• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Justice being served: James Eastman disbarment hearing to stream live

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
24,572
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
In yesterday's testimony.


Jacob said that by early January 2021, he had thoroughly researched how to handle the 2020 election results, under The Electoral Count Act. The act governs the way that electoral votes are cast and counted during presidential elections, and precludes any constitutional powers the vice president might have around certifying the electoral count.

The attorney said he and Pence concluded that neither the vice president nor Trump had the authority to contest or delay election results.

“It was always his view that it did not make any constitutional sense to him that the framers of our Constitution would vest authority to reject electors in one individual,” Jacob said of Pence, who himself has been a lawyer.

He recounted meetings with Eastman, with Trump present, the week of Jan. 6, where Eastman suggested that Pence let states finish investigating the electoral results. He wrote to Pence that Eastman’s theory was “unworkable” and concluded that Congress and the vice president cannot reject electors. The next day Eastman advised Pence to reject electors, and Jacob saw Trump tweeting that Pence did have the power to “win the presidency.”

“No vice president in the entire history of our country has ever asserted that they had the authority that Dr. Eastman was now asserting that Pence should assert that he, as vice president, had,” Jacob said. “What we had here was a sentence in the Constitution that is ambiguous, in the sense that it does not say anything about rejecting electors at all.
 
Am I the only one finding it a tad bit unnerving that they said they reviewed the law and concluded it didn't indicate he had the power to interfere with the Electoral College... and not that there absolutely no reason that it should have been considered in the first place?
 
"Well, I've thoroughly studied the legal rulings, and it turns out there is no legal way to hire a hitman to murder my ex-wife---darn it!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab
Am I the only one finding it a tad bit unnerving that they said they reviewed the law and concluded it didn't indicate he had the power to interfere with the Electoral College... and not that there absolutely no reason that it should have been considered in the first place?
Yup. I have yet to hear anything like “wouldn’t have done it even if I could”, but a whole lot of “so sorry, I’d love to do it but I’m just not allowed”.
Rat bastard Republitard traitors still abound.
 
Am I the only one finding it a tad bit unnerving that they said they reviewed the law and concluded it didn't indicate he had the power to interfere with the Electoral College... and not that there absolutely no reason that it should have been considered in the first place?

That aspect is being argued as well here.

Pro-Trump attorney John Eastman faces disciplinary trial related to Jan. 6 : NPR

Carling, the State Bar's lead attorney on the case, questioned Eastman about the sources of information Eastman used when he was alleging fraud and other irregularities in the 2020 election. In several instances, Eastman testified that he did not vet that information himself, but relied on his colleagues on the Trump legal team. He also testified that he generally disregarded evidence from election experts who debunked the Trump team's fraud claims. Eastman said that every case features "competing experts."

Some state election officials have testified for the prosecution. Eastman has named some of the election conspiracy wackos as witnesses, but they have been rejected by the judge so far.

The trial was initially scheduled for 2 weeks, but it now looks like it will go longer.
 
The trial ended in November, and the judge finally released her decision.


A California judge on Wednesday recommended disbarring a lawyer at the center of former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

State Bar Judge Yvette Roland found John Eastman culpable on 10 of the 11 counts filed by the California State Bar last year. The state bar sought to strip Eastman’s license to practice law in the state over “false and misleading statements” about purported election fraud and his role in “provoking” the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
.....
He can appeal Wednesday’s ruling, and the case will ultimately end up before the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, the judge ordered Eastman be transferred to inactive status, meaning he won’t be able to practice law.
 
More disbarments coming.

.....
Environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clark, who the former president wanted to take over the Justice Department in the days before the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a disbarment hearing Wednesday," according to NBC News.

READ MORE: 3 Trump lawyers who tried to overturn election will now have to defend their law licenses
....
 
More disbarments coming.

.....
Environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clark, who the former president wanted to take over the Justice Department in the days before the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a disbarment hearing Wednesday," according to NBC News.

READ MORE: 3 Trump lawyers who tried to overturn election will now have to defend their law licenses
....
“The mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

- Donald Trump
 
The trial starts today. It's being streamed on Zoom.
An off topic question but does it have to be a publicly viewed trial? Could James Eastman could keep it private?
"Could" is a very complex word in that context.
Trials are a matter of public record. Maybe he could object to having the trial live streamed. But if he did, it would raise the question of why. What's he hiding?

But at the end of the day we're kinda back to Trump asserting that only the mob pleads the 5th, then pled the 5th 17,322 times in an afternoon. Hypocrisy from hell, packaged and delivered to the media in E-Z open packages.
Tom
 
The trial starts today. It's being streamed on Zoom.
An off topic question but does it have to be a publicly viewed trial? Could James Eastman could keep it private?

My post was from last June. The trial has ended and was streamed live on zoom. Eatman lost and his license was deactivated.

He could have objected to having video, would have been up to the judge. Also his name is John Eastman, thread title's wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom