Below is my column in the California Post and New York Post on the disbarment of John Eastman. I criticized the January 6th speeches while they were being given and disagreed with the legal theories presented to stop the certification. However, this action leaves troubling questions of consistency and clarity in the standards used to judge lawyers presenting novel or controversial legal arguments. It also is likely to have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech by lawyers.
Here is the column:
Last week, the California Supreme Court upheld the disbarment of John Eastman. It is a decision that will prevent Eastman from practicing law – the most serious punishment the California State Bar can deliver.
Eastman is the former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California. He represented President Donald Trump in some of his election challenges in 2020.
In 2020, I publicly disagreed with Eastman’s legal theory that Congress could block the certification of President Joe Biden.
However, Eastman’s disbarment should be a concern for everyone who values the rule of law and free speech.
After the election, various legal advisers told Trump that there wasn’t enough evidence of fraud to overturn the election –– as some of us in the media also said.
But Eastman and other lawyers believed there were still arguable grounds to challenge the certification.
In the past, Democrats in Congress had moved to block the certification of Republican presidents, and Eastman believed that their playbook was legal, or at least defensible.
Election disputes are often difficult to resolve in court because time is quite limited.
As the date for the 2020 certification approached, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and others made sensational claims about voting machines and other conspiracies that they later admitted were not supported by evidence.
The courts uniformly rejected these challenges.
Eastman is being punished for a different reason: He helped to develop Trump’s legal argument for blocking the election certification.
He admitted that there were few cases to cite as precedent, and acknowledged that he and the Trump legal team were advancing novel theories.
But that is not unusual in controversial cases.
Public interest attorneys often advance novel legal arguments, challenging existing precedent and the status quo. Even longstanding precedents, like Roe v. Wade, have been overturned after years of litigation.California State Bar officials failed to address the implications that disbarring Eastman would have on other cases in which new legal theories are tested.
The animus of the California State Bar was also evident in the original charges against Eastman. He was ultimately found guilty on 10 of 11 charges of egregious and deceitful conduct.
The lower court’s decision placed great emphasis on Eastman’s public remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, at Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally. The court dismissed his claims that his speech was protected by the First Amendment.
Democratic Party election lawyers have been punished by courts and accused of meritless or unsupported claims. However, bar associations in “blue” states have not moved to disbar them, and I would not support such an effort.
Take Democrat attorney Marc Elias. He was a critical player in the infamous Steele dossier on “Russia collusion,” and helped push the false Alfa Bank conspiracy.
In Maryland, Elias’s team filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found not only violated Maryland law, but also the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map “subverts the will of those governed.”
In 2024, the chief judge of the Western District of Wisconsin not only rejected but ridiculed the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”
Elias has been sanctioned in court. However, neither he nor his associates were, of course, disbarred over prior challenges.
The California Bar and the California Supreme Court insist that they are merely imposing minimal standards of conduct in disbarring Eastman.
However, the record in this matter shows more distemper than deliberation on critical points.
The California State Bar has created new problems, rather than clarifying standards.
Even as someone who disagreed with John Eastman, I am not sure what the standard is for zealous advocacy by attorneys.
While Eastman was giving bad advice, he was not committing a crime or, in my view, committing an offense that deserved disbarment.
There cannot be a different standard for different candidates, or different clients.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Let’s apply the novel legal idea to the rest of the world. Where would we be without them? Should a court decide what novel idea in speech, law and innovation is acceptable? In innovation of a product there are clear areas where there can be conflict with another. In speech, we are protected, supposedly, by the first amendment.
Remove disbarment out of the Eastman equation entirely.
John Eastman made a promise to his GOD, to swear supreme loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and constitutional rule of law, when he took his Oath of Office with one hand on the Bible.
Eastman did not swear supreme loyalty to a president. Eastman did not swear supreme loyalty directly to the nation. Eastman did not swear supreme loyalty directly to the American people.
The Framers of the Constitution designed an “indirect” supreme loyalty oath (Oath of Office) to the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter with emergency wartime clauses already designed into the system]. The U.S. Constitution has a prescribed legal conduct for wartime and temporary periods of anarchy already designed into the American system.
Did Eastman follow his supreme loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution? Or was Eastman following a foreign loyalty oath to a single person (ie: similar to Germany’s loyalty oath in the 1930’s/1940’s)?
