MAGA is fighting back against the mob and so are we… but we need your help. Join our growing army and click here to subscribe to Revolver. Or give the gift of Revolver—simply select the annual subscription and select “This is a gift” on the next page. If you want to give extra during this critical time, you can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation — whether it’s $1 or $1,000, every bit goes towards the battle to save our great nation.
Guest Post by Friends of John Eastman
Remember the shenanigans of the 2020 election? The mail-in vote flooding, the late night ballot-counting, the illegal last-minute modifications of election procedures? As we gear up for another election year, the powers-that-be have decided that the matter is closed and it’s time to forget all that. They even have ways of making you forget.
Now there are several new advocacy groups funded by millions in “dark money” dedicated to shutting down any lawyer involved in shedding light on election issues. Groups like the 65 Project and States United Democracy Center staffed by the usual crew of longtime Democrat party activists and RINO never-Trumpers are looking to bury concerned lawyers under a mountain of official complaints. Their stated tactics are disbarments, “making them toxic in their communities and in their own firms” and destroying their careers. It’s explicitly personal, right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. If they can destroy anyone who officially investigates the integrity of our elections, they can keep using the same bag of tricks that worked for them in 2020 forever.
The result is a massive chilling effect on the practice of election law and the loss of the profession entirely.
Today there’s one man speaking out. John Eastman is a constitutional scholar who, through his long career, has clerked at the Supreme Court, served as an attorney at Kirkland & Ellis where he specialized in constitutional litigation, taught constitutional law at Chapman University in California, and served as dean of the school. In 2020 he helped President Trump evaluate issues arising from the 2020 election and has been involved in election integrity efforts since then. Now the Democrat lawfare machine has him in their sights. On Tuesday this week he went before the State Bar of California to defend himself against disbarment, a trial engineered by the activist States United Democracy Center who filed complaints against him. He also faces a bar complaint filed against him with SCOTUS by the 65 Project.
These are unfortunately just the beginning of his troubles. He’s also been approached by the FBI at the behest of the January 6th committee, even though he was nowhere near the Capitol on that day. He’s had his address printed in local newspapers and radical activists picket his house on a daily basis. They have even set spikes in his gravel driveway to damage the cars of his family and visitors, thrown dog feces at his house, and graffiti’d his street to direct more protestors to his home.
But Eastman is committed to speaking out. In a just-released interview with Chairman of the Claremont Institute Tom Klingenstein, we can hear his justification: “Our justice system depends on competent representation on both sides of the adversarial process.” Indeed it does. Ever since John Adams defended the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre, the right to representation has been an American ideal and a constitutionally-guaranteed right. Throughout the interview, he comes across as reasonable, principled, and good humored; a scholar in full command of the relevant facts related to a very murky and unfortunate situation. It’s a remarkable discussion.
Watch the full interview:
Eastman goes on to elaborate how in the days leading up to January 6th, he identified several illegalities in changes to state election procedures and made tenable arguments based on history and constitutional precedent for how the Vice President and Congress could potentially address those illegalities.
Now, the swamp creatures who inhabit the “advocacy groups” that haunt the beltway are destroying the ideal of representation and reasoned debate. They don’t need to argue in court, you see, they just need to make it impossible to be heard in court at all. They do this by going after not only the lawyers, but even the arguments themselves. That’s right, they want to make it impossible to make certain election related arguments in a court of law.
For John Eastman, this is the crux of the issue. His persecutors accuse him of making arguments in bad faith that violate a lawyer’s oath to uphold the Constitution, an extraordinary precedent considering the complexity and nuance of constitutional interpretation throughout American history. If some interpretations of the Constitution can be effectively sanctioned, how would it be possible to advance new arguments based on novel interpretations, as lawyers do all the time?
In John’s words from the interview “[They] are assessing my ability to make judgements about a very sophisticated and nuanced Constitutional argument.” The irony is that the lawyers who made the complaints, as well as those at the California Bar who are investigating John, are not by any means constitutional scholars themselves!
Democrat party legal activists have realized they can lock in certain interpretations of the Constitution not through rulings (they don’t want to go to the Supreme Court for obvious reasons) but through procedure. Just like the science behind climate change and COVID-19, dissenting opinions are not allowed: the interpretation of the law is settled now, not by the courts or by the legislatures but by an unaccountable body of “experts” funded by the same networks that fund the nonprofits seeking and destroying conservative lawyers like Eastman.
It goes without saying that if these people succeed in what they’re doing, elections in the United States would be compromised — perhaps forever. Right now the 65 Project proudly displays over two dozen ethics complaints they have filed against lawyers involved in election investigations. According to David Brock, the leader of the project, their intent is that: “[Project 65] will not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints but shame them and make them toxic in their communities.” Unfortunately they are just getting started. These people need to be resisted now before it’s too late.
You can give to John Eastman’s official legal defense fund using GiveSendGo.
Here’s a statement from John Eastman after the first day of his Bar hearing in California on Tuesday:
“I’m glad we can finally get going, so reasonable people can see that I have a solid basis for the representations I made in my capacity representing the President.
The big picture here is that these sorts of challenges from privately-funded nonprofits are a threat to the adversarial process. The 65 Project admits that their goal is not just to get Trump’s attorneys disbarred, but to make them so toxic in their firms and in their careers that people will never take on election challenges. For the States United Democracy Center, the mission is the same. To scare people away from taking part in election litigation at all.
That means you can violate election laws with impunity, because no one will be able to make challenges. In Bush v. Gore, Dems filed half a dozen suits down in Florida. No right wing organization ever attempted to disbar them.”
John Eastman knows exactly what the stakes are. That’s why he’s determined to see this challenge through. The hearing is expected to last at least eight days. If the court finds Eastman culpable of the alleged violations it can recommend a punishment such as suspending or revoking his law license. The California Supreme Court makes the final decision.
NOTE: Jeffrey Clark, the former Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, previously wrote an exclusive piece about the 65 Project for Revolver. Read it here.