California Bar Slaps Trump Lawyer John Eastman with 11 Disciplinary Charges for ‘False’ Election Fraud Statements


ineedhelp1 obviously needs some help.

Let me help:

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

From the article:

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

👉 ineedhelp1 🤣

🇺🇸
 
So, in other words;

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
 
Posted for posterity.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
wow you finally understand that. Yes the Russians wanted Trump elected, and they interfered, and that Trump's team didn't conspire with them, Trump's team just failed to understand they were supposed to report that they were aware of foreign agents actively trying to subvert the election...they were not guilty of any crime,since they didn't understand the process...

Fuck I am proud of you!!!
 
So, in other words;

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
Manafort gave campaign information to Russia. He was convicted for the money he made from it it and was pardoned. (Edited to clarify charges)
 
Last edited:
wow you finally understand that. Yes the Russians wanted Trump elected, and they interfered, and that Trump's team didn't conspire with them, Trump's team just failed to understand they were supposed to report that they were aware of foreign agents actively trying to subvert the election...they were not guilty of any crime,since they didn't understand the process...

Fuck I am proud of you!!!

It’s worse than that.

Mueller couldn’t “prove” CONSPIRACY AND COOPERATION given the restrictions on the avenues he was allowed to investigate.

The COLLUSION was readily apparent.

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

From the article:

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.

That ^ is what ineedhelp1 needed help with.

👍

👉 ineedhelp1 🤣

🇺🇸
 

It’s worse than that.

Mueller couldn’t “prove” CONSPIRACY AND COOPERATION given the restrictions to the avenues he was allowed to investigate.

The COLLUSION was readily apparent.
https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

From the article:

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.

That ^ is what ineedhelp1 needed help with.

👍

👉 ineedhelp1 🤣

🇺🇸
Mueller couldn't establish a conspiracy, and the evidence didn't support a conspiracy. The evidence did support the fact that the Trump campaign knew of the Russian attempts to help (the meeting) but not that they had to report that to the FBI. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, Mueller could not show "criminal intent".

Manafort got convicted but not due to the meeting, or the Russian attempts to interfere, but due to his consulting work in Ukraine, tax fraud and witness tampering.

NOTE there is no crime of "collusion"
 
Mueller couldn't establish a conspiracy, and the evidence didn't support a conspiracy. The evidence did support the fact that the Trump campaign knew of the Russian attempts to help (the meeting) but not that they had to report that to the FBI. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, Mueller could not show "criminal intent".

Manafort got convicted but not due to the meeting, or the Russian attempts to interfere, but due to his consulting work in Ukraine, tax fraud and witness tampering.

NOTE there is no crime of "collusion"

Exactly.

I’m not the one who is having difficulty discerning the difference between “criminal conspiracy and cooperation” and “collusion”.

That would be ineedhelp1.

The fact remains: There WAS “collusion” between Russia and the corrupt orange traitor’s campaign.

👍

👉 ineedhelp1 🤣

🇺🇸
 

Exactly.

I’m not the one who is having difficulty discerning the difference between “criminal conspiracy and cooperation” and “collusion”.

That would be ineedhelp1.

The fact remains: There WAS “collusion” between Russia and the corrupt orange traitor’s campaign.

👍 👉 ineedhelp1 🤣

🇺🇸
True, but give ican't some credit, he's actually moved his position closer to reality....
 
True, but give ican't some credit, he's actually moved his position closer to reality....

Only superficially.

ineedhelp1 still carries buckets of water for the corrupt orange traitor like a good little water boi.

*nods*
 

Only superficially.

ineedhelp1 still carries buckets of water for the corrupt orange traitor like a good little water boi.

*nods*
you have to be happy with the little baby steps, it's more than I ever expected...*chuckles*
 
Collusion: Definitions and Meanings however, despite its "legalistic" tone, the term collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law; there's no such criminal charge called "collusion," nor does the term necessarily signal a criminal offense.

I’ve never included in my post the term collusion, it’s irrelevant and immaterial to the case. The crazy left hoped and prayed that collusion could somehow be interpreted as criminal conspiracy.

Manafort was never criminally charged for collusion; and neither was Trump.

Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy..

The real criminal conspiracy resides with the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier. Ironic how the Mueller probe steered around the democrats, why you ask? because Andrew Weismann *lead prosecutor* was a Hatchet rogue prosecutor* similar to Smith * was a Hillary suppporter. Should have lost his license to practice law long ago for how he conducted himself during the ENRON prosecution.

Poor Laz loves to make believe TDS is a legal platform for prosecution.
 
You’ve got to admire such unwavering loyalty, though your definition of collusion is going to be severely tested.
 
Their whole case in what ... 60 some filings? .. was along the lines of 'we know it happened because .. well we just know .. because it couldn't have been any other way and we're certain of that no matter how many experts disagree with us, because it's Donny and he just couldn't have lost because, well he's Donny!!!!'



.
87...but who counts between friends
 

ineedhelp1 apparently needs more help.

Let me help::

https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...orth-america-94323cfc164c4759ba6bf84ad2a46203

From the article:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with a crime was “not an option” because of federal rules, but he used his first public remarks on the Russia investigation to emphasize that he did not exonerate the president.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

👉 ineedhelp1 🤣

🇺🇸
 
No. This is incorrect as a matter of law. Look at the Rule. You cannot file a legal paper based on faith alone. It must be REASONABLE. You must have some amount of evidence on which your allegation is based. He is an attorney. He is held to a standard higher than what you are suggesting is acceptable.

