Posted on 05/18/2025 4:28:00 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Two weeks ago, Federal District Court Judge Beryl Howell permanently enjoined the Trump Administration from implementing the president’s executive order targeting the Perkins Coie law firm. Trump’s order suspended security clearances for the firm’s lawyers and barred them from federal buildings, prohibited the government from engaging the firm, and directed that it be investigated for violating civil rights laws.
The order explained that these restrictions were appropriate because of Perkins Coie’s “dishonest and dangerous activity,” including hiring Fusion GPS to manufacture a false dossier to “steal an election.” As counsel to Hillary Clinton, the firm worked with Fusion GPS to produce the Steele dossier, which was used for the Russia hoax that destabilized the first Trump Administration.
In her 120-page decision, Judge Howell, an Obama appointee, wrote a sweeping, fervent defense of the constitutionally protected rights of lawyers to give their clients candid advice and zealously represent them, regardless of the consequences. Though Judge Howell’s remedy was overreaching anti-Trump judicial activism, her underlying premise was correct. If the government can retaliate against lawyers because of the advice they give their clients, or what their clients choose to do after listening to that advice, Americans are not a free people. Yet, the foundational principles Judge Howell vigorously advances apparently do not apply to lawyers who give advice that offends progressive Democrats.
Too often we focus only on lawfare against Trump. But more than 100 Trump family members, supporters, and advisors were also pursued. More than a dozen Trump lawyers have been disbarred, or face disbarment and other financially devastating discipline, for giving legal advice to Trump and his campaign. They don’t have Trump’s financial resources or support network. The Supreme Court is not about to confer immunity on them, and in most instances, the proceedings against them are at the state level, preventing Trump from granting pardons or clemency.
While the press immediately came to the defense of Perkins Coie and other law firms in Trump’s orders, most national media have been silent about, or have actively cheered on, the assaults on John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, Christina Bobb, Jeffrey Clark, and other Trump lawyers.
Targeting Eastman
The hypocrisy has never been more apparent than in the vendetta against John Eastman. He is a revered conservative constitutional scholar who advised Trump and other campaign officials on the possibility that Vice President Mike Pence might have the discretion to reject or delay the counting of contested elector slates, a subject about which there has been almost no judicial review, and a process used by John F. Kennedy when he ran for president in 1960.
Eastman was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and the long-time Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman Law School, where he also was the dean from 2007 to 2010. Chapman forced him out in 2021 for advising Trump. Eastman continues to lead the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, which he founded, and is a Claremont Institute Senior Fellow. He has represented 17 parties before the U.S. Supreme Court and appeared as an amicus curiae in nearly 200 cases. A leading expert on the Constitution, Eastman frequently testifies before congressional committees, appears on network news broadcasts, and writes prolifically for major publications, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, The Economist, and The Atlantic.
After the November 2020 election, Trump retained Eastman to provide advice on potential legal alternatives regarding the president’s concerns about the election process. In a short summary written in December 2020 focusing on one of the options, and in an expanded analysis written in early January 2021, Eastman explored alternatives, including the possibility that the vice president might have some discretion on whether to certify electors. He also spoke at the January 6, 2021, Trump rally that preceded the Capitol riot, and contributed to the constitutional analyses in pleadings Trump state campaigns filed in Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Eastman testified that he wrote both memoranda for internal discussion purposes, sent them only to campaign attorneys Boris Epshteyn and Kenneth Chesebro, and discussed the options with Trump and a larger group. The longer memorandum does not make a specific recommendation, and both memos acknowledge that the law is unclear as to some of the alternatives. The memoranda suggest that if Pence chooses not to certify elector slates, he should do so
without asking for permission—either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where [liberal Harvard Law Professor Laurence] Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position—that these are non-justiciable political questions—thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.
For creating a list of alternatives, assisting local counsel in Pennsylvania and Georgia, and giving a speech that never recommended marching on the Capitol, Eastman has been twice indicted, suspended from the practice of law, recommended for disbarment, and excoriated by the same progressive law school professors and judges who have jumped to the defense of Perkins Coie and other Democratic powerhouse law firms.
Both Perkins Coie and Eastman gave legal advice to presidential candidates on their election, and it is alleged that their advice led to destabilizing the U.S. government. The main difference is that Perkins Coie itself was also responsible for executing a hoax strategy, which constituted acting as a political consultant, not an attorney.
Lawfare for Thee
In October 2021, a political organization led by Democratic activist Norman Eisen, co-counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, filed a 26-page complaint requesting the California bar “investigate serious evidence of professional misconduct by Professor John C. Eastman in connection with his representation of former President Donald J. Trump in efforts to discredit and overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.”
