Much of what I have written in the updates on this site deals with "Lawfare" -- a phrase drawn from the famous aphorism by renowned military theorist Carl von Clausewitz that "War is the continuation of politics by other means."  Lawfare, too, is the continuation of politics by other means, namely, the "creative" use of the law to target one's political enemies.

Before turning to recent "lawfare" developments, though, we should acknowledge the tragic degeneration into actual warfare that occurred over the weekend, with the assassination attempt against former President Trump and the heroic death of Corey Comperatore, the former fire chief who used his body to shield his wife and daughter from the attack.  Our hearts and prayers go out to Chief Comperatore's family.

Now for the lawfare update.  By now you have probably heard that Judge Aileen Cannon, U.S. District Judge in the Southern District of Florida, has dismissed the "classified documents" case against former President Trump on the ground that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.  The 93-page decision is a tour de force, meticulously written and extremely well reasoned.  It should (though likely will not) yield a similar decision of dismissal of Jack Smith's case against President Trump in the District of Columbia -- the case in which I am implicated as an "unindicted co-conspirator."   If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirms, as it should, we will likely see a circuit split with that Court and the D.C. Circuit, crying out for Supreme Court review a year or more down the road.  But in the meantime, this is an extremely important pushback against unfettered and unconstitutional lawfare.

The pair of Supreme Court decisions issued on the last two days of the term (June 28 and July 1) are also great news in the lawfare pushback efforts.  In Fischer v. United States, the Court held that the use of the old mob witness intimidation statute, as amended in the wake of the Enron scandal to cover destruction of documents to prevent criminal prosecution, could not be elastically interpreted to reach the protest-turned-riot interruption of Congress on January 6. 

Then, on July 1, the Court issued its important ruling in Trump v. United States, holding that the former President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while exercising his core constitutional duties, and presumptively immune for other actions taken without the outer perimeter of his official duties, broadly defined.  That has already led to motions to dismiss the criminal indictment and conviction in the so-called "hush money" case in New York, and also Jack Smith's prosecution in D.C.

Both of those may well have an impact on the lawfare efforts against me as well.  The mob witness intimidation statue comprises two of the four counts against Trump in D.C., where I'm an unindicted co-conspirator.  That statute also formed the basis of the federal court decision in California ordering me to produce a few privileged documents under a supposed "crime-fraud" exception to the attorney-client privilege, but per the Supreme Court, we now know that there was not a crime under that statute.

Another pushback against lawfare is underway in Arizona.  A couple of years ago, Arizona became the first state to include criminal prosecutions in its anti-SLAPP statute.  Such statutes are designed to allow defendants to file an early motion to dismiss any case that threatens to interfere with the exercise of their constitutionally-protected Freedom of Speech and Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.  We filed such a motion on June 23, and several of my co-defendants have now joined our motion or filed similar motions of their own.  Initial hearing is set for Aug. 26, so stay tuned.

Relatedly, in Georgia, the trial judge there invited supplemental briefing some months ago on an important Supreme Court decision that held that states can't use their criminal law to go after people operating pursuant to federal functions.  We're awaiting a ruling from the judge on that issue (as well as rulings on the First Amendment), but in my view, if the law is faithfully applied, that abusive lawfare case should come to an end. 

Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but I sense that our courts are starting to realize the dangerous implications of "lawfare" to our body politic.  One hopes that it is stopped before more moves from lawfare to warfare such as occurred over the weekend come to pass.  Despite our political differences, there is still so much more that unites us as Americans than divides us, and we need to quickly get back to that realization before the old aphorism, "United we stand, divided we fall," becomes a reality.

In the meantime, I, with the extraordinary help of my legal teams in D.C., NY, Georgia, Arizona, and California, continue to fight against lawfare and the vindication of the constitutional rights not just on my behalf and on behalf of my most prominent former client, but for all of us.  Thank you for your ongoing support and prayers.

Sincerely,

John Eastman

Friends,

Just a quick update this morning to call to your attention some terrific articles talking about the lawfare attacks against me and the broader threat they pose.

T.J. Harker's article at American Mind (May 2),The Unpersoning of John Eastman, was featured at Real Clear Policy this morning.  It is terrific.

Ed Martin has this at his Pro America Report this week: The Cost of Lawfare (April 30)

Kenin Spivak has this, also at American Mind:  America in the Shadow of Lawfare (April 26)

Brad Jones, at Epoch Times, published this terrific piece following a lengthy interview with me about what we're dealing with:  Suspended, De-Banked, But Not Sorry: John Eastman ‘Tenfold’ More Convinced of Illegalities in 2020 (April 24)

Mark Pulliam's article, published at TomKlingenstein.com, is also extremely important and insightful:  The Rule of Law Depends on John Eastman (April 23)

And finally, The Gatestone Institute published a transcript of a speech I gave there last fall: 'The Most Secure Election in American History' (April 21)

I hope you will take a few minutes to read these; push them out to your social media networks; encourage your friends and family to read them; and encourage them to bookmark this site for our updates and, hopefully, donations to support our defense against all this and prayers.

Best regards,

John

By now I've lost track how many "lawfare" attacks have been launched against me.  Bar complaints in California, DC and the Supreme Court; illegal seizure of my phone (still don't have it back after nearly 2 years); UN-indicted co-conspirator in the criminal charges filed in D.C. by Jack Smith, a "special prosecutor" whose appointment is unconstitutional; criminal charges down in Fulton County, Georgia, by a prosecutor whom the court held exhibited unprofessional conduct during the hearing to determine whether she should be disqualified -- a hearing that he also wrote had an "odor of mendacity" to it; one from North Carolina false asserting that I was a "billionaire oligarch".  Etc., etc.  And then this past week, an indictment in Arizona against Trump electors in which I was also named -- even though I had nothing to do with election challenges in Arizona.  To say the "other shoe" has now dropped is starting to look like we're dealing with the number of feet on a centipede rather than an ordinary human being.

