Page 218 of 294

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:53 am
by Farfromgeneva
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:13 am https://apnews.com/article/riots-capito ... dfd318ea2f

“The Marine Corps said in a statement that “there is no place for racial hatred or extremism” in its ranks.

“Those who can’t value the contributions of others, regardless of background, are destructive to our culture, our warfighting ability, and have no place in our ranks,” it said.”

Old Soldier disagrees….
Just a matter of making America great again, like some view this as an educational documentary. Thinking of a few including one who would tie MyPillow being dropped from BBY and their decline (as if they weren’t hanging onto IG status for more than a decade by a thread).


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U6eLGEJiqn8

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:04 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
Farfromgeneva wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:53 am
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:13 am https://apnews.com/article/riots-capito ... dfd318ea2f

“The Marine Corps said in a statement that “there is no place for racial hatred or extremism” in its ranks.

“Those who can’t value the contributions of others, regardless of background, are destructive to our culture, our warfighting ability, and have no place in our ranks,” it said.”

Old Soldier disagrees….
Just a matter of making America great again, like some view this as an educational documentary. Thinking of a few including one who would tie MyPillow being dropped from BBY and their decline (as if they weren’t hanging onto IG status for more than a decade by a thread).


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U6eLGEJiqn8
Updated version

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmmAEYzt ... JhMjlhZTc=

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:57 pm
by old salt
That's not the way the military justice system works. You zealots want to make exceptions for your biased political cases.
The military will deal with them, in due course, after their cases have been adjudicated in Federal court.
That's the way the system works.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:40 pm
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:57 pm That's not the way the military justice system works. You zealots want to make exceptions for your biased political cases.
The military will deal with them, in due course, after their cases have been adjudicated in Federal court.
That's the way the system works.
Under the doctrine of dual sovereigns, you can be tried for the same offense in both civil and military courts: https://www.findlaw.com/military/crimin ... -know.html

However, not federal civil/criminal court and military court, except in specific instances.
https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/2021/09/w ... urt-cases/

Are these federal charges these guys face?

At a minimum, these guys should be facing special court martial, but I think general court martial would apply too...but don't need that to boot them from military.

And it doesn't matter what the outcome of a civilian trial is, court martial can still apply.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:03 pm
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:40 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:57 pm That's not the way the military justice system works. You zealots want to make exceptions for your biased political cases.
The military will deal with them, in due course, after their cases have been adjudicated in Federal court.
That's the way the system works.
Under the doctrine of dual sovereigns, you can be tried for the same offense in both civil and military courts: https://www.findlaw.com/military/crimin ... -know.html

However, not federal civil/criminal court and military court, except in specific instances.
https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/2021/09/w ... urt-cases/

Are these federal charges these guys face?

At a minimum, these guys should be facing special court martial, but I think general court martial would apply too...but don't need that to boot them from military.

And it doesn't matter what the outcome of a civilian trial is, court martial can still apply.
Big fan of double jeopardy.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:19 am
by Farfromgeneva
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:04 pm
Farfromgeneva wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:53 am
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:13 am https://apnews.com/article/riots-capito ... dfd318ea2f

“The Marine Corps said in a statement that “there is no place for racial hatred or extremism” in its ranks.

“Those who can’t value the contributions of others, regardless of background, are destructive to our culture, our warfighting ability, and have no place in our ranks,” it said.”

Old Soldier disagrees….
Just a matter of making America great again, like some view this as an educational documentary. Thinking of a few including one who would tie MyPillow being dropped from BBY and their decline (as if they weren’t hanging onto IG status for more than a decade by a thread).


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U6eLGEJiqn8
Updated version

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmmAEYzt ... JhMjlhZTc=
Had never seen this before.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:20 am
by Farfromgeneva
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:40 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:57 pm That's not the way the military justice system works. You zealots want to make exceptions for your biased political cases.
The military will deal with them, in due course, after their cases have been adjudicated in Federal court.
That's the way the system works.
Under the doctrine of dual sovereigns, you can be tried for the same offense in both civil and military courts: https://www.findlaw.com/military/crimin ... -know.html

However, not federal civil/criminal court and military court, except in specific instances.
https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/2021/09/w ... urt-cases/

Are these federal charges these guys face?

