John Eastman is a distinguished constitutional expert who had the temerity to advise Donald Trump on legal theories by which suspect electoral results in the 2020 election could be challenged.
The objective of the persecutors is not just to get Eastman, but to send a message to everyone in the legal world that if people publicly challenge the dominant narrative, they too will be broken on the wheel of financial ruin.
The action against Eastman is part of a comprehensive program of filing ethics complaints against attorneys who question the 2020 election results.
Several of the Project 65 complaints are against state attorneys general who filed amicus briefs in Texas v. Pennsylvania, which challenged the 2020 results on the basis of a number of irregularities in key states.
For the legal establishment to assert that anyone who raised questions during this time was acting unethically strikes me as itself unethical, because these complaints seem to be the epitome of actions designed to harass and increase costs.
The final question is, what is the state of mind of these complainants? Are they so wrapped in their own propaganda that they think that they are the good guys? Did they not read between the lines of the Time article on the election? Are they incapable of understanding the testimony of a retired Wisconsin Supreme Court judge in support of Eastman? Do they think the cause of getting Trump is so righteous that it trumps any obligation to the Rule of Law? What does it say about the state of the legal profession that this narrative has become dominant?
My hope is that what we are seeing is a layer of well funded progressive activists determined to stampede the legal profession, in the equivalent of a political coup, and that we will see a reaction and a reassertion of real rather than faux legal ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment