Kirk said that he wasn't a lawyer, but that "90 percent of what's in here seems to just be MSNBC drivel, jabs of wrongthink. I mean, it's almost as simple as well, Donald Trump believed this even though the claims were false."
"Yeah, no, it's 45 pages of basically false narrative," Eastman said. "It's as false in its particulars as the long-running Russia collusion hoax, and you know, and they're doubling down on the falsity. The main claim is, you know, that Trump lost the election, it was free and legitimate because Bill Barr and Krebs said so, and the rest of us are supposed to just bend the knee despite all the evidence to the contrary."
"This is why I talk about this in authoritarian terms, whether it's the Covid origins or the Covid vaccine, or CRT, or transgender men exposing themselves to your teenage daughters in their showers. The government is spoken, and we're supposed to, like sheep, go along with it. That is the very definition of authoritarianism. And we are on the precipice of locking that in in this country unless people like me and you and others stand up against it. You know, this is what we have to do. I mean, freedom is not free. It cost us a lot and we have to be willing to defend it."
Kirk cut in, asking if Eastman believes he will be indicted.
"Well, there's a five-year statute of limitation on all this stuff," Eastman responded, adding that they "needed to go after President Trump sooner rather than later, because of the election calendar and DOJ policy about indictments against candidates for office."
"That means that the rest of us will kind of be in limbo for a while. But I also think that our main target of this whole thing has always been President Trump. The rest of us are just there as fodder if they can use us to their advantage in any way."
Eastman said he found interesting "the expectation that by naming me or others as unindicted co-conspirators, we would run to the Department of Justice and offer to give up the goods on Trump."
"I mean, two things wrong with that story. One, it would be unethical for me as a lawyer to do that, even if I had the goods, and the second thing wrong with it is there are no goods to have because everything we did was above board and legal. It was legitimate challenges to clear illegalities in the conduct of the election. And people need to keep that front and center. And so I don't have any bargaining chips to negotiate a plea deal with the Department of Justice anyway, because there is nothing there to bargain with. But that doesn't matter to them."
"They wanted to go after Trump because he's punching back against the deep state that has become increasingly unresponsive to the sovereignty of the American people."