I’m all for forgiving Eastman for being confused on his promise to Jesus to follow the U.S. Constitution. But Eastman needs to explain and apologize for his misplaced loyalty. I’m sure his legal bar association feels the same way and would reinstate him if he showed some contrition for his betrayal to his Oath of Office.
The disbarment was lawfare plain and simple. Abuse of power in a state known for abuse of power. Glad we left the land of milk, honey, poverty, and fascism.
Eastman believes like half of America that the 2020 election was stolen. I firmly believe Eastman as many others believed that the fraud would have been full exposed had the effort been successful.
Mail in ballots that can’t be verified, a fraudulent Russia collusion smear that’s now been exposed, FBI burn bags, lawfare in State courts, CIA, FBI, and a full on conspiracy of a subversive campaign now exposed support every bit of it. Biden even admitted to the extent of it in his demented Freudian slip. It was a multi-pronged attack on our election process through election interference, ballot fraud, illegal voting and Deep State smears and leak manipulation.
IMHO the majority of J6 Patriots and Eastman alike are not dedicated to Trump, they are dedicated to what they believe to be the truths of a corrupt election that they witnessed and then logically formed their own opinions upon.
Eight Ball,
Great comment.
Additional evidence of wrong doing, Unmasked: Secret ‘Witness 2’ was anti-Trump intel officer pushing Russiagate, Ukraine impeachment
https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/ided-witness-2-helped-ukraine-whistleblower-worked-strzok-wrote-2016
Eight ball, Eastman can believe whatever he wants. It was not his legal theories that got him in trouble. It was the deliberate use of false statements in court and evidence or his hand in organizing the use of fake electors to overturn the 2020 election. Lying in court and knowing he was lying is why he was disbarred. Not because of his “novel legal theories”.
Right or wrong is not determined by the consensus of all lawyers, but by the law. This will go to the Supreme Court, and he will be found innocent.
S. Meyer, right or wrong is determined by the evidence and what the law or rules say. It was determined by the California Supreme Court. He was found to have knowingly stated false claims in court without being able to support them. This will not go to the Supreme Court. The evidence against him is overwhelming.
Lawfare; plain and simple. DeBar the Bar.
The Supreme Court will change the decision because the Bar in California is using Lawfare politically.
There are multiple reasons so I don’t rely on just one.
Examples
Due Process
The discipline was over a federal constitutional issue
1st Amendment
Chilling effect will not be tolerated and they will rule to prevent it from happening using at least one above or some others.
You lose.
Mail-in ballots and accepting and counting ballots after election day are unconstitutional; the election, the whole election, and nothing but the election—voting and counting—must occur on ELECTION DAY. Not before and not after.
The clear and convincing standard of California’s bar sits between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires more certainty than the first, and less than the second. We operate on the premise of representing the client zealously within the bounds of law. If a court bungles the evidence or application of the ethics rules to the found evidence, it drapes over its robes a billboard that says “We found what we were looking for”. What takes the first hit? The law. What takes the second hit? Zeal and next client.
Tell that to California Judges. What the left has done is to assure thinking people that the court system is politically biassed and such actions encourage more of the same.
S. Meyer, nope. Eastman was found to have made knowingly false statements to the judges and government officials. They had evidence against him. Pretty hard to argue you’re innocent when they have hard evidence he was peddling lies in court.
This is the same state supreme court that upheld a ruling that a Maryland man can be elected Governor of California even though he doesn’t reside at his registered voting address and always stayed in hotels when visiting California paid for using campaign funds.
And there have been a few other horrible California Supreme Court decisions in the last few years. Almost fifty years ago, disenchanted voters turned three supreme court justices out of office. Two are up for retention election this year: one Brown nominee and one Newsom nominee.
Extraordinary power grabs result in extraordinary reactions!
Trump has spent years proving that laws and his Oath of Office don’t matter. Trump created a lawless environment. Now Trump wants the laws to protect him.
There’s a new Trump created lawless precedent almost daily.
Trump illegally enacted tariff-taxes on 100% of Americans, bypassing a Republican controlled Congress. This current Congress would have rubber-stamped anything Trump wanted – he violated Article One anyway. Trump had a legal path to create legal tariff-taxes and he chose to do it illegally (bypassing Congress).
Just yesterday, after a court found Trump’s tariffs were illegal. Trump threatened retaliation (under color of law) for any company trying to get reimbursed for illegal tariff-taxes.
