> If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.

You do realize John Eastman himself literally says he would lose 9-0 [1] when heard in the supreme court, admitting he is illegally violating the ECA with no sound legal argument. And he was literally disbarred for this behavior. [2] How do you reconcile with this cognitive dissonance?

> In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing.

So you just admit you have never heard the Jack Smith report. Just say that next time, why lie?

[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/eastman-admitted-bid-to-... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/17/california-court-jo...