment,
08:42 that there's a quote here, a
08:43 quote there, and the full
08:44 context isn't there.
08:45 And, of course, Jack Smith
08:46 doesn't have to put the defense
08:47 case in his indictment.
08:48 There's no obligation for him to
08:49 do that, but I think it's
08:50 important for everybody to
08:51 understand that when you see
08:52 these three- and four-word
08:53 quotes in the indictment, there's
08:54 more that will eventually be
08:55 added to that story, and the
08:57 conversation with Mr. Jacob is a
08:58 perfect example of that.
08:59 >> All right, so just to
09:00 understand, though, you're just
09:01 saying context is missing.
09:02 You're not saying he didn't say
09:04 what's in here.
09:05 >> I'm not conceding the quote
09:07 at all, that some aspects of Mr.
09:11 Jacob's characterizations are
09:13 accurate or at least roughly
09:14 accurate, some are not, and
09:16 anything involving calling for
09:17 violence, we would dispute,
09:18 certainly.
09:19 And that's completely
09:20 inconsistent with everything
09:21 else the world knows about
09:22 Dr. John Eastman.
09:23 >> And obviously he has been a
09:27 world-renowned, nationally
09:30 renowned constitutional scholar,
09:31 which is why he is at the heart
09:32 of this.
09:33 Let me just ask one other thing,
09:34 though, to understand, because
09:35 there are some very specific
09:36 allegations in here.
09:37 We've just talked about a couple
09:38 of them.
09:39 There are others.
09:40 When Jack Smith lays out
09:42 accusations involving your
09:43 client in terms of organizing
09:45 the fraudulent slates of
09:46 electors, just in Arizona, he
09:49 says the Arizona House speaker
09:51 explained that state
09:52 investigators had uncovered no
09:54 evidence of substantial fraud
09:56 in the state.
09:57 Eastman concedes that he didn't
09:58 know enough about facts on the
09:59 ground in Arizona, but
10:01 nonetheless told the Arizona
10:02 House speaker to decertify and
10:04 let the courts sort it out.
10:05 The Arizona House speaker
10:06 refused, stating that he would
10:08 not play with the oath he had
10:09 taken to uphold the United
10:11 States Constitution and Arizona
10:13 law.
10:14 The Arizona House speaker,
10:15 Charles, of course, is
10:16 Rusty Bowers.
10:17 Did your client tell him to
10:18 decertify the results and let
10:20 the courts sort it out?
10:22 >> No, no, not in those terms
10:24 or anywhere close to that.
10:25 And I think that's an important
10:26 point, is Dr. Eastman's role in
10:28 this is he was not a forensic
10:29 investigator.
10:30 He wasn't there, you know,
10:31 examining the machines or going
10:33 through the ballots.
10:34 He was the constitutional
10:35 scholar.
10:36 So his main role with respect to
10:37 state legislatures in
10:38 particular, as you mentioned,
10:40 was to educate state
10:41 legislators on their
10:42 constitutional power in
10:44 elections, which many of them
10:45 just through no fault of their
10:46 own just certainly weren't
10:47 familiar with.
10:48 So with respect to Arizona and
10:49 other states, Georgia, Dr.
10:50 Eastman educated the
10:53 legislatures on what the
10:54 Constitution said about their
10:55 power in elections, and it was
10:57 largely up to them to look at
10:59 the investigations, consider the
11:00 evidence, and decide if there
11:01 was any basis to exercise that
11:03 authority.
11:04 And the important thing to
11:05 remember is before any state
11:07 legislature could take any
11:08 action with respect to the
11:09 election, a majority of that
11:11 body, these are
11:12 representatives elected by the
11:13 people, accomplished
11:14 individuals, would have to vote
11:15 in favor of that.
11:16 If Dr. Eastman or whoever else
11:18 was making similar arguments
11:19 couldn't convince a majority of
11:21 the state legislature that they
11:23 had the power and grounds
11:24 existed to use it, then nothing
11:25 would happen, as ultimately
11:26 nothing did happen.
11:28 >> All right.
11:29 So I appreciate your time.
11:30 Thank you very much.