Worse than Segretti: Judge Recommends John Eastman Be Disbarred

Close to the end of Yvette Roland’s recommendation that John Eastman be disbarred, she considered the argument from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (OCTC) that Eastman’s actions were worse than those Donald Segretti committed for Richard Nixon.

For a number of reasons — Eastman’s violations were done in the function of an attorney, Eastman exhibited no remorse, he’s more experienced than Segretti was — she agreed that Eastman’s actions were worse, and on that basis, she recommended a stiffer penalty than the two year suspension Segretti got.

In Segretti, the attorney pleaded guilty to two federal offenses related to his work on
President Richard Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign, including violating 18 U.S.C. section 612
(publication or distribution of political statements) and 18 U.S.C section 371 (conspiracy).
Among other things, Segretti distributed letters containing false accusations about other
candidates for president in order to create confusion among the candidates. The court found
Segretti’s actions involved moral turpitude as he “repeatedly committed acts of deceit designed to
subvert the free electoral process.” (Id. at p. 887.) Segretti had significant mitigation. He was
only 30 years old at the time of the misconduct and thought he was acting under the umbrella of
the White House. The court emphasized that Segretti’s misconduct “was not committed in his
capacity as an attorney” and that he recognized the wrongfulness of his acts, expressed regret,
and cooperated with the investigating agencies. (Id. at p. 888.) Segretti received a two-year
actual suspension.

The scale and egregiousness of Eastman’s unethical actions far surpasses the misconduct
at issue in Segretti. Unlike Segretti whose offenses occurred outside his role as an attorney,
Eastman’s wrongdoing was committed directly in the course and scope of his representation of
President Trump and the Trump Campaign. This is an important factor, as it constitutes a
fundamental breach of an attorney’s core ethical duties. Additionally, while the Segretti court
found compelling mitigation based on his expressed remorse and recognition of his wrongdoing,
no such mitigating factor is present with Eastman. To the contrary, Eastman has exhibited an
unwillingness to acknowledge any ethical lapses regarding his actions, demonstrating an apparent inability to accept responsibility. This lack of remorse and accountability presents a
significant risk that Eastman may engage in further unethical conduct, compounding the threat to the public. Given the greater magnitude of Eastman’s transgressions compared to Segretti and
the heightened risk of future misconduct from his complete denial of wrongdoing, imposing
greater discipline than in Segretti is appropriate to protect the public and uphold public
confidence in the legal system.

To support that judgment, Roland went through each of eleven charges, finding that Eastman had dishonestly advised Mike Pence he could reject the electoral certifications, attempted to mislead two courts, and made public comments he knew or should have known to be false.

Roland did not find that the OCTC had proven that Eastman was responsible for the violence at the Capitol, actions that would be key to an obstruction charge under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) — though the Bar would not yet have access to much of the evidence that Jack Smith may one day present.

But Roland did find that the OCTC had proven that Eastman and Donald Trump conspired to disrupt the electoral count under 18 USC 371, parallel to count one of Trump’s indictment.

By contrast, OCTC has shown that Eastman conspired with President Trump to obstruct a
lawful function of the government of the United States; specifically, by conspiring to disrupt the
electoral count on January 6, 2021, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. To prove a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371, it must be established that: (1) at least two people entered into an agreement to
obstruct a lawful function of the government; (2) by deceitful or dishonest means; and (3) there
was at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. (See United States v. Meredith
(9th Cir. 2012) 685 F.3d 814, 822.) “An agreement to commit a crime ‘can be explicit or tacit,
and can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, including inferences from circumstantial
evidence.’” (United States v. Kaplan (9th Cir. 2016) 836 F.3d 1199, 1212.)

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.

[snip]

Upon consideration of the totality of the facts, the court finds weighty circumstantial
evidence demonstrating a collaborative effort between Eastman and President Trump to impede
the counting of elector votes on January 6, 2021, as articulated in Eastman’s memos.
(See United States v. Kaplan, supra, 836 F.3d at p. 1212 [an agreement to commit a crime “‘can
be explicit or tacit, and can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence’”].) There is also
extensive direct evidence demonstrating that each party involved in this plan actively
participated in overt acts through in person meetings, communications with Vice President Pence and his counsel, and in public remarks to advance their shared objective—i.e., to have Vice
President Pence reject or delay the counting of electoral votes on January 6. Furthermore, the
court has previously determined, in the aforementioned counts, that Eastman’s actions were
carried out with deceit or dishonesty, as he was aware that his plan was unlawful and lacked any
factual or legal support. Here, all elements of 18 U.S.C. § 371 are established.
Based on this evidence, the court finds that OCTC has met its burden of showing by clear
and convincing evidence that Eastman violated section 6068, subdivision (a), by violating
18 U.S.C § 371 as charged in count one.

Eastman says he will appeal — in part, because he needs to work as a lawyer to pay lawyers to defend him in his Georgia prosecution.

As of now, however, he is provisionally stripped of his ability to practice as a lawyer.

image_print
156 replies
  1. Badger Robert says:

    Good morning from Colorado. The California bar intends to defend its integrity,
    What does the roll call of attorneys that have sacrificed their careers for Trump read like? And who, like Mr. Barr, got away with helping Trump?
    Thanks for the reporting.

