Justice for John Eastman

[Armando Ramos]

The Lawfare Against John Eastman and Jeff Clark Portend The Fate of Every Right-Leaning Attorney Who Fails To Stand Up For Their Persecuted Colleagues
by Paul Ingrassia Apr. 4, 2024 8:00 am



If the Biden Regime can be summarized by a single word, it would be: injustice.  No presidential administration in the history of the United States ever observed such an egregious assault on civil liberties and the rule of law, especially constitutional due process and the presumption of innocence, than what is now occurring under Biden and his weaponized Department of Justice today.  Donald Trump is, of course, Political Hostage Numero Uno of the weaponized justice system – and his white martyrdom at the hand of a deeply subverted justice system in this country has galvanized his base, and his countrymen, to levels that surpass anytime since he first entered politics in 2015.

Americans recognize the grave injustice of what is now unfolding in courtrooms across the country.  But of course, the casualties of America’s weaponized justice system span well beyond President Trump, extending to lawyers who represented him during that most trying period for the republic, between November of 2020 and January of 2021, when the Constitution was put on the chopping block.  The few lawyers who did rise up to defend President Trump channeled the brave spirit of the Founding Fathers in doing so, putting literally everything on the line – their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor – when virtually nobody else in the profession (and that is without exaggeration) would do the same.

Two such lawyers, John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, entered the storm as many of their peers turned a blind eye — or actively turned against them.  That most turbulent period in the days and weeks following the 2020 election put strains on our constitutional form of government to a degree not seen in generations, at least spanning back to the Civil War era.  But it is during periods of trials and tribulations, not of peace and tranquility, that the Constitution’s durability is put to the ultimate test.  In order to keep a republic amid great adversity, exceptional men of character must rise up – and go against the grain, to preserve the time-honored traditions and sacred way of life incubated and passed down from one generation to the next.

Eastman and Clark were two such men of exceptional character who rose to the occasion and heeded the call, of not just their President (and client, for which there are important attorney-client privileges attached), who asked them to make sound and reasonable enquiries into widespread allegations of election fraud affecting the 2020 race, but the rich heritage of their forefathers – who also sacrificed a great deal when faced with long odds, to preserve the cause of freedom.  Prior to their involvement in the 2020 election, Eastman and Clark were two of the most eminent lawyers in the country.  They each boasted impressive resumes: Eastman was a graduate of the University of Chicago, who later clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and worked as a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, one of the most prestigious law firms anywhere.  Clark also matriculated from one of this country’s top law schools: Georgetown, which, coupled with his Harvard degree in economics and history, helped land him a prestigious clerkship on the Sixth Circuit, followed by a position also at Kirkland & Ellis, where he made partner and worked for over two decades – interrupted only by two stints in the Department of Justice under George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump.  Never once had either man’s character, ethics, judgment, or qualifications been doubted at any point in time prior to January of 2021, never mind been accused of having committed a breach of professional ethics, let alone indicted for a crime.

Eastman and Clark supplemented their encyclopedic knowledge of American law with deep studies in political philosophy, theory, and history.  Eastman was a student of Harry V. Jaffa, one of America’s foremost natural law theorists, who, continuing a venerable intellectual tradition that began with his own professor, Leo Strauss, famously made explicit America’s natural law-based constitutional underpinnings in works such as A House Divided.

Clark, likewise, is a student of history, possessing an enviable grasp of Soviet history, in particular – and, pertinently, through his deep studies of the persecutions that occurred against political dissidents under Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev, as viscerally recounted in the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whom he frequently invokes, with uncanny germaneness, when given the opportunity to do so in public speeches.

It is in part due to their scholarly backgrounds that Eastman and Clark understand, certainly better than most of their colleagues, the high stakes of not upholding the Constitution – as well as the tyranny that inevitably flows from inaction.  That tyranny they both are experiencing firsthand, in real time, with the disbarments they face – Eastman received news last Wednesday, midway through Holy Week for practicing Catholics (a faith to which both men belong), that he was being disbarred by the State Bar of California.  His crime?  Standing with President Trump and educating the President about Executive actions he could take, as Commander-in-Chief, to remedy perceived electoral fraud throughout the system.  Eastman now-famously advised Vice President Pence that he had the power, under the Constitution (which the Congress later amended in 2022, defanging the Vice President’s role in overseeing elections to a purely ‘ministerial’ duty), to return slates of electors back to states – particularly states, like Georgia and Arizona, subject to accusations, and evidence, of widespread fraud, last-minute rule changes, and irregularities of all sorts.

Nothing of what Eastman advised the former Vice President to do was unconstitutional, much less unreasonable.  He offered a valid interpretation of the document, consistent with the text and longstanding history of election law, from the authority of a legal scholar well steeped in these issues, at the behest of a President of the United States, as the nation was teetering on the brink of outright constitutional crisis.  For these maneuvers, none of which impute criminal or civil liability under any statute, nor are equipped with the sufficient intent to establish liability by the requisite evidentiary legal standard (“clear and convincing evidence”) in the first place, Eastman is being penalized by the heavy hand of the State.

