Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In Defense of John Eastman and Others
Roger Kimball has written an excellent article describing the treatment being accorded John Eastman by the State Bar of California as a result of Eastman’s actions in advising President Trump on possible legal recourse related to 2020 election voting irregularities alleged to have occurred in certain states. There are numerous links provided within Kimball’s article to explain facts and why the actions by the California State Bar are inappropriate.
Eastman is not the only prominent professional to be treated in an unAmerican fashion for speaking out and supporting what, in essence, is nothing more than the exercise of individual free speech guaranteed to all Americans in the 1st Amendment of our U.S. Constitution. Medical professionals in California and from other parts of America have been similarly treated during the Covid pandemic and the same has been applied to political advisors and others supporting policies of President Trump during his term in office that reflect the will of the American people, sometimes called “populist.”
One of the powers not delegated to the federal government when the Constitution was ratified was laws controlling elections and voting, which were reserved to then sovereign States and their legislatures representing the people of the states. Eastman advised President Trump regarding actions open to him, which were few and related to requesting state authorities to review the results of their election processes in which irregularities were alleged and then re-certify the results.
We are experiencing and witnessing with our very own eyes behaviors at the federal governing level that go well beyond anything justified in the authorities under which the elected officials and federal bureaucrats operate. There are state rights and individual rights of the people that are being violated but unaddressed by authority.
I recommend Kimball’s article and the links provided therein to get an understanding of the rights being denied Americans by these processes now being employed by Democrats and their Progressive cohorts (which includes many Republicans). This period prior to the 2024 election is critical.
Published in General
This supposedly new “cancel culture” has been explored thoroughly in decades past as suppression, denunciation, and show trials. “Suppression” in the Soviet mouth has a very different connotation than its pedestrian sense.
I made a contribution to his legal defense fund. Wish I could do more. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
It is an evil tactic but one that likely will succeed because people will adopt the “It’s not me” blinders.
Surely every attorney on Ricochet can agree that attacking lawyers for representing the “wrong” client strikes at the heart of the western conception of the rule of law.
A lot more than attorney members of Ricochet.
It seems we have two, or maybe three, forces at work simultaneously to put us where we are. Without Trump we would not have brought this to the forefront as we have. But Trump is/was a catalyst not a savior and his support is hardly a cult of any kind.
The first force I refer to is composed of the hardcore Communistic Progressives who result from the movement started around Woodrow Wilson’s presidential term and has been working its way since through policy actions affecting the Constitution and statutory law, through cultural shifts, and through deliberate acts of stalwart Communists and fellow-travelers.
An accompanying group of influential partners are less ideologically caring but they go for the money.
The last group may be largely inadvertently a force in that they have been indoctrinated through an omission of teaching civic facts and history in our education system. These affect this situation mostly in how they have been persuaded on what to think and this affects how they vote. This is the “politics is downstream from culture” phenomenon. Traditionally patriotic Americans need to do a lot of work with this group. Institutions have been shifted Left by all of the above groups.
The next two years may be all the time we have to restore this working within the system.
Well, not every attorney. In fact, there’s one who will likely appear in this thread to denounce Eastman yet again.
I am a licensed attorney. In Arizona, if I am convicted of a felony, I will be disbarred, period. John Eastman is a licensed attorney. I am uncertain if there is a per se rule for disbarment in California for the conviction of a felony, however at a minimum, it would give probable cause for disbarment.
The January 6th Committee recommended that Eastman be charged with several felonies. From the Los Angeles Times on December 19, 2022 at https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-12-19/jan-6-charges-who-is-john-eastman,
“Former Chapman University professor John Eastman is among the individuals whom the Jan. 6 committee has recommended face federal criminal charges for their roles in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
“The committee recommended that Eastman and former President Trump should face federal criminal charges for obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States. It recommended prosecuting “Trump and others” on two additional charges: conspiracy to make a false statement and inciting, assisting, or aiding or comforting an insurrection.
“‘[Trump] entered into agreements, formal and informal, with several individuals who assisted him with his criminal objects,’ Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said during Monday’s committee hearing.”
The problem that Eastman has is that conviction of a criminal charge required “Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” That is not the standard in disbarment proceedings. It is either a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence, both of which are far below “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”
Before filing a lawsuit, a lawyer must know that the lawsuit is based upon existing law or a good faith extension of existing law. There is no way that Eastman’s allegations meet that test.
John Eastman gravely injured the American people. He acknowledged that his “theory” would not have gotten a single vote from the Supreme Court. I would prefer that Eastman and Trump be prosecuted for their roles in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. But, as Eastman is a licensed attorney, disbarment would be a first good step.
Now @garyrobbins, to be consistent with all your points of insistence with your friends here, I must assume you have read the Kimball article and all the links included?
I reviewed the article, yes. I was going to provide a hyperlink to it, but Jon beat me to it.
Please read material in the links provided by Kimball in his article. And since a license to lawyer is a matter handled separately in every state I’m sure Eastman can retain a license in states that actually support constitutionally based rule of law. The Jan6 Committee output does not even approach this standard.
I am not familiar enough with the specifics of the Eastman case (and am I particularly interested enough to do a lot of research or reading, nor is my hatred for a particular politician so intense that I am willing to assume inherent malfeasance in everyone who has worked with that politician as another lawyer here does), but I have noticed in the last few years that the prior assumption of the legal profession that everyone is entitled to vigorous legal representation has gone out the proverbial window.
Several attorneys have been scrutinized by their state licensing entities because of who they represent.