  2. phred says:

    A quick question for you EW (excellent post, by the way, thanks : )

    Every story I have read uses language along the lines of “judge recommends” disbarment. I realize that Eastman will appeal, but who or what body actually does the disbarring? Do they need a recommendation from a judge to do it or is that just to create a fact record on which to base their decision?

    • John Herbison says:

      The decision will be that of the Supreme Court of California, based on the record of the evidentiary hearing conducted before Judge Roland.

    • SteveBev says:

      The Supreme Court of California

      This press release by the State Bar of California explains the whole process
      https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/state-bar-court-hearing-judge-recommends-john-eastmans-disbarment

      And in particular

      “The State Bar Court of California is the only independent court in the U.S. dedicated solely to attorney discipline. Attorney discipline matters are investigated and prosecuted by OCTC, acting on behalf of the public. The State Bar Court oversees disciplinary proceedings and adjudicates charges filed by OCTC. The court rules on whether OCTC has proved charges of professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence and may recommend that an attorney be suspended or disbarred.

      If a disciplinary ruling involves disbarment or suspension, the State Bar Court’s recommendation is transmitted to the California Supreme Court, which determines whether to impose the recommended discipline.  See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court. “

  3. flounder says:

    I had a friend with a CDL who got arrested for drunk driving (normal vehicle, not in a dump truck). They didn’t get to ask for their license back so they could pay their lawyer and fines, they had to get a DIFFERENT job as a manual laborer. I fail to see why Eastman needs to practice law here when he could shovel asphalt like my buddy instead.

    • Fraud Guy says:

      It seems that the Heritage Foundation/right wing thinktank sinecures are not as plentiful as they once were.

      • stillscoff says:

        Let’s hope that next week and the weeks following there are even fewer. The damage done by these anti-democratic operatives is a threat to the future of free and fair elections.

    • bloopie2 says:

      Good thing your friend didn’t have to get a job as a coal miner back in the old days. I’m reminded of that great old Tennessee Ernie Ford song, Sixteen Tons – “You load sixteen tons and what do you get – another day older and deeper in debt – St. Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go, I owe my soul to the company store.”

    • Hoping4better_times says:

      I am a California resident. The California Bar grinds “exceedingly slowly but exceedingly fine.” Eastman testified under oath trying to defend himself in the long, drawn-out proceedings. That testimony may come back to bite him in Georgia and possibly in Washington, DC criminal trials. Three days after the Judge’s decision, he will be a disbarred California attorney.

        • Hoping4better_times says:

          Essentially, his license is gone. His last hope is the California Supreme Court and I doubt they will re-instate him given the thorough bar investigation. Presumably, the Claremont Institute (a right wing think tank) is paying him. California is a blue state, but there are deep red pockets in Southern California, in the central San Joaquin Valley and in the Far North.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Suspension is not the same as disbarment. Compressing the process is deceptive. As bmaz points out, the CA supreme court has been incredibly reluctant to actually disbar lawyers.

          Trump illustrates the problem with compressing process or assuming it’s a gimme, like a one-foot put (in Trump’s case, a forty-foot pitch).

          All the indicia are that he’s guilty of the felonies with which he’s been charged, and guilty of the financial frauds over which he’s been sued. But he’s expert at abusing the system and causing unprecedented delays, which often eliminate the consequences for his wrongdoing. Process and timing matter.

        • CoffaeBreak says:

          Since only people like Trump can afford a high falutin lawyer like Eastman; and Eastman can get away advising under a corrupted version of The Constitution, and folks like Trump can blame the lawyer because he acts illegally because it is under his advisement… No wonder why folks like Trump can brag that they can kill someone and get away with it. Meanwhile commoners like me look at this and shake our heads, or we think if Trump can do it, I can do it and the fragility of our laws are further weakened. I feel this weakening in my bones, much like I feel a sickness coming on.

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, the people he would be targeting would take “suspended in CA over Trump” as a badge of courage.

  4. Fraud Guy says:

    Noted that the bar for evidence was “clear and compelling” and not “beyond a reasonable doubt” as it would be for a criminal trial, even though the reasons for discipline were for misconduct that undermines the trust in the law and its institutions. My personal bug is that trials for publicly elected officials accused of misconduct should be at that lower level, which is still stringent, as they voluntarily hold a position of enhanced trust and should avoid actions that lead to eroding that. [off soapbox]

    • bmaz says:

      Clear and convincing is a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt. It is fine for such a bar proceeding.

      • Fraud Guy says:

        Yes, I understood that to be the case, and believe that it is an appropriate threshold for crimes committed by public officials.

        • bmaz says:

          Despite the rhetoric of the bar regulator, Eastman was not a public official by traditional understanding of the term.

  5. Amicus12 says:

    As of this morning, Eastman is still listed as “Senior Fellow, Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence” at the Claremont Institute. https://www.claremont.org/leadership-staff/

    Apparently, they are ok with conspiring to overthrow democracy in order to advance their understanding of the Constitution.

    • Barringer says:

      The Claremont Institute is serious about restoring the principles of the American Founding. There isn’t a single woman on the Board of Directors or list of Senior Fellows. Sheesh.