In a Substack article and press release published the day the California State Bar recommended he be disbarred, Eastman said that he would appeal the decision — all the way to the Supreme Court, if need be:

We will appeal the decision, of course, and hopefully the California Bar Review Court, the California Supreme Court, or the U.S. Supreme Court will step in to put a stop to this “lawfare” that has become a serious threat to the First Amendment, the right of controversial clients and causes to legal representation, and more broadly to our adversarial system of justice. Also attached below is the statement put out by my attorneys earlier this evening

Eastman’s willingness to appeal the sham disbarment ruling all the way to the Supreme Court is admirable, and something he should do. The Supreme Court, and particularly Trump-appointed judges and justices across the judiciary, should get ahead of the curve by either fast-tracking Eastman and Clark’s case through the federal court system, so that they can receive a fair hearing and not be subject to the indignities of Leftist lawfare via hostile judges, juries, and venues. Or, at the very least, issue a strong and emphatic public statement denouncing this sort of penalty against two of the bravest men in the profession. If Justice Thomas, for whom Eastman formerly clerked, for instance (or any justice of the Supreme Court for that matter), were to issue a public statement to rally judicial sentiment on behalf of this most important cause, that would go a long way towards increasing morale and sending a signal that this kind of lawfare against anyone, but especially lawyers who faithfully adhere to the original construction of the Constitution, is not to be tolerated.
Jeff Clark was serving as Acting United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice when he was summoned by President Trump to inquire into allegations of election fraud in the state of Georgia, among other places.  Clark has faced criminal charges for making honest inquiries into election fraud affecting the 2020 results, particularly in the Peach State, where the evidence overwhelmingly proves was riven with fraud, for which he was indicted, and forced to take a mugshot, alongside both Eastman and President Trump, last summer.

It is an affront to the rule of law when professional lawyers are subject to criminal prosecution for simply upholding election procedures to a rigorous standard – which would appear more important than ever in an age where narratives of election fraud, conspiracy and subversion seem to consume at least half the news cycle, from both sides of the political aisle, twenty four hours of the day, seven days a week.  Jeff Clark did ask the tough questions, and, for making simple inquiries about election procedures in Georgia, he is now being prosecuted for shining a light upon the incompetence of Georgia’s Uniparty, of whom both Kemp and Willis are kindred spirits.

For exposing them, Clark, Eastman, Trump, Giuliani, et al. have had to pay a considerable price – to their lives, reputations, even health (the agonies of going through spiritually crushing litigation day-in-and-day-out have a lasting physical toll), as much as a mental and spiritual one.  It makes perfect sense, however, that in our DEI-regime, where all standards (and, especially, the standards for competence, integrity, honesty) are regularly demeaned and denigrated to no end – nay, to even propose objective standards for truth, morality, and competence in our day and age is considered an egregious assault on the egalitarian values of the Regime, certainly exposing oneself to being blanket-labeled a dirty racist and Nazi! That lawyers like Clark, who have tried to hold the legal profession to some form of accountability, is now being treated like a villain.

And yet, as we all know (too, too well!) from the Fani Willis affair, Georgia’s Uniparty is the epitome of incompetence; and, as time would show, their broken election procedures – which included late night ballot drop offs, arbitrary rule changes that amplify the risk of allowing dead voters and illegals to cast votes via absentee ballots, a complete and total lack of transparency – or impartiality – in election counting procedures – only scratched the surface.

The illegitimacy of Georgia’s regnant political class is being exposed, in real time, with the corrupt show trial taking place there, presided over by District Attorney, Fani Willis, and her special prosecutor and, infamously, ex(?)-paramour, Nathan Wade, who was patently unqualified to take on the most important criminal case in the country, a hatchet job against a President of the United States – having never so much as prosecuted petty misdemeanors before in his former post as a glorified municipal traffic court judge, before being tapped (pegged?) by Fani for the job that would immortalize him to the history books.  The egregious conflict of interest between Willis and Wade violated virtually every canon of legal and judicial ethics, every rule of professional responsibility, in the books – in any other time, both Wade and Willis would have not only been forced to recuse themselves but have been disbarred from practicing law for abusing and profiting off their public offices, at the expense of Georgia citizens.  Of course, Republican Governor – and known Trump-hater and regular Davos attendee – Brian Kemp, could immediately put an end to this charade, by requesting that his Attorney General, Chris Carr, take over the case from Willis and Wade, pursuant to Georgia State Constitution, Article V, Section III, Paragraph IV. That he still has not bespeaks to his character, and true allegiances, to the Uniparty over the values of the Republican Party, now in thrall to MAGA, to which he publicly professes.

Of course, the debacle that unraveled with Fani Willis’ office scratches just the tip of the iceberg of corruption within Georgia’s justice department.  As readily observed by anyone paying even the slightest attention to Clark’s ongoing Washington, D.C. disbarment proceeding, the D.C. Bar attorney for the prosecution has been reportedly very hostile to Clark’s own witnesses.  These are witnesses who were tasked with overseeing Georgia’s election procedures during the 2020 general election.  Witnesses have testified to cases of blatant fraud: one said there were more voters on the active rolls than eligible voters.  Another testified that Fulton County election officials failed to do any electronic signature verification for absentee ballots.  Others noted significant disparities between ballots counted by hand, and those which were counted by machine – with no explanation or resolution for those disparities.  Each and every one of these allegations, on their own, would unquestionably lend any reasonable observer into asking follow-up questions, and potentially opening up an investigation into allegations of fraud, if such fraud was deemed a systemic concern or insufficient reasons were given for the allegations, which did occur.  This, Jeff Clark did – and for simply doing what any reasonable person would have done under the circumstances (let alone someone in an official capacity as head of not one, but two divisions at the Justice Department), he is being persecuted – because the Left cannot stand Donald Trump, the Constitution, or the right to speak and think outside their extremely closed and narrow worldview.

As conservative so-called “legal professionals,” those belonging to organizations once considered esteemed such as The Federalist Society, by and large tergiversate on inconsequential trivialities, the Left has mastered the art of legal warfare – and punishes its perceived enemies, like Trump, Eastman, and Clark — with shameless abandon.  Members of John Eastman’s family have witheringly detailed Left-wing lawfare methods and tactics, conducted with inhumane callousness, by groups such as “The 65 Project,” which has, you guessed it, ties to George Soros.