The indictment, which is here (though my name is redacted on this version) is full of leftist talking points, including repeated reference to the alternate electors who cast contingent votes pending resolution of still pending election challenges as "fake electors."  The propaganda media (I don't call them "mainstream media" any more because they are anything but) was happy to repeat the false "fake electors" narrative ad nauseam.  AP, New York Times, The UK Guardian, the publicly-financed NPR, NBC, The Orange County Register, to name just a few.  The latter two at least had the good sense to put "fake electors" in quotes, but they all still accept that propaganda-heavy characterization as though it were gospel truth.  We live in strange times.  I don't recall any of them describing John Kennedy's alternate electors in the 1960 election in Hawaii as "fake electors," even though they also met and cast votes contrary to the election certificate that had been issued to Richard Nixon's electors at the time.  Jeff Childers published a much more honest account on his substack -- and even launched his C&C Army to help support my legal defense efforts, with great success!  (Thank you!).

Although former President Trump is named only as "unindicted conspirator 1", it is pretty clear that this is part of the larger, coordinated effort to keep him off the ballot in 2024, prevent him from campaigning, tie up his financial resources, and/or to set up legal challenges to prevent him from taking office should he prevail, as polls increasingly indicate is a very strong possibility.  Kenin Spivak has a very good article at American Mind titled America in the Shadow of Lawfare placing all of this in context.  Worth a read.  It is also the latest in the leftist "lawfare" strategy to scare lawyers away from representing conservative causes or clients in the future, on any issue that dares to challenge the government's narrative, no matter how little connection it has with the truth.  We are truly living in an Orwellian world, and if you refuse not just to repeat the lie that 2+2=5 but don't actually come to believe the lie, then our elite institutions will do everything they can to destroy you. 

A former student of mine gave a toast last summer in which he quoted the famous line from our national anthem, wondering whether the flag still waves.  He pointed out, with great insight, that the question was not so much about whether it still waved, but what kind of land it waved over?  Is it still the land of the free and the home of the brave, as the Anthem recites, or has it become the land of the coward and the home of the slave?

I, for one, am not willing to accept that latter characterization without a fight.  And I know that there are millions of Americans who share that commitment.  Thank you all for seeing the truth about what is going on, and for doing your part in helping to insure that we remain the land of the free and the home of the brave, committed to passing on the great bequest of freedom that we received from our forebears. 

And thank you, as always, for your continued support and prayers.  You'll notice that I have increased the goal on this site to take account of the new costs we expect to incur in defending against this new indictment.  Please share with like-minded lovers of freedom so that we can defeat these scurrilous attacks once and for all.

Gratefully,

John Eastman

Well, last week was the week when the news broke that Bank of America, where I had been a customer for over 40 years, and USAA, where my wife and I had accounts because of her father's service in the Navy in World War II and in the Marines during the Korean War, had cancelled our accounts, without explanation.  Reagan Reese of The Daily Caller covered the story here.  One wag on Twitter/X questioned whether it was true, so I posted the cancellation letters here (BofA) and here (USAA).  Both letters offered a phone number to call if you had questions, but that just led to a prerecorded message simply stating that their policy was to provide no explanation and that the decision was final.  In other words, "pound sand, and goodbye."  The Daily Caller has the audio embedded in its story, in case you want to have a listen for yourselves.

Coincidentally, news also broke last week that 15 State Attorneys General, led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, had written a letter calling out Bank of America for its history of discriminating against groups for political or religious reasons.  "Your discriminatory behavior," the letter said, "is a serious threat to free speech and religious freedom, is potentially illegal, and is causing political and regulatory backlash." 

I strongly suspect that BofA's and USAA's decisions to cancel our accounts was a reflection of their increasingly "woke" corporate ideology against those who hold conservative political views or, as in my case, those who represented a client who is despised by our nation's ruling elite.  If that is what is going on, it could be a big problem for them.  As the Kobach letter intimates, discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint or affiliation is illegal in many states. It is despicable, in any event.

But the alternate explanation is even worse.  As House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan recently disclosed during the course of his hearings on the "Weaponization of the Federal Government," the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of the Treasury has, with the help of these banks, been targeting American citizens who engage in perfectly lawful activity, such as purchases of such things as "small arms," sporting goods, and books (including religious books), or for doing business with companies like Cabella's or Dick's Sporting Goods, or for using words like "Trump" or "MAGA" in their Zelle payment messages.  That is essentially a "general warrant" -- the government scouring through a citizens financial transactions to see if some evidence of a crime might be found -- the very thing that our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent.  But our government seems increasingly uninterested in such constitutional niceties.  Lavrenty Beria, the notorious head of Stalin's secret police who famously pronounced, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime," would be proud!

If BofA and USAA made a business decision to cancel accounts held by people being targeted by federal regulators, that, too, would be despicable, particularly for a company like USAA, whose customer base is members of the military (whose service to the country put them at risk of the ultimate sacrifice when necessary in defense of freedom) and their families.  Surely some of the selfless sacrifice of their military customers should have rubbed off on those in the corporate boardroom.  After all, as is frequently attributed to Edmund Burke, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

BofA and USAA have instead apparently chosen a different path, and may soon learn that there is a great deal of truth to the modern aphorism, "Go Woke, Go Broke."  A national boycott of BofA appears to be underway, and the extensive reaction on Twitter/X to USAA's cancellation decision should be equally troubling to its corporate board.