    • Clare Kelly says:

      Amicus12 wrote:
      “Apparently, they are ok with conspiring to overthrow democracy in order to advance their understanding of the Constitution”.

      Yes, that is their modus operandi.

      There is no “quiet” part.

      The Claremont Institute is heavily involved in The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025”.

      • yydennek says:

        The salient connecting motive which blogs avoid re: Project 2025, John Eastman et al-
        Eastman was President of Robert P George’s National Organization for Marriage and, the former President of Wyoming Catholic College now leads Heritage Foundation. Leonard Leo at Federalist Society and Paul Weyrich (now deceased), co-founder of Council for National Policy, share one sect’s vision.
        Patriarchal right wing religion drives the move to authoritarianism (e.g. no women on the Claremont I. board, a situation that is not unique).
        Greg Olear and Tom Carter, former head of media relations for USCIRF, concur (podcast transcribed at Prevail) about who makes the wins happen, noting evangelical (protestants) are mere, “foot soldiers.”
        Btw- Federalist Society post 2023, “An Unapologetic Defense of the Crusades.”

  6. Attygmgm says:

    So far, Jeffrey Clark in his proceedings seems to exhibit the same “I did nothing wrong” attitude reflected by, among others, Mr. Eastman and Defendant 1. The court’s concern about that as to Mr. Eastman is well-placed. Law school teaches how to turn the problem around and look at it from the other side. Mr. Segretti seems to have been capable of doing that. The hubris in Eastman’s refusing to see that is breathtaking. And was a weak strategy that left him exposed in an “all or nothing” defense.

  7. David Brooks says:

    He even initially used his Claremont email address for some of his original (alleged? can’t keep track) criming. Yes, we’ve all sent personal email using work accounts from time to time, but I never did so to overthrow the government.

    • Konny_2022 says:

      He used his Chapman University email address when representing Trump as “plaintiff in intervention” in the Texas case brought to the US Supreme Court directly. Only days later, after the intervention of 160 faculty members, Eastman resigned as Dean of the Chapman University School of Law.

      His filing in support of Trump with the chapman.edu address is still on the SC docket.

  8. Sussex Trafalgar says:

    The California Bar Association has been impotent for decades. Yesterday’s decision is a welcomed change.

    A once close friend of mine shared time and space in Lompoc Federal Prison with convicted Watergate attorney and scumbag Dwight Chapin.

    Chapin never hesitated to express his displeasure with his Watergate compadre Donald Segretti.

    Segretti and Chapin, two of the many Nixon attorneys who pissed on the Rule of Law and the US Constitution.

    • Peterr says:

      Let us not forget former Attorney General John Mitchell, who served time in federal prison for his work for Nixon.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        Indeed!

        With so many crooked Nixon attorneys to pick from, it’s hard to choose which one was the worst.

        AG Mitchell, however, is hard to beat, considering he was the AG.

        For those of us who were of adult age during Nixon’s presidency, it’s hard, at least for me, to believe such a US Constitutional crisis has occurred again in less than fifty-five years, and by the same political party that is supported by some of the same people or their descendants who supported Nixon
        and believe he should have never resigned.

        • Fraud Guy says:

          Reminds me of the line from “Sweet Home Alabama”

          “Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you, tell me true.”

          DARVO in pop music.

        • GSSH-FullyReduced says:

          “…and I hope Neal Young will remember
          Southern Man don’t need him around
          anyhow.”

          And Neal was just tryin to be nice about their their screamin and bullwhips crackin

          How long
          How long?

        • Peterr says:

          . . . it’s hard to choose which one was the worst.

          “All of them, Katie.”

          h/t Sarah Palin.

  9. harpie says:

    I really appreciate historian Heather Cox Richardson’s daily series, Letters from an American.
    The following is from yesterday, March 27, 2024.
    It could be titled [Roger STONE] “has done nothing wrong” and his Spawn.
    https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-27-2024

    The news that NBC News reconsidered its invitation to former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel to become a paid contributor has buried the recent news about some of the other participants in Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. [my numbers and emphasis]

    1] [RONNA]
    2] Mike LINDELL […]
    3] Kari LAKE […]
    4] Jeffrey CLARK [with 5] GIULIANI history] […]
    6] John EASTMAN […]

    One by one, those who worked with Trump to overturn the election are being held to account by our legal system. But still, they refuse to admit any wrongdoing.

    In that, they are following TRUMP. […]

    It was [STONE’s hero] President NIXON who perfected the refusal to admit wrongdoing in the face of overwhelming evidence. […]

    [re: TRUMP’s RNC Purge]: […] those interviewing for jobs are being asked if they believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. [and] “what applicants believe should be done on ‘election integrity’ in 2024.”

    • CroFandango says:

      “I really appreciate historian Heather Cox Richardson’s daily series, Letters from an American.”

      Here’s a second to that.

    • Bruce Olsen says:

      This all goes back to Roy Cohn, who Nixon well knew. As you probably know Cohn was counsel for the infamous 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, but earlier…

      “In January of 1951, Senator McCarthy had removed Maine’s Senator Margaret Chase Smith from an investigative subcommittee of the important Senate Committee on Executive Expenditures. In her place he seated Nixon.”