In a recent piece published on The Gatestone Institute, Elizabeth Eastman, John’s wife, discussed the disgraceful methods of Leftist lawfare groups like The 65 Project:

The group targets lawyers who litigated 2020 election irregularities or represented President Donald Trump. It does this by filing complaints against them in state bar associations, contending not only that the lawsuits were meritless but that anyone involved in them should be sanctioned — up to and including disbarment.

Further down in that same article, Elizabeth Eastman describes how the The 65 Project’s aim is to marginalize and stigmatize conservative voices out of representing controversial clients or standing for unpopular causes:

The head of the group has admitted that their goal is “to deter right-wing talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts” to challenge elections, not only by bringing bar complaints but to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and their firms.”

In a similar piece, Eastman’s children – Christina and Benjamin – writing for The Blaze, called upon conservative and right-leaning judges, lawyers, and legal academics to speak out against the Left’s weaponization of the justice system to persecute and silence political opponents, before it is too late.  In a bitingly powerful call to action, Eastman’s children demanded that more of their colleagues and friends stand up against the forces in this country that have ruthlessly targeted their father for the past three-plus years – including death threats, property damage, millions of dollars in legal fees, injuries to his professional reputation that he built up over decades, and other untold personal costs.

Their demands to, as they phrased it, “the conservative legal nonprofit apparatus,” was especially poignant.  It is utterly appalling that very few other conservative lawyers, district attorneys, attorneys general, judges, law firms, legal nonprofits, and other legal (and non-legal, “constitutional”) professionals have done hardly anything to – forget about challenging the Left with offensive lawfare – but even so much as failed to offer, at the bare minimum, supporting words for their own friends, like Eastman and Clark, who have made enormous sacrifices standing up for what is right from the very beginning:

To the conservative legal nonprofit apparatus: There is no shortage of options to pursue an offensive or defensive lawfare strategy. Pick one and get into the fight. File bar complaints against rogue prosecutors. Refer corrupt judges to state judicial qualifications commissions. Campaign for the impeachment of partisan judges. Become involved with bar associations to ensure a more evenly balanced disciplinary process. Provide counsel or legal defense funds to lawyers weathering this storm on your behalf — because Eastman won’t be the last.

Their demands on the legal profession generally are equally harrowing, and important, given the incredibly high stakes involved for America and her future:

To lawyers on both sides of the political aisle: The integrity of your profession is hanging by a thread. Implore your state bars to keep political interests out of their work.

The whole piece is well worth a read, because it grounds Eastman’s ongoing fight in the broader context of what it means for the legal profession in particular, and civil liberties and due process rights for all Americans, in general.

Eastman and Clark — who also faced pretty much the same challenges Eastman experienced in terms of injury to his professional reputation, to say nothing of untold millions of dollars of legal fees he has (and continues to) racked up — may be two of the most prominent names leading the vanguard of this battle. But if the Left is permitted to carry out its political prosecution against them with impunity, their fates will portend the collective fates of every single last American, who still, at this late stage, remains fearfully silent in the face of unspeakable evil.  In any other age, given their pedigrees, Eastman and Clark both would be at the top of every list to be considered for the next Supreme Court opening, or Attorney General post, or for White House Counsel (and, if God’s will prevails, they still might).  But, given Leftist lawfare, which has tarnished the good names of both men, they are instead using their valuable gifts entirely towards defending themselves – which is a tremendous waste of time, energy, and resources, that does a colossal disservice to not just these men and their families, nor even just the conservative movement, but to the country at large, because all of us are being deprived the fruits of their immense offerings.

Call To Action:

Thus, if you can find it in your heart to donate to both these men – given the sacrifices they have endured on behalf of the cause of freedom, and the implications of their cases for the rest of us, they and their families would most appreciate your generosity.
John Eastman’s legal defense fund, which includes the latest updates from his disbarment proceeding, can be found here: https://www.givesendgo.com/Eastman

Jeff Clark’s legal defense fund, which also includes the latest updates from his still-ongoing disbarment proceeding in Washington, D.C., can be found here: https://www.givesendgo.com/jeffclark

Thank you, and, on behalf of both men, God bless and please continue to keep them, their families, and the United States of America – for which they believed the political crisis was great enough to put basically everything on the line for – in your prayers.

[Albert Hidel]

Trump Attorney John Eastman on California Lawfare Case: “They Doctored the Quotation in Court – Then the Judge Repeated the Doctored Quotation”
by Jim Hoft Apr. 5, 2024 8:30 am

Trump Attorney John Eastman and investigative reporter Emerald Robinson

President Trump’s lawyer John Eastman joined Emerald Robinson on The Absolute Truth on Thursday.

Eastman, a widely respected Constitutional attorney, was officially disbarred earlier this week after a California leftist judge ruled he should have his law license stripped for challenging the 2020 election.

Eastman on Thursday asked the judge to pause the disbarment ruling, citing massive legal fees.

Trump 2020 election lawyer John Eastman faced disbarment in California for ‘undermining democracy’ by trying to ‘overturn the presidential election.’

The January 6 Committee sent the feds after John Eastman because he dared to take action against the Democrats and their massive election fraud operation in 2020.

Eastman joined Emerald Robinson to discuss this lawfare case against him. During their conversation, Eastman revealed how the radical attorneys going after him doctored a quotation and then the judge repeated the doctored quotation in their ruling.