A few other recent stories about the pernicious "lawfare" attacks being waged against President Trump, me, and others are also worth your attention.  Here are some links:

* Jacob Burg, Conservative Lawyers Reveal Retaliation They Faced Over Politics, Epoch Times (April 19)

* Baila Eve Zisman, Trump Attorney John Eastman Claims He Was Dropped By Two Banks Due To His Association With January 6 & Former President, UInterview (April 18)

* Collin May,Cancellation, Counter-Speech, and the Common Good, Law & Liberty (April 16)

* David Myerowitz, Lawfare Against Trump, Letters, Daily Inter Lake (April 19)

* Tom Klingenstein and Ryan Williams, Lawfare Against John Eastman, American Mind (March 30)

* TJ Harker, The Regime v. America, American Mind (March 11)

* Shawn Fleetwood, Democrats’ Campaign To Disbar John Eastman Is Designed To Criminalize Republican Election Challenges, The Federalist (Oct. 25, 2023)

We continue to fight hard against this insanity, and I remain extremely grateful for the support and prayers I am receiving from people across the country that enable me to stay in the fight.  If you are so inclined, please consider making an additional donation to my legal defense fund here, and be sure to share the link with like-minded friends and family.  Much is at stake!

Sincerely,

John Eastman

Friends,

You have to get beyond the frenzied headlines in what I have taken to calling the propaganda press to learn the truth.  Many of them falsely claim that I have already been disbarred in California -- not true.  The Cal Bar trial court only had the authority to recommend that I be disbarred.  Ultimate decision whether to accept that recommendation or not is in the hands of the California Supreme Court.  In the meantime, though, the recommendation triggered an automatic placement on "involuntary inactive enrollment" status, to which we filed a motion to stay, or put on hold, pending appeal.  And rest assured, we will be vigorously challenging the recommendation on appeal.

Several people have published important articles describing what is actually going on with the California Bar proceedings against me and similar proceedings underway against Jeff Clark, former Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice.  I commend them to your attention.

Josh Hammer, the Senior Editor-at-Large at Newsweek, published this terrific piece both at Newsweek and more broadly via his syndicated column:  John Eastman and the Left's War on the Legal Profession. He also appeared on Steve Bannon's WarRoom to talk about the article, available here.

Wendy Stone Long, former Supreme Court clerk and US Senate candidate in New York, published this at Chronicles Magazine: John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark Cases Defy the Rule of Law.

And there is this by constitutional scholar Paul Ingrassia: 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.

Please read these articles; share them with your friends and family; and then urge them to help support those of us who are on the front lines of this "lawfare" war.

Best regards,

John

To those of you who share my Christian faith, Happy Easter.  For those who are of other faith traditions, please know what a joyous day this is for us.  According to our faith, this is the day that the son of God, who humbled himself to become man and died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead.  It is the day where light defeats darkness; truth defeats falsehood; and the gates of heaven are opened for the prospect of eternal salvation.

For me personally, it is also a day following my own Triduum since the California Bar Court issued its ruling recommending that I be disbarred.  We know that truth will ultimately prevail, but how or when is not certain. In any event, my legal team and I will be filing a motion to stay, or put on hold, the immediate effect of the ruling, which is in interim suspension of my California license to practice law pending our appeals and ultimate resolution by the California Supreme Court.  We will also be filing an appeal of the ruling.  Rest assured, therefore, that there is much more review of this matter before it becomes final.  In the meantime, family, friends, and countless people I do not even know have weighed in with notes of support, prayers, and financial donations to help us keep fighting against these lawfare abuses.  My two wonderful children published a magnificent article at The Blaze.  My wife has published a couple of pieces at the Gatestone Institute discussing the despicable lawfare tactics of the left, here and here.  And my good friends at The Claremont Institute published a nice defense, titled Lawfare Against John Eastman, at American Mind.

I hope you will read these articles to get a full understanding of what we're dealing with.  And as always, thank you for your support and prayers, particularly on this joyous Easter Sunday.

Gratefully,

John Eastman

Well, after an investigation that started 2 1/2 years ago when a leftist advocacy organization filed a bar complaint against me, and after 6 months of my responding to the Bar investigators demand for information letters, and after a 10-week trial that one commentator bet was the longest and most expensive in bar discipline history, the California Bar Court judge has issued her ruling — during Holy Week, no less — recommending that I be disbarred because, she asserts, that I made misrepresentations of hotly disputed facts and unresolved questions of constitutional law in my representation of former President Trump and his challenges to the illegality of the 2020 election, and because I also made those claims in public speeches, writings, and media appearances in which I highlighted illegality in the election (all of which is constitutionally protected speech). The ruling is here. My closing argument brief responding to every false allegation the Bar attorneys leveled against me, is here. My response to the Bar’s citation of a doctored quotation from a court opinion — just one of the many false claims they made — is here. Astoundingly, the Court repeated that doctored quotation in the opinion.

Over the coming days and weeks, I will be highlighting the evidence that demonstrates the contrary of the findings of misrepresentation made by the Court, and also the aspects of the “trial” that were simply beyond belief. News coverage of the 10-week trial, particularly that by Rachel Alexander at the Arizona Sun Times and in her twitter feed, was extensive. I linked a bunch of the most salient articles at Update #38 on my GiveSendGo website; worth a read so that you can see for yourselves what we were dealing with. A larger list of Rachel Alexander’s articles is available on my substack page, here, with links. If you are really a glutton for punishment, you can read the trial transcripts — all 32 days of them! — or listen to the audio and then decide for yourselves whether I really had no evidence to support my claims of election illegality.