      Quoted from an interesting little article about those days…
      https: //www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2018/08/14/august-1954-when-nixon-golfed/11054352007/

      Adlai Stevenson apparently called Nixon “McCarthy in a white collar” but Nixon figured out when to back off on anti-communism where McCarthy never did.

  10. Savage Librarian says:

    Eastman, Heist Man

    Eastman, heist man,
    Someone’s going down,
    The plot’s sprung,
    Now suppose Trump
    will fall soon on his crown.

    Guys and gals together,
    I think they popped this cork,
    They tripped the right fanatics,
    Note the towers of New York.

    “The Sidewalks of New York”

    https://youtu.be/XdsDxbrAhoE

    6/17/22, rev. 3/28/24

      • Verrückte Pferd says:

        We were playing a jazz club in Manhattan (Paula Lockhart Peter Eklund Band) and we did a Eubie Blake tune in the first set. We took a break before the 2nd set and went outside. Upon return there was a new piece of sheet music on the Paula’s stand, a new Eubie Blake song. He had been in the audience, and must have been near 90. We were blown away.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Was he still there? Did you meet him? Do you still have the music?

          This was my teenage fantasy, except it would have been the ghost of Charlie Parker. Or the living Ornette Colman. Or Coltrane. And I couldn’t have played the music by sight to save my life.

  11. LaMissy! says:

    I’m old enough to remember the quaint days when politics stopped at the ocean’s edge. Now we have a loser former president – lost popular vote in 2016, midterms in 2018, popular and electoral college in 2020, midterms of 2022 – whose minions travel the world to inject his rejected policies in other nations. Also, his pals at home who undermine domestic policy.

    Good post from WaPo on Richard Grenell, who most recently was in Guatemala to undermine the swearing in of Bernardo Arévelo, the duly elected president. It was a near thing, if you haven’t been following along. Has the Logan Act been superseded?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/28/richard-grenell-trump-envoy-serbia-guatemala/

    • ernesto1581 says:

      Who is he working for these days? I thought he was busy fomenting civil war in Serbia/Croatia.

      • LaMissy! says:

        Seems like real estate deals with Jared:

        Grenell’s deep Balkan ties helped pave the way for the estimated $1 billion in real estate projects he is now pursuing with Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, including a luxury hotel and offices in downtown Belgrade and a resort on an island off the Albanian coast. “I was ecstatic to be able to get Jared and Affinity to look at the project and invest in it,” Grenell said in the recent Albanian television interview, adding that he expected the deal to attract “a flood of investment.”

  12. I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

    I have interacted with both Segretti and Eastman over the years. Segretti still has an active CA law license, per the CA state bar website. I’m not going to comment publicly about either of them. The Bar State Bar Judge’s opinion is thorough and well reasoned. Come March 30, Eastman loses his license pending the ruling of the CA Supreme Court.

    • CaptainCondorcet says:

      Do you know if reinstatement would be possible in his case if that does happen, and what would that hinge on? The idea of cooperation with law enforcement agencies to get his license back sounds appealing, but I have no idea how that process works.

      • I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

        Do a search for reinstatement proceedings CA State Bar and you will arrive at the CA State Bar Web page that discusses reinstatement proceedings. There are reported opinions of the CA Supreme Court addressing reinstatement. A number of years ago, the CA Supreme Court reinstated a previously disbarred attorney who had been disbarred for sitting for the bar exam under the name of their spouse.

      • bmaz says:

        The standard waiting period is five years after disbarment before you can petition for reinstatement.

        Keep in mind however, Eastman is not yet really disbarred, simply referred for it. There is still another level of action, and then the CA Supreme Court before he would truly be disbarred. Don’t hold your breath. That said, not sure he would ever get cleared for reinstatement if disbarred. We shall see.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Come March 30th, Eastman is on involuntary inactive status: his license is suspended. He loses it only if the CA supreme court makes that decision.

      If that happens, as bmaz observed, after five years, Eastman can petition to get it back. In five years, though, he’ll be doddering like Ed Meese, or have a felony conviction under his belt. But that rarely stops wingnut welfare. He’ll get a lot of that if Trump wins.

      • SteveBev says:

        Eastman will be 64 on 21April 2024

        Trump announced his run for Presidency on his 69th birthday 16 June 2015

        69 year olds are capable of havoc.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Are you referring to Eastman or Bankman-Fried? :-)

          Who do you favor for Saturday’s boatrace?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I found recommendations that rowers not go into the water a tad…uninformed. The recommendation follows news that privatized water companies’ dumped sewage into English waters for over 4 million hours in 2023.

          The advice seems ignorant that a rower sits a few inches above the water. Their exertion and speed of travel insures that they will bathe, swallow, and inhale lots of Thames water. They will all need antibiotics treatment after their races.

        • SteveBev says:

          I would hope they have been taking antibiotics prophylaxis during their training week on the river.

          And emetics to disgorge whatever they have unjustly imbibed.