Attorney John Eastman: Let me just give an update. The California Bar Court hearing judge has recommended that I be disbarred. That action can only be taken if it’s ratified by the California Supreme Court, and there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge yet before we get there. But the immediate effect of the recommendation for disbarment is that I’m placed on what’s called Involuntary Inactive Enrollment Status, which means that my California license is in the interim suspended while I pursue the appeal of this decision…

…I’ve said it often, if the law is faithfully followed, this case had never been brought in the first place. We have a disagreement on the facts of the 2020 election, and we have a disagreement on constitutional interpretation on issues that have never been settled. That has never been the basis for disciplinary action. Look, I mean, Thurgood Marshall actually pursued litigation that was directly contrary to controlling Supreme Court precedent, and he did it for years. We got Brown versus Board of Education as a result of his tenacity. This is what the lawyers are expected to do if there’s a colorful argument to be made, and there certainly was in my case as well. The notion that that is subject not only to discipline, but actual disbarment really is aimed at destroying our adversarial system of justice…

…Look, I mean, in the closing argument brief that the bar lawyers filed against me back in December, they made a material misrepresentation. They claimed that a court had ruled that the Electoral Count Act was constitutional. That was a central piece in my advice. That was false. They doctored the quotation from the court. The opinion had nothing to do with the Electoral Count Act. And then the judge repeated that doctored quotation in her opinion against me last week. That’s a blatant misrepresentation to a court. The very things that they are falsely accusing me of doing that should lead to my disbarment, they actually did in the briefing in this case, and with no consequences whatsoever. The double standard is palpable, and we really need to push back against it.

GiveSendGo.com/Eastman. That’s our legal defense fund site. People can go there.

Emerald Robinson: It’s not just the California Disbarment case that you’re dealing with. It’s also what’s going on in Georgia. And then there’s Politico reporting that Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor in the Trump document case in the J6 related indictments, is also sniffing around your Disbarment case. Does that concern you, Dr. Eastman?

Attorney John Eastman: Well, all of these things concern me because we don’t seem to have any notion of actually pursuing the truth in these criminal matters. It’s got you on your political opponents. And anything that they think will advance their agenda to get Trump and prevent him from being reelected is f[odder] for the mill. This is what they’re doing. And if they think by targeting me further, that will help them with their case against Trump, then they will do it. I just got a subpoena served on us last week by the Capitol Police Officers seeking everything, all of my communications with the President and anybody else. They’ve completely blown through attorney-client privilege. As we see in the Jeff Clark matter and the Peter Navarro matters, they’ve completely blown through long-standing executive privilege, a central necessity for protecting separation of powers. These guys don’t care about any of the norms, constitutional requirements or whatever. As long as they can get Trump, anything is fair game in their view…

…There’s a lawsuit by several members of the Capitol Police claiming that Trump is the one that caused their injuries. And now they’ve me for all of my communications for a year with clients, anything referencing the election, of course, it has nothing to do with whatever injuries they suffered, and we’ll be objecting. But it’s still these things are time consuming and costly to deal with. But that’s part of the game. If they keep us tied up spending our resources on defense against these things, then those are resources and time and talent that cannot be deployed in furthering elections for people that are sensible that are going to get our country back on track. That’s true.

Americans better wake up to the destruction of our country by these vicious leftists before it’s too late.

** Please help John Eastman cover his lawfare costs here.

[Dickie Billericay]

[Dickie Billericay]

Et tu, Newsweak? Even a Marxist rag can see the obvious.

John Eastman and the Left's War on the Legal Profession
Published Apr 05, 2024 at 6:00 AM EDT  Updated Apr 05, 2024 at 11:55 AM EDT
By Josh Hammer


John Eastman is a lawyer, legal scholar, and a friend. I got to know John—a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, candidate for California attorney general, and dean of Chapman University School of Law—during my week-long 2018 legal fellowship with the Claremont Institute, which he oversaw. We have stayed in touch and done at least one event together for Claremont since that time.

Unfortunately, since the 2020 presidential election, John has been put through the wringer more than just about anyone in American public life.

He was forced to retire from the law school where he was a longtime constitutional law professor and even dean. He was let go by the University of Colorado's Benson Center for Western Civilization, where he was a visiting scholar. Armed Stasi—sorry, FBI—agents accosted him in a parking lot and seized his phone without a warrant. He has been suspended from academic conferences and lost board seats. He and his wife have endured death threats, spikes in their driveway, and threatening graffiti in their neighborhood. He has been debanked by Bank of America and the USAA. He is being criminally prosecuted by scandal-ridden Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis. And last week, State Bar Court of California Judge Yvette Roland devoted 128 pages to explaining why he should lose his law license.

All this because John had the chutzpah to do what every law school student is taught to do in legal ethics class: defend and zealously advocate for one's client, no matter how unpopular or even disreputable that client may be. In this case, John's unpopular client was a high-profile one: former President Donald Trump.

There has been an astronomical amount of misinformation about John's activities in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol jamboree, as well as the legal advice that he offered his high-profile client during that time. The corporate media and the Democrat-lawfare complex typically speak of John's legal advice as encouraging the "overturning of an election" or "fomenting an insurrection," but such hyperbolic talk is irresponsible and wildly off-base.

John acquitted himself well in a compelling essay he penned for Claremont's American Mind online journal on Jan. 18, 2021, titled "Setting the Record Straight on the POTUS 'Ask.'" His 12th Amendment argument about the vice president's more active role in certifying the states' slates of electors and his accompanying argument regarding the constitutional dubiousness of the Electoral Count [Act] of 1887 might not be correct (although it could be), but it is well within the bounds of plausible, non-frivolous legal argumentation an attorney can (indeed, should) press upon an embattled client. That is doubly so here, because the U.S. Supreme Court has never authoritatively interpreted the relevant 12th Amendment provision. Countless legal arguments more frivolous than this are advanced every day in courtrooms across America.


