Hi, everyone.

Time for another update because so much has happened in the last couple of weeks.  First was Tucker Carlson's big reveal of January 6 videos that the Democrats (and RINO Republicans like the FORMER Rep. Liz Cheney) tried to keep from the public, which exposed numerous lies that the J6 Committee put out in their stage-managed propaganda narrative.  Mike Huckabee's monologue this weekend provides a great summary, at the end of which he says that "the tide may be turning toward sanity."

Then there is the apology from long-time leftist/feminist activist and former Clinton presidential advisor Dr. Naomi Wolf admitting that her "team"--that is, the progressive left--"was Taken in By Full-Spectrum Propaganda"!  Wow.  And well worth the read.

Even more importantly, Joseph Fried's book, Debunked?: An auditor reviews the 2020 election--and the lessons learned, published in January, is starting to get much-deserved attention.  He discusses the book, among other things, with Sarah Westfall of Business Game Changers, here.  For those who still parrot the propaganda narrative that there was "no evidence" of election illegality and/or fraud, or who have friends who do, this book is a must read.

And of course, the ongoing drip, drip, drip of the exposé of government corruption being revealed in the so-called "Twitter files," coming out in the "weaponization" hearings in Congress.

Then there was the news out of Texas that the bar complaint filed against Sidney Powell was rejected by the Dallas County District Court, which GRANTED in full Powell's "No evidence Motion for Summary Judgment."  Congratulations, Sidney.  Alas, a little to the northwest in Colorado, Jenna Ellis appears to have succumbed to the leftists over at The 65 Project by entering into a stipulation with the Colorado bar by which she purports to admit to having made "misrepresentations" about the 2020 election in exchange for a public censure rather than suspension of her bar license or disbarment.  Thomas Andrew calls it a "craven surrender" in an article also worth a read, but the whole sad affair highlights just how pernicious these efforts by The 65 Project are -- comparable to deplorable tactics too often deployed by aggressive prosecutors to get their targets to stipulate to things that just aren't true in order to avoid the massive cost and downside risk of more severe charges and the crapshoot of a jury trial. 

As for me, new hit pieces by the Albuquerque Journal and Orange County Register demonstrate just how in-the-tank for the leftist propaganda narrative our once-respected newspapers are.  Here's my letter to the editor of the Albuquerque Journal responding to what I called the "undignified" hit piece that was "well beneath the standards of decency that ought to prevail at any reputable newspaper."  The Orange County Register, which is part of an industry that relies on the Freedom of Press guaranteed by the First Amendment, even mocked my own reliance on the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech and Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances) in my 112-page response to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges that the California Bar filed against me.  "Eastman Wraps Himself in First Amendment protections," the headline to the opinion piece by Teri Sforza reads, as if there were something wrong with insisting that my constitutional rights not be violated as I defend myself against the demonstrably false claims the bar has made against me.  One can only hope that Governor Huckabee's claim that "the tide may be turning toward sanity" proves to be correct -- truth usually prevails once enough sunlight is allowed in, but in the meantime, those who want to keep the truth hidden from the American people and to silence or cower into submission those who challenge the government's propaganda get more and more aggressive.  Keep us in your prayers as we continue to fight these battles.

John

I'll be appearing on the Mike Huckabee Show Saturday evening, February 18, at 8 pm Eastern to dicuss the formal ANSWER we filed this week to the California Bar's Notice of Disciplinary Charges against me.  Details about the show and local listings are available here. As we note in the news release we sent out today (available at my substack site here), it is “comprehensive and forceful,” taking issue with the “disturbing number of demonstrably false statements” made in the Notice of Disciplinary Charges that was filed by the California Bar on Jan. 26.  As you will see if you have a chance to read the 112-page document, the answer includes a large amount of the evidence, judicial precedent, historical and scholarly research on which I based my assessment and advice to former President Trump in my representation of him in the wake of the 2020 election. It also includes 16 affirmative defenses, including that the charges violation my Freedom of Speech and right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances that are protected by the First Amendment.  As should be clear, we are fighting this travesty with all our might.  Thank you all for your continued support and prayers.