          BTW re disgorgement
          Micheal Popock has advanced a theory that the Appellate Division has perhaps spotted a flaw in Engoron’s method of calculation, and a miscalculation close to the sum of $285m Trump complains of in his briefing, thus the $175m for the bond wasn’t plucked from thin air but rather reflects such thinking
          https://youtu.be/6Nll3YL4Ky4

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I think you’re referring to attorney Michael Popok. It would be an error in the NYAG’s calculations as well as Engoron’s.

          Popok, who represents corporations and high wealth white collar criminal defendants, may not be the most objective voice. But he must be correct that the appeals court didn’t pick $175 million out of thin air.

          He does not seem the credulous type, but his recitation of Trump’s net worth, $3-5 billion, and available cash of over half a billion, reads like a Trump press release.

          Popok claims the disagreement relates to including damages that were outside the statute of limitations. I anxiously await the court’s rationale and its reasoning, as I’m sure do Engoron and the AG.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    It is laughable that Eastman argues he has to keep his license to earn enough to pay for his appeals. Based on the evidence produced by this proceeding, allowing him to remain off suspension would be a reckless disservice to clients who might be tempted to employ him. Dr. Eastman had years to anticipate and plan for this outcome. If he chose to ignore the possibility, that’s on him.

    There are other jobs he can do that would not endanger prospective clients. He should have no trouble being hired in the food service or housekeeping industries. California is full of truck driving schools, too. But it’s more likely he will find space and employment at a right wing think tank, where he can dream up more ways to overturn the American experiment in democracy. His only real talent.

    • Scott_in_MI says:

      He should have no trouble being hired in the food service or housekeeping industries.

      “I’ve quit better jobs than this!”

      • Matt Foley says:

        “Luke, I thought I told you to get your dirt out of Boss King’s ditch.”

        Years of hard labor would help get a few MAGA criminals’ minds right.

    • chocolateislove says:

      One of Eastman’s responses referred to him as Dr. Eastman and while my MIL loves to remind me that her JD stands for Juris Doctor, most lawyers are not called Doctor. Anywho, Dr. Eastman holds a PhD in Government. I’m sure Hillsdale College would be ecstatic to hire him on as an adjunct professor.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        You might have to ask Wheel of Fortune’s Pat Sajak. He’s head of Hillsdale College’s board of governors and a major donor.

  14. John Herbison says:

    Marcy writes:
    “Roland did not find that the OCTC had proven that Eastman was responsible for the violence at the Capitol, actions that would be key to an obstruction charge under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) — though the Bar would not yet have access to much of the evidence that Jack Smith may one day present.”

    Responsibility for the January 6 violence would indeed support an obstruction charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), but I would also respectfully suggest that Eastman’s importuning Mike Pence on January 4 to reject electors or delay the electoral count would also support a § 1512(c)(2) charge. An attempt to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding is punishable to the same extent as a completed endeavor.

    Eastman knew that his scheme would contravene the Electoral Count Act as it then existed. His motive was to secure to Donald Trump a benefit to which Trump was not lawfully entitled. (If nothing else, a second four year term as president would be worth $1.6 million in salary.) A jury could find that Eastman acted with a corrupt state of mind.

    • earthworm says:

      the language and technical aspects of these cases are, obviously, matters of law, and the commentariat here has been endlessly informed and educated by those well versed in the law and its language.
      however, in my uneducated, layperson’s view, the reluctance of the press to use use the term “coup” when describing the actions and efforts of trump, eastman, clark, stone, and more, has obfuscated what was planned and contemplated.
      euphemisms have neutered what took place.
      i am so offended by the innocent until until proven guilty and white glove approach to those who do not plan to extend that courtesy to any of us, should “the pitchforks” win.

      • Krisy Gosney says:

        In my ordinary citizen’s experience, what/how the media is talking about something is vastly different from what is happening in the court house. Personally, if I had to choose I’d choose the court house getting it right over the media.. Nixon was pardoned for the public’s sake (as were told). He should have been in the court house. I think these Nixon weirdos of today would be less emboldened.

  15. wetzel-rhymes-with says:

    Didn’t know Segretti, then read thirty years old, disbarred. That’s guy in the sweater from All the President’s Men! I saw that years ago. He was sitting there complaining he wasn’t a bad guy.

    Damn right Eastman is worse than Segretti! Continuing my daily mania, maybe this OCTC group followed a “dope or crook” deontological approach to Eastman vs Segretti culpability. Segretti was a dope and Eastman is a crook within this framework. Eastman is worse than a crook like in how by analogy in the Book of Abramelin, as sub-princes of the demons, Astaroth, Magoth, or Beelzebub are worse than a minor demon. I’m sure Eastman would disagree with this medieval interpretation.

    I don’t think there is precedent in OCTC proceedings for how to demonstrate a lawyer may be a fascist and if there are problems for bar membership. Hypothetically, can a fascist lawyer be a faithful prosecutor? Fascism views trial outcomes as propaganda and the law as a terror instrument, so I don’t think so, but it doesn’t come up, even though Eastman sure walks, talks, and acts like a fascist lawyer would.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If I could make sense of that, I wouldn’t try. But you might try reading the First Amendment, when you ask about how a candidate lawyer’s politics should affect her ability to practice a profession.

      • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

        I thought this discussion is with regard to guidelines on culpability in professional conduct of lawyers as is the jurisdiction of OCTC, whether or not this includes speech or advocacy with a professional context or actions in furtherance of a conspiracy attacking the rule of law itself, as in a fascist style or approach to law practice in a putsch or coup attempt. I think this distinguishes from merely criminal or improper conduct in a lawyer.

        • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

          I will try to write at lawyer level. What does the first amendment have to do with it?

        • bmaz says:

          Freedom of speech. Despite the findings that Eastman was acting as “Trump’s lawyer”, was he? Was there a fee agreement as is standardly required? Was there fees payed irrespective of any agreement? If not, why not? And if not, why is Eastman just another Trumpy hanger on entitled to First Amendment free political speech?

          Don’t get me wrong, I do not think the answers to these questions, and more, will absolve Eastman with the CA Supreme Court, but I do think he is entitled to argue them.

        • John Herbison says:

          Of course Eastman has the right to argue that his speech was protected, but he is likely to fail in the context of his having conspired with Donald Trump to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The First Amendment does not protect “speech integral to unlawful conduct.” United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, 783 (2023); “[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Ibid., quoting Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949). “Many long established criminal proscriptions—such as laws against conspiracy, incitement, and solicitation—criminalize speech (commercial or not) that is intended to induce or commence illegal activities.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 298 (2008).

          On January 4, 2021 Eastman importuned Mike Pence to unilaterally delay the electoral count or to disregard and/or reject electoral votes. Solicitation of another to engage in illegal activity is “categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.” Williams, at 297.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          From your second paragraph, I thought this discussion was about which demons fit on the head of a pin. Bmaz answered your question about free speech. Here, it relates to the limits on speech that might be imposed by a profession that certifies one to practice.

          Using undefined labels as epithets to deny employment is typical of authoritarians and Fascists. We saw a lot of that during the McCarthy era, and we’ll see more of it if Trump regains the White House. Until then, it’s not Eastman’s personal beliefs that will deprive him of a license to practice. It’s his conduct.

        • Badger Robert says:

          The reporting is that the Bar Disciplinary Judge found that Eastman’s power of speech was employed to urge VP Pence to do something that was illegal and unconstitutional. And other attorneys had already told Eastman that his theories were nonsense and potentially criminal acts before Eastman spoke with Mike Pence.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Wetzel’s argument was not as precise as yours. They were arguing that having “Fascist” views, with no clear definition, was an obvious reason to disbar or not license an attorney. It’s not obvious in the absence of explicit conduct.

          Eastman’s conduct went beyond holding political opinions we might disagree with. He knowingly advocated breaking the law. As Joyce Vance would say, you can commit crimes with words, and it’s not limited to walking into a bank and saying, “Give me the money.”

        • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

          Maybe I am not grounded in facts and law, so I use a religious analogy to convey the difference between the corrupted and those who corrupt others, where there are categories in the law, but what happens for those who corrupt the law? The law cannot go beyond its own field of reference to view its corruption in a hearing as a form of evidence except in Constitutional appeal, I think, but maybe in a hearing on professional conduct. That’s my original thought, that Bar Associations should be able to define fascist law practice out of professional conduct now that it has begun to appear in American life. I think fascism is controversial to define, but even a layman’s definition would include using the law as sedition for a tyrant cult of personality to overturn a lawful Presidential election.

          There are sacred auspices in the law where there is power in processes over life and death. American law does not have a field of reference to capture fascist actions against it’s foundation in any special way, I think, such as it does for other forms of terrorism or hate crimes. I think, but I am not sure, that fascist law practice is terrorist by definition. Maybe I should check out Eastman’s publications at the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence to learn how fascist law practice can work in our system.

        • SteveBev says:

          I have real difficulty in understanding with precision the particular threads of argument you seek to develop.

          The general point appears to be that fascism or fascist motivation is so important that law and or legal ethical standards need to bend to adequately deal with the problem it presents.

          I apologise if I have mischaracterised your point.

          But the thrust of your argument appear to suggest that the mere hint of a taint of fascist thought or association justifies a relaxation in both procedural and substantive due process, and that such a presumed taint is of itself a bar to professional practice.

          We punish people for what they do rather than for what they imagine they might do.

          And in this context ‘what they do’ includes inchoate offences for activities which proximately seek to bring about concrete actions based on such imaginings.

          We should be alert to the dangers of fascism.

          But penalising people for mere thought is several steps too far.

          I have no difficulty with the idea of proscribing dangerous organisations because of their engagement in glorifying and recruiting people towards criminal activity. However proscription is not attractive to American understanding of civil liberties. But in any event the proper and proportionate disapprobation of Eastman’s actions and activities readily fall within normal processes of justice and legal disciplinary proceedings IMHO

        • Rayne says:

          Huh. Interesting. It wasn’t until this comment that I realized you’re not in the US and likely not American.

        • SteveBev says:

          Really.

          I am sure that I have frequently made that clear, and my various connections to America including: having lived and worked in California for a public defenders office and other lawyers, and strong family connections.

          If this is snark it is…
          ummm .. interesting ( *) ( *)

        • Rayne says:

          It’s not snark. Consider that I haven’t read all 674 of your comments as SteveBev. The ones I’ve read generally don’t contain as many British spellings.