Under federal criminal “color of law” statutes like Title 42 US Code 1983, 18 US Code 245 and other criminal statutes an honest prosecutor could charge Trump with his 35th felony. It’s a felony crime to his position of authority to punish anyone not convicted of a crime and if convicted that punishment must follow prescribed federal laws.
This really makes it hard for FBI Director Kash Patel, whose duty is to investigate and arrest those that violate “color of law” criminal statutes. The federal Attorney General has a duty to prosecute “color of law” crimes like a government official threatening law abiding Americans.
“There cannot be a different standard for different candidates, or different clients.”
I would agree but as we have seen, in this day and age, Democrats apply different standards all the time in order to “Get Trump!!” They change entire laws just to “Get Trump!!” They abandon all law and order to “Get Trump!!”
This is the party who has stated out loud, in public their plans to pack the court, pass laws to ensure Republicans never win an election again.
And they call that protecting democracy, one party rule, their rule.
Turley ignores that ethical rules prohibit the advancement of arguments built on documented factual falsehoods and deceitful conduct, rather than mere novel legal theory. That’s why Eastman was disbarred.
His conflation of “novel legal theories” with the “deliberate advancement of false claims,” which were the actual grounds for John Eastman’s disbarment. Turley frames the California Supreme Court’s decision as a threat to “zealous advocacy” and “free speech” for lawyers presenting controversial arguments, but the court’s findings specifically centered on Eastman’s “egregious and deceitful conduct” and his role in advancing verifiably false assertions to mislead courts and public officials. Turley’s attempt to make excuses for Eastman’s poor choices and ethics violations falls flat when the truth is exposed.
The court did not disbar Eastman for his “novel” interpretation of the 12th Amendment alone; instead, it focused on his promotion of debunked election fraud claims that he either knew were false or was grossly negligent in verifying.
Unlike the examples of Democratic attorneys cited by Turley—who faced sanctions for “meritless” claims—Eastman was found to have engaged in a coordinated effort to subvert the electoral process using “fake” electors and specific, verifiably false statements about voting machines.
Findings indicated that Eastman used his legal skills to push a false narrative in the courtroom and to the public, which directly violated his ethical duty of honesty to the legal system.
The California State Bar emphasized that while attorneys are expected to be zealous advocates, they are never permitted to use “bullsh!t” (as described by Vice President Pence’s counsel) or outright lies to achieve their goals
Ultimately, the hypocrisy in Turley’s argument lies in defending Eastman’s “deceitful conduct” as mere professional disagreement, while the court’s 128-page opinion detailed exhaustive evidence that his actions were incompatible with the fundamental standards of integrity required of all California attorneys.
“The courts uniformly rejected these challenges.”
Please don’t diminsh an otherwise solid opinion piece with this red herring. Almost all of them were rejected on procedural/standing grounds (as opposed to on the merits). In light of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, those cases would have proceeded to discovery and trial.
Anonymous, a dismissal for “standing” is not a “technicality”—it is a constitutional requirement that ensures courts only hear real disputes with real evidence.
In many cases, such as those in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, judges explicitly noted that the “procedural” dismissal was tied to the campaign’s inability to offer even a “minimum amount of proof” to justify a trial.
Contrary to the “procedural” claim, at least 30 cases were decided on the merits, where judges reviewed the actual evidence and found it lacking. In these instances, the courts found that the “irregularities” were either non-existent or statistically insufficient to alter the outcome.
Characterizing the 2020 dismissals as purely procedural ignores the fact that standing is inherently tied to the validity of the underlying claim. If a party cannot show a specific, non-speculative injury, it is often because their evidence of “fraud” does not meet the legal standard for a “merit-based” review.
Even under current jurisprudence like Bost v. Illinois, which grants broader standing to candidates, the 2020 challenges would have likely met the same fate at the summary judgment stage.
Discovery would not have saved these cases because, as multiple courts—including those led by Trump-appointed judges—noted at the time, “calling an election unfair does not make it so.” The failure was not a lack of access to the courts, but a lack of evidence to present to them
Fascist Democrats do not play by any rules or sense of fairness. They seek to destroy. Yet, when their own do the same sorts of things, they are never held to account. Democrats can always count on protection by leftist judges and leftist bar associations. Democrats tried to prevent Donald Trump from getting any lawyers to represent him in court. What kind of a “justice” system do Democrats seek to impose on America? We see it quite clearly.