At a minimum, these guys should be facing special court martial, but I think general court martial would apply too...but don't need that to boot them from military.

And it doesn't matter what the outcome of a civilian trial is, court martial can still apply.
Big fan of double jeopardy.
Mixing and matching again as convenient

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:12 am
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:40 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:57 pm That's not the way the military justice system works. You zealots want to make exceptions for your biased political cases.
The military will deal with them, in due course, after their cases have been adjudicated in Federal court.
That's the way the system works.
Under the doctrine of dual sovereigns, you can be tried for the same offense in both civil and military courts: https://www.findlaw.com/military/crimin ... -know.html

However, not federal civil/criminal court and military court, except in specific instances.
https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/2021/09/w ... urt-cases/

Are these federal charges these guys face?

At a minimum, these guys should be facing special court martial, but I think general court martial would apply too...but don't need that to boot them from military.

And it doesn't matter what the outcome of a civilian trial is, court martial can still apply.
Big fan of double jeopardy.
How about 'rule of law'?

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:05 pm
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:12 am
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:40 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:57 pm That's not the way the military justice system works. You zealots want to make exceptions for your biased political cases.
The military will deal with them, in due course, after their cases have been adjudicated in Federal court.
That's the way the system works.
Under the doctrine of dual sovereigns, you can be tried for the same offense in both civil and military courts: https://www.findlaw.com/military/crimin ... -know.html

However, not federal civil/criminal court and military court, except in specific instances.
https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/2021/09/w ... urt-cases/

Are these federal charges these guys face?

At a minimum, these guys should be facing special court martial, but I think general court martial would apply too...but don't need that to boot them from military.

And it doesn't matter what the outcome of a civilian trial is, court martial can still apply.
Big fan of double jeopardy.
How about 'rule of law'?
You don't trust the DoJ to prosecute ?

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:07 pm
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:05 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:12 am
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:40 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:57 pm That's not the way the military justice system works. You zealots want to make exceptions for your biased political cases.
The military will deal with them, in due course, after their cases have been adjudicated in Federal court.
That's the way the system works.
Under the doctrine of dual sovereigns, you can be tried for the same offense in both civil and military courts: https://www.findlaw.com/military/crimin ... -know.html

However, not federal civil/criminal court and military court, except in specific instances.
https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/2021/09/w ... urt-cases/

Are these federal charges these guys face?

At a minimum, these guys should be facing special court martial, but I think general court martial would apply too...but don't need that to boot them from military.

And it doesn't matter what the outcome of a civilian trial is, court martial can still apply.
Big fan of double jeopardy.
How about 'rule of law'?
You don't trust the DoJ to prosecute ?
I trust the DOJ to successfully prosecute and win convictions, but they don't have the power to prosecute under the UCMJ.

I also trust the military prosecutors to successfully prosecute these guys, assuming they don't plea out.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:59 pm
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:07 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:05 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:12 am
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:40 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:57 pm That's not the way the military justice system works. You zealots want to make exceptions for your biased political cases.
The military will deal with them, in due course, after their cases have been adjudicated in Federal court.
That's the way the system works.
Under the doctrine of dual sovereigns, you can be tried for the same offense in both civil and military courts: https://www.findlaw.com/military/crimin ... -know.html

However, not federal civil/criminal court and military court, except in specific instances.
https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/2021/09/w ... urt-cases/

Are these federal charges these guys face?

At a minimum, these guys should be facing special court martial, but I think general court martial would apply too...but don't need that to boot them from military.

And it doesn't matter what the outcome of a civilian trial is, court martial can still apply.
Big fan of double jeopardy.
How about 'rule of law'?
You don't trust the DoJ to prosecute ?
I trust the DOJ to successfully prosecute and win convictions, but they don't have the power to prosecute under the UCMJ.

I also trust the military prosecutors to successfully prosecute these guys, assuming they don't plea out.
What crimes would they be tried for under the UCMJ that they are not being prosecuted for under US law ?