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.

In the meantime, anything you can donate to help with our ongoing legal expenses would be much appreciated, and your continuing prayers, particularly this Holy Week, are as important now as ever.

John

"An order of mendacity."  That, in my opinion, is a fancy way of saying, "They lied through their teeth," yet that is how Fulton County, Georgia Superior Court Judge McAfee described the motion to disqualify hearing testimony of District Attorney Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, her lover, whom she hired (and paid more than $700,000) to be the lead prosecutor in the unprecedented criminal case against former President Trump, me, and 17 others. On Friday, the Judge ordered one or the other of them to step aside because of the "appearance of impropriety" that their "tremendous lapse in judgment" had created.  Wade promptly did so, leaving Fani Willis and her office to continue to prosecute the case.  This morning, my co-defendants filed a motion for permission to take an immediate appeal of the decision that allowed Willis to continue with the case despite her own "appearance of impropriety."  So this chapter of the soap opera that is the Georgia criminal case is not yet over.  And although the Judge also last week dismissed 6 of the counts in the indictment, including 1 in which I was named, 35 counts (including 8 against me) still remain, so there is still a long and costly road ahead that is keeping "Georgia on my mind."

Moreover, "mendacity" about the affair is not the most important of the falsities arising out of this criminal case.  The whole case is built on the premise that those who challenged illegality in the conduct of the 2020 election were somehow part of a criminal enterprise because, you know, the government has told us that the election was perfect.  As I've noted elsewhere, that is an authoritarian -- even Orwellian -- assertion:  "We're the government, and you had better accept what we tell you, or else." 

One of my co-defendants issued subpoenas to election officials in Georgia to obtain the election data needed to prove whether the claims of election illegality were true.  You would think that public officials would want to get to the truth of that important question -- either to take steps to prevent such illegality from occurring again, or to lay such claims to rest.  But they have instead fought the subpoenas tooth and nail.  We await a decision by the Court on their motions to quash the subpoenas.

"Mendacity" is also a good word for the still-pending proceedings against me in the California Bar Court.  In the closing brief filed back on December 1, the bar lawyers falsely claimed that the "D.C. Circuit" had upheld the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act -- relevant because my position had been (and remains) that the ECA is unconstitutional.  They had to file a notice of errata, admitting that it was not the "D.C. Circuit," which is an appellate court whose decisions have precedential force, but the D.C. District Court, which is a trial court whose decisions do not have precedential force.   Oops.  But that was not the worst of it.  Turns out the quotation they used was doctored -- by Vice President Pence's General Counsel, no less -- making it appear as though the court had actually ruled on the constitutionality of the ECA.  The opinion had nothing to do with the ECA.  We called them out on that in our response, but that is the kind of apparently deliberate misrepresentation to the Court for which they are falsely accusing me of making in my legal challenges to the 2020 election.  Perhaps they should file notice of disciplinary charges against themselves!  Alas, don't hold your breath for such a just result.  In the meantime, we await a ruling from the Bar Court, which could come any day between now and March 27, the original February 29 deadline for a ruling having been extended by the Bar's filing of the notice of errata.  But win or lose, we anticipate more proceedings on appeal, adding to what one commentator has already called the longest and most expensive bar disciplinary proceeding in history.

Thankfully, people are starting to wake up to the dangers of this "lawfare," not just to me personally but to our adversarial system of justice more broadly.  Joy Pullman published a couple of great articles at The Federalist last month, titled "Democrats Work To Strip All Opponents Of Representation In Court" and "Effective Republican Attorneys General Get Slapped With Politicized Ethics Charges."  And my wife has published a couple of important articles of her own on the subject, at the Gatestone Institute:  "When Lawyers Defending Their Clients Become the Accused" and "Making Lawyers Toxic in Their Communities."

Please take the time to read these and learn more about what we are up against.  Share them with your friends and families.  If you can, please consider making an additional contribution to my legal defense fund to help me keep fighting these travesties of justice.  And as always, keep us, and our great country, in your prayers.

Sincerely,

John Eastman

I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving! I continue to be overwhelmed with the prayers, kind notes of encouragement, and financial support that we receive on a daily basis.  Thank you!

Earlier this week, I was interviewed by Julie Kelly (author of the important book, January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right) about the lawfare being waged against me, President Trump, and anyone who has tried to expose illegality in the 2020 election.  Episode 135 of the Happy Hour with Julie and Liz podcast lasts about an hour, but I think you will find it informative.

So too, with my podcast interview on The Great America Show with Lou Dobbs..

Mark Fitzgibbons published a very informative article at American Thinker, John Eastman’s bar trial exposes Democrats’ process-rigging ignominy.  Worth a read.

As for the hit job that 60 Minutes tried to do on me, you should read this devastating rebuttal by Rachel Alexander, published in the Arizona Sun Times:  CBS News’ ’60 Minutes’ Omits Key Facts, Makes Incorrect Statements Covering the Lawfare Against Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman

As you can see, we continue to fight to expose the truth.  But the fight is costly.  Joy Pullman over at The Federalist has a terrific article describing what we're facing:  Constitution Scholar: Lawfare Punishing Me For Advising Trump Will Cost Me $3 Million.  Please consider making an additional donation at https://www.givesendgo.com/Eastman to help us keep up the fight. 