“He admitted that there were few cases to cite as precedent, and acknowledged that he and the Trump legal team were advancing novel theories.”
That’s a fancy way of saying he admitted to peddling lies to the court. That’s why he got disbarred.
Eastman is the guy who managed to convince Trump to overturn the election by a “novel” approach, inciting a mob and pressuring the vice president to do something illegal.
“There cannot be a different standard for different candidates, or different clients.”
But…the Professor clearly identifies in the State of California there absolutely are. (Or any other Democrat controlled State.)
Democrats are protected…Republicans are lynched….the only thing missing from the California State Bar Association Logo is a Blindfoldless Woman and a hemp rope with a Hangman’s Noose.
“. . . the disbarment of John Eastman.”
The government’s power to license is the power to control and to destroy.
The issuance of a license is to practice law by simply to determining the applicant’s legal knowledge. Of which you have none. Obviously.
“Egregious and deceitful conduct.” That charge should be reserved for lawyers and judges who release violent criminals back into society to ply the murderous trade. But they get applauded and promoted in the world of Democrats. Charges of egregious and deceitful conduct seem like Sophistry in defense of political or ideological aims – and it is. Republicans and RINO’S play by Marquis of Queensberry rules while the Democrats go full WWE and hit them with chairs. When will the Republicans wake up? They are facing the Carville plan. Democrats will fire up the Letitia James/Fani Willis – ‘lock them up’ campaign. The chastised Supremes will sit idly by and wait for the snakes to finish off the few fighters the Republicans have.
Instead of repeating how much one disagrees with the J6 speeches Mr. Turley and others should be fighting against the decisions of these scoundrels in robes every day. But instead we get editorials and silence. After the Democreeps eliminate all the Eastman’s guess who they’ll focus on?
There was a lot going on at that time. The Constitution and the statute taken together made an election challenge a ridiculous race against time. Eastman believed (as I believed) that there were serious irregularities in the election that affected the outcome. However, time was short and Trump’s team pursued legal challenges in hostile courts when they should have focused on lobbying political support in the state legislatures to ignore the tainted election results which had been conducted by court created rules in violation of the rules passed by those state legislatures. Those legislatures were within their right to take back their authority to allocate their electoral votes as they saw fit. That was where the effort should have been focused.
However, they pursued various legal challenges in the courts instead. As I said, time was ridiculous short, and Trump’s lawyers were being inundated with reports of election irregularities. It is my belief that some reports were legitimate, others were zealous theories fed by political zeal, and (I believe) others were false conspiracies intentionally injected by Democrat operatives to discredit the entire movement to question the results. It is easier to disregard illegal drop boxes when the focus is on Venezuelan software and Serbian servers. It was difficult to impossible in the time frame permitted to investigate and vet all the legitimate and illegitimate theories swirling around.
It was now time to Count the electoral votes. That is where Eastman comes in. He honestly believed that there were irregularities that affected the outcome. I personally agreed, but it was my reading of the statute and Constitution that time had run out. They needed to have convinced the state legislatures to act before the date set for the counting of the electoral votes. Once that date arrived, it was too late. However, Eastman disagreed. He came up with a novel theory. The VP was given the duty to open and count the votes. Rather than that just being a ministerial duty, Eastman thought the VP had the discretion to delay the counting of the votes at the request of state legislators to give their respective state legislatures more time to examine the election irregularities. I personally disagreed with this theory, but I concede that we were in uncharted waters. Eastman proposed this strategy in a memo to the President, but the strategy was never implemented because it required the cooperation of the VP and he had his own lawyers that disagreed with Eastman’s theory. That’s it. That was why he was disbarred. He proposed a novel legal strategy in a novel situation that was never implemented. The rest was just protected political speech. He was made a scapegoat for the opinions he held and the uncontrollable outcome of a mob.
This was just part of a nationwide effort to retaliate against Trump’s lawyers to disbar them, indict them, coerce confessions from them, bankrupt them, all in an effort to chill zealous advocacy of the the former and once again President of the United States. This is all part of a calculated effort to deprive the President of legal representation, a violation of norms that forms a small part of a coup or color revolution. I have been a member of the California Bar for more than 35 years. This is an injustice, and I am ashamed.