Eisen has made a career out of using the legal system to attack conservatives. His organizations have filed numerous complaints and lawsuits against Trump lawyers, and challenged Trump’s second-term executive orders. Eisen sometimes works with the 65 Project, which The Hill calls a “dark money group.” Before the 2024 election, the 65 Project filed more than 100 lawsuits and state bar complaints against Trump’s campaign lawyers so that it would be too “dangerous” for lawyers to advise Trump. In July 2022, the 65 Project filed a complaint with the Supreme Court seeking to disbar Eastman from practice before the Court.
On March 28, 2022, Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee, determined that it is “more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” He held that Eastman’s advice therefore was not subject to attorney-client privilege under the seldom-used “crime-fraud” exception, which excludes advice given to a client in furtherance of a crime. He opined that the illegality of the plan about which Eastman advised was “obvious.”
In December 2022, the Democratic-controlled House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack recommended that Trump and Eastman be charged with obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States. In August 2023, Eastman was one of the alleged co-conspirators in Jack Smith’s Washington, D.C. criminal indictment of Trump. Writing in The American Mind at the time, I described the case as “a watershed moment in the politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice,” and an attempt to “criminalize the right of lawyers to provide frank legal advice.”
That same month, Trump, Eastman, and 17 other defendants were indicted in Georgia by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for knowingly and willfully conspiring to unlawfully change the outcome of the Georgia election. I then observed that the indictment “invade[s] attorney-client privilege to expose the legal advice Trump received and allege that because the advice was outside of prevailing legal doctrine, the lawyers committed crimes by giving that advice.” The indictment alleges that Eastman gave legal advice on procedures and participated in coordinating statutorily required votes and consents. A trial court judge has since dismissed a portion of Eastman’s indictment.
In April 2024, Eastman and 17 other defendants were indicted in Arizona for fraud, forgery, and conspiracy. The indictment mentions Eastman only once, quoting an email recommending he be consulted for legal advice.
A California Nightmare
In January 2023, the California bar began formal disciplinary proceedings against Eastman for failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States, seeking to mislead a court, and moral turpitude. In March 2024, California State Bar Judge Yvette Roland recommended that Eastman be disbarred and sanctioned $10,000. The bar immediately placed Eastman on “inactive” status, and he appealed.
The case against Eastman is predicated on the findings that by January 2021 it was irrefutable that there was no material fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and that vice presidents have a merely ceremonial role in elector certification. Furthermore, Judge Roland concluded that Eastman’s memoranda of alternatives constituted specific advice to pursue an unlawful process, that the incorporation of related theories and allegations of fraud into the Pennsylvania and Georgia pleadings was dishonest, which Eastman knew.
Judge Roland’s decision came after the California bar abandoned even the pretense of due process.
Though the alleged bad acts occurred outside of California, Eastman was not permitted to subpoena out-of-state witnesses. When some of his witnesses became unavailable because they too were targeted, he was not permitted to call replacements. The permitted dates and subject matter for evidence introduced against Eastman were expansive, but he was not permitted to introduce exculpatory evidence with similar dates and subject matter. When he sought to demonstrate there were a considerable number of well-respected lawyers who shared his perspective on election certification, amicus briefs filed in related litigation by 28 state attorneys general and legislators were excluded.
Moreover, Judge Roland was appointed by elected Democratic politicians and regularly contributes to Democratic causes. According to a filing made by Eastman, even as she was hearing his case, she contributed through the Newsom campaign to a PAC that sought to “save the great American experiment in democracy” from “extremist Republicans” who are “systematically attacking the very foundations of a free society.”
During the investigative phase, Eastman and his witnesses were often badgered with leading questions or prohibited from explaining their answers. According to Eastman’s appeal, Judge Roland refused to consider his testimony that to the extent the memoranda were deemed to be in error (something Eastman rejected), they were for discussion purposes only, not formal advice.
Judge Roland ruled that Eastman was not entitled to the usual inferences or deference accorded other lawyers because he allegedly committed crimes, including violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512, even though the Supreme Court held the statute did not apply in similar circumstances. Despite acknowledging that the bar “cannot discipline an attorney for speech that is protected by the First Amendment,” Judge Roland held that Eastman’s speech and petition activities were not protected. Instead, she applied standards for advertising and obstruction of justice cases.
Whether Eastman’s discussion of fraud in the 2020 election was incorrect in whole or in part, much of his advice was based on the last-minute changes in election law and rules. As ABC News reported in 2020, at least 30 states and the District of Columbia changed their election procedures prior to the 2020 election. Many lawyers believe that at least some of those changes were unlawful. The allegation that Eastman made false statements was based, in part, on pleadings filed in Georgia, though a Georgia trial judge dismissed those charges.