John

Two terrific articles discussing my press conference in response to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges that was filed against me by the California Bar this past week have been published, and well worth a read:  

Margot Cleveland, California Would Disbar Ted Cruz and 18 Attorneys General If It Could, The Federalist (Jan. 27, 2023); and

Roger Kimball, Justice for John Eastman, American Greatness (Jan. 28, 2023).

But what about the rest of the media?  Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, Law360.com (part of the National Law Journal group), CBS, NBC, and the LA Times all had reporters on the press conference zoom call, but none of them asked a question, and none have published any story about the news conference (at least, not that I’ve seen).  

Of course, there were lots of titillating news stories about the Bar’s action itself, some (including the normally prestigious Forbes) even with false headlines claiming I had already been “disciplined” by the bar.  See Alison Durkee, John Eastman Disciplined By Calfornia Bar—Here Are All The Consequences Trump’s Attorneys Have Faced, Forbes (Jan. 27, 2023).  As anyone familiar with the bar discipline process should know, and as the Bar’s notice of the filing expressly notes, “A Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed by OCTC contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The licensee is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.”

The news conference, together with the 100-page response I had provided last fall to the bar investigators and posted on my substack page, demonstrated how egregious the Bar’s actions are.  I was honored to have been joined by such legal luminaries as Ed Meese, the 75th Attorney General of the United States who served under President Ronald Reagan; Janice Rogers Brown, with her distinguished judicial career as both a Justice on the California Supreme Court and a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often described as the second highest court in the land; Michael Gableman, former Justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who was retained by the Wisconsin Legislature to investigate the allegations of illegality and fraud in the 2020 and documented in great detail the illegality and outright fraud in that election in Wisconsin; Phillip Mautino, long-time Los Angeles Superior Court Judge (now retired); and Harvey Silverglate, former member of the board of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU and author of the eye-opening book, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. All of them raised serious concerns about using the bar discipline process to silence attorneys who take on controversial clients or causes, and who, in the course of fulfilling their duty of zealous advocacy for their clients, press legal theories or factual contentions that are disputed by some in positions of power.  As I noted in my own remarks, it increasingly appears that we ordinary citizens are not allowed to challenge claims by the government, whether it be regarding Covid vaccines, CRT and transgender policy in public schools, or election integrity.  “We’re the government.  We’ve defined what is truth.  How dare you question us?” seems to be the mentality.

That’s a counter narrative that the major legacy media doesn’t want to hear, so they just ignore it.  But we intend to fight this travesty fully and vigorously.  That will be costly, as the process involves a full trial on a truncated timetable.  I’ve increased our fundraising goal to help deal with these added costs, but since some news outlets have intimated that I’m making money with this legal defense fund, I thought I would provide a summary accounting of the efforts thus far.

I am currently (or have been) dealing with 14 separate actions related to my representation of former President Trump, and thus far have run up a tab of more than a half million dollars in legal fees from about a dozen lawyers in six different law firms spread across the country.  

•    We have lawyers in D.C. and California who dealt with the following:

o     Subpoenas issued to me by the House of Representatives January 6 Committee (tab in excess of $50k);

o    the subpoena issued to Verizon for my phone records (about $40k);

o    the subpoena issued to Chapman University for my email communications (including communications with more than 65 clients) (more than $300k for that 10-month long litigation necessitated by my ethical duty as a lawyer to protect the confidential communications from my clients—more than 65 of them, not just the former President);

o    the warrants (how many or for what purpose, we still don’t know) issued by the Department of Justice for my communications from various sources ($10k and counting);

o    potential subpoenas in several of the defamation cases that are pending ($3k);

o    and a rather ridiculous lawsuit asserting that I as lead defendant (and numerous other “billionaires,” of which I was laughably apparently one, including Jared Kushner, Roger Stone, Ivanka Trump, Sidney Powell, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Michael Flynn, Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity, Mike Lindell, Keith Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, One America News, the Federalist Society, and even Mark Zuckerberg!--the plaintiff apparently didn't get the memo re: his involvement on the other side!) “are currenty engaged in an all-out psychological warfare campaign that was literally pulled straight from Adolf Hitler’s playbook” ($11k just to respond to the frivolous suit).  