But on this Giving Tuesday, you might also consider helping others have have been targeted in the stunning abuse of our legal system known as "lawfare."  Alaska Representative David Eastman (no relation) racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills defending (happily, successfully) against efforts to have him removed from the Alaska legislature because of his lifetime membership in an organization comprised of former military, law enforcement, and elected officials devoted to upholding their oaths of office!  Harrison Floyd, one of my co-defendants down in Georgia, is aggressively defending himself against the charges in that criminal case by issuing subpoenas to the Fulton County Board of Elections and the Georgia Secretary of State for all the evidence of illegality and fraud in the election that they have been trying to keep hidden.  Tina Peters, who helped expose some of the election fraud in Colorado, has had criminal charges brought against her for allowing a forensic audit to be conducted in the county where she was the elected county clerk.  I think she can be supported through Mike Lindell's Legal Offense Fund.  Jeffrey Clark, a top official at the Department of Justice during the Trump administration and another of the co-defendants in the Georgia case, also has a legal defense fund that you should consider supporting.

There are lots of good causes to support on this Giving Tuesday, but perhaps none more important than helping those who are being attacked for trying to ensure that we have free and fair elections in this country, so that, as our Declaration of Independence promises, ours will be a government grounded in the consent of the governed!

Finally, a quick update on the pending matters.  Our closing argument brief is due to the California Bar Court this Friday, December 1. And in Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked the criminal court there for an early August 2024 trial date -- and anticipates the trial will last 4-5 months (coincidentally all the way through the election, I'm sure!).  We have yet to see what kind of schedule the Judge will set.

Blessings and thanks to you all for your continued support.

Sincerely,

John Eastman

Friends,

I'll be testifying again this morning in what is now the 10th (and hopefully final) week of my California Bar disciplinary trial. As always, you can watch via the live stream here beginning at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time.  Shawn Fleetwood published an important article last week about the stakes of this.  Democrats’ Campaign To Disbar John Eastman Is Designed To Criminalize Republican Election Challenges

Since we began putting on my case last month, a number of my witnesses have testified forcefully about the illegality and fraud in the 2020 election.  And I have been testifying extensively about the information we had before us at the time, as well as my extensive research into the state election codes and historical record for every step we took.

Joyce Cutler, a reporter at Bloomberg Law, has been doing a pretty fair job covering the testimony in recent weeks.  There was this back on Oct. 18, for example:  Eastman Explains Why He Pressed Pence on Electoral Vote Counting.

Or this:  Trump Lawyer Eastman’s Character, Integrity, License on Line

And this one last week:  Eastman Disputes Facts Underpinning Charges in State Bar Trial.

She also did a nice job covering the testimony of my character witnesses:

Eastman Character Witnesses Praise Him as Man of Integrity

Ex-Judge Rogers Brown Vouches for Eastman’s Character, Acumen

And Rachel Alexander, at the Arizona Sun Times, continues her wall-to-wall coverage of the proceedings, both with published articles and with her twitter feed.

Here is a selection of her recent articles:

In Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman, He Reveals How He Believes Votes Were Switched in Georgia’s 2020 Election (Oct. 25)

In His Disbarment Trial, Trump’s Attorney John Eastman Discusses Alarming Findings of Wrongdoing from Official Reports About the 2020 Election (Oct. 21)

Expert in Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman Contrasts ‘Unusual’ Vote Spikes for Biden in 2020 Compared to Hillary Clinton’s Election (Oct. 21)

In Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman, He Discussed How Nixon Exercised Substantive Authority Accepting Electoral Slates (Oct. 19)

In Disbarment Trial of Former Trump Attorney John Eastman, Kari Lake’s Attorney Goes over Significant Laws Broken in Various States During 2020 Election (Oct. 7)

In Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman, Retired DoD Analyst Says ‘Large Injections of Votes’ Added During Georgia Senate Runoff (Oct. 5)

My wife and I remain grateful for your prayers and financial support as we weather this ordeal.  Both have strengthened us to continue to fight for the truth!

John

Friends,

I'll be testifying again this morning in what is now the 10th (and hopefully final) week of my California Bar disciplinary trial. As always, you can watch via the live stream here beginning at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time.

Since we began putting on my case last month, a number of my witnesses have testified forcefully about the illegality and fraud in the 2020 election.  And I have been testifying extensively about the information we had before us at the time, as well as my extensive research into the state election codes and historical record for every step we took.

Joyce Cutler, a reporter at Bloomberg Law, has been doing a pretty fair job covering the testimony in recent weeks.  There was this back on Oct. 18, for example:  Eastman Explains Why He Pressed Pence on Electoral Vote Counting.

Or this:  Trump Lawyer Eastman’s Character, Integrity, License on Line

And this one last week:  Eastman Disputes Facts Underpinning Charges in State Bar Trial.

She also did a nice job covering the testimony of my character witnesses:

Eastman Character Witnesses Praise Him as Man of Integrity

Ex-Judge Rogers Brown Vouches for Eastman’s Character, Acumen

And Rachel Alexander, at the Arizona Sun Times, continues her wall-to-wall coverage of the proceedings, both with published articles and with her twitter feed.