John Eastman sits in Fulton Superior Court in Atlanta during a hearing on January 19, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. Jason Getz-Pool/Getty Images

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 also being prosecuted in Georgia, and he was just found by the District of Columbia Bar to have violated an ethics rule, which might lead to his own disbarment there—all stemming from an internal Department of Justice memo that Clark never even sent.

Once upon a time, the American Left understood the moral imperative of ensuring that all Americans have adequate access to legal representation, no matter one's popularity in the eyes of the government or societal elites. Indeed, the definitive American example of such unpopular legal representation actually dates back to before the United States was even independent: 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."

[Don Dresden]

Vote with your wallets; dump BofA and USAA before they dump you.

‘Rather Despicable’: John Eastman Speaks Out After Bank Of America, USAA Shut Down His Accounts

Reagan Reese White House Correspondent
April 16, 2024 6:45 PM ET

One of the left’s biggest political targets recently found himself “de-banked” with no warning and little avenue for recourse, the Daily Caller has learned.

John Eastman, once an attorney for former President Donald Trump, was de-banked twice in the span of several months by two prominent financial institutions, Bank of America and USAA, he told the Daily Caller. His accounts were closed as he faced substantial backlash for his work advising Trump around the time of the 2020 election.

Eastman said he had switched most of his banking from Bank of America to USAA, a company that provides financial services exclusively to military veterans as well as their families, due to the former’s “wokeness.” Both corporations are federally insured, and Bank of America was bailed out with billions of dollars in taxpayer funds during the global financial crisis.

Bank of America alerted Eastman in September of 2023 that it would be closing his accounts, a letter obtained by the Daily Caller shows. Shortly thereafter, USAA notified Eastman in November that his two bank accounts with the company would be closed, a separate letter shows.

“And then two months later, we get a similar letter from USAA saying that they’ve decided that they’re going to close your account and they did like three weeks later,” Eastman told the Daily Caller. “And so that was where all of our automatic payments were coming out of, all our automatic deposits. So it was a real pain to shift everything. We had to get a new bank account opened and shift everything over.”

Eastman was notified of his USAA accounts being closed on Nov. 20, 2023. A few weeks prior, a California judge made a preliminary decision saying that Eastman was culpable of ethics violations in a state bar disciplinary case, CNN reported.

USAA claimed in its letter that it was “exercising its right to no longer do banking business” with Eastman per its “Depository Agreement.” 

“We may close your account for any reason without advance notice. We may require you to give us a minimum of seven (7) calendar days advance written notice when you intend to close your account by withdrawing your funds,” a section of the agreement reads.

USAA did not respond to the Daily Caller’s multiple requests for comment.
When Eastman inquired about the closures, the banks said it was their policy to not provide any more information on the matter, he told the Daily Caller. An audio recording of Eastman’s call to Bank of America, provided to the Daily Caller, reflects as much.

“De-banking” is a phenomenon in which financial institutions refuse financial service to the targets of political activism, who often end up being conservatives.

“What these banks are doing is they’re saying you’re either high risk, or we don’t want to do business with you, or whatever it is. There’s no methodology behind this. There’s no kind of reason that matches traditional indicators or traditional metrics that a bank would use to calculate your liquidity, your credit score, whatever it is. They’re using these non-financial factors, and then making these decisions and just like closing people’s accounts,” Eric Bledsoe, an expert on de-banking for the Foundation for Government Accountability, told the Daily Caller.

In typical de-banking situations, it is normal for the banks to withhold their reason for suddenly closing their clients’ accounts, Bledsoe added.

Eastman told the Daily Caller he was using the accounts he had set up with Bank of America and USAA for personal finances. He and his wife qualified for USAA bank accounts because his father-in-law served in the Navy in WWII and in the Marines in the Korean War, the attorney told the Daily Caller.

“We had Bank of America accounts for about 40 years. But just because of their wokeness we kind of quit a couple of years ago, using them much. They’ve got physical locations and therefore easy ATM, so we kept our accounts there, but we didn’t use much. And about four or five years ago, we opened USAA bank accounts and we were using those as our primaries,” Eastman said.

The Daily Caller reached out to the Bank of America for comment, giving the corporation multiple days to respond. Bank of America initially told the Caller it would answer, though about an hour before the deadline provided, the company decided not to comment.

“Just as a general policy, we don’t comment on client matters. So I don’t have a comment at this point on the situation,” Bill Haldin, from Bank of America media relations, told the Daily Caller after asking if the focus of the story was solely on Eastman.

Bledsoe spoke to the political nature of de-banking and how it can make Americans’ lives harder.

“I’m gravely concerned. It really is the kind of next step in [Environmental, Social and Governance]. So ESG across the board, it really is about like, re-directing capital away from the politically disfavored and to the politically favored at the moment, without going through the political process at all,” Bledsoe said.

Neither bank specified to Eastman whether the closing of his accounts was for political reasons, though he has his suspicions.

“I’m 99.9% confident,” he said. “What I don’t know is whether they didn’t want to do business with me, or whether they didn’t want to continue to be hassled by federal regulators for doing business with me. I don’t know which of those two it is, either one of them is rather despicable.”

Eastman’s confidence could, in part, be attributed to the litany of challenges he has faced following the 2020 presidential election.

Since Eastman argued that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to help deliver Trump the 2020 presidential election, the attorney has seen his life be uprooted by his opponents. Just days after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, Eastman resigned as a law professor from Fowler School of Law at Chapman University after the school faced pressure to oust him, Forbes reported. In a statement of his own, Eastman said he had “mixed feelings” about resigning, though the school said the pair had reached an agreement on the matter.

Then, at the end of that month, the University of Colorado’s Benson Center for Western Civilization banned Eastman from speaking at the institution despite being a visiting scholar, according to Forbes.