Great comment Tommy! I don’t recognize your name here but I hope you comment more often going forward.
These bar associations encourage defending child rapists, illegal immigrant child rapists, murderers, people charged with treasonous activities etc., but they are trying to prevent Trump, or any members of his administration, from being able to defend themselves legally.
We have seen the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, the SPLC, the ABA, the AMA, almost all universities and grad schools and just about every other institution be taken over by leftist radicals to the ruination of the organizations and the nation.
Question, what is so great about it? Can give us a synopsis please?
Here’s a synopsis Anonymous, you are a parasitic juvenile.
More like a remora, as he is effectively harmless to JT and his blog.
Synopsis: You are a worthless human being.
Gee. . . .I was thinking the same thing about you.
Tommy, I think you’ve really laid out what it felt like from the inside. Let me just add this. If they can take Eastman’s law license for trying out a new constitutional idea in a crazy, rushed situation, then a whole lot of other people should be in trouble too. Almost every big change in constitutional law started as somebody’s “new” argument.
The real question is not “was it new,” but “was he honestly trying to read the Constitution and explain his idea to his client, or was he just making stuff up to trick people.” Once they start treating “new and wrong in a Trump case” as the same thing as “dishonest,” they have invented a new rule that only seems to hit one side. That is how you scare lawyers away from taking on any controversial client the establishment does not like.
OLLY,
Something of note, Despite official assurances, the 2020 election wasn’t the ‘most secure’ election in U.S. history
“Emerging evidence shows that the Intelligence Community raised concerns internally about the vulnerability of election systems and apparent Chinese efforts to obtain sensitive voter data. But previous administrations intentionally hid that from the American public.”
https://justthenews.com/government/security/despite-official-assurances-2020-election-wasnt-most-secure-election-us-history
Seems to be a trend here, Democrats relations with the CCP.
Upstate, I think your basic point is exactly right.
At the heart of our system is consent and the voice of the people, and all of that runs through elections. So it is pretty naive to act like nobody would ever try to mess with that. If you are a hostile power or a corrupt player, the first thing you go after is the machinery that decides who runs the country. Of course people are trying to attack it. That is the world we live in.
Which is why the “most secure election in history” line was always frickin’ stupid.
The question is not “did anyone try to cheat or interfere,” because the answer to that will always be yes. The real questions are “who is doing it, how are they doing it, and where is the evidence.” Go find it, because it is going to be there somewhere. Treating concern as a thought crime instead of a standing homework assignment is exactly backwards in a self‑governing republic.
A starting point would be Georg Soros and his groups. The money buys exposure, even if the message is incorrect, people will believe or accept it as reasonable or the truth. In my opinion, look at the election in Virginia, his groups dumped money to obtain their ideology. It ended up with a map that denies equal representation. I wonder who is going to pay the legal bills for the unrepresented, while the government pays for their own defense with the underrepresented’ s tax dollars.
RCS, I think you are right to flag Soros and his network as a real force in this stuff. When one guy and his web of groups can dump tens of millions into a single state fight, like what we just saw in Virginia, that absolutely shapes what maps look like and whose voices get diluted.
What I keep coming back to, though, is that we have allowed our election rules and our representation to be put up for sale to any billionaire or dark‑money machine that wants to play. This time it is Soros land and Holder land on one side. Next time it is Thiel land or somebody else on the other side. Either way, the people who end up paying the bill are the folks stuck in the carved‑up districts whose tax dollars fund the lawyers defending a map that weakened their own vote.
RCS,
Soros is one group but I would also include Roy Singham as well.
Thinking on it, Democrats have more in common with the CCP than they do with American values, the Constitution, rule of law.
Olly, they didn’t take his license because he presented novel legal ideas. He made verifiable false statements and lied to the courts. There’s also evidence that he organized an illegal attempt to overturn the election.
The court showed plenty of evidence against Eastman and showed why his false statements and evidence was a direct violation of the rules. He was not disbarred for his ideas, he was disbarred for deliberately breaking the rules and lying to the court about it. Even Turley should know that. But as it’s always the case, he is obligated to defend unethical conduct and making excuses for clear violations of court rules.
So Olly, with this a milestone when do you suppose they will take Boasberg’s law license? How about Schiff’s, Comey’s or Wray’s?