Here is a selection of her recent articles:

In Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman, He Reveals How He Believes Votes Were Switched in Georgia’s 2020 Election (Oct. 25)

In His Disbarment Trial, Trump’s Attorney John Eastman Discusses Alarming Findings of Wrongdoing from Official Reports About the 2020 Election (Oct. 21)

Expert in Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman Contrasts ‘Unusual’ Vote Spikes for Biden in 2020 Compared to Hillary Clinton’s Election (Oct. 21)

In Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman, He Discussed How Nixon Exercised Substantive Authority Accepting Electoral Slates (Oct. 19)

In Disbarment Trial of Former Trump Attorney John Eastman, Kari Lake’s Attorney Goes over Significant Laws Broken in Various States During 2020 Election (Oct. 7)

In Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman, Retired DoD Analyst Says ‘Large Injections of Votes’ Added During Georgia Senate Runoff (Oct. 5)

My wife and I remain grateful for your prayers and financial support as we weather this ordeal.  Both have strengthened us to continue to fight for the truth!

John

My California Bar trial enters its 6th week today -- you heard that right, 6 weeks and counting!  But my legal team and I have finally begun to put on our case, and the testimony of my witnesses has been eye-opening.  In fact, all the illegality in the 2020 election is finally getting the day in court that in most cases it never got back in 2020. 

Mike Gableman, former Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, testified at length about the illegality and outright fraud that he uncovered when he was retained by the Wisconsin legislature to look into the many allegations.  County election officials illegally altering absentee ballot envelopes by filling in information that the voter was legally required to provide; the illegal use of drop boxes (and even "human drop boxes"); the take-over of the Green Bay election office by a Democrat party operative funded by Zuckerberg money; and the illegal scheme for harvesting ballots from nursing homes, among others. 

Garland Favorito, an election integrity expert from Georgia, testified about the numerous illegalities in the conduct of the election in Georgia that affected way more ballots than the 11,779 vote margin in that state.

And much more to come this week and next.  You would think that, with all this testimony about actual illegality and fraud in the 2020 election. our nation's media would be chomping at the bit to report this explosive news, but you would be wrong.  Very few mainstream media outlets have covered this evidence, and those that have deigned to cover it at all have pooh-poohed it.  Luckily, though, an intrepid reporter with the Arizona Sun has been providing a running commentary, both with her published news articles and her twitter feed.  A good summary of her reporting on this whole affair is available at American Thinker.

The trial begins against this morning at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time.  As with the prior 5 weeks, it will be live streamed from the state bar court at this link.  Reminder, though, that the Judge has ordered that the live stream cannot be recorded.

As always, thank you for your ongoing support and prayers.  Please consider sending another contribution to my legal defense fund or, even better, signing up for a monthly contribution to help us get through this.  And please forward this to your like-minded friends and encourage them to lend their support and prayers as well.

Sincerely,

John Eastman

As I'm preparing for yet another day of testimony in the California Bar trial -- today will be the 7th day, approaching 20 hours -- and watching closely the ongoing court proceedings in the Georgia criminal indictment against me, former President Trump, and a host of other lawyers and citizens who dared to challenge the illegality in the 2020 election, an important article from Newt Gingrich crossed my radar.  It sounds the same theme I expressed in a speech I gave a year and a half ago to the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly titled, "Our Authoritarian Moment."  Gingrich's article is titled "American Despotism."  It is extremely important and insightful, and well worth your read.  As I am now on the receiving end of the despotic tactics he describes, I can certainly attest to its accuracy.

Your continued prayers help me and my family weather the storm, and your continued financial support helps us fight against these despicable tactics.  If you have not already done so, please consider signing up for a monthly donation to this legal defense fund to help keep us in the fight. 

Sincerely,

John Eastman

The California Bar Court proceedings about my bar license reconvene today at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time.  Still will be live streamed here.

A good article describing the proceedings was published by Rachel Alexander, here at Townhall.

And my appearance last week on Fox News' Ingraham Angle can be watched here.

John

Well, the media is having a heyday with President Trump's mugshot, but is anyone surprised that he turned it into a fundraiser?  One clever soul even turned the collection of mugshots into a "Batman edition."  I made it into the collection as Mr. Freeze!  Fun stuff aside, this indictment is deadly serious, and a real threat not just to our political system but, by naming the attorneys, to our adversarial system of justice as well.  Which young lawyer is going to want to bring election challenges in the future, or challenge the government's narrative on anything, knowing that it may well land them before a disbarment tribunal or even subject them to criminal indictment.  I'll be appearing on Fox News tonight at 7 pm Eastern, The Ingraham Angle, to discuss all this.  If you are able to watch, let me know what you think.

John

Well -- I was booked yesterday in Fulton County, Georgia, for my work representing President Trump in the 2020 election challenges.  Quite a travesty. 

The media coverage has been extremely skewed, as is typical (but for Epoch Times and a few others that don't follow the herd's narrative -- see, for example, this).  The most dishonest is the line that "Eastman had no comment."  In truth, I gave a full statement to the hoards of media who were assembled.  It is available here. I hope you will read it.

The standard line has now become that I was the lawyer who devised the strategy to keep Trump in power.  That, too, is a massive distortion. As I noted in my statement, we sought to have investigated what Vice President Mike Pence described as "serious allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law.”  Doing that is speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances fully protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.  But the narrative being foisted on us by the left and by the anti-Trump right doesn't care about constitutional rights, free and fair elections, presumption of innocence, or any of those other basic components of our system of government.  That mentality needs to be confronted head on, and with your help, I'm doing all that I can.  My attorney did a wonderful job explaining all this on CNN last night, video here.  Keep us in your thoughts and prayers.  And if you can, contribute (or contribute again!) to the legal defense fund and encourage your friends to do the same.  Estimates from the various lawyers with whom I have spoken over the past week indicate this may cost $1 Million or more.

