A California judge has recommended the disbarment of John Eastman for giving legal advice that Democrats don’t like
Part of the Democrats’ lawfare against Trump and the right is their decision some years ago (see this) to go after lawyers for Trump or Trumpian causes and make them afraid to defend him or give him legal advice. The latest victory in that war on the right is the judicial recommendation for the disbarment of John Eastman in California:
The attorney and former law school dean facing imminent disbarment from the California Bar, based on a recommendation by California Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland for his legal work in support of President Donald J. Trump’s attempts to resolve irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, promised to fight for his reputation and livelihood in a statement released his legal team.
Here is her very lengthy opinion.
Eastman’s lawyer had this to say:
“Dr. Eastman maintains that his handling of the legal issues he was asked to assess after the November 2020 election was based on reliable legal precedent, prior presidential elections, research of constitutional text, and extensive scholarly material,” Miller said.
“The process undertaken by Dr. Eastman in 2020 is the same process taken by lawyers every day and everywhere – indeed, that is the essence of what lawyers do,” he said.
“They are ethically bound to be zealous advocates for their clients – a duty Dr. Eastman holds inviolate. To the extent today’s decision curtails that principle, we are confident the Review Court will swiftly provide a remedy,” he said.
From Judge Roland:
…[Eastman pursued] a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support. Vigorous advocacy does not absolve Eastman of his professional responsibilities around honesty and upholding the rule of law. While his actions are mitigated by his many years of discipline-free practice, cooperation, and prior good character, his wrongdoing is substantially aggravated by his multiple offenses, lack of candor and indifference.
In other words, she disagrees with his argument and thinks it has no merit. So what? He’s a lawyer; lawyers argue meritless stuff all the time. Not that I agree Eastman’s advice has no merit; I’m just saying that, even if it had no merit, that wouldn’t be a reason for disbarment.
And if someone accused of something doesn’t think he or she did wrong, then lack of remorse is simply honesty.
Much more at the link.
I’m unaware of any similar case to this, and I find this sort of political lawfare very dangerous. One comparison Judge Roland cites is the Segretti case, whose facts are extremely different (“dirty tricks” under the lawyer’s direction in a campaign).
I certainly hope Eastman wins on appeal. I think to do so he might have to go further than a California appeal, however. I believe that SCOTUS does [see *NOTE below] have jurisdiction over a case such as this:
The State Bar “acts under the authority and at the direction of the Supreme Court[,]” which has “inherent jurisdiction over the practice of law” in the state. Cal. R. Ct. 9.3.
*NOTE: It’s been called to my attention that “Supreme Court” in the above sentence might be referring to the California appellate court rather than the US Supreme Court. I tried to get clarification on the question of whether the US Supreme Court has any jurisdiction in a case like Eastman’s, but I haven’t found anything so far on it.
Thank you for the reference to Supreme Court jurisdiction. I looked at the link briefly, and I thought it was referring to the California Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. Am I wrong?
Kate:
Good point. It says “Supreme Court” but doesn’t specify, so it could be the state one. I’ll see if I can find clarification.
It would be tragic if in all future Republican administrations that she not be recognized in any and all Federal cases. She might then recognize a personal precident has been established.
Did Mussolini have any judges hanging out with him back in the day?
Terrible. Awful. Horrible. And to such a decent man. Shameful.
What I don’t understand if the 1887 Electoral Count Act was so arbitrary, why did Congress feel the need to amend it in 2022?
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the act:
“The central provisions of the law were never seriously tested in a disputed election.[8] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act could bind a future Congress.[9] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session convened to count electoral votes.[10] In the contentious 2000 U.S. presidential election, the law’s timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as “very confused, almost unintelligible.”[11]:?643? Modern commenters have stated that the law “invites misinterpretation”, observing that it is “turgid and repetitious”, and that “[i]ts central provisions seem contradictory.”[“
Yet John Eastman’s view should get him dis-barred, according to this judge.
Electoral Count Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act
I assume that this judge would also support disbarment for election denier Hillary Clinton and the Georgia tank.
Zampolit or commissar
https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1773408045835358428
They(Democrats) have no idea what they are doing and are clueless about their fate.
I humbly disagree , Sennacherib. Your disposition of Democrats as bumbling, clueless fools is exactly what they want you to think. Democrats have a very solid idea about what they do, and why. I suggest it is takeover of the USA by lawfare, counting on poor and passive resistance, the goal being, in Obama’s words, “to fundamentally transform” the US and have a Stalinist uniparty state, FOREVER.
Another leftist ‘judge’ busily cutting down all the laws…
Sennacherib:
I very much disagree. They know exactly what they’re doing and their goal is to cement their power in such a way that the right can never take power again and therefore the left believes its own fate is quite rosy and quite secure. Whether they are correct or not about that is a different question, but that is their goal and they think they can achieve it.