This is a travesty of justice as we all know 100% the election was rigged, whether through interference, fraudulent ballots or subversive smears and lies. Eastman fought back the only avenue available, he should be lauded. America will never move forward until the whole truth is revealed and those that orchestrated the seditious conspiracy against Trump are prosecuted and held fully accountable.
FYI, hullbobby the blog nazi, blog bully, blog know nothing etc. Read his comments, devoid of anything resembling smarts.
Parasitic Juvenile.
You are a worthless human being as evident by your worthless comments.
Tommylotto, as a lawyer in California you should know that you cannot present verifiable false statements in court. The California State Bar Court’s 128-page ruling found him culpable on 10 counts involving moral turpitude, specifically for making “verifiably false” factual statements. Attorneys are frequently allowed to argue novel law, but they are never permitted to lie about facts to a court or public officials.
The had the receipts.
Blaming “Democratic operatives” for injecting false conspiracies or citing a “race against time” does not absolve a lawyer of the ethical duty to vet their claims. Under Rule 11 and state ethics codes, a lawyer is personally responsible for the veracity of what they sign and present. Being “inundated” with reports is not a legal defense for gross negligence or the promotion of debunked conspiracies like those involving “Venezuelan software.”
Disbarment is not a punishment for “novel” legal theories or “political speech,” but a consequence of the professional obligation to be truthful. The California State Bar Court provided clear and convincing evidence that Eastman made multiple statements regarding election fraud that he knew were false or was grossly negligent in verifying. Zealous advocacy ends where factual dishonesty begins; a lawyer does not have a First Amendment right to present verifiably false information as truth to subvert a constitutional process.
Furthermore, the argument that state legislatures could simply ignore “tainted” results to reallocate electoral votes misrepresents the law. Once an election has been conducted under existing state statutes, those statutes—and the voters’ rights under them—cannot be retroactively discarded.
You claim to be a lawyer, that is doubtful.
“culpable on 10 counts involving moral turpitude”
Requires dishonest intent. Prove it. Eastman was being honest.
The Bar violated due process by denying him the right to be heard by excluding key witnesses. Shouldn’t the members of the Bar lose their licenses instead?
Yoou have to prove your case and you can’t. You lose.
Tommy: Great Post! Trump was looking to delay to do other things; he tossed his cards and chose the wrong one. There likely was no right one at the time. He failed there, but as Commander and Cheif he is a winner.
Since not only you have published about this tragedy, it can be assumed that the interested public is as informed about it as ongoing aggressive democratic measures, to disbarr lawyers representing DJT and politicians close to him,
After VA’s Congressional Redistricing Referendum passed with around 89K votes (I had expected a much larger margin), the SC-VA (accepting briefs until tomorrow) will decide in due course, To legally decide, if whether it is permissible to compose districts in such a way that more than 40% of voters are represented by only one representative (= 9%) is certainly associated with huge implications.
These three major unsolved cases are siting before the SC-VA:
1. RNC’s lawsuit filed in Tazewell County arguing the process used to place the amendment on the ballot was illegal. Judge Hurley’s ruling [1] from 1/27/26 is challenged by DEMs.
2. GOP U.S. Reps. Morgan Griffith (VA-9) and Ben Cline (VA-6), along with two Republican committees, also originated in Tazewell County. That case challenges the wording of the ballot question, arguing it is misleading.
3. A similar lawsuit filed in Richmond by U.S. Rep. John McGuire (VA-5) and others also targets the ballot language.
Primary elections will take place on 8/4/26
[1] https://virginiamercury.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Redistricting.pdf
Before the usual crowd jumps in, here is a little game for the group. Let’s see if we can guess the “novel legal theory” that X and his anonymous cronies will invent to defend this ruling before they even show up. If their standard is that a lawyer should be disbarred for pushing a new constitutional theory that fails, then they ought to be explaining why that same logic would not also wipe out half the lawyers in California who have been asking courts to rethink precedent for the last 30 years.
Group? What group, you’re mindless simps? Lets play a little game with Olly and his crazy followers, pretend to be a CA lawyer and spew BS all day with conspiracy theories. BTW folks, that guy Olly is not a lawyer, never was, never will be.
Little game? You mean put on dunce hats and dance around the kindergarten? Maybe stick stars on your face? Got the feeling this clown is a kindergarten teacher.
Olly, X, George, is hard at work using AI to come up with a response as to why it is a good thing that a lawyer was disbarred for thinking up a novel legal theory.
