Warning: This is a long (c.4,000-word) diary. It is the best I can do to reduce a 128-page survey of Eastman’s corrupt behavior to a manageable length. He is that prolific a miscreant. However, with bolded section headings, I have tried to make it skimmable to save the reader time.
Introduction
On March 27, California’s state bar issued a press release: State Bar Court Hearing Judge Recommends John Eastman's Disbarment. It starts:
“In a 128-page ruling, California State Bar Court hearing Judge Yvette D. Roland found licensee John Charles Eastman (SBN 193726) culpable of 10 of the disciplinary charges filed by the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) and recommended that he be disbarred. Absent a challenge, the recommendation goes to the California Supreme Court for review.
Background
Who is John Eastman, and what did he do? As many readers know, Eastman is a lawyer on Trump’s insurrection team. His legal work for Trump was so unprofessional, unethical, and illegal that Eastman is on trial in the Georgia election interference case. He is an un-indicted co-conspirator in Trump’s Jan 6 case. And he is on the verge of disbarment in California.
Judge Roland’s order
In her order (to read it, click HERE and go to “Download Document” at the bottom of page 2) Judge Yvette D. Roland explained the acts that led her to recommend Eastman be forbidden to practice law in California. Let us have a look at it.
Roland starts by enumerating Eastman’s alleged offenses and the disposition of the 11 counts.
Eastman is charged with
- one count of failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States
- two counts of seeking to mislead a court
- six counts of moral turpitude by making various misrepresentations
- two additional counts of moral turpitude
After full consideration of the record, the court finds that OCTC has satisfied its burden of proving all charges except for count eleven, which the court dismisses with prejudice.
Roland agreed with the state bar except for the count charging Eastman with conduct leading to the invasion of the Capitol.
The order then outlines the legal odyssey of briefs, motions, hearings, and whatnot that brought the matter to a decision. Suffice it to say that Eastman had a full opportunity to defend himself. The order then outlined the background leading to the charges.
Findings of Fact
“The NDC [Notice of Disciplinary Charges] alleges misconduct surrounding Eastman’s involvement in the efforts to reject, delay and/or obstruct the electoral vote after the 2020 presidential election.”
Despite the depth, breadth, and complexity of the case law and historical context cited by the parties, this disciplinary proceeding boils down to an analysis of whether or not Eastman, in his role as the attorney for then-President Donald Trump and his re-election campaign, acted dishonestly in his comments and advice given regarding the issue of whether then-Vice President Mike Pence had authority to unilaterally reject certain states’ slate of electors and/or delay or recess the electoral count during the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021, and the manner in which he pursued legal action aimed at obstructing the lawful electoral process.
(Bolding mine)
The order then goes into detail about how states pick electors. And how Congress counts Electoral College votes.
Eastman’s Relationship with President Trump and Trump’s Re-Election Campaign
The order explains how Eastman was hired by Trump in November 2020 to assist in thwarting the will of the voters. One of his first acts was to sign on to Texas’s suit in the US Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, in which Texas alleged those states had violated the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Texas suit
The order outlines Texas’ claims (I have edited out repetition & extraneous detail to save time. The full text is on page 11 of the order)
Factual Allegations in Support of Texas’s Motion for Leave and Bill of Complaint
- “Rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts” and irregularities in the electoral process that “[t]aken together, these flaws affect an outcome-determinative numbers (sic) of popular votes.”
- “The probability of Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.
- “The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Hilary Clinton’s performance in 2016 and Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020.
- “Put simply, there is substantial reason to doubt the voting results.
- “The number of absentee and mail-in ballots that have been handled unconstitutionally greatly exceeds the difference between the vote totals of the two candidates in each Defendant States.”
Texas’s argument is: “Because we cannot accept Biden won, he didn’t.” This fallacy channels Mark Twain’s thoughts on math and honesty. “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” And we should note that statistics are your default position when you have no evidence.
Next, Roland outlines the ‘facts’ Texas alleges (page 11). This takes 13 pages.
Texas’s Claims of Outcome-Determinative Fraud
Texas alleged “rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts” described in unidentified, pending lawsuits filed in Defendant States, which included:
- “the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at-12-tabulation centers;
- illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;
- “[v]ideos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers
- suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave”;
- “a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia.
Texas filed its suit in December 2020. The offenses it listed were alleged in 62 other lawsuits — of which all but one failed. And that was a technical error. So it was unsurprising Eastman’s Judge pointed out that:
“Texas did not offer any support for the factual claims of widespread lawlessness and failed to elucidate how the alleged unconstitutional actions of any Defendant State were connected to the alleged rampant lawlessness it identified.”
MAGA lawyers are brilliant on the courtroom steps but losers in the court. I do not think they care. They wallow in the warm glow of brown-lipped satisfaction from an Olympian session of orange bum-suckling.
