John Eastman is a solicitor, a constitutional scholar, and a friend.
I got to understand John—a past clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, candidate for California attorney general, and professor of Chapman University School of Law—during my weekly 2018 legitimate fellowship with the Claremont Institute, which he oversaw. Since then, we have communicated frequently and have organized at least one occasion for Claremont.
However, since the 2020 presidential poll, John has been put through the wringer more than just about everyone in American public life.
He was forced to leave the law school, where he had previously served as a professor and doctor of constitutional law for many years. He was let go by the University of Colorado’s Benson Center for Western Civilization, where he was a visiting researcher. Armed Stasi—sorry, FBI—agents accosted him in a parking lot and seized his cellphone without a permit. He has been barred from table seating and given educational events. He and his family have endured death threats, peaks in their road, and threatening work in their community. Bank of America and the USAA have defrauded him. He is being illegally prosecuted by incident- driven Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis. Additionally, Judge Yvette Roland of the State Bar of California last week dedicated 128 chapters to explaining why he should lose his legal certificate.
All of this because John had the cynicism to support and fervently advocate for his or her customer, no matter how unpopular or even unworthy that customer may be, as every law college student is taught to do in a lawful ethics class. In this case, John’s unhappy client was a large- report one: original President Donald Trump.
In the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol festival, as well as the legal advice he gave to his well-known client at the time, there has been an enormous number of misconceptions about John’s actions. The Democrat-lawfare advanced and the corporate media frequently refer to John’s legal guidance as encouraging the “overturning of an election” or “fomenting an insurrection,” but quite exponential talk is reckless and madly off-base.
In a gripping essay titled” Setting the Record Straight on the POTUS ‘ Ask.'” for Claremont’s American Mind online journal on January 18, 2021, John succeeded in doing so.
His argument against the vice president’s more active role in certifying the states ‘ electorates ‘ slates of electors and his accompanying argument against the constitutional dubity of the Electoral Count of 1887 fall short of what is necessary for a reasonable, nonvolvolous legal argument that an attorney can ( in fact, should press upon an irritable client ).
The U.S. Supreme Court has not given a legally binding interpretation of the relevant 12th Amendment provision, which is equally true these. In courts all over America, numerous legal arguments that are more silly than this are being advanced every day.
Nor is John Eastman the single gentleman being prosecuted, and perhaps disbarred, for his constitutional action after the 2020 election. Former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark is currently facing charges in Georgia, and he was just found to have broken an ethics concept that could have led to his own disqualification there. All of this is the result of a letter from the inner Department of Justice that Clark not yet sent.
No matter how popular one is with the government or societal elites, the United Left once recognized the moral imperative to ensure that all Americans have enough access to legal representation.
However, the most famous example of such unhappy legal representation in America dates back before the country’s independence: In 1770, a young lawyer named John Adams, the man who would become the young republic’s next president, took it upon himself to support the English soldiers accused of killing five colonists at the Boston Massacre. Years later, in his dotage, Adams reflected that this was “one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country”.
Presumably, Willis and Roland would have preferred to see Adams tarred and feathered for his treachery. In the past, one ca n’t help but wonder how they might have perceived the NAACP’s legal team in the Deep South.
The ultimate goal of those Jacobins who are prosecuting and disbarring attorneys for having the temerity of having a legal career is clear: the rejection of the rule of law by those attorneys who would even consider working for a Republican Department of Justice or serving as a high-profile Republican client. Ironically, and without any hint of self- awareness, they do all this in the name of “our democracy”.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS. COM
