Eastman Blames Trump Haters, Activists for California Bar Trial

John Eastman, defending his California law license against charges he breached the US Constitution and mandates of attorney conduct, argues his representation of former President Donald Trump and outrage by activist lawyers led to what he on Friday called an unprecedented trial.

After 33 days of trial, including four extensions of time, Eastman was the last witness in the California State Bar Court trial on charges he violated ethical and legal obligations for allegedly conspiring with Trump to disrupt the electoral count on Jan. 6. Among the claims is that Eastman pressured Vice President Mike Pence to violate the law and override every branch of government, both state and federal, by throwing out electoral votes.

Judge Yvette Roland late Thursday preliminarily found Eastman culpable of charges he made false and misleading statements to the public and to the courts that fraud occurred in the election, including claims dead people voted and voting machines were used to fraudulently alter results. That ruling allowed the bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel to present evidence on aggravation. The bar is seeking to lift Eastman’s law license.

“Do you believe that the filing of the charges in this case is more deserving of professional discipline than your conduct related to the 2020 election?” asked Duncan Carling, the bar’s lead prosecutor for the case, citing a fundraising email Eastman sent.

“Yes, it is, because in my view, none of the conduct I had related to the 2020 election violated any ethical standards of the California Bar,” Eastman said.

“Activist” lawyers with States United Democracy Center and the 65 Project filed complaints with the bar, Eastman said.

“But for my affiliation with former President Trump, we wouldn’t be here,” he said. “I don’t think in the history of the California Bar we’ve never had anything like this, certainly not the kind of disputes over election challenges that we’ve seen previously. So the thing that makes this stand out is that I’m representing President Trump.”

Eastman asserted his First Amendment right to speak out as a private citizen and not as counsel to Trump in remarks to the rally ahead of the Jan. 6 raid on the US Capitol.

The onetime dean of Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law contends that illegally counted ballots and unauthorized actions by local election officers invalidated the election. He also argues the vice president has the authority to delay counting electoral ballots as president of the Senate to allow states to resolve any disputes.

“I believe I had a good faith belief for every action I took, for every statement I made, for every brief I filed,” including “in the accuracy of my statements, my allegations that illegality occurred in the conduct of the election, my allegations that in numerous instances that opened the door for fraud,” and there was historical record for views on vice presidential authority, he said.

If he loses, Eastman said his team will have the grounds to ask the US Supreme Court weigh in.

He also is fighting a criminal indictment in Georgia where he, Trump, and 18 others were charged with racketeering for their efforts to overturn election results. Eastman has pleaded not guilty. Three other attorneys have already pleaded guilty.

Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are the states where the Trump campaign challenged voting procedures as illegal. All of the challenges failed.

Election Harm

On Friday, election professionals who were witnesses earlier in the trial returned to offer testimony about the harassment workers and officials experienced around the unfounded claims of misconduct and fraud.

Bo Dul, who was Arizona state elections director and is now general counsel for Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), returned to testify for the bar about the fallout from the claims, including “multiple periods of time” when the phone lines in the Secretary of State’s elections office had to be turned off “because we were inundated with angry and threatening callers.”

“There were multiple days where we had to instruct staff to work remotely and not come into the office because of the concerns that we had for their safety,” Dul testified remotely. “My home address and personal phone number” were posted on the internet, she had to install security cameras at her home, police patrols were increased in her neighborhood, and she was instructed not to park in the above-ground parking lot at work, Dul said.

Arizona had a five-month, Republican-led, legislature-ordered audit by Cyber Ninjas, a company with no experience in election security, after Maricopa County completed legally required vote checks and contracted two independent reviews that showed no irregularities in the 2020 election. The Cyber Ninjas’ recount also confirmed Joe Biden won the election.

Significant turnover in election offices across the state and Secretary of State’s office resulted “due to just the really toxic environment that surrounds elections now and the increased pressure and stress on election workers,” she said.

Jonathan Marks, Pennsylvania deputy Secretary for Elections and Commissions, testified the office had to install readers on doors and “separated public-facing services from election services because of the various threats to our election staff.”

“That’s probably the most disappointing thing to me. We’ve had to take so many additional security measures just to secure that our staff is safe as they’re trying to do their job,” Marks said.

Neither Dul nor Marks said they had information Eastman encouraged people to contact their offices or that they held him personally responsible for the comments and threats received.

The parties return Nov. 8 to continue working through some 800 exhibits. The case will be submitted after post-trial briefs are filed. The judge has 90 days to issue an opinion. Eastman could appeal Roland’s ruling to the State Bar Court’s hearing department, the appellate section. The California Supreme Court, which oversees lawyer discipline and admission, will decide whether to disbar, suspend, or give some other form of discipline to Eastman.

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel represents the bar. Miller Law Associates APC represents Eastman.

The case is In Re Eastman, Cal. State Bar, No. SBC-23-O-30029, 11/3/23.