The disbarment trial of former President Donald Trump’s previous attorney and constitutional legal scholar, John Eastman, wrapped up on Friday, the 33rd day. California Bar Disciplinary Judge Yvette Roland found him “culpable” on Thursday and gave his attorneys and the State Bar of California until November 22 to submit written closing statements.
The parties presented aggravating and mitigating testimony on Thursday and Friday, which Roland will use to consider whether to fully disbar Eastman.
Ryan Williams, president of the Claremont Institute, where Eastman is founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and a senior fellow, told The Arizona Sun Times, “All concerned citizens, lawmakers, jurists, and activists should regard this unprecedented disbarment trial with extreme alarm. We are quickly drawing down and perverting the sources of civilization and constitutional health. If we continue down this road, it will end very badly.”
Alex Haberbush of the Lex Rex Institute, one of Eastman’s attorneys, told The Sun Times, “It’s perplexing to attribute every complaint about the 2020 election to John Eastman, especially when similar claims were widespread among literally millions of others. The argument seems to be that, had Dr. Eastman not spotlighted the documented legal and procedural anomalies, citizens would not have raised issues with their elections officials — something OCTC seems to find objectionable. This belies a troubling aversion to the very accountability that a healthy republic requires of our public officials. Moreover, the implications of this proceeding extend beyond Eastman, posing a latent threat to citizens’ fundamental right to petition their government for redress of grievances.”
The California Bar’s attorney, Duncan Carling, put his witness, Justin Grimmer, back on the stand to continue aggravating testimony. He asked Grimmer to refute Eastman’s statement about extra votes being inserted into Georgia’s 2021 senate runoff election. Eastman said earlier in the trial, “Additional ballots kept being reported, but the 95 percent number didn’t change. The only way that happens is if you’re increasing the denominator at the same time or same rate as you’re increasing the numerator.”
