John Eastman sat between his lawyers — a laptop open before him, a pen and pad within easy reach — as the California State Bar put him on trial early Tuesday, June 20, for alleged “dishonesty and moral turpitude.”

Eastman, former dean of Chapman University’s law school and alleged architect of Donald Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, wore a dark suit, occasionally peering over his wire-rimmed glasses at the judge who’ll decide if he loses his law license.

Did Eastman knowingly make false statements about election fraud leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection? Did he intentionally file frivolous lawsuits misstating facts in courts?

As Eastman’s disciplinary trial got under way before California State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, a little after 10 a.m., his attorney, Randall A. Miller, tried to convince Roland to admit the “expert” testimony of people the judge previously said were not experts.

The certified public accountant who had never before examined election data for fraud, but would testify that there were irregularities? Eastman’s attorney argued that it’s numbers in, numbers out, whether it’s financial or election data. The judge did not agree. Without any previous experience or expertise analyzing election data, how would a novice know what was normal and what was not?

The proceedings took a break after a little more than an hour of “housekeeping,” as the judge put it. Eastman is expected to take the stand later today and testify in his own defense.

Eastman has wrapped himself in the First Amendment, saying his opinions are protected as a matter of free speech. And Eastman’s attorney, Miller, repeatedly told the judge that Eastman’s acts and utterances must be viewed through the lens of tenability.

“Were Dr. Eastman’s acts tenable?” Miller said. If any lawyer, “any lawyer,” he stressed, made statements that “have arguable tenability, then the lawyer can’t be disciplined for taking those actions that are well within his obligation to be a zealous advocate, to advance his client’s interest. If they have a basis in fact and would be found tenable, then charges can’t be brought.”

The State Bar does not agree.

“The campaign to overturn the election was multi-faceted and deliberate, and became more desperate as courts, officials, and legislators around the country rejected respondent’s and his client’s efforts to keep Trump in power after he lost the election,” it said in filings.

“This strategy included, among other dishonest and unlawful acts, promoting false conspiracy theories and allegations of fraud, filing frivolous and deliberately untimely litigation that was certain to and did fail, pressuring state officials to violate their duties to certify accurate election results, and urging state legislators in states that Biden had won to declare ‘failed’ elections and appoint Trump electors contrary to those states’ respective election results.

“When these efforts failed, and as it became clear that the Electoral College count would be certified for Biden, (Eastman) and Trump conspired to devise and implement a plan to pressure Vice President Pence to reject, without any legal or factual basis, properly certified slates of electors from states Trump had lost, or to delay the electoral count purportedly to allow state legislatures to investigate already rejected and frivolous claims of fraud and illegality.”

“It is no overstatement that democracy stood on the precipice. Had Vice President Pence followed respondent’s baseless advice…, the country would have plunged into a ‘profound constitutional crisis.’ (Eastman) and Trump’s plan violated our nation’s most fundamental commitments to the rule of law and the orderly transition of power. And it rested upon transparently false claims of election fraud that continue to harm our democracy to this day.”

This is a developing story. It is being regularly updated.

Related Articles