Eastman is perhaps at the top of his profession thats why they have to cut down the tallest tree, as an object lesson they started doing this with some dod officials re ‘torture’ because they were on the side of the terrorists
This judge isn’t fit to wipe his shoes. What a horrible travesty.
In a better world, she will end up disbarred and paying all the costs he’s incurred in this clown show.
But as Neo points out, this isn’t about the law. It isn’t even about Eastman. It’s about terrorizing the rest of us into sitting down and shutting up.
I think a reading of the entire paragraph from which the excerpt is drawn strongly suggests they are talking about the California Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court.
FOAF:
I agree, but the question I’m interested in answering is whether the US Supreme Court could have jurisdiction, or whether the state appeals system is as high as it can go.
I would like to think that a defense of his actions/ activity could be made on free speech grounds via the 1st Amendment, if not some other constitutional measure.
If you want to contribute to his legal defense fund, here is an address to use:
John Eastman Legal Defense Fund LLC
PO Box 32654
Santa Fe, NM 87594
He is certainly smart enough not to act as his own attorney, and his attorney seems to be a pretty competent practitioner. I presume he needs and has more than one person on his defense team.
I assume he’s admitted in more than one state.
I don’t think there is any federal law issue in California’s decision to disbar Eastman. Absent a federal law issue, there is no federal jurisdiction. The First Amendment claim seems weak. California would be disbarring him, they claim, because he gave bad legal advice in bad faith, with no legal research or analysis to support it. That standard is surely within the state’s powers. His argument would have to be that the California court is lying, they just disagree with his legal research, analysis, and conclusions, and that they are really punishing him for supporting President Trump, and that might state a First Amendment claim. The odds that the Supreme Court would ever take the case, which turns on fine factual determinations about what Eastman did or didn’t do, seem pretty long to me.
It’s Lawfare, and will get worse before it gets better.
Obviously Law schools failed, it’s all Marxist rhetoric now.
It’s terrible that they’re hounding Trump and those around him like this, but that’s really not the issue. Trump is a minor point, the precedent being set is the issue.
The legal system is the last resort of a people who’s rights are being violated by an oppressive government. When the legal system no longer protects certain people because of their political, religious or moral views, it is no longer a bulwark against tyranny and there is only one remedy left.
The four “boxes” of liberty are:
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Cartridge Box
When the first three options are removed, only the last remains a viable alternative for those who would be free.
I have to wonder if the left understands how dangerous the game they’re playing really is. I think not, or they would be much more circumspect in re-defining the rules under which they want to play.
Eastman’s problem is that his legal theory was objectively wrong, and he knew it. He admitted that that his theory would lose 9-0 at the Supreme Court. I believe he hung his hat on the fact that it was a matter of first impression. No one (and no court) had ever considered whether the VP had the power to reject EVs during certification. Even then, Eastman knew and admitted that his theory would go down in flames if it was ever litigated.
So once you remove the partisan and ideological coding, Eastman is advocating for a right to knowingly give incorrect legal advice.
If you want to say that a Democrat would get away with the same thing, you’ll get no argument from me. If you want to argue that Democrats’ judges have a troubling history of actually considering crackpot legal theories like Eastman’s when they come from progressive activist lawyers, again, I agree. (The whole “Trump forfeited his power to regulate immigration because he said things that progs didn’t like during the campaign” thing and the entirety of the 14AS3 disqualification debate come to mind.)
But, and I’ve said this before, going out and doing the same bad things that progressives do is not the way to fight leftist double standards. It’s actually a good way to hand leftists the power to crush you, which is what Eastman is now finding out.
No it isnt alternate electorate slates are common courtesy the dominion theory wasnt crazy to the producers of front line in october 2020 nor hbo in the spring
Living in south florida i am well aware of dem temper tantrum thats how jake tapper got his first book contract running down florida in 2004 it was ahias turn in 2016 it was the Russians eleventy
All of these election verifiers to a man and woman also object in 2000 2004 and 2016
It has to mean the state supreme court. The US Supreme Court has no authority over the practice of law in a given state.
Take a look at a couple of other state rules. The term “Supreme Court” in the context must refer to the state court:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=one&linkid=rule1_3
https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_4
ESPECIALLY:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=nine&linkid=rule9_3
Whether the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction is a separate issue. I would say probably not. Even if a 1st Amendment argument could be made, would the Court bother to take the case?
Eastman’s problem is that his legal theory was objectively wrong, and he knew it.
==
No, that’s not his problem.
Concerned Conservative’s problem is that Eastman represented a client that Concerned Conservative does not “like.”
IIRC lawyers get to say all kinds of things and make all kinds of arguments, but that was in the old timey days, before 2024.
Art + Deco – That’s at least one of his problems.
I’m going to play like Art+Deco for a second. om said:
Concerned Conservative’s problem is that Eastman represented a client that Concerned Conservative does not “like.”