•    We have lawyers in D.C., California, and Boston addressing the investigation we suspect is ongoing by the D.C. Grand Jury ($25k and counting). 

•    We have lawyers in New Mexico, DC, and California who dealt with the FBI’s seizure of my phone and electronic information stored on it ($50k), and also with enforcement of the out-of-state witness subpoena served upon me by the Fulton County, Georgia Grand Jury ($10k).

•    We have lawyers in Georgia, DC, and California who represented me or otherwise assisted with my appearance before the grand jury there ($10k). 

•    We have lawyers in California and DC coordinating the response to the bar complaints that have been filed against me in California, the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court of the United States, which efforts have thus far exceeded $50k in legal fees and with the full disciplinary proceeding trial on the horizon, will go much higher.  That entails a response to their 11-count, 82-paragraph, 34-page complaint, review of their response, some dispositive motions and related briefing, and if those are unsuccessful, discovery and a trial.
My own time devoted to all this has been immense—between 1,000 and 2,000 hours over the past year.  As Roger Kimball notes at the end of his article, in the modern administrative state, the fact that the “process is the punishment” “is only part of the envisaged punishment,” but as should be clear from the recitation above, it has certainly imposed a hefty toll already.  

Your continued support and prayers are much appreciated.

JOHN

Friends,

I regret to inform you that the California Bar filed a Notice of Disciplinary Charges against me earlier today, seeking to have me disbarred because I dared to represent former President Donald Trump's efforts to challenge the acknowledged illegality and significant evidence of fraud in the 2020 election.  You can read more about it at my substack page here.  Looks like we're going to have to increase the fundraising goal here to deal with this latest attack.  But as always, I remain deeply grateful for all the prayers and financial support you all have provided.

Sincerely,

John Eastman

Mike Pence is hawking his new book (which apparently discloses executive privileged communications he had with former President Trump).  He also published a piece last week in the Wall Street Journal falsely claiming that I had advised him to simply reject Biden electors and declare Trump re-elected.  The Journal published my retort yesterday, here (Sunday, Nov. 13), but somehow forgot to include the last paragraph of my letter, which was the best part.  It read:  "I understand why Mr. Pence would like to make it appear as though my advice was that he unilaterally declare President Trump re-elected, as that false narrative makes it easier for him to claim publicly that he acted quite reasonably in rejecting the advice. But that is not the advice I gave, and Pence should cease twisting the facts in an attempt to resurrect his political career."

John Ransom is doing some really great work over at Epoch Times exposing the threat to the right to counsel that is posed by the left's "go after the lawyers" tactics.  Well worth a read.

John Ransom,J6 Committee, DOJ's Targeting of Trump Attorneys Aimed at Destroying MAGA, Threatens Democracy: Lawyers, Epoch Times (Oct. 27, 2022).

The Epoch Times has published a terrific article commenting on our recent reply brief push back against what one of its sources calls the "communist psychopaths" of the House January 6 Committee.  Worth a read! 

John Ransom, January 6 Committee Harassing Targets, Engaging in 'Fishing Expedition': Lawyers, Epoch Times (Oct. 11, 2022).

Our reply brief that is being reported on is available here.

Sometimes it takes a foreigner to give an accurate assessment of the American polity.  Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville famously did that in the 1830s with his insightful book, Democracy in America.  Canadian Conrad Black is bringing similar "view from the outside" insight into the 2020 presidential election in America.  His piece, published earlier this week, is well worth a read.  Conrad Black, American Democracy Is in Extremis, Epoch Times (Oct. 3, 2022).

