JOHN EASTMAN’S TRIAL IS A BIASED PROCESS
This is my third, and final, comment on the trial of John Eastman. In my first article, I commented on how the entire proceeding is wrong, because Eastman did nothing more than advise a client about available remedies for the alleged voting wrongs in the 2020 elections. That his advice has some basis in the law is the fact that, in 2022, Congress voted to change the law because it saw that Eastman was right in his interpretation of the Electoral Count Act (ECA) in effect in 2020, and Congress wanted to foreclose future challenges to Electoral College slates from states where there is accusations of voting irregularities. In 2020, the law allowed the remedy proposed by Eastman to the Trump campaign, now it does not. Whether one disagrees with that interpretation of the ECA or not is not grounds to pursue disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer with whom the Bar disagrees, even if a majority of lawyers think that lawyer was wrong.
My second article pointed out, as proof that this proceeding is politically motivated, that the State Bar has been slow to prosecute real criminality by lawyers that has caused real damage to clients, like failing for years to pursue an… Read More