The California State Bar is arguing that recent criminal charges against John Eastman in Fulton County, Georgia should not prevent disbarment proceedings against the former Trump lawyer from restarting next week.
I hate to say it, but I find the Bar’s argument unconvincing (if I understand it right). A witness may invoke 5A for some questions and not others with no inconsistency – as Eastman already has done, without objection from the Bar – so it’s patently absurd to suppose that agreeing to answer one question waives the right to invoke 5A to other potential questions.
I thought their argument the other day was better.
meow
Eastman still believes in his theory, which is why he is still trying to sell it every time he gets in front of a camera. It looks like the only way he will finally realize he was wrong is to be disbarred.
But being a Trumper, the disbarment might not be enough to get it through his head that he was wrong and still is wrong. He could get by for a long time on the right wing grifter circuit, next to Kobach.
Seems to me, Eastman’s arguments are flying up his own ass. That he is being charged with crimes in GA only underscore his unfitness to serve as an officer of the court.
Is that the smell of bacon frying, or has Eastman jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire?
Damn. no matter how I try to pun or provide vivid imagery, the image of Eastman getting fried in court is just . . . . wonderful.
His dilemma is YUGE. To take the 5th, or not. and if he takes it, will he drink it on the rocks?
Mr. Eastman, a hint. Next time Trump tries to criminally conspire with you, just say no.
“Your Honor, just because I tried to overturn an election, there’s no reason I shouldn’t still be an officer of the court”.
What I have a hard time following all these Eastman disbarment write-ups, is Eastman saying he will need to lead the 5th in his disbarment hearing, or in court for his trial in GA (and/or potential the Smith J6 trial)…?
I think the argument is that he’s planning to take the 5th about exactly the same stuff that he’s spouting in his interviews?
But as long as he’s suspended in the interim, I think a delay might be OK.
So, lemme see, Will John Eastman ultimately have to go looking for one of those jobs long term manual workers will have to seek when the retirement age for SSI is raised again, or the program is terminated, as he doubtless advocates?
Some of the other conspirators were government or Republican party officials. It could be argued that some of them just stumbled down the path to criminal behavior. Eastman is a pure volunteer. I have no sympathy at all for Eastman. Had Trump been a16th century pretender, I would have had no hesitation having Eastman drawn and quartered.
He thinks he may have to 5th out in his Bar hearing, because he does not want to incriminate himself regarding anything related to his impending indictment (at least he’s right about something).
Disbar him up!
If he was a really smart lawyer then he would never be in this legal cluster. But somewhere along the line, he decided that he was not just a really smart lawyer but a fucking genius of a lawyer.
Fucker should never have been thinking.
Is there a legal term to describe a defendant as someone who wants his cake and eat it too?
oooooh, this is delicious…
It’s not a buffet style thing. You can’t assert it about a topic and then selectively answer questions about it later without risking a ruling that you’ve waived it as to that subject matter entirely. Going at it from the other direction, where he knew he was under criminal investigation, knew that things he was testifying about could later be used against him in crimes he knew he committed, and yet he chose to testify to that subject matter, never asserting The Fif in the first place, he has quite possibly pre-emptively waived The Fif as to that subject matter as well.
He was pretty proud of himself and his plan to end American democracy. I don’t recall seeing a case where a defendant can assert his 5th Amendment rights after he has already waived them. The California state bar probably knows what it is talking about.
If I waive the fifth while denying I took part in a particular bank robbery, I can surely invoke it when questioned about my possession of a controlled substance on a different date. But are you sure I can invoke it on the next questions about the aforesaid robbery?
24 years out of practice, and this never came up in my cases, but you’d think a [former] criminal appeals lawyer would have this down cold. Oh well.
Yes, I gathered that the argument was twofold - he’s already answering questions to us, possibly for the same activity (though that last part’s not clear) and secondly, he’s giving talks and interviews in public on the very same topics we’re asking about.
I don’t know enough legally to judge either way, but on the surface the bar argument sounded reasonable.
A Trump?