John

As you have undoubtedly seen, the Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney, Fani Willis, filed a 41 count indictment against President Trump and 18 others (including yours truly, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, etc.) late Monday evening, alleging that our efforts to highlight and have investigated election illegality and fraud were somehow part of a criminal conspiracy.  I'm included in 9 of the Counts -- the main RICO (racketeering!) count; a count alleging that my testimony before the Georgia legislature asking that they investigate the many serious allegations of illegality and fraud and, if found to be the case, exercise their authority to do something about it, was somehow a solicitation of the legislators to violate their oaths of office.  (It's not, of course -- it is, rather, an exercise of the constitutionally-guaranteed right to petition the government for redress of grievances.); 6 counts dealing with the effort to have contingent electors meet on the constitutionally-mandated day in December to prevent the then-pending election challenges from becoming moot; and 1 count alleging a misrepresentation to a court in an action we filed on New Year's eve in 2020 (though it doesn't identify any actual misrepresentation).  The 98-page indictment is here.  My attorneys' statement in response is here.  A terrific article by Hans Von Spakovsky about the dangers to our system of justice is here -- well worth a read. 

The lawyer I spoke with today about possibly serving as my Georgia counsel said that this will get expensive if I intend to fight it -- as I do and I must.  So alas, I've increased the goal here to $750k, since most of the funds previously raised have already been depleted or committed to the defense of the 14 actions I've already been dealing with (see Update #22 below).  Please consider donating again (and urge your like-minded friends to do so as well).  And if you are able, consider signing up for a recurring donation. 

As always, I appreciate your support and, now more than ever, your ongoing prayers.

Sincerely,

John

Lots of news this week, and my team of attorneys is doing a terrific job responding to numerous media requests from around the world and rebutting some of the more egregious mischaracterizations contained in the Trump indictment this week.  Here's Charles Burnham on CNN.  Here's Harvey Silverglate on Fox News' Ingraham Angle (segment starts at 14:00, but the opening is worth a watch, too).  Here's Harvey as quoted in the UK Daily Mail and The Hill.  And here's a pretty good piece by reporter Neil McCabe at Red State on the whole matter.  In addition, several legal experts are already pointing out the flaws in the indictment and the dangers it posed for the presidency itself, including Jonathan Turley and Andy McCarthy in a Fox News segment, described here.  The Wall Street Journal has also raised serious concerns about the indictment, such as this op-ed by David Rivken and Lee Casey. 

Thanks for all the kind notes of support you all have sent these last couple of days.  We deeply appreciate it.

John

Lots of speculation swirling around today about whether I am one of the unindicted co-conspirators mentioned in the latest indictment handed down by the Biden administration against its most likely opponent in the next election, Donald Trump. Given the level of detail in the indictment and quotations from my speeches and emails, much of which is already public, it was not hard to move from speculation to confirmation, as this story in the Los Angeles Daily News by Orange County Register reporter Teri Sforza does.  At least they used a better photo than the OC Register has been using!

The statement put out by my attorneys is here.  My two cents -- the indictment is as full of half truths and distortions of the actual record as the long-running "Russian collusion" hoax was.  But the deep state is bent on pushing the false narrative that there was nothing wrong with the 2020 election.  They're the government, after all, and we're all just supposed to bend the knee when they decide what is truth.  No mention of the "significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of state officials setting aside state election law"--that is, acting unconstitutionally--as former Vice President Pence admitted.  No mention of the significant amount of evidence that was available then, or confirmed subsequently, of illegality at the very least.  No mention of court decisions confirming the illegality of drop boxes, elimination of voter ID requirements, alteration of deadlines, etc., etc.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  And if you dare to question us, as former President Trump has done, well, we'll scour the law books until we find some statute we can creatively use against you.  Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson warned of the dangers of such an abuse of prosecutorial authority more than 80 years ago:  The most dangerous power of a prosecutor is that he will pick people he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted, Jackson told a convention of U.S. Attorneys.  That warning is even more salient today.  The federal statute books are now so full of vague provisions that as one of my attorneys, Harvey Silverglate, warned 15 years ago, every American probably can be charged under one or another provision for committing "Three Felonies a Day," in his book of the same title, subtitled "How the Feds target the innocent."  Much more to this story, of course, and one can hope that at some point, a non-slanted version of the actual events of 2020 will come to the forefront, as I begin to do with my Tom Klingenstein interviews linked in update #29 below.  Be well.

John

As July comes to a close, we see threats of additional indictments against former President Trump, plus indictments up in Michigan against the Trump electors who cast votes on the date mandated by Congress and the Constitution in 2020, contingent on the results of then-pending election challenges, just as the John Kennedy electors had cast contingent votes in Hawaii in 1960, which were ultimately certified as valid once the litigation that was pending at that time determined that Kennedy had actually won Hawaii.

Part II of my interview with Tom Klingenstein delves into the legal issues from the 2020 election.  It has recently been posted here.  I'd welcome your comments.

And, as always, thank you for your continued support and prayers.  The only way to defeat the false narratives of the left (and the anti-Trump right) is to push back against them, and your support makes it possible for me to continue to do so.  We anticipate another 2 weeks or so of trial in the efforts of the California Bar to take my bar license, beginning on August 22 (and, as before, it will be live streamed here).  So keep the prayers coming. 

Sincerely,

John

Well, it has been an interesting couple of weeks.  Let me start by pointing you to my interview with Tom Klingenstein, Part I of which he posted on June 21.  It describes my role in the 2020 election challenges in great detail, so you can see the actual story rather than the false narrative pushed by the J6 Committee and its hallelujah chorus in the media.