Of course, one doesn't have to be an outsider to see correctly the stakes of our current predicament.  Rob Natelson has a terrific piece posted at American Greatness this morning.  Rob Natelson, Joe Biden's Charge of 'Semi-Fascism', American Greatness (Oct. 6, 2022).  You might also find of interest my own analysis of President Biden's infamous speech.  John C. Eastman, President Biden's Egregious Misunderstanding of the Second Amendment, American Greatness (Sept. 4, 2022).

As always, thank you all for the payers and continued support. 

John

Lots to report on this week.

First, in response to a subpoena, I testified before the Fulton County (Atlanta) Georgia Grand Jury today.  The statement put out by my attorneys is available here.  Happy to have Harvey Silverglate, the author of an important book, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, joining my legal team, and a great thank you to the Atlanta-based attorney who joined me at the Courthouse as local counsel and provided sage advice about the whole process.

Second, William Allen has published what I think is a terrific piece about this whole affair.  Well worth a read.  William B. Allen, John Eastman is John Eastman's Best Defense, American Greatness (Aug. 29, 2022).

Next, a quick note about my "day job" work.  Just published at American Conservative, as part of a series of scholarly articles about which erroneous Supreme Court decisions should be overruled if the original meaning of the Constitution were to be faithfully applied, is my article about the Spending Clause.  The founders viewed that clause as giving Congress the power to spend only for things that were for the common defense and general welfare--not for anything it wanted.  (so no--direct payments for college loan forgiveness is not remotely constitutional!).  I hope you will find the article of interest.  John C. Eastman, Overturn South Dakota v. Dole, The American Conservative (Aug. 15, 2022).  It is temporarily out front of their paywall, so take a look soon!

Finally, take note that we hit our recent goal of $250k.  Because of all the additional legal filings we've needed to make, I'm raising the goal again to help cover more of the legal bills, which already exceed that sum.  Thanks to you all both for your continued support and, as importantly, your ongoing prayers.

John

We fired back against The 65 Project's Supreme Court bar complaint against me this past week, and yesterday Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Chris Flannery published a wonderful piece at American Greatness.  I also recently learned of a terrific article published at American Thinker last October.  Links to all three are below and also added to the list of links in the opening narrative.  As always, thanks to all for your continued prayers and support.

James V. DeLong, Standing With John Eastman, American Thinker (Oct. 21, 2021)

John Eastman, Response to The 65 Project's SCOTUS Bar Complaint, Substack (Aug. 3, 2022)

Christopher Flannery, John Eastman is an American Hero, American Greatness (Aug. 4, 2022)

Happy Independence Day, everyone.  We are blessed to live in the most free, most prosperous, and most generous nation in the history of the world.  Yet there are today forces that would destroy it, operating from within (and often with the help of our enemies without).  Renowned historian Victor Davis Hanson has a terrific article published yesterday at American Greatness that is well worth the time to read.  Then enjoy today's celebrations and join me in a re-dedication to the inalienable truths set out in our Declaration of Independence that has been the source of our greatness and the foundation for our grand experiment in self government.

Victor Davis Hanson, Who Are The Real Insurrectionists?, American Greatness (July 3, 2022)

Here's the link to my interview on Tucker Carlson this evening (June 27).

And here's the link to the lawsuit we filed today challenging the constitutionality of the warrant authorizing seizure of my phone and "all information in" it, including information that a federal judge has already ruled is privileged. 

Be sure to catch my appearance on Tucker Carlson tonight, shortly after the 8:30 pm EDT break.  Tucker and I discuss what I believe to be an unconstitutional seizure of my phone by FBI agents as I was exiting a restaurant last week. 

