Legal analyst Jennifer Rubin expressed her concern about the recent ruling by a California state bar court regarding John Eastman, Donald Trump’s former attorney. In an opinion column on Sunday, Rubin emphasized that Trump should be worried about the implications of this decision. The court recommended that Eastman be stripped of his law license, giving Trump plenty of reasons to be concerned.
Judge Yvette Roland issued the ruling after the California State Bar filed a complaint against Eastman in 2023. In her conclusion, Roland found Eastman guilty on 10 out of the 11 counts related to his alleged actions in attempting to overturn Trump’s 2020 presidential election defeat. As a result of his “misconduct,” Eastman has been ordered to be disbarred.
Roland’s recommendation is currently being reviewed by the California Supreme Court for a final ruling. Eastman, a strong supporter of Trump, has criticized the judge’s recommendation and is determined to appeal it.
In a recent opinion column published in The Washington Post, Rubin highlights the compelling factual findings and rigorous legal analysis presented in Roland’s extensive 128-page ruling.
In her analysis of legal matters, Roland highlights that attorneys possess the First Amendment right to express their views in public as part of their professional obligations. However, she emphasizes that this right does not extend to making deliberate or careless false statements regarding facts or laws. Additionally, Roland asserts that the First Amendment does not provide protection for speech that is used as a means to carry out criminal activities. Rubin, who is also a contributor on MSNBC, concurs with Roland’s viewpoint.
According to Rubin, Eastman’s First Amendment defense did not provide protection, which raises concerns about Trump’s defenses. She mentioned that Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s First Amendment defense in Jack Smith’s federal election case, and Judge Scott McAfee also expressed skepticism towards Trump’s legal team’s First Amendment defenses in the Georgia election interference case. Despite these challenges, the former president continues to assert his innocence in these matters.
According to Rubin in her column, Roland’s decision does not bode well for Eastman in his criminal case in Georgia. This decision raises concerns for Trump as well, as he is likely to face similar evidence and defenses in both D.C. and Georgia. It appears that their excuses are not convincing anyone.
Eastman, on the other hand, maintains his innocence regarding the charges brought against him in the Georgia election interference case.
Newsweek contacted Trump’s office via email on Sunday afternoon to seek comment. This article will be revised to include any statements received.
Rubin also referred to a section of Roland’s ruling, describing it as highly critical of the former president.
The evidence leaves no doubt that there was a clear and convincing agreement between Eastman and President Trump to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress. Their intention was to unlawfully manipulate Vice President Pence into rejecting or delaying the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021. After carefully examining all the facts, the court finds substantial circumstantial evidence that points towards a collaborative effort between Eastman and President Trump to hinder the counting of electoral votes on that fateful day, as clearly outlined in Eastman’s memos.
Eastman has not been charged, but he is an unnamed co-conspirator in Smith’s election interference case.
In the midst of numerous legal battles targeting key individuals involved in Donald Trump’s alleged attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, Roland’s Eastman ruling stands out. The former president, who is also the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024, has persistently claimed that the election was rigged through widespread voter fraud. However, these claims have been consistently dismissed by both the courts and independent election observers.
In her opinion column, Rubin highlighted other Trump lawyers who have also encountered disciplinary action, such as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis.
Officials from the Washington D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility have made a case for the potential removal of former Trump lawyer Jeffrey Clark’s legal license. They argue that his alleged involvement in assisting Trump in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results warrants such action.