As for the bar trial itself, yesterday concluded the two weeks originally scheduled by the Court.  We lost two days due to illness by one of the attorneys, but we were going to need to add additional trial days even before that.  Schedules didn't align until Aug. 22, so we're not scheduled to resume until Aug. 22-25, and then another week thereafter, either the following week or some time in September.

Lots of repetitive news coverage at the outset, largely subscribing to the Bar's narrative.  Bloomberg, for example.  Or NPR.  But most seem to have lost interest after that initial flurry, although the New York Sun did run this story yesterday.  And Rachel Alexander published a whole series of articles at the Arizona Sun Times.  Worth a read if you want to catch up on the proceedings.  June 21; June 22; June 23; and June 25. There has also been some interesting commentary, such as this at RedState; this at Intellectual Conservative; and this at PJ Media.

Another two weeks of trial means a lot more in legal fees, so let me renew to you all my sincere appreciation for the generous support of our efforts defending against this, and also for your continued prayers.  My family and I truly appreciate it, and wish you all a wonderful Independence Day as we celebrate the founding of this great country.

John

Week two of the Bar Trial was supposed to begin today, but due to the illness of one of the lawyers, is now scheduled to reconvene on Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. Pacific.  Still live streamed.

The news coverage of the testimony last week was widely divergent, as we have come to expect.  The L.A. Times, for example, published stories here and here pretty much accepting as gospel the bar's accusations. In stark contrast, the Arizona Sun Times, who actually had a reporter in the room, published a series of articles that was much more accurate.  June 21, June 22, June 23, and particularly this wrap-up of the entire week.

There has also been some good commentary on all this, such as this in The Federalist.  Or this at Revolver.News.  And also this at American Greatness.  Even the Orange County Register, which, contrary to its long libertarian reputation and suspicion of government "trust us" claims, has been overtly hostile, even acknowledged the serious First Amendment problems that the Bar's efforts against me for speech and the representation of clients poses.

If you know of other commentary, please send it to me.  And thank you all for your continued prayers and support.

John

Yesterday was the first day of my California Bar trial.  The Bar called me as its first witness.  Rather than describe the events myself, I'll point you all to the news story Rachel Alexander, who was observing in the courtroom, published in the Arizona Sun Times.

We resumed this morning with me again on the witness stand for the first hour, but the Bar lawyers shifted to Greg Jacob's testimony via zoom at 11:00 because of constraints on Jacob's availability.  Jacob was Vice President Pence's General Counsel back in 2020-21, and acknowledged multiple times that there is disagreement among legal scholars about just how much authority the Constitution assigns to the Vice President (acting in his capacity as President of the Senate).  In a memo to the Vice President on December 8, 2020, he wrote:

As President of the Senate, it is clear that the sitting Vice President plays a prominent role in the counting of electoral votes, including resolving objections to those votes. There is disagreement, however, whether the text of the Twelfth Amendment privileges the Vice President to play a decisive role in resolving objections to electoral votes on their merits, or whether (pursuant to the Electoral Count Act) the role of the Vice President in resolving dispute is largely ministerial.

Jacob even acknowledged in that memo several of the historical precedents on which I had relied.  "There is some historical evidence that Adams and Jefferson both resolved issues over the validity of electoral votes in their own favor," he wrote, "and in 1857 the President of the Senate (a role filled by Senator John Crittenden [sic--it was President Pro Tem Mason], as the Vice Presidency was then vacant) personally overruled an objection to the counting of Wisconsin’s electoral votes, and asserted that it was his responsibility to make the validity determination in the first instance."

Jacob also acknowledged that Vice President Pence himself was deeply troubled by the illegality and irregularities in the conduct of the 2020 election--"irregularities" which might well have altered the results of the election in Wisconsin, Jacob noted.  Pence wrote in his "Dear Colleague" letter of the morning of January 6, 2021, that the election had "significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law," which is to say, acted unconstitutionally, because the Constitution quite clearly assigns to the State Legislatures the sole power to direct the manner of choosing presidential electors.  Yet despite acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the election, Pence stated in that letter that he did not believe he had any authority to do anything about it.  His role on January 6 was "largely ceremonial," he wrote. 

My task as a lawyer for Candidate Trump was to determine if the founders had really assigned to the second highest office in the land a letter-opening role with no authority for judgment, or whether there was instead anything that could be done to remedy the constitutional violations that occurred in the election.  That is the essence of the significant dispute among legal scholars that Jacob acknowledged -- a dispute that has been voiced throughout our history in the halls of Congress and NEVER resolved by any court.  Stay tuned as more information about that is presented in the coming days during these important bar proceedings.

Livestream Link:  https://calbar.zoom.us/j/97985435232

Well, despite our best efforts to counter the Bar's claims that there was "no evidence" of illegality in the 2020 election by providing them with thousands of pages of evidence, the Bar is proceeding with its attempt to have me disbarred for my representation of President Trump.  The proceedings begin Tuesday, June 20, at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time, at the State Bar Court, 845 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles.  If you're in the area, come by so that there are some friendly faces in the courtroom.  The Bar is calling me as their first witness!  The proceedings will also be live-streamed at this link:  https://calbar.zoom.us/j/97985435232.  More information is available at the Bar Court's website, https://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/Portals/2/documents/notices/State-Bar-Court-Public-Events.pdf, including, importantly, the prohibition on recording.  You can also see all the pleadings that have been filed in the case by going to the Bar Court's dockets page, https://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets.aspx, and searching for Docket # SBC-23-O-30029.

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

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.