With the decision of the disbarming, the downfall of John Eastman continues

Friday, June 13 was a really bad luck for John Eastman, one important architect of President Trump’s conspiracy to disturb the results of the 2020 presidential election. A California Appellate Court, charged with revising recommendations to Discipline Advocaten in that state, confirmed the findings From a judge judge and recommends that Eastman “would be eliminated from the practice in California and that the name of Eastman is being hit by the role of lawyers.”

The jury members discovered that his work at the 2020 election case was sloppy and deceptive. “Disbarment,” they said, “is necessary to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession.”

This is a professional death sentence for every lawyer. But the decision of the court is not only a devastating blow to Eastman, but also for the myth of Trumpist that the presidential elections of 2020 were stolen.

That lie Reed Maga’s 2024 Election efforts and still manages Trump’s speeches, including the person he recently has gave troops in Fort BraggNC It is also embraced by the heads of the Ministry of Justice and the FBI, as well as by the chairman of the Mike Johnson house.

And, as the court noted, Eastman himself continues to this day to claim that there were “nasty troops behind the election profit of former President Biden.”

But like the House on January 6 and 60 Other courtsThe judges who participate in the assessment department of the California State Bar Court would have nothing. They made it clear that “in a democracy nothing can be more fundamental than the orderly transfer of power that takes place after a reasonable and unobstructed election process”, and that Trump and Eastman violated the law through conspiracy and lying to disrupt the 2020 elections.

So why is the Eastman -ruling Friday important?

The is unique And memorable because this is the only procedure where Eastman, together with supporting denial enthusiasts, witnessed their critics under Ede, cross their critics and presented their full denial defense. Eastman – assisted by his denialist apostles, who lasted 19 days to witness, presented 7 witnesses and introduced more than 180 document exhibitions – had more than his day in court. He also presented his stolen election story to the public, with thousands of looking through Zoom.

After considering this evidence, the Review Court ruled that the “false story” of “Snode troops behind” the 2020 victory of President Biden “resulted in the undermining of the election process of our country, reduced confidence in election professionals and reduced respect for the courts of this country.”

And even if none of the meticulous decisions of these two Californian courts changes the thoughts of the Maga believers, nor the Republican leadership to reject the great lie, the decisions and evidence that support them will resist the tests of time and help the historic revisionism foil. They put the record straight and make sure that Trump and his henchmen will have trouble escaping the judgment of history.

As former supreme judge Charles Evans Hughes noted, judicial statements such as those who last week not only focus on our current moment, but also “to the intelligence of a future day.”

The Eastman case again shows that wrong information and collapse lies in a courtroom where facts and evidence rule. Under the most important findings of the courts are:

• Eastman admitted that he knew no significant ballot that would justify the election results.
• Eastman failed to “support the Constitution or Laws of the United States” as all lawyers have to do.
• Eastman was roughly negligent in not investigating the bizarre results of statistical studies that he trusted to disturb the presidential elections – for example, that there was a quadriljoen for the fourth chance of power to win Biden Four States after Clinton lost them in 2016.
• Eastman knew that his speech of January 6, 2020 was being built on lies and deliberate blindness. “We know that there was … Traditional fraud that took place,” he said. “We know that dead people voted.” At the time, he understood that neither claims were true. And the assessment department rejected the defense of Eastman ‘mere’ rhetorical hyperbool ”.

  The courts also found his statement not a credible defense for his fraudulent actions and wrong characteristics. Both courts announced Eastman’s claims that such explanations and rhetorical hyperbool are constitutionally protected.

  Although recognition that all lawyers have a right in the first amendment to make public statements, the court of the assessment department said that “this right does not extend to make knowing or reckless false statements or legislation.” Neither does the first amendment protect the speech “used as an aid in committing a crime.”

• Eastman wrongly told the 6 January “Stop The Steal” crowd and the nation that irregularities of election legislation and fraudulent mood had changed the result of the presidential election. Part of the proof? As the judge of the trial noted, Eastman wrote on November 29, 2020 to fellow Maga lawyer Cleta Mitchell that in no states he was aware of the outcome-determining fraud: “It would be nice to have hard documented evidence of fraud.”
• Eastman’s biggest lie was that Vice President Pence had the authority to interfere with the election mood. Both Eastman and Trump knew that Pence did not have such an authority, but on behalf of the president, Eastman Pence and his lawyer continued to put pressure on disrupting the number of election lectures.

  Even Eastman’s own witnessing constitutional expert and family friend, conservative professor John Yoo, reversed Eastman. Yoo gave breathtaking that the alternative electoral base of Trump-Eastman ‘was a made-up dispute instead of a real one’ and that Pence’s rejection of the arguments of the couple was ‘indisputable’.

• The assessment department also emphasized that the testimony of Eastman during the Disciplinary Procedures of the Bar demonstrated that his beliefs were not sincere, honest or credible. From start to finish, the court found, “he used his skills to push a false story in the courtroom, the White House and the media.”

Despite such abundant and well -documented findings, the law in California is on it Meet the heavy burden From “clear and convincing evidence” Before a lawyer can be excluded, Trump’s best election lawyer has remained challenging, unfair and not credible. Eastman characterized the bar that came as a ‘political persecution’.

He insisted that those who had filed charges against him should ‘be excluded themselves’ and that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar and the judge judge were ‘partisely’ actors who had delivered campaign contributions to Democrats.

This rhetoric naturally sounds creepy known.

Eastman will probably appeal at the Supreme Court of California And, if he loses there, eventually at the American Supreme Court on the first grounds for amendments.

It is also possible that Trump can nominate Eastman when the vacancy of the Supreme Court takes place. After all, if we can have a convicted criminal in the White House, why not a moved, but loyal lawyer at the highest court of the nation?

What also unfolds for Eastman, and despite the deep damage caused by Trump’s election disclosure, the Eastman case forced the trust of Alexander Hamilton that this nation Well served by an independent judiciary.

As if he anticipated the election of Trump and Eastman, Hamilton argued that courts would “monitor the constitution and the rights of individuals against the consequences of … the actions of designing men or the influence of details [circumstances which] Sometimes spread among the people themselves … ”

Almost 250 years later, Hamilton sounds positively clairvoyant.