To not solely invent rationales, however to invent rationales which can be themselves indefensible.

Join How To Learn This Chart, a weekly knowledge publication from Philip Bump

The emails primarily contain communication between Eastman and Pennsylvania state Rep. Russ Diamond (R). Diamond contacts Eastman to clarify that he had seen the lawyer’s testimony earlier than a Georgia legislative physique. Diamond was developing a decision centered on the thought Eastman had proposed: that state legislatures might merely exert authority over the appointment of electors in the event that they selected to take action. Eastman concurred and provided to supply additional help.

So Diamond handed alongside a draft of the decision. In a barrage of “whereas”es, it made broad claims concerning the extent to which Pennsylvania’s vote had been tainted by purported uncertainty. There was no concrete declare about fraudulent ballots, simply numerous assertions concerning the courts being unacceptably lenient.

For instance, the draft included these two statements:

“WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, lower than seven weeks earlier than the November 3, 2020 election, the Supreme Courtroom of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania unlawfully and unilaterally prolonged the deadline for mail-in ballots to be acquired, mandated that ballots mailed with no postmark could be presumed to be acquired well timed, and might be accepted with no verified voter signature; and

“WHEREAS, on October 23, 2020, lower than two weeks earlier than the November 3, 2020 election and upon a petition from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Supreme Courtroom of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dominated that county Boards of Election needn’t authenticate signatures for mail-in ballots, thereby treating in-person and mail-in voters dissimilarly and eliminating a vital safeguard in opposition to potential election crime”

This can be a grievance about course of, not illegality. The state Supreme Courtroom allowed mail-in ballots to be returned after Nov. 3 and dominated that signature-matching not happen, modifications that meant extra mail-in ballots could be tallied. The implication was that this tainted the election, although no proof of improper voting was provided. (Actually, the chief justice of the Supreme Courtroom, contemplating one other case, said affirmatively that even when votes had been forged utilizing constitutionally doubtful strategies, these votes ought to nonetheless stand.)

The play right here is apparent. When Diamond was writing on Dec. 4, it was clear that Joe Biden had benefited extra from mail-in voting: Trump beat Biden by 1.3 million in-person votes however Biden beat Trump by 1.4 million mail-in ballots.

If one might one way or the other goal mail-in ballots as suspect or unacceptable, then it disproportionately harms Biden.

Eastman provided particular line-edits to Diamond’s decision. Then, recognizing that the grievance as written wouldn’t provide any rationale for appointing a brand new slate of electors in help of Trump, he proposed some fancy mathematical machinations for inclusion.

“I didn’t watch the hearings that had been held,” Eastman wrote, referring to a legislative listening to on purported irregularities within the state, “however I believe they contained ample proof of enough anomalies and unlawful votes to have turned the election from Trump to Biden.” In that case, he mentioned, there ought to be a bit added to the decision to make the case that Trump was the actual winner anyway.

“For instance, relying on what number of ballots had been counted that had been acquired after the statutory deadline (say 10,000 for instance’s objective), these 10,000 votes have to be discarded, and you may take the absentee poll ratio for every candidate within the counties” the place “late-received ballots had been illegally counted and deduct the pro-rated quantity from every candidate’s complete,” he wrote. “For the signature verification violation (and maybe the banning of observers), you possibly can take the distinction between the 4% historic rejection price and the .34% rejection price accomplished underneath the unlawful procedures, and equally low cost every candidates’ totals by a prorated quantity based mostly on the absentee share these candidates in any other case acquired.”

It’s helpful to be express concerning the path right here. Eastman is supporting an effort by the Pennsylvania legislature to grab management over the appointment of electors, utilizing as a rationale the concept that Trump in all probability would have received had the court docket not taken such a beneficiant method to permitting votes to depend. Merely do some fancy math — take away 10,000 ballots acquired after Nov. 3 and scale back the variety of ballots authorized for inclusion — and also you get justification.

“[H]aving accomplished that math, you’d be left with a big Trump lead that might bolster the argument for the Legislature adopting a slate of Trump electors,” he wrote, “completely inside your authority to do anyway, however now bolstered by the untainted fashionable vote.”

That phrase “untainted” stings the eyes. The suggestion is that the Supreme Courtroom’s choices “tainted” what was allowed, not that fraud occurred.

However it additionally hinges on the concept that Eastman’s pulled-out-of-a-hat rejiggering of the vote totals would present a “important Trump lead.” Actually, it doesn’t.

Let’s begin with that ridiculous concept that one ought to merely throw out greater than 3 % of mail-in ballots as a result of the speed of rejection — that’s, the variety of submitted ballots that had been deemed unacceptable — had dropped relative to previous elections. Earlier than the election, recognizing that the pandemic would spur extra mail-in voting, states made broad efforts to make sure that rejection charges had been low, launching academic campaigns about guaranteeing ballots had been accomplished and submitted precisely. Advocates bolstered this message. In different phrases, one cause {that a} decrease share of ballots was eliminated is that individuals had been higher knowledgeable about how you can correctly full the ballots.

If we set that rationalization apart and easily grant Eastman his math, it doesn’t matter anyway. Rejecting a further 3.66 % of mail-in ballots relative to every candidate’s complete in each county signifies that Biden loses about 73,000 votes from his complete. That’s about 7,000 votes fewer than his 80,000-vote margin within the state.

However then Trump additionally loses votes: almost 22,000. So Biden’s again as much as a virtually 30,000-vote lead.

Eastman’s different plan — to reject these 10,000 ballots acquired after the deadline — suffers from a extra extreme drawback: The votes weren’t included within the licensed outcomes anyway. However let’s simply humor the great legal professional and, for no cause apart from elevating the subtext right here, we simply take these 10,000 votes away from Biden.

The outcome? Biden wins Pennsylvania.

Congratulations to Eastman and Diamond for displaying that the “untainted” ends in the state additionally gave the win to Biden.

When Eastman proposed his mathematical changes, Diamond responded with some mild criticism of the Trump crew’s efforts on the listening to Eastman referenced.

“Truthfully, the Trump authorized crew was not precisely stellar at PA’s listening to,” he wrote, they “failed to supply the affidavits of their witnesses, and made a obvious error by purporting that extra ballots had been returned than mailed out.”

This might need been a pink flag however appeared to not be to Diamond. Nor did it function a degree of warning. Later in December, his efforts to validate a certified alternate slate of Trump electors having fallen brief, Diamond launched an announcement claiming that extra ballots had been counted than had been recorded within the state’s system.

This, too, was a obvious error.