John Eastman is a patriot, constitutional scholar, lawyer, husband, and father. He is our friend, colleague, and director of the Claremont Institute, and he has spent his life defending the principles on which this great nation was founded. After a farcical 10-week trial, a California State Bar judge recommended that John be disbarred from practicing law in California, seeking to criminalize disagreements in constitutional interpretation.
The term “lawfare” has become part of American slang over the past few years. It means manipulating and corrupting the legal system in order to gain political advantage and attack and destroy political opponents. The most famous example of legal conduct is, of course, the shocking abuses of the United States Department of Justice, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, and the Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney’s Office in their attempts to destroy the current legal system. Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. But the assault on Mr. Trump is only the most widely known example of this evil act that subverts the rule of law in the United States.
The Eastman case is a warning to all of us about the increasing criminalization of any challenge to progressive orthodoxy.
Anyone who dares to oppose the existing progressive government at any level and in any way may be subject to this law. Particularly targeted are those who dare to question the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Prominent among them is John Eastman.
In his case, the Center for United States Democracy, an activist organization, joined other activists in filing an ethics complaint with the California State Bar Association. As David Block, one of the leaders of this legal issue, explains, these activists’ goals are “more than just that.” [to] Bringing a complaint to a bar is shameful [their targets] and make them harmful to communities and companies. ” Specifically, they aim not just to disbar, but to destroy the 111 lawyers involved in legal challenges to the 2020 election results.
The overwhelmingly progressive bar associations then become complicit in legal action. The legal travesty that John underwent during his judicial proceedings is vividly recorded in the court records. explained in detail By Rachel Alexander of the Arizona Sun-Times. Provided comprehensive daily coverage of the trial. The entire proceeding made a mockery of the impartial judgment of professional conduct that should be expected in such a court. It had partisan support and a ruling that seemed preordained from the first week.
Of course John will appeal and we expect him to win. But his case is a reminder to all of us about the increasing criminalization of all challenges to progressive orthodoxy: elections, climate, race, gender, the economy, public health, the Constitution, and more. This is a warning. Regardless of one’s opinion on John’s representation and advice to President Trump in 2020 and 2021, concerned citizens from all walks of life should view this trend with alarm.
We stand with John, applaud his fortitude in the face of these shameful and un-American attacks, and pray that his courage is contagious.
Editor’s note: A version of this article was originally published at: american mind.