Eastman’s actions from his hiring by Trump through the January 6 attempted insurrection and beyond
Next, Roland enumerates case by case Eastman’s actions and claims in each instance. This survey takes 51 pages. Eastman was found to have relied on speculation, things he knew to be false, fringe opinions, misrepresentations of the law, and irrelevant cases. In addition. he conveniently ignored his earlier opinions which contradicted his newfound enthusiasm for illegally keeping Trump in power.
For example, the order points out (page 44) that Eastman’s contention that VP Pence had the power to interfere in the Electoral College count contradicted his previous beliefs:
“However, Eastman has not always supported this position. For example, in November 2000, when Eastman testified before the Florida state legislature in connection with the Bush v. Gore presidential election, Eastman explained that Congress counts the votes, Congress is the ultimate arbiter as to any disputes regarding the count and Congress answers to no one on this issue:
In addition: “Twenty years later, in a mid-October 2020 exchange between Eastman and Colbert … Eastman replied, “I don’t agree with this [that VP Pence has the power to prevent an EC count]. The 12th Amendment only says that the President of the Senate opens the ballots in the joint session and then, in the passive voice, that the votes shall then be counted. 3 U.S.C. §12 says merely that he is the presiding officer, and then it spells out specific procedures, presumptions, and default rules for which slates will be counted. Nowhere does it suggest that the President of the Senate [Pence] gets to make the determination on his own.
Roland also points out that Eastman had denied the validity of alternative slates of Electors. Yet, in less than two months, Eastman had joined the cult.
“Acknowledging that these were positions Eastman held for over 20 years, positions which were contrary to the two-page memo scenario which stated Vice President Pence had unilateral authority to count and resolve disputed votes, Eastman claimed that his change of position between October 2020 and December 2020 was due to a significant amount of additional research.”
Additional research? Where? On the internet? Like all the other MAGAs? The order goes on to enumerate other examples of Eastman knowingly lying. For example:
“In the memos, Eastman also stated, falsely, that “[t]here is very solid legal authority and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch.”
The judge then outlines the feverish debate in the White House over how to convince Pence to either not allow Congress to count the EC votes because some states were considering decertifying their EC slates (a lie, none were). Or to send the results in the toss-up states Trump had lost back to those states’ legislatures to be ‘fixed.’
Next comes a discussion of the lies Eastman told the MAGAs at Trump’s Jan 6 rally at the Eclipse. Again, Eastman said things he knew to be false. Or did not bother to check because he thought they were unlikely — despite being true (page 65).
“Significantly, about two months before Eastman made the damning Dominion voting machine vulnerabilities remarks on the Ellipse, Eastman had become aware that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) stated on November 12, 2020, “[t]he November 3rd election was the most secure in American history,” notwithstanding the “many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections.”
CISA further stated “[w]e can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections and you should, too. When you have questions, turn to the elections officials as trusted voices, as they administer elections.” Eastman found the CISA statement to be “rather implausible” and did not reach out to any election officials regarding the Dominion voting machines or the reliability of the election in their state.
Conclusions of Law
Here, Roland takes on each of Eastman’s defenses. She starts with his First Amendment Defense. She is not swayed by Eastman’s “I can lie if I want to" 1A reasoning.
[Page 77] There is little doubt that the State’s interest to protect the public, maintain the highest professional standards by attorneys, and preserve public confidence in the legal system, outweighs any potential free speech rights attorneys may assert in making false and misleading statements. It follows then that Eastman does not have a First Amendment right to make statements that violate the provisions of section 6106.
And[Page 78]: “Separately, the protections of the First Amendment are not absolute and certain categories of speech are subject to less constitutional protection. For example, false statements made knowingly or with reckless disregard of the truth are not protected speech.
The 11 counts against Eastman
Roland next addresses the charges specifically. She starts with Count Two – Seeking to Mislead a Court. (page 81) She writes
“OCTC alleges that [in his agreement with Texas’ groundless case to the Supreme Court] Eastman knew there “was no evidence upon which a reasonable attorney would rely of fraud in any state election in sufficient numbers that could have affected the outcome of the election.”
Roland agreed
“At the time Eastman filed the Motion to Intervene, it was evident and known to Eastman, that federal courts had already considered and dismissed claims of outcome-determinative irregularities affecting the 2020 presidential election.”
It seems Eastman was so in the tank for Trump he bet the farm that SCOTUS was unaware of what lower federal courts had already determined. Absurd. But that is cultism for you.
Count Three – Moral Turpitude [Misrepresentation] (page 87).
Here, Roland is blunt:
“In count three, OCTC charged Eastman with willfully violating section 6106 by drafting a two-page memo dated December 23, 2020, which falsely stated that seven states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin) “have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.”)
The court agrees and finds Eastman is culpable as charged.”
Count Four – Seeking to Mislead a Court (page 90)
“OCTC charges Eastman with making the following false statements: “Georgia election officials allowed unqualified individuals to register and vote, allowed convicted felons still serving their sentence to vote, allowed underaged individuals to register and then vote, allowed unregistered or late registered individuals to vote, allowed individuals to vote who had moved across county lines, allowed individuals to vote who had registered at a P.O. Box, church, or courthouse rather than their residence, and accepted votes cast by deceased individuals.”
The court agrees.
Count Five – Moral Turpitude [Misrepresentation] (page 95)
“OCTC charged Eastman with willfully or gross negligently violating section 6106 – by aiming to foster doubt about the legitimacy of the election results in making a statement on Bannon’s War Room radio program that: (1) “there was massive evidence of fraud involving absentee ballots in the November 3, 2020, presidential election, ‘most egregiously in Georgia and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin’”; and (2) “there had been more than enough absentee ballot fraud ‘to have affected the outcome of the election.’”
The court finds that Eastman is culpable of this charge.
Count Six – Moral Turpitude [Misrepresentation] (page 97)
OCTC charged Eastman with moral turpitude and willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106 by stating the following in his January 3, 2021, six-page memo:
- There had been “outright fraud” through “electronic manipulation of voting tabulation machines;”
- There were “dual slates of electors from 7 states,” because the Trump electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin had met on December 14, 2020, cast their electoral votes for Trump, and transmitted those votes to Pence;
- The State of Michigan “mailed out absentee ballots to every registered voter, contrary to statutory requirement that voter (sic) apply for absentee ballots”; and
- “This election was stolen by a strategic Democrat plan to systemically flout existing election laws for partisan advantage.”
Roland shreds that nonsense:
“Despite the absence of substantiated evidence, Eastman knowingly made false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, suggesting manipulation of electronic voting machines to bolster his case for Vice President Pence to adjourn the Joint Session of Congress.”
And she cracks Eastman’s knuckles:
“With the exception of Eastman’s opinion regarding the election being “stolen by a strategic Democrat plan,” the court finds Eastman culpable of willfully violating section 6106 as alleged in count six.”
Count Seven – Moral Turpitude [Misrepresentation] (§ 6106) (page 101)
“Eastman is charged with violating section 6106 by stating that “Dominion electronic voting machines had fraudulently manipulated the election results during the November 3, 2020, presidential election and during the January 5, 2021, run-off election in Georgia for its two Senate seats.”
The decision:
“The court finds that Eastman, at a minimum, acted with gross negligence amounting to moral turpitude by recklessly relying on unverified sources and unverified information while deliberately disregarding credible information about the security of the 2020 election, thereby violating section 6106.”
Count Eight – Moral Turpitude [Misrepresentation] (page 103)
Roland gets to the point and decision quickly:
“In count eight, Eastman is charged with willfully violating section 6106 by sending an email to Greg Jacob on January 6, 2021, with the intent to pressure Vice President Pence to adjourn the Joint Session of Congress, wherein he wrote: “‘You think you can’t adjourn the session because the [Electoral Count Act] says no adjournment, while the compelling evidence that the election was stolen continues to build and is already overwhelming?’”
The court finds Eastman culpable of willfully violating section 6106.
Count Nine – Moral Turpitude [Misrepresentation] (page 105)
“In count nine, OCTC charged Eastman with making the following three statements in the January 18, 2021 “Setting the Record Straight on the POTUS ‘Ask’” article, which Eastman knew were false and misleading:
- “[I]n Fulton County, Georgia, where suitcases of ballots were pulled from under the table after election observers had been sent home for the night;”
- “[I]n parts of Wayne County (Detroit) Michigan, where there were more absentee votes cast than had been requested;” and
- “[I]n Antrim County, Michigan, where votes were electronically flipped from Trump to Biden.”
Roland again agrees with OCTC (the California bar)
“Eastman’s willful ignorance and refusal to consider evidence contrary to his assertions do not excuse him from responsibility for spreading falsehoods. The court also rejects Eastman’s First Amendment defense since the court has already concluded that Eastman did not have a constitutional right to make false and misleading statements that violate section 6106.
Count Ten – Moral Turpitude (page 106)
“In count ten, OCTC charges Eastman with moral turpitude in violation of section 6106, by repeatedly proposing and seeking to encourage Vice President Pence to exercise authority to disregard the electoral votes of certain states or delay the counting of electoral votes.”
Again, Roland wasted no time:
“The court has already determined, in counts three and six, that Eastman’s statements in his two memos regarding the powers of the Vice President were false.”
Still, he promoted this wild theory for the benefit of his client’s desire to retain the presidency.”
And: “Still, Eastman persisted with his plan.”
And: “Eastman was aware, or should have been aware, that the course of conduct he proposed in his memos was factually and legally unsupported.”