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:22 pm
by smoova
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:59 pmWhat crimes would they be tried for under the UCMJ that they are not being prosecuted for under US law ?
Article 134

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:52 pm
by MDlaxfan76
smoova wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:22 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:59 pmWhat crimes would they be tried for under the UCMJ that they are not being prosecuted for under US law ?
Article 134
Exactly;
note, Salty, DOJ doesn't have the power to give them a dishonorable discharge, with all the ramifications of such.

These guys violated their very basic oath.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:00 pm
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:52 pm
smoova wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:22 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:59 pmWhat crimes would they be tried for under the UCMJ that they are not being prosecuted for under US law ?
Article 134
Exactly;
note, Salty, DOJ doesn't have the power to give them a dishonorable discharge, with all the ramifications of such.

These guys violated their very basic oath.
Art 134 is a catch-all. Not normally used until civil proceedings complete.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:01 pm
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:00 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:52 pm
smoova wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:22 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:59 pmWhat crimes would they be tried for under the UCMJ that they are not being prosecuted for under US law ?
Article 134
Exactly;
note, Salty, DOJ doesn't have the power to give them a dishonorable discharge, with all the ramifications of such.

These guys violated their very basic oath.
Art 134 is a catch-all. Not normally used until civil proceedings complete.
They could be tried now, no need for civil case.

It's a different charge, different cost.
They should be bounced from service with dishonorable discharge...maybe time in the brig too.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:15 pm
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:01 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:00 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:52 pm
smoova wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:22 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:59 pmWhat crimes would they be tried for under the UCMJ that they are not being prosecuted for under US law ?
Article 134
Exactly;
note, Salty, DOJ doesn't have the power to give them a dishonorable discharge, with all the ramifications of such.

These guys violated their very basic oath.
Art 134 is a catch-all. Not normally used until civil proceedings complete.
They could be tried now, no need for civil case.

It's a different charge, different cost.
They should be bounced from service with dishonorable discharge...maybe time in the brig too.
Not a civil case. It's a Fed criminal case. Who did the investigation & brought charges ?
Forum shopping ? The Marines might prefer a USMC Court Martial to Fed trial before a DC jury.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:28 am
by Farfromgeneva
This back and forth is silly. MDs being run around in circles but not wrong - just giving too much benefit of the doubt to another actor here. Following the entire like of inquiry it’s obvious this is a BS argument being made. The mixing and matching of argument so intellectually and actually inconsistent as to be Three Stooges or Abbott and Costello worthy.

Put the arguments since the initial aspects of the like of inquiry into a timeline of bulletpoints and even Cradle would understand it.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:13 am
by Kismet
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:15 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:01 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:00 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:52 pm
smoova wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:22 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:59 pmWhat crimes would they be tried for under the UCMJ that they are not being prosecuted for under US law ?
Article 134
Exactly;
note, Salty, DOJ doesn't have the power to give them a dishonorable discharge, with all the ramifications of such.

These guys violated their very basic oath.
Art 134 is a catch-all. Not normally used until civil proceedings complete.
They could be tried now, no need for civil case.

It's a different charge, different cost.
They should be bounced from service with dishonorable discharge...maybe time in the brig too.
Not a civil case. It's a Fed criminal case. Who did the investigation & brought charges ?
Forum shopping ? The Marines might prefer a USMC Court Martial to Fed trial before a DC jury.
First one appeared in a DC court yesterday. The other two will likely follow shortly.
USMC will then deal with them after those trials are complete if they are convicted - at this point - charges look to be misdemeanors.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:56 am
by Seacoaster(1)
Well-regarded lawyer and thinker, former Supreme Court clerk, falls into Trump's orbit and scuttles career:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... alifornia/

"The State Bar of California intends to seek the disbarment of former president Donald Trump’s election attorney John Eastman for his role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In a statement, the office of California bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said Eastman faces 11 disciplinary charges, all arising from allegations that he was behind Trump’s plan to obstruct the count of electoral votes.

Per the statement, Eastman is accused of making false and misleading statements regarding alleged election fraud — including claims he made at a rally at the Ellipse outside the White House that preceded the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In the explanation of the charges, the California bar directly connects Eastman’s speech to the insurrection, saying he “contributed to provoking a crowd to assault and breach the Capitol to intimidate then-Vice President [Mike] Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding.”

Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law who specializes in legal ethics, called the set of accusations levied at Eastman “scathing.”