We filed a new lawsuit today to challenge that seizure, which authorized not only the seizure of the smart phone but of "all information" contained in it.  That would include communications with clients that a federal court has already ruled are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, and also the First Amendment's freedom of association.  As you'll see in the lawsuit, the demand for "all information" on my smart phone is essentially a general warrant authorizing our increasingly totalitarian government to conduct an exploratory rummaging through my papers and communications to see if they can find some evidence of a crime.  The Fourth Amendment's requirement that seizures can be done only with a "particular description" of the things to be seized was expressly designed, as the courts have frequently recognized, to prohibit general warrants, an abusive practice of the King George III that was one of the abuses that led to our Declaration of Independence.  But our government seems to have gone a step further than even that abuse, apparently adopting the infamous saying of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, the Chief of Josef Stalin's Secret Police, the NKVD:  "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."  

This is not America.  This is not Justice.  We need to stand together and fight this kind of abuse.  Your ongoing support and prayers are very much appreciated.

John

Couple of new items of interest.

1.  My letter to the editor responding to the Wall Street Journal's editorial commentary on the January 6th Committee's hearing devoted to my constitutional analysis about the role of the Vice President under the 12th Amendment. 

2. A terrific piece by the editor of Richard Viguerie's Conservative HQ, summarizing the "lawfare" attacks against me.  George Rasley, We Need More Lawyers Like Prof. John Eastman

3. And finally (for now), the interview of Jeff Clark, former Assistant Attorney General, by Tucker Carlson describing the FBI raid on his home in the early morning hours last week. 

They say you can't believe everything you read in the media.  I'm increasingly of the view that you can't believe almost anything you read in today's corporate propaganda media, the distortions and out-of-context quotations to push a political narrative have become so blatant as to undermine any shred of credibility these outlets once had.  In any event, as I have apparently now become (in the minds of Liz Cheney and others on the January 6 Committee) the grand puppeteer and l'enfant terrible of the entire election integrity movement, you'll see a lot more in the coming days as the J6 Committee proceeds with its "made for TV" prime time show trials.  What you won't see is any serious discussion of the mountains of opposing evidence, which is why the lack of any adversarial questioning by this committee is such a farce  Bill Barr said there was no evidence of fraud in the election?  How about asking him: "What investigations did you do?  Did you investigate the ballot harvesting scheme that has recently been exposed in 2000 Mules?  No, Why Not?  Did you look at the Nursing Home fraud that was recently exposed in Wisconsin?  No again, Why Not?  Your elections chief refused to consent to any election investigations, and one of your US Attorneys has said that you quietly directed that he not do investigations. Why?  Public Records Act requests about investigations have yielded nothing, on the ground that no such records exist. Why?  Don't hold your breath waiting for this hyper-partisan committee to ask such obvious questions; it might get in the way of the narrative. 

I've added links above (and here) to a couple of recent articles and one reflection back from January 2021 that I think accurately describe what we're confronting.  Also linked are my recent briefs in the litigation where I'm fulfilling my ethical duty to protect privilege communications with my clients.  I think you will find it all to be interesting reading.  Your continued prayers and support are much appreciated, and much needed. 

Thank you!

John Eastman

Robert Hutchinson, Federal Judge's Opinion on Trump Reveals Judiciary's Reliance on Media Propaganda, American Thinker (March 31, 2022)

Claes Ryn, Memorandum: How the 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen, The American Conservative (Jan. 5, 2021)

Rachel Alexander, The Left Dominates the Legal System, and They're Taking Down GOP Election Attorneys En Masse, Townhall (May 30, 2022)

Mark Pulliam, The Legal Profession Brooks No Dissent, American Greatness (June 4, 2022)

Opening Brief in Eastman v. Thompson

Reply Brief in Eastman v. Thompson

 

Jeffrey Clark, former Assistant Attorney General, has a terrific article published March 29 about the new "Project 65" effort by leftists to personally destroy any attorney who worked for election integrity.  Worth a read.