Hullbobby, I think you are exactly right that X is workshopping something with AI. The funny part is the assignment. “Please write a brand new legal theory explaining why it is good and normal to disbar a lawyer for a brand new legal theory.” That kind of proves the point people are worried about.
And his anonymous “remora” will be busy doing what remora do, not adding any real value, just circling and snapping at scraps.
Olly feeling threatened by X? And how is it you insulting X is somehow not childish and stupid? What are you, 75? And this is how you play the blog bullies.
HullBobby, OLLY,
That is another reason not to bother reading the slow and dumb one’s comments. Just scroll past and ignore. Not worth your time reading or even responding to an AI bot.
Response? So you spent an hour figuring how to attack X and this is your best intellectual shot?
Hullbobby, whatever is used it does not mean it is incorrect. Eastman was not disbarred because he thought up a novel legal theory.
That’s the problem. You and Olly are so focused on the novel legal theory excuse that you cannot see the facts for what they are. I doubt you even read the court ruling laying out exactly why Eastman got disbarred. They presented a LOT of evidence against Eastman. Turley did not present any evidence refuting the court or Eastman’s claims. He even admits sheepishly that Eastman was not able to back up his claims in court. Which is a nice way to say he was lying and was unethical in his conduct.
Here’s the crazy part why aren’t YOU using AI to find out if Turley’s argument is right? Present a concise defense of Turley’s argument.
I’m sure you won’t do it because that would be too much work, but as usual it’s easier to rely on Turley’s flawed argument which is very short on evidence and context.
Olly, new constitutional theory? Nope. Outright lying in court is more like it. Eastman was not just proposing something novel. He was deliberately introducing verifiable false statements.
Eastman falsely asserted that Dominion machines had fraudulently manipulated 2020 election results.
He claimed there was specific, credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in Georgia and Michigan, which the court found were baseless.
He advanced the “fringe theory” that Vice President Mike Pence had the unilateral authority to reject or delay the counting of certified electoral votes, despite knowing this lacked legal support or historical precedent.
He was found culpable for his role in developing and implementing strategies to submit “fake” alternate slates of Trump electors to subvert the certified results.
The court determined that even when Eastman claimed subjective “good faith,” he was grossly negligent for not investigating or verifying the information he relied upon before presenting it to courts and public officials.
The California Supreme Court underscored that these actions constituted “egregious and deceitful conduct” incompatible with the standards of integrity required for attorneys.
It was a lot more than just “novel constitutional theories.”
Olly,
“ Let’s see if we can guess the “novel legal theory” that X and his anonymous cronies will invent to defend this ruling before they even show up.”
Sorry, there is no need for a “novel legal theory” to point out why Eastman deserved to get disbarred. How about using the actual rules and law that Eastman was under when he was a lawyer?
There are literally pages of evidence presented by the court showing how and why Eastman lied and knowingly presented false statements in court and to government officials.
I don’t see you or anyone else addressing the court’s actual evidence. All I see is an unhealthy attachment to Turley’s seriously flawed logic about why Eastman was disbarred. He is professor and he did not make a good case defending Eastman’s egregious conduct in court that earned him his disbarment.
What bothers me here is how “novel legal theory” is being treated like a problem in itself. Every legal theory was novel the first time somebody said it out loud. Judicial review was novel. Incorporation was novel. One person one vote was novel. The founding generation’s whole claim that government exists to secure pre‑existing rights was a radically new way to look at power in 1776, and the British establishment did not treat it as “legitimate” at the time.
So the issue is not that a theory is new. The real question is whether it is a good‑faith reading of the text and history and whether it tends to protect people’s rights or strip them away. If Eastman’s theory was dangerous because it effectively let one officer throw out state‑certified votes, then say that plainly and argue that it attacks the rights of voters. That is a substantive criticism of his work, not a reason to declare novelty itself out of bounds.
For the last 30 years, a huge part of what the Supreme Court has done in big constitutional cases is accept or reject “novel” theories. That is how constitutional law actually moves. Under the California Supreme Court’s treatment of Eastman, every lawyer now arguing that his “novel” theory justifies disbarment is pushing their own brand new theory about the First Amendment and about the limits on attorney speech.
