- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: John Eastman officially disbarred
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The NDC alleges that the strategies proposed by these memos, as well as in remarks Eastman made publicly and privately to President Trump, Vice President Pence, and others, were unsupported by law, based on false and misleading assertions of fact, and designed for the purpose of keeping Trump in office
How do they dig into the private conversations? Is that not protected under attorney client privilege, or is it to determine if the lawyer is giving competent legal advice? Do they talk to Pence and Trump about these conversations?
1
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're stretching the use of the word "conspiring"
o my goodness - bless your pore heart.
You reply to a post containing a virtual litany of instances where the FEDgov conspired with DEM interests to quash any meaningful prosecution or publication of DEM corruption/crimes/malinformation/lawfare against Trump/MAGA/conservative interests and you respond with the equivalent of pointing out a possible misplaced comma.
Address the issues or gtfo
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He's being prosecuted in federal court, currently.
After a judge saw through the obvious and called out the laughable plea deal that amounted to punishment for petty theft for a first time offender.
The plea deal was a gift on a silver platter by a political motivated DOJ.
quote:
Were those pleas just to enter a diversion program and a lil probation?
quote:
Basically
Oh now you are breaking out the lies. Unless you are equating pleading to felonies but with more lenient sentencing to some probation and a “diversion program”.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
SFP truly thinks he is the greatest legal mind in U.S. history... It's hilarious. 
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:31 am to the808bass
quote:
What were the false claims he made on January 6th?
Here is the decision.
Starts on page 27. There are multiple examples.
He made a lot of claims related to fraud with no evidence to back it up. Some had speculation or disproven "analysis", but no actual evidence.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:31 am to LegalEazyE
quote:
SFP truly thinks he is the greatest legal mind in U.S. history.
No I don't. This is basic stuff.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:32 am to udtiger
quote:
So every plaintiff's lawyer whose client gets "zeroed" at trial should be disbarred?
If a plaintiff's lawyer knowingly files suit for an accident that didn't occur, they should be sanctioned.
That is a better comparison.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:35 am to lsuguy84
quote:
How do they dig into the private conversations? Is that not protected under attorney client privilege
ACP doesn't typically apply in disciplinary proceedings.
ABA rule commentary
quote:
Where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges complicity of the lawyer in a client's conduct or other misconduct of the lawyer involving representation of the client, the lawyer may respond to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a defense. The same is true with respect to a claim involving the conduct or representation of a former client. Such a charge can arise in a civil, criminal, disciplinary or other proceeding and can be based on a wrong allegedly committed by the lawyer against the client or on a wrong alleged by a third person, for example, a person claiming to have been defrauded by the lawyer and client acting together. The lawyer's right to respond arises when an assertion of such complicity has been made. Paragraph (b)(5) does not require the lawyer to await the commencement of an action or proceeding that charges such complicity, so that the defense may be established by responding directly to a third party who has made such an assertion. The right to defend also applies, of course, where a proceeding has been commenced.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
So how does that work? Was he questioned about the private conversations they had?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:46 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:
It’s a clear message if you work for Trump they will destroy you
Wrong, if you work for Trump he will force you to break laws, which will get you punished while Trump just moves on to the next lawyer foolish enough to work for his corrupt clown arse.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If a plaintiff's lawyer knowingly files suit for an accident that didn't occur, they should be sanctioned.
That is a better comparison
But, that's not what you said.
quote:
quote:
He had the opportunity to prove what you claimed, and failed
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:51 am to udtiger
The plaintiff's attorney has the opportunity to prove the wreck that didn't occur, occurred. (he can't)
The same that Eastman had to prove the fraud that he alleged occurred (but hasn't been proven at all), occurred (I am wagering he can't)
Now I completely understand the psychology of a person who doesn't require evidence and comes into this discussion assuming this fraud occurred, and how they'd view this case, but that assumption removes logic and reality from the equation.
As I said, this is yet another avenue for the Kraken to be released, and released it was not. I don't know what they are waiting for after 3 years and dozens of legal proceedings. All they have to do is release that bad boy and these fraud claims dissolve into the ether.
The same that Eastman had to prove the fraud that he alleged occurred (but hasn't been proven at all), occurred (I am wagering he can't)
Now I completely understand the psychology of a person who doesn't require evidence and comes into this discussion assuming this fraud occurred, and how they'd view this case, but that assumption removes logic and reality from the equation.
As I said, this is yet another avenue for the Kraken to be released, and released it was not. I don't know what they are waiting for after 3 years and dozens of legal proceedings. All they have to do is release that bad boy and these fraud claims dissolve into the ether.
This post was edited on 4/3/24 at 10:52 am
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:52 am to lsuguy84
quote:
So how does that work? Was he questioned about the private conversations they had?
If you read the opinion (I linked it) it goes into the various testimonies.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
They will never read it, they don't want the truth, just the fake reality they concocted in their weak little brains
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:02 am to The1TrueTiger
I’m actively reading it. I can promise you, you haven’t.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:21 am to SlowFlowPro
That one was a hard one to swallow. I’ve read about 4 of these, and it seems he attracted or surrounded himself with lawyers who were opportunists, or inept, for this sort of situation.
This guy was laying out hearsay regarding swing states, with no facts or data to back up claims, to provide legal advice and avenues. It seems like most of them were waiting for someone else to drop the cold hard facts and no one ever produced.
This guy was laying out hearsay regarding swing states, with no facts or data to back up claims, to provide legal advice and avenues. It seems like most of them were waiting for someone else to drop the cold hard facts and no one ever produced.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:22 am to lsuguy84
Where is the Kraken?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:26 am to lsuguy84
quote:
It seems like most of them were waiting for someone else to drop the cold hard facts and no one ever produced.
I think this is the big issue.
Eastman, IIRC, was one of the legal architects of the silly fake elector/have Pence refuse to certify and it may go to the states theory. THAT alone was whatever (especially since Pence didn't go through with it). But he relied on a lot of allegations of a lot of fraud in early 2021 which still hasn't been substantiated in 2024.
Who were the people pushing the certainty of this fraud, and how much of this was ignorance, hopium, IC shenanigans, etc. is the question. I hope it wasn't trusting Pillowman.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:27 am to roadGator
I have my own theory on that - I think they had someone, or believed they had someone, in the IC that was going to come forward with information “collected”.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:28 am to lsuguy84
I think some of them were being fed false information as well.
There’s plenty of true information about the voting shenanigans.
Mix in some stuff about Germany and satellites. And they sound like idiots.
There’s plenty of true information about the voting shenanigans.
Mix in some stuff about Germany and satellites. And they sound like idiots.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News