“[It] charges Eastman with knowingly or through gross negligence failing to support the U.S. and California constitutions, which he took an oath to do,” Gillers said. “The allegation that Eastman is guilty of ‘moral turpitude’ is an attack on his very character, in other words that he is a bad man, not merely a bad lawyer.”

The state bar’s announcement came after an investigation that lasted nearly a year. Cardona’s office concluded that Eastman violated Section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code “by making false and misleading statements that constitute acts of ‘moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.’”

“There is nothing more sacrosanct to our American democracy than free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power,” Cardona said in a statement. “For California attorneys, adherence to the U.S. and California Constitutions is their highest legal duty.”

Eastman, Cardona added, “violated this duty in furtherance of an attempt to usurp the will of the American people and overturn election results for the highest office in the land — an egregious and unprecedented attack on our democracy — for which he must be held accountable.”

Eastman’s lawyer Randall A. Miller said Trump’s election adviser disputes “every aspect” of the California bar’s actions.

“Any lawyer engaged to provide his or her legal assessment in a dynamic, consequential, and often emotional arena should be deeply troubled by the notion that a licensing authority (bar) can take their license if they do not like the lawyer’s advice, or find the advocacy distasteful,” Miller said.

Eastman has been dubbed the “architect” of Trump’s plot to steal the 2020 election. He wrote an infamous memo that laid out several ways Pence could facilitate not certifying Joe Biden’s victory. The former law professor at Chapman University’s School of Law, who is an active member of the Federalist Society, argued that Pence could reject electors from states won by Biden.

Eastman refused to turn over thousands of emails to the House special committee investigating the insurrection. The panel requested the documents because they were related to Eastman’s role in trying to persuade Pence to reject these electors. Eastman cited attorney-client privilege as a shield against turning over the documents because he has said he was representing Trump at the time.

The committee argued that Eastman’s claim of privilege was potentially voided by the “crime/fraud exception” to the confidentiality usually accorded attorneys and their clients, which holds that communications need not be kept confidential if an attorney is found to be assisting their client in the commission of a crime.

Ultimately, the committee recommended that the Justice Department investigate and prosecute Eastman on two counts. The panel concluded that Eastman knew “in advance of the 2020 election that Vice President Pence could not refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th.”

The State Bar of California came to the same conclusion, saying that Eastman’s strategies “were unsupported by law” and “based on false and misleading assertions of fact and designed for the purpose of keeping Trump in office.”

In its disciplinary notice, the State Bar concludes that Eastman “knew, or should have known, that the factual premise for his proposals — that massive fraud was at play — was false, and that Trump had lost his bid for re-election.” Cardona’s office also alleges that Eastman chose to ignore these facts when he spoke at the Jan. 6 rally.

In the 35-page notice, the California bar’s supervising attorney Duncan Carling wrote that, from on or about Dec. 9, 2020, until at least Jan. 6, 2021, Eastman “continued to work with Trump and others to promote the idea that the outcome of the election was in question and had been stolen from Trump as the result of fraud, disregard of state election law, and misconduct by election officials.”

If the State Bar Court decides that Eastman’s actions warrant a disbarment or suspension, the recommendation would be forwarded to the California Supreme Court, which will determine Eastman’s fate.

The move to file disciplinary charges against Eastman was applauded by the States United Democracy Center, a Washington-based group promoting fair and secure elections that in a statement described Eastman as the “mastermind” of the plot to overturn the 2020 election.

“He abused the legal system and violated the oath he swore as an attorney, in an attempt to block the will of the people and prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” said Christine P. Sun, the group’s senior vice president of legal."

Here is the Bar Complaint:

https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal ... =False&p=0

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:39 am
by Farfromgeneva
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:56 am Well-regarded lawyer and thinker, former Supreme Court clerk, falls into Trump's orbit and scuttles career:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... alifornia/

"The State Bar of California intends to seek the disbarment of former president Donald Trump’s election attorney John Eastman for his role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In a statement, the office of California bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said Eastman faces 11 disciplinary charges, all arising from allegations that he was behind Trump’s plan to obstruct the count of electoral votes.