“The University of Colorado Boulder relieved John Eastman of duties related to outreach and speaking as a representative of the Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization,” the institution said in a press release.

Nearly a year later, in June 2022, FBI agents seized Eastman’s phone as he was leaving a restaurant, the Associated Press reported. Eastman and his wife have also experienced death threats, graffiti threats in their neighborhood and have had spikes planted in their driveway, his friend Josh Hammer wrote in a column.
A number of red state attorneys general — including from Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana and Montana — voiced their opposition to the de-banking trend after the Daily Caller laid out Eastman’s situation. Many of the state AGs pointed to politics as a potential reason Eastman’s accounts were closed.

“No American should lose their bank account because banks want to play politics. Time and time again, we are seeing banks target and cut off those they disagree with and refuse to explain why. That is unacceptable,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird told the Daily Caller.

“De-banking contradicts the very character of our nation, as elites wrongfully use their power to punish their political opponents. Here’s the bottom line: If financial institutions are punishing consumers who don’t fall in line with their political beliefs, that could constitute a violation of both state and federal law,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told the Daily Caller.

Now, Eastman is being prosecuted by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis as part of her case against Trump. On March 27, a California judge ruled that Eastman should be disbarred due to his legal advice in the wake of the 2020 election. The case will now move to the state Supreme Court for a final decision.

“I just think this is a terrible trend. I think it’s harmful. I think it prohibits people from bringing their values and the public square into the marketplace. And they have every constitutional right under the Free Exercise clause to bring their values into the marketplace. And I think this is also I think this is something we’re just gonna have to fight against,” Sam Brownback, an attorney and former U.S. Senator whose Christian non-profit was de-banked, told the Daily Caller.

[Harrison J Bounel]

What a shock--Judge Relaxer is corrupt. Who ever would have suspected that?

California Judge Who Disbarred Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman Funneled Money to Super PAC Fighting Election Integrity
April 22, 2024 Rachel Alexander
 


California disciplinary court Judge Yvette Roland (pictured above), who disbarred Trump’s former attorney and constitutional legal scholar John Eastman last month, contributed to a Democratic PAC last year which funneled all of the contributions to a Super PAC that seeks to stop “undermining the most basic tenet of our democracy, the right to vote.” Despite the fact that the charges against Eastman were all related to his efforts investigating and stopping election corruption in the 2020 election, Roland did not recuse herself.

While serving on the bench, Roland donated $250 twice on March 30, 2023 to Newsom for California Governor 2022 (NCG). Just 18 days later, NCG then contributed everything it had raised, about $23 million, to Campaign for Democracy Group (CDG), an independent expenditure Super PAC. CDG is primarily supporting Newsom. Its website states, “Across the country, extremist Republicans are systematically attacking the very foundations of a free society — bullying and criminalizing the most vulnerable, denying women equality and reproductive healthcare, attacking communities of color, dehumanizing immigrants seeking the American Dream, banning books and restricting speech, and undermining the most basic tenet of our democracy, the right to vote.”

Under the section “Threats,” the website attacks former U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy for challenging the 2020 election corruption. It said he “Voted to Overturn the Presidential Election,” and “led 147 Republicans in trying to invalidate the results of the 2020 presidential election.” It also attacks McCarthy for “Help[ing] Perpetuate Conspiracy Theories About January 6,” stating that “McCarthy consistently attacked the January 6 committee and even released video footage of the attack to Tucker Carlson in order to bolster conspiracy theories about January 6.”

John Eastman / YouTube

The charges against Eastman accused him of lying when he said during his January 6 speech that “dead people voted.” This was false, he said, because election officials in Michigan admitted that 1,500 votes were cast in the names of dead people — the officials disagreed that the number was higher. After Eastman pointed that out, he said the bar attorneys changed their accusation to state that 1,500 wasn’t enough to change the election results.

The CDG website lists Texas Governor Greg Abbott as a threat due to his election integrity efforts, citing his removal of noncitizens from the voter rolls, supporting voter ID requirements, and “establish[ing] a $1.5 million ‘Special Investigations Unit’ to hunt down players in what he called ‘epidemic’ voter fraud.”

NCG appears to have received “Smurfing” donations. There were over 74 million contributions to NCG between 2023 and 2024, an extremely high number (the population of California is 38.9 million). Election integrity journalist Peter Bernegger (pictured below), along with investigative journalist James O’Keefe and investigator Chris Gleason, exposed officials, candidates, and ActBlue for accepting tens of thousands of small donations allegedly facilitated by progressive activists in the names of people who were unaware of them. Bernegger told The Arizona Sun Times that progressive activists use bots to take names from the FEC website, where the donor has indicated they are retired or have left the employment space blank. He said he believes they target these types of donors since “they are unlikely to be able to fight back.”

Peter Bernegger / X

After Bernegger filed 52 ethics complaints against officials and candidates over the contributions, prosecutors arrested and charged him with a felony that has only been used against individuals twice since 1977, simulating a legal process.

Canon 5 of the California Code of Judicial Ethics states, “A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.” Canon 4 states, “A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.” Canon 2 states, “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of 18 the judge’s activities.”

Eastman is appealing the disbarment. His GiveSendGo has raised $743,958 for his legal defense. He is also a defendant along with Trump in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s RICO prosecution, and an unnamed co-conspirator in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election prosecution.

[Albert Hidel]

Salvo 05.02.2024
The Unpersoning of John Eastman
TJ Harker

The regime is set on full-spectrum destruction of its enemies.

