Eastman Had No Legal Basis for Alternate Electors, Scholar Says

Donald Trump counsel John C. Eastman lacked historical and legal basis to support his “extraordinary and radical” claims the vice president has the authority to reject electoral votes, a Stanford Law fellow testified Thursday.

Eastman, who is defending his law license in the California State Bar Court, wrote memos advancing theories that then-Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, could have declared Trump the victor of the November 2020 US presidential election, or delay Congress certifying the results.

Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, said there’s nothing ...