Double Standards All the Way Down
Lawyers are required to have evidence in support of their pleadings—but they are not required to have incontrovertible proof. That is why there is discovery and a trial. Eastman is being held to an impossible standard that does not exist in our system of justice.
Throughout his career, former DOJ special counsel Jack Smith has pursued novel legal theories. As a result, his lower court victories have often been reversed, but he has not been indicted or disbarred. If Eastman had been a Democratic activist, there isn’t the remotest possibility he would have been charged or disbarred for presenting a range of legal theories to his client, with or without recommendations.
A free society is not free if its rules apply only to those with a certain view. The radical Left should not be able to get away with indicting those who have opinions contrary to their own. It is laughable that Judge Roland frequently cited the views of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) for “proof” that Eastman’s views were wrong. CISA is the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that spied on Americans, coerced social media to censor disfavored speech in violation of the First Amendment, and announced that it had the right to control the facts available to Americans.
Explaining that Perkins Coie was entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment protections, Judge Howell observed that (like Eastman), Perkins Coie’s advice involved an election. She held that government officials may not subject individuals to retaliatory actions for engaging in protected speech, nor use threats of legal sanctions or other means of coercion, concluding, “Simply put, government officials cannot…use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
The First Amendment’s rights of free speech and petition are meaningless if they apply to only one political view, or only to lawyers who oppose Trump. “Zealous advocacy” is an empty phrase if lawyers must establish to an absolute certainty that everything they say and write is unmistakably true and that disagreement on the facts or the law, even in the grayest of areas, is out of bounds. Judge Howell’s impassioned defense of Perkins Coie, a law firm that defrauded the American people and destabilized the entirety of Trump’s first term, rings hollow unless it applies to all lawyers, including John Eastman.
If the left did not have double standards they would have no standards at all.
Many of these judges are traitors and must be dealth with accordingly. We are literally at war and 90% of the country does not realize it. We are at war.
Many of these judges are traitors and must be dealt with accordingly. We are literally at war and 90% of the country does not realize it. We are at war.
Bkmk
BTTT
The Judicial Branch has lost much credibility.
A DC Traffic Court judge has issued an injunction against Donald Trump walking in the White House. The Roberts Court has upheld the injunction.
They are worse than sharks smelling blood. So corrupt, no morals, no conscience, everything for the party too keep the status quo and the trough filled for easy pickings. Damn the right or anyone else trying to stop them. Bend the law to their advantage, or ignore the law altogether. It’s to the point I don’t really want to hear anymore, since no rotten thing they do or try will surprise me anymore. It’s bad, really bad. All the asshole far left judges and lawyers have to go. 86 them. But I really don’t know what 86 stands for.
BHO’s operating philosophy. See my tagline.
Chief Justice Roberts, Norm Eisen, and the appearance of impropriety
American Thinker ^ | 5 Apr, 2025 | Andrea Widburg
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/04/chief_justice_roberts_norm_eisen_and_the_appearance_of_impropriety.html
News broke over the last couple of days that one of Chief Justice John Roberts’s good buddies is Norm Eisen, one of the chief instigators of the plot to destroy Donald Trump through Deep State manipulation and lawfare. Under a long-standing federal rule of judicial conduct banning even the “appearance of impropriety,” Justice Roberts’s close relationship with Eisen means he should step down.
The Judicial branch embarrasses itself. Apparently, many of them are sociopaths so they are unable to experience embarrassment.
The Judicial branch is replete with sociopathic LIBs & Lefties.
This will reach the Supreme Court of the United STates, not that I expect them to do anything....they have proven themselves a collective of punters, except for Thomas and Alito.
Roberts HAS TO GO.
Isn’t that kind of like I go talk to my lawyer, I told him I want to get rid of my wife. The lawyers as well, you can divorce her. I say no I want to get rid of her. So my lawyer hired somebody to kill my wife.
Tell me how it’s different from what Perkins Coie did for Hillary?
I find the judges’ ruling completely wrong given those set of facts.
It’s got rid of Roberts I have little confidence after the conehead choice that Trump would make the correct call especially with the RINOs having to agree.
Yep. and it's irrefutable that Biden received 81,000,000 votes while hiding in his basement all during the campaign.
IRREFUTABLE!
IMO-—THIS COUNTRY COULD WORK JUST FINE IF WE ONLY HAD ABOUT 10% of these “JUDGES”
ROBERTS MUST GO!!!
Someone needs to find was is hanging over this guys head, and use it against him too!!! Box him in already!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.