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 occurrence 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 laws college, where he had previously served as dean and professor of constitutional law. 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. He has been turned down by Bank of America and the USAA. 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 spent 128 pages explaining why he should lose his legal registration next week.
All of this because John had the courage to defend and fervently advocate for his or her customer, no matter how unpopular or even dubious that client may become. This is what every law school student is taught to do in lawful ethics class. In this case, John’s unhappy client was a high- 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 customer at the time, there has been an enormous amount of misconceptions about John’s actions. In contrast to John’s legal advice, the corporate media and the Democrat-lawfare complex commonly refer to it as encouraging the “overturning of an election” or “fomenting an insurrection,” but quite exponential talk is reckless and madly off base.
John did well in a gripping essay titled” Setting the Record Straight on the POTUS ‘ Ask.'” for Claremont’s American Mind online journal on January 18, 2021.
His 12th Amendment claim that the vice president should play a more active role in certifying the states ‘ electorates ‘ slates of voters and his accompanying claim that the Electoral Count of 1887 may not be true, but it falls within the purview of reasonable, nonvolvolous legal argumentation that an attorney can ( in fact, should press upon an irritable client.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never given a legally binding interpretation of the relevant 12th Amendment provision, which is doubly true here. In courtrooms all over the country, numerous legal arguments that are more absurd than this are being advanced daily.
Nor is John Eastman the only man being prosecuted, and possibly disbarred, for his legal activity 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 rule that could have resulted in his own disbarment there. All of this is the result of an internal memo from the Department of Justice that Clark never even sent.
Once upon a time, the American Left understood that it was necessary to ensure that all Americans had access to legal counsel, regardless of their level of public support for their political views.
Indeed, the most famous example of unpopular 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 second president, took it upon himself to defend the British 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 cannot 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 the legal profession is to avoid the repression of the rule of law by the Jacobins ‘ own friend/enemy-level politics and the cowing into submission of those attorneys who would so much as to consider representing a prominent Republican client or work in a Republican Department of Justice. Ironically, and without any hint of self- awareness, they do all this in the name of “our democracy”.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS. COM