Per the statement, Eastman is accused of making false and misleading statements regarding alleged election fraud — including claims he made at a rally at the Ellipse outside the White House that preceded the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In the explanation of the charges, the California bar directly connects Eastman’s speech to the insurrection, saying he “contributed to provoking a crowd to assault and breach the Capitol to intimidate then-Vice President [Mike] Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding.”

Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law who specializes in legal ethics, called the set of accusations levied at Eastman “scathing.”

“[It] charges Eastman with knowingly or through gross negligence failing to support the U.S. and California constitutions, which he took an oath to do,” Gillers said. “The allegation that Eastman is guilty of ‘moral turpitude’ is an attack on his very character, in other words that he is a bad man, not merely a bad lawyer.”

The state bar’s announcement came after an investigation that lasted nearly a year. Cardona’s office concluded that Eastman violated Section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code “by making false and misleading statements that constitute acts of ‘moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.’”

“There is nothing more sacrosanct to our American democracy than free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power,” Cardona said in a statement. “For California attorneys, adherence to the U.S. and California Constitutions is their highest legal duty.”

Eastman, Cardona added, “violated this duty in furtherance of an attempt to usurp the will of the American people and overturn election results for the highest office in the land — an egregious and unprecedented attack on our democracy — for which he must be held accountable.”

Eastman’s lawyer Randall A. Miller said Trump’s election adviser disputes “every aspect” of the California bar’s actions.

“Any lawyer engaged to provide his or her legal assessment in a dynamic, consequential, and often emotional arena should be deeply troubled by the notion that a licensing authority (bar) can take their license if they do not like the lawyer’s advice, or find the advocacy distasteful,” Miller said.

Eastman has been dubbed the “architect” of Trump’s plot to steal the 2020 election. He wrote an infamous memo that laid out several ways Pence could facilitate not certifying Joe Biden’s victory. The former law professor at Chapman University’s School of Law, who is an active member of the Federalist Society, argued that Pence could reject electors from states won by Biden.

Eastman refused to turn over thousands of emails to the House special committee investigating the insurrection. The panel requested the documents because they were related to Eastman’s role in trying to persuade Pence to reject these electors. Eastman cited attorney-client privilege as a shield against turning over the documents because he has said he was representing Trump at the time.

The committee argued that Eastman’s claim of privilege was potentially voided by the “crime/fraud exception” to the confidentiality usually accorded attorneys and their clients, which holds that communications need not be kept confidential if an attorney is found to be assisting their client in the commission of a crime.

Ultimately, the committee recommended that the Justice Department investigate and prosecute Eastman on two counts. The panel concluded that Eastman knew “in advance of the 2020 election that Vice President Pence could not refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th.”

The State Bar of California came to the same conclusion, saying that Eastman’s strategies “were unsupported by law” and “based on false and misleading assertions of fact and designed for the purpose of keeping Trump in office.”

In its disciplinary notice, the State Bar concludes that Eastman “knew, or should have known, that the factual premise for his proposals — that massive fraud was at play — was false, and that Trump had lost his bid for re-election.” Cardona’s office also alleges that Eastman chose to ignore these facts when he spoke at the Jan. 6 rally.

In the 35-page notice, the California bar’s supervising attorney Duncan Carling wrote that, from on or about Dec. 9, 2020, until at least Jan. 6, 2021, Eastman “continued to work with Trump and others to promote the idea that the outcome of the election was in question and had been stolen from Trump as the result of fraud, disregard of state election law, and misconduct by election officials.”

If the State Bar Court decides that Eastman’s actions warrant a disbarment or suspension, the recommendation would be forwarded to the California Supreme Court, which will determine Eastman’s fate.

The move to file disciplinary charges against Eastman was applauded by the States United Democracy Center, a Washington-based group promoting fair and secure elections that in a statement described Eastman as the “mastermind” of the plot to overturn the 2020 election.

“He abused the legal system and violated the oath he swore as an attorney, in an attempt to block the will of the people and prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” said Christine P. Sun, the group’s senior vice president of legal."

Here is the Bar Complaint:

https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal ... =False&p=0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DFtbd_pd9rY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ICwHhj92WOk

And now for Durhams future career

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fWrzOVSCT0g