Dr. Eastman’s views on the Electoral Count Act are not, as he argues, a “good faithinterpretation” of the law;259 they are a partisan distortion of the democratic process. His planwas driven not by preserving the Cons ution, but by winning the 2020 election:
[Dr. Eastman] acknowledged that he didn’t think Kamala Harris should have that authority in 2024; hedidn’t think Al Gore should have had it in 2000; and he acknowledged that no small governmentconservative should think that that was the case.
Dr. Eastman also understood the gravity of his plan for democracy—he acknowledged “[y]ouwould just have the same party win continuously if [the] Vice President had the authority to justdeclare the winner of every State.”
The evidence shows that Dr. Eastman was aware that his plan violated the ElectoralCount Act. Dr. Eastman likely acted deceitfully and dishonestly each time he pushed anoutcome-driven plan that he knew was unsupported by the law.