        • SteveBev says:

          Re: snark

          I apologize for having misconstrued and mischaracterized your point.

          My intentions are honorable.

        • SteveBev says:

          p.s.
          I would happily amend my username by adding some British identifier should you believe it would better serve the community of commenters to more readily appreciate that pertinent fact.

        • Rayne says:

          No change necessary. My perception of your understanding of US culture and law has been changed, however. I will also be watching your comments more closely because some commenters here are more likely to be targets of identity spoofing — and that does make a critical difference to the site’s safety and security.

        • bmaz says:

          I don’t care where SteveBev currently resides, and fail to see why it is relevant. And I likely have read all of his comments here, and have found him an intelligent commenter, whether I always agree or not.

          What concerns me more is the initial commenter, Wetzel, yammering about “fascist law practice”. What a load of manure. First off, pleadings and argument in court are protected speech. If Wetzel wants to run along and study the odious Chapman law hack Eastman, let him.

        • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

          Thank you, SteveBev, for your very interesting counterarguments, though I didn’t mean this:
          “But the thrust of your argument appear to suggest that the mere hint of a taint of fascist thought or association justifies a relaxation in both procedural and substantive due process, and that such a presumed taint is of itself a bar to professional practice.” I appreciate you are trying to help me make a set of coherent claims. If I can set them forth, firstly, I think there is a category of law practice which is “fascist” although I don’t think the category is rational “within the law” but in my mind is most clear in the structural anthropology of the law in terms of its constitutional sociology but in everyday life appears in show trials, arbitrary detentions, political prosecutions, unequal enforcement, etc.

          Being very difficult to define like a neurological state. The judge in a free society cannot attribute fascism to the lawyers of a fascist political party, apparently, even when they are launching witch hunt prosecutions or coordinating to overthrow the democracy. I think this is like a doctor how a can’t use psychosis as a diagnostic sign of schizophrenia in the emergency room. The psychotic symptoms might be an overdose, withdrawal, or a stroke.

          Fascism in American society is invisible to American law procedure because the claim as an attribution is never justified in a criminal court because it’s not a proper claim. For the law to try to protect itself from becoming used for fascist purposes, you might be right the law would have to become fascist itself.

          However, the law is a regulated practice. Legal practice regulates itself within OCTC, what is acceptable conduct and not. What a lawyer says as a lawyer is professional conduct. Eastman is an agent of the court. A fascist lawyer makes the court an organ of his fascist conduct. In the field I work in, we are grounded in not only ethical principles but also regulations that prevent fascist clinical research such as informed consent and good clinical practice (GCP). This makes it possible for our regulators to distinguish a fascist clinical trial from what that isn’t, so it isn’t impossible in the law itself either, I think.

          [wetzel — Second reminder this week to be more concise. At 373 words this could have been half as long, more effective, and easier to read. /~Rayne]

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Twaddle. The CIA and McGill suggest more than one profession has problems with self-regulation

        • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

          Sorry for the long comment. It was reciprocation with SteveBev’s long comment. It was him!

        • Rayne says:

          wetzel, I need you to take a break because you’re attracting trollish behavior. Go have a nice cup of tea and crack open a good book.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          “Sacred auspices” hasn’t much application to the law or any other profession outside of religion.

        • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

          How does the law have power over life and death such as to sentence a person to spend their entire adult life in prison? How does that happen without destroying the symbolic value of humanity? How is there justice in the law? How is truth in evidence for such as this accepted to decide fate? So truth and justice have the same ritual and sacrificial origins. There is an acceptance of sacred character in the taboos of professional norms. A doctor has a relationship to the patient which forms moral principles and an ethos called the doctor-patient relationship. It is sacred and ‘auspices’ refers to something like ‘nuptials’ at a wedding or good conduct at a funeral or why you don’t eat human flesh. The lawyer has a sacred relationship to their client and the court. It is existential to the profession and its relationship to truth and justice. I don’t believe this analysis is within a specific ‘religion’ but from structural anthropology, sociology and philosophy.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Somewhere in northern Italy, a medieval an abbot is still looking for his missing librarian.

        • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

          I need to return to the library and complete the manuscripts the obedientiaries assigned to me reflecting what is known on certain medicature, but like the Tatars from the Womb of Civilization, I am circumnavigating. I traveled out from the monastery west to east.

          I did not expect to arrive here, but, as some say, fortune is insane, blind, stupid, and cruel, but she is also bounteous, graceful, kind and loving! She stands on a rolling rock with many wheels moving eastward. Some move westward, each inside the other. The wheels are like onion peels each inside the other with a substance like a luminiferous ether in between the wheels.

        • bidrec-gap says:

          Historically a fascist would have been the opposite of a terrorist. Fasces were a symbol of order hence the bundle of fasces on the reverse of the Mercury Dime. It is a metaphor for order.

        • SteveBev says:

          Not quite

          Although the ancient Roman symbol of the bundle of rods (fascio) and an axe were the symbol of justice, Mussolini called his movement fascisti before adopting the Roman symbol.