John Eastman is a legal scholar of the first rank. He has argued before the Supreme Court, testified in Congress, and cultivated a deserved reputation as an expert in constitutional law. He has practiced at a prestigious law firm, served as both professor and Dean at Chapman University law school, and, of course, represented many notable figures, including Donald Trump. Unlike many lawyers, he earned a reputation for integrity, intelligence, and moral courage. Like all lawyers, he maintained a bank account with a major financial institution and, of course, a state license to practice law—in his case, in California, one of the hardest bar licenses to earn.

Those sound like the trappings of a good life—the reputational and material fruits of a lifetime of honest hard work. It used to be the case that once earned, such fruits were then possessed of right. And no person—certainly no American—would dare to deprive Eastman of his right to them merely because of his legal work or political speech. Indeed, it was not so long ago that even suggesting as much would have been considered un-American. Not any longer.

Today, extremely powerful people in government, high-finance, big law, big business, state bar associations, academia, and elsewhere have decided to destroy John Eastman because of his legal work and political speech on behalf of Donald Trump in late 2020 and early 2021. Some hated his courageous challenge to “their” democracy. Others feared his intellect. Still others saw an opportunity to increase their middling stature by bringing low a greater mind, while fantasizing that by disagreeing with Eastman they fulfilled an “oath to God.” All have worked to destroy Eastman because he challenged the regime.

George Orwell called this coordinated process of erasing one’s official identity “unpersoning.” By depriving John Eastman of his employment, employability, law license, reputation, access to money, and even his freedom, the regime seeks to send a message. That message is not to John Eastman. It is to you: Don’t you dare challenge the regime, or you too will be unpersoned.

Take His Law License

The regime is stocked with clever lawyers at big law firms and non-profit activist organizations. Recently, these clever lawyers have stumbled upon a new lawfare tactic: deprive their opponents of access to the courts by depriving them of lawyers. Organizations like the 65 Project and States United Democracy Center (SUDC) exist to take the licenses of lawyers with the courage to advance legal actions that threaten the regime. After Biden’s inauguration, they targeted John Eastman.

On October 4, 2021, SUDC filed a 30-page complaint against Eastman with the State Bar of California, where Eastman is licensed. On July 28, 2022, the 65 Project filed a similar complaint with the Supreme Court of the United States. These memoranda attempted to persuade the licensing authorities to disbar Eastman, arguing that his advocacy on behalf of Donald Trump amounted to conduct “unbecoming a member of the Bar.” In April, SUDC succeeded. Following a 35-day trial, Judge Yvette Roland (a partisan Democrat) issued a 138-page order recommending that Eastman lose his license.

A judicial order is supposed to be the product of a rigorous application of the law to the facts. Roland inverted that process. She applied SUDC’s facts to Eastman’s legal analysis—taking as fact that there was no fraud in the 2020 election and reaching her own conclusions about confusing legal issues (like the Electoral Count Act) to conclude that Eastman’s lawyering must have been dishonest. This inverts the very purpose of adjudication.

At any rate, Judge Roland persisted. In concluding, she recommended that Eastman be disbarred because he: (1) signed off on a motion to intervene in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a case brought by the state of Texas challenging the election laws in Pennsylvania and elsewhere; (2) “provided legal advice on Trump v. Raffensperger, a case filed against the Georgia Secretary of State; (3) “signed a Verified Complaint” in Trump v. Kemp; (4) “worked mightily…to encourage Republicans in the seven ‘contested states’ to” meet and vote on alternate slates of electors; (5) “drafted and sent a two-page legal memorandum” to some Trump attorneys; (6) appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room; and (7) wrote an article in The American Mind.

In other words, Eastman helped to bring lawsuits in various courts, wrote and filed complaints, wrote legal memos, and “worked mightily” to get state legislators to vote. He also appeared on television and wrote articles. If you suspect these activities are routine for litigators, you’re right. Eastman’s sin, however, was doing them on behalf of Donald Trump.

Roland twisted herself into knots explaining why the seven points listed above were unethical, drawing factual findings and legal conclusions of astonishing breadth in the process. Among others, her findings include: the First Amendment does not protect Eastman’s political speech on Bannon’s War Room, his article in The American Mind, or even the things he said to Vice President Pence, because this speech was “false” and “employed as a tool in the commission of a crime.” It was false, Judge Roland assured us in circular fashion, because “the 2020 presidential election was the most secure in American history” and “the court has already determined that [no] fraud occurred in the 2020 election” (points I refute here and here). And they were in furtherance of a crime because a beleaguered district attorney in another state charged Eastman with one. This isn’t legal reasoning, it’s a perverse combination of bootstrapping and begging the question.

Next, Roland determined that a complaint filed with the United States Supreme Court by the State of Texas was “false” because it argued that Pennsylvania (and other states) violated the Constitution in ignoring their own election laws. Having determined that the arguments were “false,” she heaped responsibility on Eastman because he moved for Trump to join Texas as a plaintiff, thereby tacitly adopting Texas’s “false” arguments. This is weird, since Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch stated “there is a strong likelihood that [Pennsylvania] violate[d] the Federal Constitution,” just as Texas and Eastman said.

Roland also dismissed a century’s worth of legal wrangling about the meaning of the Electoral Count Act, the 12th Amendment, and the role of State legislatures, Governors, and the Vice President in certifying and counting electoral votes. In sweeping this morass aside, she simply declared that Eastman’s legal interpretation of these issues was a “lie,” repeatedly declaring in her order that “the court has already determined…that Eastman’s statements…regarding the powers of the Vice President were false.” But her court does not have the jurisdiction to “determine” any of these constitutional or election integrity issues. Indeed, other than vis-à-vis Eastman’s law license, Roland’s determination has no more authority than would your book club, were it to “determine” the scope of the First Amendment, the meaning of the 12th Amendment or Electoral Count Act, or the existence of election fraud throughout the land in 2020.

