“you should pay attention to the disbarment proceedings that lawyer John Eastman is facing in California. Eastman, who manufactured the bogus theory behind Trump’s effort to overturn his 2020 election loss, could lose his law license — making him the first elite insurrectionist to pay a serious professional price for the coup attempt“
Trump accomplice is facing disbarment for his role in 2020 election legal opinion
Posts
Total:
104
Woo! "Wapo fanchick" can't resist endlessly citing his only source for news. Into the bin it goes. Can't subsidize junk journos.
Yet another paid hit piece glorifying the censorship of political opposition because democracy is dead in the USA.
We pay enough in taxes to hear the standard political lies, no need to subsidize more lies.
Follow the money $$$ follow the lies.
So if you are Trump's friend, you lose a law license. But if you justify endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then nothing happens. Sounds like there are some double, triple standards, where committing war crimes goes unpunished.
This is debate site. Not news organization. Give opinion for somebody to debate
-->
@ponikshiy
IwRa is giving an opinion for somebody to debate. he is saying, do you think Trump is a crook?
-->
@FLRW
Her post is about an indictment. I will say she did make a silly claim at the end that lawyer stormed the capital but mostly this is not open for debate. It is perhaps a small fact that could be included to defend a certain position in a debate, but she is essentially being stupid and just stating a random fact. It is the equivalent to starting a thread saying water us wet. I think she is proof women should stay out of politics.
-->
@FLRW
Article isn't even about Trump, G-man.
It's a justification for the persecution of a lawyer on the wrong political side of "dangerous speech"
Did you not read the article? Or did you assume everything Wapo writes is about Trump?
Perhaps both are true at the same time.
Woo! "Wapo fanchick"
What is “Woo”? You mean whoa? Can’t you do anything right?
You said I only cite MSNBC. Now you say the Washington Post. Which is it dummy?
Yet another paid hit piece glorifying the censorship of political opposition
You can say anything you want politically. What you can’t do is bring politics to a court of law. That’s why this guy is going to lose his law license.
Free speech doesn’t apply to court proceedings. In court you are required to tell the truth. That is a nightmare for Republicans.
You are such a dummy to not understand this and to think someone can go to court to express politics.
“three Marshall Project journalists have together contributed hundreds of dollars to interests opposing Republicans.“
Oh boy, HUNDREDS of dollars. Those journalists are really trying to buy influence!
-->
@Best.Korea
So if you are Trump's friend, you lose a law license.
No, if you file ridiculously flawed legal opinions you lose your law license. That’s how the review process works
Ridiculously flawed legal opinions such as supporting Trump instead of supporting US criminal war machine.
-->
@Best.Korea
This is why California is becoming banana republic 3rd world. Censorship trials like these are designed to scare lawyers from defending any person on trial for a crime because representing their client would make them an accomplice. Pure fantasy legal system where nobody accused can have a lawyer willing to fight for them.
-->
@Best.Korea
Ridiculously flawed legal opinions such as supporting Trump
No, he didn’t file a legal opinion to “support Trump”. He filed an opinion to say it is legal for the Vice President of the United States to reject to electoral college votes submitted by the states. That is a fundamentally flawed legal opinion.
-->
@Best.Korea
Ridiculously flawed legal opinions such as supporting Trump instead of supporting US criminal war machine.
It's not a crime to support trump. But lawyers are required to follow certain professional standards. Eastman told his client(s) a bunch of things that were lies and that if they followed his advice (trump did, he also lied to pence but he refused to follow the flawed advice) then they would be committing crimes. Therefore, there is a good chance he will be disbarred for advising his clients to break the law.
Basically, the scheme he pushed to try to overturn the election (for which trump is likely to be criminally charged soon), was illegal.
This is why California is becoming banana republic 3rd world.
We are a very wealthy Banana Republic then that pays all the taxes to support the loser red states that have no money so guys like you can eek out a living working for the school district
Fundamentally flawed legal opinion would be to think you should have a war criminal living comfortably in your country, such as Bush. Remind me again, why didnt Bush face charges for war crimes and lying about the weapons of mass destruction?
Hey, maybe Canada has weapons of mass destruction. Maybe invade Canada next.
If only presidents were required to follow certain professional standards, maybe US would have less criminals as presidents.
-->
@Best.Korea
Fundamentally flawed legal opinion would be to think you should have a war criminal living comfortably in your country, such as Bush. Remind me again, why didnt Bush face charges for war crimes and lying about the weapons of mass destruction?