Organized pressure campaigns by law schools and professional associations have sought to discourage lawyers and law firms from representing certain clients or even whole categories of clients.
Representing former President Trump is the most conspicuous cause for targeted discipline or pressure campaigns. Even the most cursory glance reveals that Mr. Eastman would not be under scrutiny by the California state bar but for his representation of Mr. Trump. But the problem is not limited to such lawyers. Lawyers who represent energy companies, firearms manufacturers and sellers, individuals accused of certain types of crimes, and individuals who make unpopular statements or hold unpopular views have also been subjected to targeted discipline and official pressure campaigns.
Actions to prevent disfavored people from getting vigorous legal representation will further further undermine the rule of law in the United States.
John Yoo says disbarment is unconstitutional. I’ll take his opinion on this.
It is hard for me to believe that John Yoo would say such a thing. Please give me a citation and/or link for that argument.
It’s an exercise in raw power, it has nothing to do with Eastman’s actions or advice, it’s the continuing attempt to cut Trump off from any support. If they, indict, disbar, SWAT raid and/or financially ruin everyone who worked with him, who could afford to work with him in the future. Having pulled this off, do you think they’ll stop here? At this moment they probably have people scouring the lives of anyone Ron DeSantis ever met. Unless the tables are turned and the left starts to feel pain this will be the norm for Republicans from now on.
No. Eastman’s lawsuit was pure and unabridged b.s. It was filed not to win, but to rile people up. It is not unlike the case where Trump sued Hillary for her actions in 2016, which was to attract attention and create chaos. If memory serves, the result in that case is that Trump and his attorney’s are on the hook for nearly $1 million for filing patent b.s.
I can at least understand the charge against Trump. I don’t agree with it, because he didn’t actually incite a riot as the law defines that. And it would set a terrible precedent where politicians could be legally sanctioned for their speech.
But is there even an allegation that Eastman incited a riot? He spoke at the rally but the crux of the charges against him is false legal advice. He put forward a legal opinion. If that inspired Trump to incite a riot, then that’s Trump’s problem. The idea that having the wrong legal opinion is a felony is mentally and legally retarded.
If you can’t understand that, think about whether Pence would have faced charges if he had followed Eastman’s advice. Of course he wouldn’t have. It would have been immune from legal sanction as a political act, which can no more be a crime than can a Senator slandering someone while speaking on the senate floor, as Harry Reid did to Mitt Romney. It’s almost like saying that Congressmen can be prosecuted for voting the wrong way on legislation. This is Law 101 stuff and it’s scary that these morons are doing it so brazenly.
Listen the the Three Whisky Happy Hour on Powerline. Or don’t. I am sure you don’t have time because you have to go take care of your mother. Or you work full time. Or any other excuse you have.
@garyrobbins It is really a huge effort for me to give you any credibility on your views of criminal law and equitable law enforcement since we have had so much government criminality and inequitable treatment for these six years and you have had basically nothing to say about it. This includes how Pelosi acted in setting up that Jan6 Committee after her failure to manage defending the Capitol.
I’ll say this as well:
Only tyrants want to attack lawyers for supporting clients. Remember, for the rule of law to work, lawyers have to be able to represent criminals.
Gary, you demonstrate here that you do not believe in the rule of law, but in the will to power, as long as the man you want to see gored is gored. It is revulsive and sickening. Extra so, since you are a lawyer.
Just when I thought I could not hold you in more contempt, you go and give me more reason to do so.
Congratulations.
Citation please. Or are you suggesting that I listen to the Three Whiskey Happy Hour or Powerline until the end of time. Google does not have any citation that I could find of John Yoo saying that disbarment is unconstitutional. Surely if he said that you can provide some proof that he did do. Just as I am not an expert on the DSM, you, my friend, are not an expert on the constitution.
Bob, if that is true, then I will expect that Kevin McCarthy will create a committee to investigate the January 6th Committee.
I think that it is good for lawyers to represent their clients, but Eastman was spouting gibberish, and he weakened the United States.
We are now up to 978 criminal defendants who have had their lives ruined by following Eastman’s demented and tortured legal reasoning in service of Trump’s desperate desire to stay in power. https://news.yahoo.com/least-948-people-charged-capitol-192631254.html. Soon there will be 1000 defendants who have been arrested. None of this would have happened if Trump had acknowledged that he lost the 2020 election. Instead he has grifted tens of millions of dollars in his bogus “stop the steal” nonsense. Kari Lake has raised over $1 million in Arizona in her own deluded effort to declare herself Arizona’s “real governor.”
@garyrobbins You skipped mention of the first part of my comment because there were more crimes than you could count?
Bob, there is just one of me, and I can’t spend all of my time running down arguments. I haven’t heard a peep from you about how wrong it was for Trump to delude people with his “Stop the Steal” nonsense. However, I note that Sean Hannity has admitted that he knew that the stop the steal was nonsense in the massive lawsuit against the Fox New Channel.
For a stolen election, I would expect no such peep.
Part of the scientific method is that any experiment must be replicated by others to be believed.
Akin to that notion is the thesis, that if there was a stolen election, there would be some evidence that the election was actually stolen.
There came a point where I realized that the notion of Santa Claus traveling throughout the world just didn’t make sense. Perhaps there will come a moment when you realize that there is no evidence that the election was “stolen.” I wonder if a multi-million dollar verdict by Dominion against Fox News and OANN will prove that to you.
@garyrobbins Well, at least all those Arizonans who know you can see that you don’t think the Democrats or the federal bureaucracy have committed any crimes over the last six years.