More developments on the anti-Trump lawfare front
John Eastman, esteemed law professor, appeared in the Georgia court today to surrender. But he had a few things to say:
He’s a man of letters; he’s a teacher, a debater, a serious constitutional thinker, and a generous donor of his time to causes he believes need his expertise. And suddenly, he’s confronted by a “buffoon” of a district attorney, who accuses the constitutional law professor of being a mobster for the crime of representing a client who believes the election was rigged. …
John Eastman’s crime, therefore, is that he gave President Donald Trump the same advice the left has previously tried but with which it now conveniently disagrees. Therefore, John Eastman’s career must die, and he must go to jail. …
“I am here today to surrender to an indictment that should never have been brought,” Eastman announced to a small gaggle of reporters outside the courthouse. He warned that the indictment of a president’s attorney “represents a crossing of the Rubicon for our country, implicating the fundamental First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Eastman wrote these words that Fani Willis had apparently never heard before.
“As troubling,” he said, “it targets attorneys for their zealous advocacy on behalf of their clients, something attorneys are ethically bound to provide and which was attempted here by ‘formally challeng[ing] the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means.’” An opportunity, he added, that was, “never afforded them in the Fulton County Superior Court.”
“Troubling” is a mild word for what it is. I think that the current charges against Trump, in Georgia and elsewhere, are definitive signs that our legal system is utterly politicized and very dangerous – something we already knew.
There’s also been a somewhat puzzling development in the Mar-al-Lago case. You can read about it in in this post by Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. The gist of it is that one of the potential witnesses against Trump has changed his story and now implicates Trump in the act of trying to delete subpoenaed security footage.
What we know for certain is that this witness – “Trump Employee Number 4” – has lied to authorities. But was it then or now? And what made him change his mind? Was it a threat? And is there other evidence to back up his new claim, or does it rest merely on his word?
Another thing we know is that the feds will be using the pressure technique, threatening Draconian prosecution, in order to get some witnesses or especially some co-defendants to flip against Trump. This always makes such a person’s testimony suspect, although sometimes there is independent corroboration, which makes it stronger.
We also know that this case would never have been brought against Biden, Obama, Hillary Clinton, or probably any other Democrat had that person done the same exact things as Trump and his employees.
The idea that Trump would delete video from a surveillance camera is laughable. For starters, the guy is 77 or 78 years old, and even if he possesses the skill to use a cell phone, that’s not the same thing as understanding a security system and its ancillary devices. Beyond that, any security system at MAL would have been installed because he wanted it installed, and of all the people who would know that cameras are present, it would be Trump. Third, high profile people don’t have security systems that just activate signals within the house, those systems probably alert a central station of some kind to dispatch an armed response. So the central station operator probably has a copy of the video.
For some reason, this reminds me of Epstein, but in the opposite way: there are almost certainly videos of high profile politicians and celebrities and business people visiting Epstein’s island and having sex with young women who were not of legal age. Isn’t it strange how those videos have never been leaked?
Without the nakedly political persecution factor, Trump’s lead in the polls might not be as formidable. By now the electorate has figured out that corrupt DAs and the DOJ are essentially telling us “Yes, we stole it” without saying that directly.
As far as I know, none of the other candidates have even said that the 2020 election was “likely stolen”. Is anyone other than Trump willing to boldly carry the torch for election integrity? If so, they’ve yet to be heard from.
Indicting a lawyer for providing counsel is outrageous. Even actual mobsters are entitled to counsel.
they still haven’t proferred that video, in discovery,
so jack smith, who is ethically bereft on a shred of integrity, is to be relied upon this,
Reading stories like this makes me feel like crying and never looking at any media again. These things that are being done to how our country is supposed to work hit me harder than the Maui fire. I feel a lot of compassion for the people of Maui, which I have been to several times, but that was an act of God or nature. What is happening in the Trump indictments is a choice these people are making. How can they not see that perverting the justice system is evil? The ends justify the means is the most amoral idea I know of. I know people who will think, “If those in government can ignore laws, I will too”.
jack smith is the pirate they sent, he has failed to answer judge cannons requests,
From what I have read, the 18 co-defendants of President Trump have way more fear getting dumped into the Fulton County Jail that many, including Peter Strzok, gleefully want to occur.
The machinations of a Kangaroo Court have to be feared I guess but it’s all a card trick of finding something that sounds like a serious charge but has happened by every past President, VP and Secretary of State without a peep.
I
Most of DJT’s co-conspirators are lawyers. Most of them are very good lawyers. Methinks the Fulton County DA is going to be legally out gunned in this trial.
What is finally going to be put in evidence in a court is the evidence that the GOP has collected that shows the fraud in the 2020 election. The jury will be mostly Democrats, so the case may have to be won on appeal. Still, I think it’s splendid opportunity to get the evidence of fraud out there.
On the other hand, it’s a waste of money and time because the underlying charges are unfounded.
How prescient: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/AuEAAOSwXgljPpaQ/s-l1600.jpg
“So much of left wing thought is it kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot…” George Orwell
Did see a clip of a woman from Trump side that they have more fraud vote evidence in Fulton County than anywhere else.
To me if it’s a fraud vote charge hammer them with their voting fraud.
The other three indictments were bad, but the Georgia indictment is so insane that I have a hard time understanding what they think they will accomplish by pursuing it. What they are asking a jury to believe is that despite a mountain of evidence that the 2020 election had serious problems, that there is not even a small chance that Donald Trump may have believed that election was stolen from him.
As JJ has pointed out, many of the defendants are skilled lawyers and will rip this case apart. I don’t think this case helps their cause of damaging Trump at all and will likely have the effect of weakening all the other charges against Trump.
thats why they have disbarred both guiliani, and eastman, guiliani who put a real american terrorist, in prison for 58 years, who put away mobsters and corrupt cops and some shady investment bankers, now he may have empowered this crew of bandits, with some of his tactics, alan dershowitz was very critical of the latter in liars poker through the accounts I read from james stewart,
I think that we are going to find that the DA bit off more than she can chew. One big one is that many of the actions were in the Oval Office by the sitting President. They just beg for Removal – where the jury pool is the entire judicial district, not a deep blue county in Atlanta. Trump likely had more legitimate votes in 2020 than Biden did, which means a jury with a lot of supporters. Which, everything else being even means that he could probably win by a preponderance of the evidence, and not just rebutting Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. My prediction is that the federal courts pretty much have to allow removal for most of the case because if they don’t, this sort of attack will become common place across the country, on both sides.