3 Suits Punishing Lawyer For Advising Trump Will Cost Him $3M
3 Suits Punishing Lawyer For Advising Trump Will Cost Him $3M
John Eastman was a target of Democrats' Jan. 6 commission and has been harassed unceasingly since assisting Trump in 2020 litigation.
Notoriously leftist bar associations are using their licensing monopoly to deprive conservatives of high-quality counsel. Texas’ state bar is going after the state attorney general. The New York bar notoriously stripped Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani of his law license. The Arizona state bar is attempting to disbar a local prosecutor for charging Antifa rioters while hundreds of prosecutors filed no charges or only misdemeanors against the domestic terrorist organization.
Oh, the irony of complaining about using the system to impose a viewpoint. Now let's talk about the Supreme Court.
Eastman summarized. “We have been blocked by our governors not calling us into special session to deal with this in any formal way. Please give us a week or 10 days now that we’re back in formal session to conclude our investigations and to make our best judgment about what ought to be done about this illegality.” With the majority of other constitutional scholars on this issue, Eastman believes “Pence had the authority. He didn’t want to exercise it.”
Majority of which scholars? Those hand-picked by the Federalist Society?
“We don’t live by fact anymore, we live by false narratives repeated over and over again until they look true because they’ve been repeated so often,” Eastman said of far-reaching false claims about his legal advice in 2020 election cases, which have resulted in not only his departure from his law school deanship but also losing multiple posts, including with the University of Colorado and The Federalist Society.
Wow. I wonder who made that a popular part of his speeches...
Read the rest of the article and try to remember that it's not satire.
You're viewing a single thread.
For 2020, those states implemented brand new and, courts have subsequently ruled, at least partially illegal mass mail-in balloting systems.
Funny, I don't remember reading about any states declaring their mail-in ballot system as being illegal, although Conservative have put forth a great effort to ban this system because it actually gives everyone an equal chance to cast their vote. Not to mention the only legitimate cases of attempted voting fraud were conducted by Conservatives.
And this often-quoted bit about "100+ lawmakers in swing states claiming their election was conducted illegally"... does anyone have more details on this? I hear it a lot but can't seem to find any credible information on it. I have "heard" online that none of these supposed lawmakers were even officially involved with the election so it could be that everyone else has quit trying to push a false narrative, but I'd still like to know what ever came of this particular aspect of the overall fraud attempt.
I wouldn't take any of their claims seriously.
Oh I don't believe anything from that rag but I bet everything they put in the article was straight from Eastman.
I don't have a source to give you, but as evidenced by Trump's legal team, there's no shortage of partisan hack lawyers. A claim is not evidence, and their opinions about the legality of the elections doesn't make it true, even if there's 1000 of them. You're probably having trouble finding that information, because it was probably fabricated wholecloth.
Any lawyer with even a basic understanding of how laws work would be able to sue over the legality of the conduct of their elections. Yet, where are those lawsuits? They don't exist, because it's a fucking lie.
Yeah I assumed as much, and I'm certain that these lawmakers who made the claims were all Republicans who couldn't stand the idea that nobody is buying their party line lies any more. However at some point every credible accusation at least has seen some form of testimony even if they were laughed out of court... but I don't remember seeing anything at all about this instance so I was surprised that Eastman is still bringing it up. If he's such an expert on law then he should know that you need credible proof to make such claims, yet everything he's complaining about in the article was immediately laughed at because no evidence was ever given.
If he's such an expert on law then he should know that you need credible proof to make such claims...
Not when you're trying to win in the court of public opinion. He obviously still sees value in kissing Trump's ring, possibly hoping a Trump win and subsequent fascist takeover will make his legal woes go away. Or maybe he intends to draw from that well of seemingly inexhaustible money.
Either way, the guy was willing to try to subvert democracy the first time despite knowing he had fragile legal footing. He should know better and likely does, but he's clearly willing to try to exploit the weaker parts of our system for his own ideals, and fuck the rest of us.
I was just happy to see how many law schools have already shut down his attempts at employment. Maybe he can still find something in Florida where the government doesn't care about the law or people's rights.