The state of California has disbarred Trump attorney John Charles Eastman from the practice of law for his supposed dishonesty in challenging the 2020 election results. The drawn-out proceedings allege Eastman cannot be trusted to represent clients because he falsely claimed Democrats had interfered with the election results. Apparently, only a select handful of notable figures are allowed to do that with complete impunity.
The California Disbarment
California’s Supreme Court affirmed the State Bar’s determination that Eastman, the former law school dean at California’s Chapman University, had lied about the 2020 presidential election results, including this statement: “We know there was fraud. … We know that dead people voted….” Eastman joins Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro in the penalty box. Still, there does not appear to be any question that all three truly believed that election irregularities resulted in President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.
It appears that with this decision, it doesn’t matter whether one believes they are telling the truth. This highlights a subtle but vitally important distinction between objective and subjective speech: It’s not a lie if I believe it’s true, even if it’s false.
As ballots are seized in several states to investigate continuing claims of voter fraud in the 2020 race, left-leaning media outlets characterize Eastman’s disbarment as justified because he “pushed false election claims” and participated in the “2020 election scheme.” Yet the jury is still out on whether major irregularities took place. If evidence is obtained proving that Eastman, et al., were correct in their suspicions, they will presumably be instantly reinstated to their professional careers. (Maybe not).
Zealous Advocacy and the Liberty of Opinions
These attorneys were representing clients in the course of their alleged misstatements, and lawyers are trained to recognize an ethical obligation to be “zealous advocates” for their clients. This contrasts with Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton, who have alleged election fraud without evidence while not representing anyone but themselves. In Hillary’s case, it is hard to argue that she actually believed her assertion that Russian collusion had cost her the 2016 election – she indirectly commissioned the creation of the Steele Dossier to discredit Trump falsely! Yet neither Clinton nor Schiff faced disbarment.
Hillary has shamelessly contended on multiple occasions that Russian interference cost her the election, stating in 2019: “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.” She also claimed that the same tactics could be “alive and well” in 2020. She called Trump “an illegitimate president” who knew about “the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories."
Hillary has not procured any evidence for these specious claims, which invoke memories of the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and attorneys Barack Obama and Joe Biden lying to the American people that Donald Trump claimed Nazis were “fine people.” Those attorneys were zealously advocating for themselves – without any consequence.
Bill Clinton’s Legacy of Lies
Perhaps the kingpin of lawyer liars is Hillary’s husband, Bill, who finally admitted to lying during congressional testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky – a crime of perjury for non-elites. Clinton was suspended from law practice for five years, not disbarred.
In contrast, in Eastman’s case, California State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland found that he had made “multiple false and misleading statements” that had “no reasonable factual or legal basis” while representing Trump, stating: “While attorneys have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical and legal constraints…” and that Eastman’s “lack of remorse and accountability presents a significant risk that Eastman may engage in further unethical conduct.”
If that is the standard for Eastman, where would Bill and Hillary Clinton stand concerning remorse and accountability? They both made patently false statements that they knew were lies, for self-interest, with impunity. And then there’s California attorney Adam Schiff.
Adam Schiff Contrasted With John Eastman
Democratic Senator Schiff has settled into a slightly different pattern of misstatements without evidence: prospective lying about the pending 2026 midterms (again, not on behalf of any client except his party). According to ABC News, Schiff has alleged that Republicans are “willing to go to extraordinary and lawless lengths.”
“I think [Trump] intends to try to subvert the elections," Schiff told ABC News' This Week co-anchor Jonathan Karl. "And if he loses the vote... he's prepared to try to take some kind of action to overturn the result, and we really shouldn't question that."
It appears that he is allowed to express opinions without evidence that undermine public trust in elections and slander political opponents. An ABC article also ironically states that President Trump has “repeatedly claimed without evidence that Democrats cheat to win elections.”
This double standard stands in striking contrast to the press release by the State Bar of California regarding Eastman’s ouster:
“Today’s California Supreme Court order disbarring John Charles Eastman from the practice of law in California affirms the fundamental principle that attorneys must act with honesty and uphold the rule of law, regardless of the client they represent or the context in which that representation occurs,” said State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona. “After extensive proceedings before the State Bar Court’s Hearing and Review Departments, both of which found Mr. Eastman culpable of serious ethical violations, the Court has imposed the discipline warranted by the clear and convincing evidence that he advanced false claims about the 2020 presidential election to mislead courts, public officials, and the American public. The Court’s order underscores that Mr. Eastman’s misconduct was incompatible with the standards of integrity required of every California attorney.”
Yet the case is not yet over. Eastman’s defense team has claimed that the decision violates his First Amendment rights and pledged to appeal to the US Supreme Court. Having clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, Eastman will make an interesting litigant in the nation’s highest court. Perhaps the results of the current federal inspection of state ballots will prove in hindsight that he was correct in his opinion. In the interim, only Democrats are permitted to question elections while lying under oath with impunity. “One rule for me, another for thee.”