The idea that a single judge with no constitutional law experience, in a backwater non-federal court with narrow subject-matter jurisdiction, in a single state, had the authority or capacity to make sweeping legal pronouncements that span the entire continent and 200 years of jurisprudence, is, well, not serious. But Roland had to make these findings to justify taking Eastman’s law license. So, she did. The outcome was predetermined.

Debank Him

If the 65 Project, SUDC, and Judge Roland at least gave “reasons” to deprive Eastman of his capacity to earn a living, Bank of America and USAA have no such scruples. They’re more than content to unperson Eastman without even an explanation.

More than a decade ago, when political debanking first came to the public’s attention, banks went out of their way to blame the industries in which their former customers operated. Gun manufacturers and ammunition dealers, tobacco sellers, pornographers, and others made easy targets precisely because they operated in controversial industries. Their controversial nature was a convenient cover for banks. The banks cited “reputational concerns” when they closed the accounts of companies in those industries.

Having inured the American public to the fact of debanking, however, woke institutions like Bank of America dispensed with the cover and expanded their attacks to include Christians and other groups disfavored by the regime. Today, “debanking” is obviously part of the unpersoning playbook. Bank of America is notorious for unpersoning those on the political right and is powerful enough to scoff at attempts to restrain its misconduct. It is so powerful, in fact, that it lies about its politically-motivated debanking with impunity.

Thus, it was no surprise that in September 2023, Bank of America debanked John Eastman, closing his accounts and denying him access to essential financial services (such as, for example, paying for things). It did all of this without so much as an explanation, Eastman’s 40-year relationship with the bank notwithstanding. USAA Federal Savings Bank followed suit shortly thereafter, debanking Eastman in November of last year.

The banks’ decision to unperson John Eastman in California may have been occasioned by a separate decision in Fulton County, Georgia to unperson Donald Trump, John Eastman, and 16 others by indicting them for political crimes against the regime. That indictment, unsealed in August 2023, would have given Bank of America and USAA the pretext to pretend that the Bank Secrecy Act required them to debank Eastman and not to tell him why.

Given my experience as a white collar prosecutor for DOJ, it wouldn’t surprise me if both banks drafted “suspicious activity reports” suggesting that Eastman engaged in money laundering, perhaps by raising money for his legal defense on GiveSendGo. If so, the idea that this is money laundering is preposterous and they know it. (Full Disclosure: I recently gave to Eastman’s defense on GiveSendGo and encourage you to do so as well.)

Bankrupt Him and Take His Freedom

In “Criminalizing Trivialities” and “Show Trial, American Style,” I explained how left-wing prosecutors use “fraud-type” offenses to shoehorn political activity into the four corners of a criminal statute, abusing the legislative intent behind those statutes in the process. That’s exactly what Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and federal prosecutor Jack Smith have done to Donald Trump.

It’s also exactly what Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis did to the former president and 18 others who worked with him, John Eastman included. I won’t provide a detailed takedown of Willis’s case here. Instead, I observe only that Willis charged Eastman with crimes like impersonation, forgery, false statements, filing false documents, and conspiracy to do the foregoing. These are the same “fraud-type” offenses abused by Bragg and Smith, which I addressed in those other articles. These statutes are not germane to the alleged facts underlying Willis’ indictment of Trump and Eastman, even if those facts are true. White collar prosecutors without a political axe to grind understand this point.

But, like the 65 Project, SUDC, Judge Roland, Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, Bank of America, and USAA, Fani Willis has a political axe to grind. As such, she’s more than willing to serve her role in the unpersoning process, doing her part to drown Eastman in legal bills and, if she has her way, incarcerate him.

Destroy His Reputation and Get Him Fired

Shortly before Biden took office, more than one hundred Chapman University faculty mounted a pressure campaign to terminate John Eastman from his position as tenured professor and Dean of Chapman University Law School, his competent stewardship notwithstanding.

Everybody knows that the purpose of tenure is to secure academic freedom. Historically, this principle would have been sufficient to rebuff these attacks. But, with the Left’s new dedication to unpersoning, lofty principles like academic freedom don’t weigh in the balance. Eastman’s refusal to bend his knee to regime shibboleths and his vigorous defense of our constitutional order against regime corruption were all the evidence such faculty needed when they signed their “letter of outrage.” Though it’s worth noting that none of the law faculty signed the letter, it had its intended unpersoning effect. Eastman resigned his positions with the law school despite having spent his entire academic career there.

In less than than 20 years, the regime has normalized the process of unpersoning. We’re inured to it. But we haven’t seen the end. Indeed, as described above, the regime already prosecutes its political opponents while conditioning ongoing employment, access to banking services, and maintenance of professional licenses on obeisance to accepted narratives. These were the hard cultural norms to breach. As such, we should expect unpersoning to spread to less weighty things like access to cell service and internet providers, mortgage lenders and commercial airlines, sports teams and entertainment venues, restaurants and movie theaters. I anticipate we will see more unpersoning before we see less. At least, until we learn to fight back.

How do we do that?

More than 200 years ago, John Adams defended the legal rights of unpopular British sailors wrongfully accused of murder. At the time, he was criticized by his fellow countrymen. But history weighed in, and for the ensuing two centuries, Americans in general and lawyers in particular celebrated Adams for his courageous defense of politically unpopular defendants. We held Adams up as an exemplar of legal courage. This is the future for John Eastman. When the dust settles, he will be celebrated for his courage and his unfaltering conviction. In the present, however, we must continue fighting the corruption of our legal system, our culture, and our government by the lesser figures mentioned in this essay.

John Eastman shows us how.