You can find the memo here. http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/21/privileged.and.confidential.--.jan.3.memo.on.jan.6.scenario.pdf

I think it makes Eastman look even worse.

MORE from Jonathan Adler:

UPDATE: John Eastman has told CNN that the above-cited memo was merely a preliminary outline, and has provided CNN’s Jeremy Herb with a longer, six-page memo, dated January 3, which outlines several potential electoral count scenarios. I am not sure this longer memo makes Eastman look any better.

Like the shorter memo, the longer memo relies on the false claim that there were “dual slates of electors” transmitted to the Senate, adopts an expansive (and unjustified) interpretation of the Vice President’s authority under the Twelfth Amendment, and urged Vice President Pence to unilaterally disregard the Electoral Count Act and reject slates of electors certified and transmitted by seven states on the grounds that such a move would avert a “constitutional crisis.”

Unvaccinated people in Tennessee now have priority access to one of the few COVID-19 drugs shown to reduce hospitalization and death: monoclonal antibody treatment.

The state's government recommended this week that most vaccinated residents should be last in line for the treatment, which comes in the form of infusions or injections, the Tennessean reported Monday.

The drugs are designed to mimic the body's natural immune response by targeting certain coronavirus proteins and preventing them from entering our cells. The Food and Drug Administration authorized the first monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 in November.

But the drugs are in short supply in Tennessee and across the US as the Delta variant continues to spread in states with low vaccination rates. In Tennessee, where just 44% of the population is fully vaccinated, COVID-19 cases still hover above 5,000 per day.

This is just a tiny fraction of the circus Texas Republicans invited with this law, but they're somehow surprised and unhappy about it.

According to the legislative director of Texas Right to Life, which lobbied for the bounty hunter law, "Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives." You don't say! Instead, he continued, "Both cases are self-serving legal stunts, abusing the cause of action created in the Texas Heartbeat Act for their own purposes."

As the law you promoted invites. This was 100% predictable, baked into the very design of the Texas abortion ban. Anyone claiming to be surprised at the quality of the initial efforts to collect the $10,000 bounty is mind-bendingly stupid, or they're lying.

The geniuses over at Texas Right to Life also "believe Braid published his Op-Ed intending to attract imprudent lawsuits." Again: You don't say! What tipped them off? Was it the part where he said in a major newspaper that he had broken a law that requires someone harmed by it to challenge its constitutionality in court? In the same op-ed, he wrote, "I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it's something I believe in strongly. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8."

This is just a tiny fraction of the circus Texas Republicans invited with this law, but they're somehow surprised and unhappy about it.

According to the legislative director of Texas Right to Life, which lobbied for the bounty hunter law, "Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives." You don't say! Instead, he continued, "Both cases are self-serving legal stunts, abusing the cause of action created in the Texas Heartbeat Act for their own purposes."

As the law you promoted invites. This was 100% predictable, baked into the very design of the Texas abortion ban. Anyone claiming to be surprised at the quality of the initial efforts to collect the $10,000 bounty is mind-bendingly stupid, or they're lying.

The geniuses over at Texas Right to Life also "believe Braid published his Op-Ed intending to attract imprudent lawsuits." Again: You don't say! What tipped them off? Was it the part where he said in a major newspaper that he had broken a law that requires someone harmed by it to challenge its constitutionality in court? In the same op-ed, he wrote, "I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it's something I believe in strongly. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8."