Trying To Make Sense Of Eastman Trial

I'm just not as deep in the Eastman trial as I've been with other trials I've covered, say, most recently the Redistricting trials.  I heard part of Day 3 and most of Day 4.  Monday, Steward Rhodes may or may not be a witness.  As I understand it, he's in Federal custody and not in control of his time.  

So take my comments as preliminary musings.

For those unaware of this trial, one of Rep. Eastman's constituents has challenged the state for allowing Eastman to run for office because the Alaska  constitution prohibits members of organizations that advocate overthrowing the government running for public office.  

"Article XII – General Provisions

§ 4. Disqualification for Disloyalty

No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution."

Eastman is a founding and life member of the Oath Keepers.  The Division of Elections said they can't make that kind of call and now it's in the courts for a determination.  The trial is being fast-tracked so a decision can be made before the legislature in convened in January.  

Matt Acuña Buxton has been live Tweeting the trial and you can get a blow by blow here.

Here are two critical Tweets he posted that outline the basic two questions and the judge's thoughts on those questions after the plaintiff's case was made:

As Judge McKenna has pointed out, the test is simple and straight forward: 

Is Eastman a member of the Oath Keepers? 
Have the Oath Keepers ever advocated or taken part in efforts to overthrow the government?

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 15, 2022

Day 4 of the Eastman trial will be underway soon. More Eastman witnesses on the agenda.

Biggest development from Day 3 was Joe Miller's motion to cut the trial short. Judge ruled that a jury would, given a most favorable view of plaintiff's evidence, disqualify Eastman.#akleg

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 16, 2022

The plaintiffs had experts who basically had studied domestic terrorism and cited numbers and talked in detail about the Oath Keepers, their by-laws, their leader Stewart Rhodes and evidence that came up in his trial and other Oath Keeper trials.  

There were two Eastman expert witnesses.  One, Guandolo, is ex military, ex-FBI, and kept diverting the discussion from Oath Keepers to "the real terrorist threats" like BLM, Antifa, etc. who he said are funded and directed by the Chinese Communists.  Right win terrorists were not an issue in his mind.  He also thinks Islamist terrorists are the biggest threat to the US, but I'm not sure if he said they were funded by the Chinese too.  

He was at the Capital on Jan 6 and it was peaceful.  The people who went into the Capitol were invited in by the police. 

The plaintiff's attorney got him to acknowledge that he's been a friend of Eastman's since they attended some far-right training sessions together.

The other witness, Michael Nichols, sounded sincere, though what he said was hard to believe.  The January 6 rally at the Capitol was peaceful, friendly, more like a tailgate party.  He also said that Oath Keepers are people who defend the Constitution and uphold the law.  

I didn't feel the plaintiff's attorney did enough to challenge these witnesses. While the second witness sounded sincere and may have been, how would he square with what he saw (he admitted he arrived late) with the footage we saw in the January 6 hearings?  There were a lot of people there in a lot of places.  And I can believe a bunch of like minded folks heeding the former presidents call to come to Washington, felt good being among so many people who felt like they did.  But it also means that people could easily have seen peaceful demonstrators in one place and time, while there was violence in other parts at other times.  

I was also taken by how sure both the witnesses were of their beliefs, even if they were not mainstream beliefs.  There are lots of people who have strong, out-of-the-mainstream beliefs.  Some of them are actually right.  It's why everyone needs to study epistemology - the field of philosophy that examines how people verify what is true.  

One person suggested the plaintiff's attorney let the two witnesses talk on and on because he wanted the Judge to see how crazy they were.  We'll see if that was a good strategy.  At one point - and I can't find it now - Judge McKenna said there were two points to prove:

Meanwhile I would also mention that Joe Miller, the defendant's attorney, while staunchly advocating for his client, is also respectful of the judge, the process, and the plaintiff's side.  

Matt Acuña Buxton has been live Tweeting the trial and you can get a blow by blow here.

Here are two critical Tweets he posted that outline the critical two questions and the judge's thoughts on those questions after the plaintiff's case was made:

As Judge McKenna has pointed out, the test is simple and straight forward:

Is Eastman a member of the Oath Keepers?
Have the Oath Keepers ever advocated or taken part in efforts to overthrow the government?

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 15, 2022

Day 4 of the Eastman trial will be underway soon. More Eastman witnesses on the agenda.

Biggest development from Day 3 was Joe Miller's motion to cut the trial short. Judge ruled that a jury would, given a most favorable view of plaintiff's evidence, disqualify Eastman.#akleg

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 16, 2022