Count Eleven – Moral Turpitude (page 109)
Finally, Roland throws Eastman a bone — metaphorically offering a glass of water to a dying man.
“In count eleven, Eastman is charged with violating section 6106 by telling the crowd of protesters at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, “that fraud had occurred in the election, that dead people had voted, that electronic voting machines had been used to fraudulently alter the election results, that Pence had authority to delay the counting of votes, and that [Vice President] Pence did not deserve to be in office if he did not delay the counting of votes.”
OCTC alleged that these statements were false and misleading and “contributed to provoking the crowd to assault and breach the Capitol in an effort to intimidate [Vice President] Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding, when such harm was foreseeable.”
The court does not find Eastman culpable of the misconduct alleged in this count.
Roland’s rationale is that OCTC had not proved the link between Eastman’s lies and the violence. Fair enough. Although this late-inning hit still leaves Eastman with a batting average of only .091.
Roland had left the first for last. Probably because it is the marquee charge.
Count One – Failure to Support the Laws of The United States (page 110)
Here, OCTC charges Eastman in count one with failure to support the Constitution and the laws of the United States in violation of section 6068, subdivision (a), by violating three provisions of the law;
- (1) 3 U.S.C. § 15; [which outlines the precise procedure for the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6 following every meeting of the electors.
- (2) Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 and the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution; [Elector rules]
- and (3) 18 U.S.C. § 371. [Obstruction of a lawful function of the government of the United States]
Eastman can further reflect on this section during his Georgia election fixing RICO trial. It will not help him that Roland writes:
“The evidence clearly and convincingly proves that Eastman and President Trump entered into an agreement to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress by unlawfully having Vice President Pence reject or delay the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021.”
Aggravation and Mitigation
Lastly, having found Eastman violated his oath, as well as professional and ethical standards, Roland considers Aggravation and Mitigation. In short, did Eastman act in a way that would demand a lesser sanction? Or did he behave in a way that would require a tightening of the screws?
For Aggravating Circumstances, Roland writes that Eastman acted like a typical MAGA asshole.
“The court finds aggravation for three factors: multiple acts of wrongdoing, lack of candor and indifference.”
She elucidates. And scores each potential factor — I have added my commentary
- Multiple acts of Wrongdoing: Substantial Weight — Eastman is a serial offender
- Intentional Misconduct, Bad Faith or Dishonesty: No Weight — The prosecution provided no evidence
- Significant Harm: No Weight — While there was significant harm from Trump’s overall scheme to cut democracy’s throat, the prosecution failed to show what harm Eastman specifically caused
- Indifference: Substantial Weight — Eastman did not give a shit
- Lack of Candor: Limited Weight — Eastman was kind of bad, but not really, really bad
Roland then looks for things that could ameliorate the potential penalty: Mitigating Circumstances — again with my commentary
- No Prior Record of Discipline: Moderate Weight — Eastman has not been a bad boy before (good). But it seems likely that, had similar circumstances occurred before, he would have done the same thing (not good).
- Good Faith: No Weight — Roland calls bullshit on Eastman’s claim he thought he was doing the right thing.
- Lack of Harm: No Weight — Roland dismisses Eastman’s claim he did no harm by writing, “The absence of evidence of harm does not constitute evidence of lack of harm.” And it is up to Eastman to prove he did no harm — which he did not.
- Cooperation: Limited Weight — Roland gives Eastman credit for stipulating to the facts. But points out that was all he did to cooperate.
- Extraordinary Good Character: Substantial Weight — Eastman managed to get 15 relevant and important conservatives to say he was a man of good character. So Roland gave him that.
Roland ends with Discussion (page 122) Here, she dismisses the “it’s a political witch hunt defense” and points out Eastman has been a very bad boy.
“As an initial matter, the court rejects Eastman’s contention that this disciplinary proceeding and Eastman’s resultant discipline is motivated by his political views or his representation of President Trump or President Trump’s Campaign. Rather, Eastman’s wrongdoing constitutes exceptionally serious ethical violations warranting severe professional discipline.”
Adding:
“As counsel for President Trump during a disputed presidential election, Eastman made multiple patently false and misleading statements in court filings, in public remarks heard by countless Americans and to others regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election and Vice President Pence’s authority to refuse to count or delay counting properly certified slates of electoral votes on January 6, 2021.”
Roland writes that Eastman’s lack of remorse shows a man who, given the opportunity, would likely sin again — so much for Eastman’s supposed good character that his apologists attested to.
“This lack of remorse and accountability presents a significant risk that Eastman may engage in further unethical conduct, compounding the threat to the public.”
The verdict
She then sticks the landing:
“Guided by the standards, case law, and the purposes of attorney discipline, the court recommends that Eastman be disbarred.”
And to salt Eastman’s wound, she recommends a $10,000 fine. Which seems like a mere drop in Eastman’s sea of troubles.