Jeffrey Clark, “Project 65” Seeks to Kill All the Trump Lawyers — By Canceling Them: The Progressive Left’s Latest Move to Destroy America, Revolver (Mar 29, 2022)

All,

Thank you for your continued support.  Professor Rob Natelson published a great article at Epoch Times on March 19, describing with terrific historical and scholarly insight what is at stake in my fight with the J6 Committee.  Have a read and let me know what you think.  (Note: The linked article is behind a paywall.  I\'ll update to a public link once Epoch Times\' 7-day exclusive time period expires on March 26).

Well, it has certainly been an interesting month. In late January, the J6 Committee issued a subpoena to my former employer, which unbeknownst to me had retained archived copies of all my emails, including communications with clients of the constitutional jurisprudence clinic that I co-supervised.  We got a court order blocking the release of those privileged communications, and the judge ordered the documents turned over to me to conduct a privilege review -- at a rate of 1500 pages/day!. This morning at 9:00 am Pacific Time we\\'re having a hearing (which you can watch here) about which documents are privileged and which not.  But as you may have seen in the news, the J6 Committee used its brief on the privilege issue as an excuse to essentially lay out a 60-page criminal indictment against former President Trump--based on what we described in our reply brief as lies, select disclosures, and innuendo.  (We also submitted a Statement of Disputed Facts).  Responding to all this has required a monumental (and costly) effort by my legal team, so any further financial support you can provide is much needed.  And keep those prayers coming--they are heartwarming to me and my family.

A number of you have suggested we increase the goal for this fund in order to deploy additional resources to go on offense -- perhaps defamation suits against those maliciousy spreading falsehoods, or putting together a podcast hosting discussions with top election experts, or even spiffing up my 6-week seminar on the Constitution that I did in Boulder last Spring to make it broadly available.  This all sounds good to me, so we've upped the goal to $200k to obtain additional resources for these purposes.  Again, thanks to all of you for the tremendous outpouring of support and prayers.  Fight on!  And have a wonderful Christmas, one and all.

Well, we made it.  We hit our goal of $150,000 in just over two weeks. Many thanks for all your support and prayers.
You can see the lawsuit we filed yesterday against the J6 Committee to block the subpoenaes issued for my private phone records, available here.  Several others have now filed similar suits, including former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, a group of rally supporters, and a reporter, all of whose private cell phone records have been subpoenaed.
We're also exploring other legal strategies to counter these unconstitutional attacks, not just against me but against a lot of other patriotic Americans who are being caught up in this dragnet, some without even knowing it.  I'll keep you posted, and we'll keep this Legal Defense Fund site active for now in case we need to raise additional funds for those additional purposes.  But for now, THANK YOU ALL, and my family and I hope you all have a blessed Christmas/holiday season.
John Eastman
 

My interview with Tucker Carlson on Monday evening, December 6, is now available
Tucker Carlson, Interview with John Eastman   Fox News (Dec. 6, 2021)

This is truly amazing.  We achieved our $100k goal in just 1 week.  Many thanks to everyone who supported this effort to help me push back against the unjust attacks.

A brand new challenge arose over the weekend as we learned that the telephone companies have all been issued subpoenas for the phone records and text message data from an unknown number of American citizens who have simply been exercising their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances.  As I said on Tucker Carlson's show earlier this evening, what is going on is akin to the old  British practice of issuing "general warrants" which authorized British officers to simply rumage through the effects of American colonial subjects of the crown to see if they could find evidence of crime.  Our new nation adopted the 4th Amendment in large part to prevent that from ever happening in the United States, but Congress apparently doens't think the Fourth Amendment (or the First, or the Fifth, or the Sixth) applies to it.

In order to meet this new challenge, we hope to fight these subpoenas as well, not just on my behalf but on behalf of all the others whose private phone records are being sought.  So I've increased our fundraising goal here to add in the litigation costs of that new effort.  

With great appreciation for not just the financial support but for all the heartwarming prayers,

John Eastman

P.S.  Congrats to the "FedUp" donor who put us over the $100K top!
 

We surpassed the $60,000 mark over the weekend.  Many thanks for all the support!