Eastman Defends Urging Mike Pence to Delay Election Vote Count

Trump campaign lawyer John Eastman on Monday pushed back against California State Bar arguments he lacked evidence to support claims to Vice President Mike Pence that more than 100 lawmakers wanted to delay the 2020 president vote count.

The former Chapman University law school dean is defending his law license against California bar charges of violating moral turpitude, ethics rules, and state law regulating lawyer conduct related to memos he wrote for the campaign, strategizing how to secure a second term for then-President Donald Trump after he’d lost the 2020 presidential election, and for remarks made ahead of the Jan. 6 raid on the US Capitol.

The California State Bar Court trial, which has proceeded in fits and starts since June is in the final week. It’s scheduled Nov. 3 conclusion comes roughly a week after three of Eastman’s codefendants in a Georgia racketeering case also arising in the wake of the 2020—attorneys all—agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with the prosecution.

Eastman, Trump, and 17 others were indicted by Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis. The professor and the ex-president have each pleaded not guilty.

Duncan Carling, lead prosecutor for the State Bar, questioned the law professor about just how many state lawmakers, in signed letters sent to Pence, sought to delay the electoral vote count to allow further examination of their states’ results.

In fact, Carling said during cross examination, instead of a majority, the actual percentages of lawmakers seeking a pause included 28% Arizona, 17% in Pennsylvania, 15% in Michigan, 11% in Wisconsin, 6% in Georgia, and none in either Nevada or New Mexico.

“I don’t think any of these letters reflect a majority, if that’s what you’re after,” Eastman responded. “But I do think it was significant that state legislators were stepping up and saying, ‘Our elections should not be certified. Please give us time.’”

Eastman earlier testified that he’d urged Pence to delay counting the electoral votes so states could determine whether the electoral college slates accurately reflected who won the election.

Firm Warning

State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland over the course of the Los Angeles trial has criticized and rejected lines of questioning from Eastman’s counsel Randall Miller as leading or irrelevant.

“I want the parties to appreciate that when I said that I intend for this trial to end Friday, Nov. 3, I meant it. And if that means that we get to a point where the parties have 10 minutes left per side for your oral closing arguments, then that’s how much time you’ll have.

“You can continue to ask questions that are not relevant or continue to seek testimony that is not relevant, but that time is coming off the end,” Roland warned Miller during Monday morning’s proceedings.

Roland rejected various documents Eastman attempted to introduce as evidence, including Twitter posts from unidentified individuals’ accounts and third-parties’ letters amounting to what the judge said was “double hearsay.”

‘No Such Intent’

The state bar alleges Eastman violated ethical and legal obligations for attorneys, including statements made at the rally that there was fraud in the presidential election and “that dead people voted.”

Eastman on Oct. 23testified he “absolutely had no such intent” to incite attendees at the rally on the Ellipse and that his intent “was to get to the truth of the validity of the election.” The conservative lawyer maintains election irregularities cost Trump the White House.

Roland on Monday denied a defense request to call as a rebuttal witness Patrick Colbeck, a Republican ex-Michigan state senator and former gubernatorial candidate

The testimony Colbeck intended to offer should have been brought during the case in chief, Roland said.

“At the outset of this case, Respondent has maintained that there were voter irregularities, electoral administration mismanagement, and violations of election laws in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the 2020 election. But, rather than offer all of his witness testimony in the case-in-chief regarding these topics, Respondent seeks to offer much of this evidence in rebuttal,” the judge said.

Miller completed direct examination of Eastman earlier Monday. The trial after Monday takes a two-day break.

Closing arguments are scheduled for Nov. 3. The parties then have until Nov. 22 to submit post-trial briefing, at which time the case will be considered submitted.

The judge has 90 days to issue an opinion. Eastman could appeal Roland’s ruling to the State Bar Court’s hearing department, which acts as an appellate panel. The California Supreme Court, which oversees attorney discipline and admission, will make the final call on whether Eastman is disbarred, as the bar recommends, suspended, or some other form of discipline is ordered.

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

The case is In Re Eastman, Cal. State Bar, Cal. State Bar, No. SBC-23-O-30029, trial 10/30/23.