          “[By 1914] The term “fascio” (plural “fasci”) was then common in Italy’s political lexicon, in its core meaning of “bundle”, to denote a loosely-organized group grounded in a common ideology. It was the workers’ movement in Sicily of the mid-1890s that firmly cemented the word “fascio” into everyday use. At the time, the press even sometimes tagged members of the Sicilian fasci as “fascisti.”
          Two decades later, especially after Italy entered the War in May 1915, there were dozens of activist groups of all stripes with “fascio’ in their name.“
          T. Corey Brennan, Professor, Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences

          https://blog.oup.com/2022/10/the-radical-reinterpretation-of-the-fasces-in-mussolinis-italy/

          “23 March 1919, Mussolini relaunched his war movement as a paramilitary group, the “Italian Fasci of Combat.” …
          In late October his campaign proclaimed that “the Fascist emblem signifies unity, force and justice!”, and showed Roman fasces with cords loosened at the base of the bundle, evidently in the process of being readied for punitive use.”

          Mussolini’s adoption of Roman symbolism, Roman salute and the use of Latin, was part of the propaganda effort that his project was. to ‘Make Italy Roman (ie Great) Again’

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Unless their sense of order required them to overthrow what they considered a chaotic, but democratically-elected government, in order to restore an order with which they were more comfortable.

  16. Critter7 says:

    In addition to other things, Eastman was a flip-flopper – taking one legal position early on and then flipping in an effort to please the Orange One. The judge’s recommendation recounts that part of Eastman’s history in sharp detail.

  17. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Eastman and Clark seem to have used a nearly identical list of privileges that they hoped would excuse them from answering questions, including the Fifth Amendment. Their recitations sounded like a memorized recipe for Trump spaghetti or fraternity wine cooler – a thoughtless mix of everything with “privilege” or alcohol in it.

    What they seem to have missed is that bar disciplinary proceedings are civil. Unlike pleading the Fifth in a criminal proceeding, pleading it in a civil proceeding allows the finder of fact to infer negative meaning from asserting it. Sad.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      I get that Clark is a very light-weight legal mind – more like a minion being told what to do. Willing to follow blindly.

      But Eastman was schooled and trained in this type of legal battles. Perhaps went to some of the exclusive FedSoc education camps. He knows of what he did.

      He is showing himself, the Claremont and Heritage incubators as very poor examples of good legal education. But, of course, that is their purpose.

      • bmaz says:

        Eastman is not particularly schooled in election law at all. He is, however, a long time ultra conservative crackpot of the Chapman School of Law variety. He comes straight out of the Michael Luttig and Clarence Thomas tree of law. Don’t give him more credit than he is due, and he is due very little.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Clark is a nitwit coup plotter who’s stepping on his dick every time he tries to defend himself, but he’s actually not “lightweight.” He’s upper echelon: Harvard College, Georgetown Law, Sixth Circuit clerk, DoJ, Kirkland & Ellis.

        But he’s ultra-conservative, apparently has the street smarts of Kris Kobach, and his advocacy for Donald Trump took him way outside his legal expertise and the bounds of ethics and morality.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Thanks, earl, for this comment. I had watched those invocations of privilege with exasperation, wondering if their sheer arrogance could make them get away with what they considered (in my grandmother’s lexicon) a fast one.

      I sure hope it’s true that every possible negative inference will be taken, from the idiotic ones at least–like Clark claiming attorney-client privilege as Trump’s lawyer.

  18. Matt Foley says:

    Washington Post:
    A Georgia Republican official who pushed false claims that the 2020 election was “stolen” was found to have voted illegally nine times, a judge ruled this week. Brian Pritchard, first vice chairman of the Georgia Republican Party,

    No mention of this on Fox News.

  19. earlofhuntingdon says:

    RIP, Louis Gossett Jr:

    “Louis Gossett Jr, first Black man to win supporting actor Oscar, dies aged 87….won Emmy for role in seminal TV miniseries Roots died in Santa Monica, California”

    Among his many memorable stage and screen roles, he’ll be remembered for not getting Mayo to DOR, and for a nice side kick to the groin, which made Mayo rethink leaving the Navy, the role for which he won that Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/29/louis-gossett-jr-actor-dies

    • Issaquah says:

      Well, crap. So sorry to hear this. The hardest book I ever got through was “The Undoing Project”, thankfully it led me to much more of the Tversky/Kahneman work, which has been fascinating and revealing. RIP indeed.

  20. bloopie2 says:

    Interesting legal situation in Israel, as below per CNN (among others). Not sure there is a direct comparison with the US, but it’s good to see how other forms of democracy address contentious issues.

    “The Israeli Supreme Court orders the government to stop funding religious schools that defy enlistment. In Israel’s nascent days, its first prime minister David Ben-Gurion agreed with Haredi rabbis to exempt from military service 400 men studying in religious schools.”

    “The exemption, made in 1948, came when there were few Haredim in Israel – as many were and remain opposed to the state on religious grounds – and so had little practical impact. But the Haredi community has since swelled, now comprising 24% of recruitment-aged Israelis, making the issue of exemption thornier.”

    “The exemption was never enshrined in a law that the Supreme Court views as equitable. In 1998, it ripped up the longstanding exemption on the grounds that it violated equal protection principles. In the years since it has only been upheld by patch-work government mandates.”

Comments are closed.