The regime has lost all point of view and decency in its war on its perceived opponents.
Dr. John Eastman is a patriot, a constitutional scholar, a legal representative, a hubby, and a father. He is our pal, coworker, and fellow board member of the Claremont Institute, who has actually spent his life defending the concepts upon which this terrific country was founded. After a 10 week travesty of a trial, a California Bar Court judge, seeking to criminalize disagreements in constitutional interpretation, recommended that John should lose his license to practice law in California.

The term “lawfare” has actually become part of the American vernacular in the past few years. It implies the adjustment and corruption of the legal system to get political advantage and attack and destroy one’s political opponents. The most popular example of lawfare is, obviously, the shocking abuse of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Attorney General’s workplace in the state of New York, and the District Attorney’s workplace in Fulton County Georgia in an effort to destroy the present Republican candidate for the presidency, Donald J. Trump. But the assault on Trump is simply the most extensively publicized example of this wicked practice, which is damaging the guideline of law in America.

People who challenge the present progressive administration, whether at a regional or national level, might face the force of legal action. Of particular interest are those who have questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 electoral process. John Eastman is a noteworthy example of a person who has actually faced analysis for his issues.

The States United Democracy Center, along with other activists, lodged a principles problem to the California State Bar Association versus a group of attorneys challenging the 2020 election results. David Brock, a prominent figure in this effort, expressed that their goal is to not just file problems but also to openly embarassment and taint the credibility of these lawyers, intending to alienate them from their communities and workplaces. Their goal is not simply to look for disbarment however total destruction of the 111 attorneys included.

The Bar Association, which is primarily progressive, is seen the misuse of the legal treatment in court is plainly displayed in the trial transcripts and has been thoroughly described by Rachel Alexander from Arizona Sun Times, which diligently covered the trial every day. The whole trial was a farce, lacking the unbiased judgment of expert conduct that is generally anticipated in such procedures. It seemed a screen of political maneuvering, with a verdict that appeared predetermined from the beginning.

John is expected to appeal and succeed in his case. Nevertheless, his scenario acts as a cautionary tale about the intensifying trend of criminalizing any opposition to progressive beliefs in different areas such as elections, climate, race, gender, the economy, public health, and the Constitution. It is necessary for citizens of all backgrounds to pay attention to this concerning pattern, despite their perspectives on John’s participation with President Trump recently.

We stand by John, applaud his perseverance in withstanding these outrageous and un-American attacks, and hope that his guts is contagious.MY ACCOUNT

An open letter from the children of John Eastman and a call to action
BENJAMIN EASTMAN
CHRISTINA WHEATLAND
MARCH 29, 2024
Assistance United States
In a current episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, host Tucker Carlson highlighted the unfair treatment of Dr. John Eastman by the FBI. Throughout the segment, Carlson revealed video of armed representatives apprehending Eastman and slammed their actions as “disgraceful.” Eastman, an attorney and patriot, is not a danger, but a protector of justice. We must stand together in support of those who courageously fight for our rights.

Tucker made a rare error this time. The most significant danger to the extreme left’s rule of anarcho-tyranny is John Eastman. This system permits violent crooks to wander freely, grants bail to repeat rapists, and sets loose illegal immigrants who participate in criminal habits. However, if a conservative lawyer chooses to use legal suggestions to an existing U.S. president, he will deal with severe consequences, consisting of the damage of his career and credibility by numerous government and “woke” influenced organizations.

Our father is well geared up for this battle, and while some people have actually lent their support to his efforts, too many have remained on the sidelines.

The main objective of the 65 Project is to target and silence critics of the government utilizing legal strategies, such as making legal representatives who support their country undesirable in their own neighborhoods.

For those new to the Eastman legend, this case study in lawfare started in the public eye on January 6, 2021. Months before, President Donald Trump had actually looked for Eastman’s counsel on cases dealing with election illegalities and scams.

Eastman ended up being a widely recognized public figure after his speech at the Ellipse on January 6 and for authoring what became referred to as the “Eastman memos,” internal conceptualizing files in which he laid out many scenarios for factor to consider in efforts to combat the enormous circumstances of illegality that his examinations had actually revealed in the 2020 election.

The “Eastman memos” require 3 clarifications that the tradition media decline to acknowledge. First, Eastman resolved the function of the vice president in the certification of elections. He showed that it is an open question whether the vice president, as president of the Senate, has the authority to resolve disputes over contested electoral votes. Eastman testified under oath that he told President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence that this would not be a prudent action. He proposed that Pence accede to requests from more than 100 state legislators to send the matter back to the state legislatures to assess the allegations of fraud and the impact of illegality on the election.

An argument, not a crime
Second, the assertion that Eastman encouraged unlawful behavior is unfounded. This claim stems from the fact that a delay would contravene the procedural timing provisions of the Electoral Count Act. However, the ECA is not a criminal statute, nor does it establish civil liability. Congress does not consider the law to be binding on its actions. Moreover, the Electoral Count Act disregards the Constitution’s provisions regarding the election of the president by improperly granting Congress a power explicitly assigned to the vice president or state legislatures.

In summary, as stated in a New York Times article from October 2021, Eastman advised Pence to send the electors’ slates back to the states. This action was meant to demonstrate to the public that state legislatures have the ultimate authority in choosing presidential electors, which had been infringed upon by state election officials.

Even the Electoral Count Act, as it existed in 2020, recognized the authority of legislatures to step back into the process for choosing electors after a failed election. In Eastman’s view, that provision offered additional support for his conclusion about state legislative authority. Moreover, the Electoral Count Act recognized a prominent role for the vice president, which in Eastman’s analysis, the Constitution actually requires.

If the Electoral Count Act unambiguously did not allow for the vice president’s involvement, as some have contended, why did Congress quietly modify the law in an omnibus bill to clarify that the vice president’s role in the certification of elections was merely ministerial– a high-priced letter opener?