I have no problem with him being charged. But pre-trump, everyone assumed that presidents would act and should be treated with some level of professionalism. Bush was a monster who killed alot of people. But he at least took his job seriously. So other politicians are hesitant to try to punish him for what he thought was the right way to be president.
Trump's crimes had nothing to do with being president. He just wanted to commit crimes and he believed that being president would shield him from all consequences for it. His supporters agree that he should be allowed to commit whatever crimes he wants because other people might also have done bad things.
If only presidents were required to follow certain professional standards, maybe US would have less criminals as presidents.
if presidents had to follow standards, trump would never have made it through the front door.
-->
@Best.Korea
So to wrap this up, you now concede that John Eastman is facing disbarment for legal malpractice and not for supporting Trump, correct?
Bush was a monster who killed alot of people. But he at least took his job seriously.
Wait, what?
I concede that all of your presidents are war criminals.
That is a fundamentally flawed legal opinion.
That's for the SCOTUS to determine, not a licensure board. Banana republic justice.
-->
@Best.Korea
I concede that all of your presidents are war criminals
lol
-->
@Best.Korea
A dark money group called the 65 Project, reportedly connected to the Democratic Party, is planning to disbar and discredit over 100 lawyers who worked on former President Trump's post-election lawsuits. The group has already filed 10 ethics complaints and intends to air advertisements in several states. The 65 Project aims to target attorneys involved in challenging or reversing the 2020 election results. The group alleges that these lawyers knowingly participated in an effort to discredit the election and future elections. Former politicians and legal experts, including Tom Daschle and Paul Rosenzweig, are advisory board members. The group intends to spend millions on this campaign. There has been no widespread evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election. The false narrative of possible election fraud is expected to impact the 2024 midterms, as several GOP-led states have since revised their voting laws to counter possible voter fraud. The group aims to bring grievances in bar complaints, shame the lawyers, and make them socially and professionally undesirable. Attorneys targeted by the group, such as Paul Davis, dismiss the effort as a desperate political attack attempt by left-leaning DC power brokers.
Looks like Trump's real legacy is destroying every foundation of America with the help of his power hungry Democrat allies.
-->
@Best.Korea
Bush was a monster who killed alot of people. But he at least took his job seriously.Wait, what?
Bush was a war mongering asshole. But he believed his actions, as despicable as they were, were for the betterment of america. He wanted to steal some oil. Evil, but at least a tangible goal that could benefit america.
Trump has no such goals. He commits crimes however, and whenever it benefits him to do so.
I concede that all of your presidents are war criminals.
Bush certainly is. Others are debatable. But that really has nothing to do with the topic. A trump accomplice is being disbarred for advising his client to commit crimes.
He wanted to steal some oil. Evil, but at least a tangible goal that could benefit america.
I am glad that you think that evil benefits America. For a second, I thought you guys were honest people who would never justify evil. Glad you proved me wrong.
So lawyer was also justified because he thought his evil would benefit him.
-->
@Best.Korea
am glad that you think that evil benefits America.
Evil can benefit anyone. If I rob a bank, that is evil. If I don't get caught, i benefit from that evil. If I then die, my family would inherit the money and benefit, even though they have done nothing wrong.
For a second, I thought you guys were honest people who would never justify evil.
I didn't justify evil. I very clearly said it was evil.
So lawyer was also justified because he thought his evil would benefit him.
of course not. I'm not saying Bush was justified. He should be charged for his crimes. But at least he took actions he thought were best for his country. Trump's actions were only to benefit himself.
Best action for a country is to steal from other countries. So I assume you think Putin is justified too, and Hitler. Now naturally, if you were consequentialist, you would know that accepting stolen things is wrong even if you didnt steal them yourself.
But who wants to be a consequentialist these days.
Much easier to 1. Elect a war criminal, 2. Have him steal from others and give it to us, 3. Accept the stolen goods while denying personal responsibility, 4. Repeat.
Also, there is no need to sentence a war criminal, since he helped USA by stealing from other countries and bombing them.
Evil was beneficial for Americans. So Americans like and tolerate evil when it benefits them.
This is who spreads democracy around the world?
-->
@Best.Korea
Best action for a country is to steal from other countries
i didn't say anything like that. You are just making things up now.
So I assume you think Putin is justified too, and Hitler.
absolutely not.
Also, there is no need to sentence a war criminal, since he helped USA by stealing from other countries and bombing them.
this is some pretty desperate deflection. We are discussing someone who broke the ethical guidelines of his profession being punished by the body that regulates that profession. I have no idea why you are bringing this nonsense up. Even if we did entertain this deflection, it would be meaningless. Bush did bad things and wasn't punished so we should never punish criminals? That's just dumb.