—
—
No. That’s not my problem.
the problem is they are destroying the rule of law, and this is an abject lesson like they did to any number of persons, don’t you dare object, while we burn this country to the ground, that is not metaphorical when you consider what happened all across the country, like los angeles, where the cadaverous miss ferrer, who wasn’t even a doctor, she was a glorified social worker, imposed her draconian edicts, which did nothing to stop the spread,
because of Marc Elias, dark wizard of Perkins and Coie, who suborned the perjury of the Danchenko dossier, created this strategy of sue and settle, the injunction that prevented the application of any verification of legitimate ballots, consent degrees, and all of this was coordinated across a number of states, with the cooperation of local GOPe officials like Kemp, Ducey, and the like
Bauxite
Using your theory, Jack Smith, numerous lawyers in the Solicitor General’s Office under Obama, William Baude, and Michael Stokes Paulsen should all face disbarment.
They all gave legal advice and opinions that not just potentially could have lost but actually did lose 9-0 (or 8-0) at the Supreme Court.
Why should they be able to advance legal theories that aren’t just potentially wrong but were in fact found wrong by unanimous decisions of the USSC and face no penalty, other than the fact that Eastman has an unpopular client?
Concerned Conservative can’t admit his problem. Is there a 12 step or 13 step program for him?
you know an evil regime by it’s works
https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/b1wzww4yc
its rather striking who is not spoken about, and when they are how they are referred,
https://twitter.com/John_Faker/status/1773328916377207279?
Christopher+B – I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Jack Smith’s shenanigans, the whole CO disqualification gambit, or any of the others you mention.
The difference is good faith. Smith and the others you mention had a good faith belief that their advice was correct (or at least didn’t make it known that they lacked a good faith belief in their advice). Eastman did not have a good faith belief that his position was correct. It’s not so much that a position loses 9-0, it’s that the attorney predicted at the time the advice was given that it would lose 9-0.
My point is that this is like so many MAGA episodes. The foolishness of the primary actors has placed the right in the worst possible political position. Contra neo, the issue is not whether an attorney can give legal advice that the left doesn’t like. Thanks to Eastman, the issue is whether an attorney can give advice without a good faith belief that the advice is correct, when the consequence of his client actually succeeding in convincing Pence to act on that advice would have been potentially catastrophic for the republic.
That makes it much, much harder to frame the issue as defending a persecuted political minority. It makes it a lot easier to frame the issue as whether Trump should have been able to stay in office by having Pence reject EVs. The issue is actually about an isotetric point of professional responsibility for lawyers.
We don’t win if we make things harder for ourselves than it has to be. Unless the goal is to sit around whining about how unfair it all is while watching progressives move from victory to victory.
No jack smith andrew weissman robert mueller james comey pat fitzgerald mary mccord david laufman peter strxok andrew mccabe are criminals with briefcases the damage they have done to this country is immeasurable same with brennan rhodes and a whole gaggle of other
They committed prosecutorial negligence for 20 years now
Concerned Conservative asserts that Jack Smith acted in “good faith.”
LOL x 11
I don’t have to make up this foolishness.
Own goal, Concerned Conservative. Carrying water for the Brandon junta.
This reminds of the judge (Engoron?) who said Trump had raped a crazy woman writer because…she said so, twenty years later.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe we should revise the saying “First thing we should do, is kill all the lawyers.” That’s a joke! 🙂
Addendum to the topic: Eastman is not the only lawyer being persecuted for wrong-think.
This post came from a link in part 2 of Bob Zimmermans’ series on potential election scenarios (h/t miguel in Open thread for 3/29).
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movies/trumps-lawyers-keep-getting-slammed-140000084.html
“Trump’s lawyers keep getting in trouble with judges. Here are the 17 sanctioned so far.”
I recommend the complete series and a “prequel” earlier this month.
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/if-trump-wins-in-november-expect-a-real-insurrection-from-democrats/
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/part-1-the-expected-upcoming-election-chaos-caused-by-the-lefts-hatred-of-any-opposition/
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/part-2-a-further-list-of-upcoming-democratic-party-election-chaos/
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/part-3-the-expected-tantrum-of-madness-should-biden-actually-lose-the-election/
The judges, like Jack Smith, no doubt are acting “in good faith.”
A definitive answer to appeals possible for John Eastman, President’s attorney under a provisional debarment. As queried a couple of days ago.
Eastman’s legal representative, Berkeley Law prof (Boalt School of Law, IIRC) John Yoo, former US solicitor under the younger Bush, tells us that the Judge simply did not listen to his claims.
He says the other John can appeal to a higher California Bar Court, then to the California Supreme Court, and potentially even the US Supreme Court.
SOURCE — 3WHH The Three Whiskey Happy Hour, a weekly podcast:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/03/podcast-the-3whh-to-obscenity-and-beyond.php