If they really believe a lawyer should lose his license just for pressing a new constitutional argument that courts have not blessed before, then they ought to be making the case to disbar themselves and every other California lawyer who has asked the courts to rethink precedent or extend doctrine over the last few decades. You cannot suddenly discover a brand new rule that says “this one lawyer, on this one issue, in this one political context, is outside the First Amendment because his theory was too novel” and then pretend that is not itself a radical departure from how we have treated attorney advocacy for generations.
What California has done here looks like a vague new rule that says if you represent the wrong client, push a new theory, and lose, the bar can come back later, call your advocacy “deceitful,” and end your career. That is its own kind of novel theory, and it runs straight into the First Amendment problem. Lawyers have to be able to talk through contested constitutional ideas with their clients, even half baked ones, without facing professional execution after the fact just because the argument was unpopular or ultimately rejected.
Here’s another folks, just yapping away, pretending to know constitutional law. This guy is not a lawyer, he just rewrote Turley’s opinion . At least Turley is a lawyer, this guy is a fraud and BS artist. And do note the fact that he uses NO FACTS, just made up nonsense pretending to be smart.
“NO FACTS, just made up nonsense pretending to be smart.” Sounds like ANON daily!
Here’s another one, waiting all morning for the post to drop. Writes for 30mminutes and comes up with this nonsense.
Olly, Eastman’s legal theory is completely irrelevant. He can propose it all day long and it’s still not relevant as the reason why he was disbarred. That’s what you’re not getting.
His theory by itself is seriously flawed and it’s one reason why it would have never succeeded as an argument in court if he got that far.
What he IS being disbarred for is his unethical conduct, patently false statements in court without any verifiable evidence to back them up which IS required in court. That’s just one of 10 things the court found reason to disbar him. This had nothing to do with his legal theories.
Lawyers don’t have a first amendment protection from making false statements in court. He can peddle his theory all day long outside of court and be just fine. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. He got disbarred because of things he stated IN court. Not what he said to a client, or what his legal theory was. None.
“patently false statements in court without any verifiable evidence to back them up which IS required in court. “
But my understanding is that the Bar and the Court didn’t permit his witnesses to speak.
Example John Yoo: Constitutional law professor.
You lose.
Seems there would be sufficient grounds for an appeal to a higher court since this would appear to be a violation of the first amendment. I do not know if such an appeal is allowable in the legal profession but since this removes his ability to earn a living in his profession in California, there were appear to be grounds for an appeal. Surely if it is a first amendment case in Colorado for the makers of confectionaries, an attorney doing a zealous job for his clients such have at least the same right in California.
Frankly I have never liked the idea of Bar Associations making such decisions even if the state has determined that the Bar association should function as certifying and investigating agent. I think that structure leads to exactly this type of decision. If anything it smacks of a monopoly where someone out of favor fails to get justice.
I prefer the model used by medical boards and other licensing boards. I hope an appeal is forthcoming. I want to see if Attorneys can truly allow justice in their ranks especially in this contentious era.
Why don’t you just state you are not a lawyer and have no idea what will happen instead of yapping away.
Ah, the parasitic juvenile is at work again. Work being he is paid to be a juvenile moron.
Are you truly devoid of any smarts? That comment says it all.
This is what you post every morning and you think you’re somehow smart?
And learn grammar principles while you’re at it.
Just shut-up and go away you troll.
You are a worthless human being. Your comments prove it.
8:43 AM. You must have sat up all night waiting for the post to drop?
GEB, this has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. Making verifiable false statements in court as a lawyer is not protected speech.
FYI , medical boards and association boards are just the “bar” versions of the medical field. Keep in mind that the California Supreme Court which reviewed the evidence ruled Eastman’s conduct violated the rules and standards that all lawyers in California are required to follow. He broke them and now he is facing the consequences .
“Making verifiable false statements in court as a lawyer is not protected speech.”
Intent is critical, so you prove intent, otherwise you lose.
The fact that Marc Elias has yet to face significant disciplinary actions for his role in the 2016 election never ceases to amaze me. A comparison of the Eastman case with Elias’ actions is one example, IMO, of why the Bar is held in such low regard by many practitioners
“disciplinary actions …” What exactly did he do to piss off MAGA, you mean?
Chilling free speech of those lawyers that defend conservative interests is the point of much of the persecution, prosecution and disbarment of lawyers and others who stood in defense of Trumps claims. The Bae Association in many stares has been captured by the progressive Democrat party to effectively deny legal counsel and representation to conservatives.