Assuming the State Bar is able to establish a prima facie case that he filed papers without any grounds for doing so (which it probably will), then he will have the burden of proving not only that he in good faith believed the allegations, but they have some basis in evidence. If he cannot present any evidence, then it's likely that the tribunal will find that he had neither good faith NOR reasonable grounds for making the allegations that he did.

This is what happens in courts every day. People in trial say they believe something, under oath, but courts find that they're not telling the truth, based on all the evidence. This isn't kangaroo court justice, it's justice, period. It's the way things are done all the time. There's nothing different or unique about the way Eastman is being handled.

Actually, you're analysis is where you go wrong. You get the law correct, you just apply it in a way that's not supported by facts and precedent.

First you begin with your belief that he did wrong, then you substitute that belief for his, then you conclude he did wrong.

In reality, the only basis required is whether a reasonable person would believe that the filing has merit. Merit doesn't require proof before the filing is made (because you can file pleadings without any evidence and rely on later conducted discovery efforts to plug the gaps) it only requires that a reasonable person could (not "does") believe that the filing is necessary and it isn't being done for purposes of delay or harassment.

Here, Eastman could have believed that there were forces at work behind the election result which may have altered the outcome illegally. We know for a fact that some election rigging took place - the Head Elections dude in Ga just admitted that about 3000 votes for Trump were somehow screwed around with to cite just one example.

What the court did was deny Eastman from presenting evidence on behalf of his client, or conducting discovery, by dismissing the pleadings. This is wrong as a matter of law because the court based its dismissal on the belief there was no evidence. That's not a question of law, it's a finding of fact and that's outside the purview of the courts in matters of dismissals on the basis that it doesn't state a claim under the law (called a 12(b)(6) motion).

Now the State bar is going to discipline Eastman because the court overstepped and you're good with that because YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE that he couldn't have believed the filing was appropriate. As I said, what you do is substitute your belief for his and then claim he had no basis.

Bootstrapping and ascription at its finest.
 
Now the State bar is going to discipline Eastman because the court overstepped and you're good with that because YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE that he couldn't have believed the filing was appropriate. As I said, what you do is substitute your belief for his and then claim he had no basis.

Bootstrapping and ascription at its finest.

I believe that he may lose because I believe, based on every single thing I've seen and read, that when it comes time for him to defend the evidentiary basis for the pleadings he signed, he will have literally nothing to say. There is no such evidence. If there were evidence, they would have produced it back in 2020 and early 2021 when the lawsuits were being filed. The attorneys made many outrageous allegations to the public outside court, but when it came time to argue in court they backpedaled and relied on vague allegations, because that's all they had.

I'm not convicting him. He'll have his chance to present his evidence. I predict he will fail to do that, and he may be disbarred, and his disbarment may therefore be just. But we'll see.
 
I believe that he may lose because I believe, based on every single thing I've seen and read, that when it comes time for him to defend the evidentiary basis for the pleadings he signed, he will have literally nothing to say. There is no such evidence. If there were evidence, they would have produced it back in 2020 and early 2021 when the lawsuits were being filed. The attorneys made many outrageous allegations to the public outside court, but when it came time to argue in court they backpedaled and relied on vague allegations, because that's all they had.

I'm not convicting him. He'll have his chance to present his evidence. I predict he will fail to do that, and he may be disbarred, and his disbarment may therefore be just. But we'll see.

He doesn't have to HAVE evidence at the time he files, he can file and conduct the needed discovery to get the evidence post filing.

So, again, you say he had no evidence and therefore is properly before the disciplinary court while ignoring the fact that he doesn't HAVE TO HAVE any evidence to file a pleading. He only has to have a good faith belief that the pleading is necessary and isn't being filed for purposes of harassment or delay.

WE KNOW FOR A FACT that some election hanky panky happened. Yet Eastman and his client were denied the opportunity to pause the certifications and verify that the hanky panky didn't affect the final outcome. Which makes it even more plausible when faced with the denial of due process that resulted from the dismissals that there is indeed fire behind all that smoke. And that equals "good faith" in the eyes of the law.

Not that it will matter in the end, the outcome is preordained. Because Trump. Not because of the law.
 
update:

so after a lot of back and forths, the court case proper has begun. For his first witness, eastman called someone who doesn't even understand about elections:

a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, has asserted the election was stolen, though his own turmoil-racked inquiry turned up no proof that fraud tilted the election to Joe Biden.

The witness, Michael Gableman, admitted he had no experience with election law when the Republican leader of the Wisconsin Assembly picked him in 2021 to lead a taxpayer-funded probe of the election. Gableman has also admitted that he did not have “any understanding of how elections work.”

His 14-month inquiry turned into a debacle, costing taxpayers more than $1 million and drawing bipartisan derision. The report he produced alleged illegalities in the Wisconsin election, though Biden’s 21,000-vote victory in the state has withstood multiple court challenges, a recount and a nonpartisan audit.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=1ce0faf022c24113c2a7b7b4094f857f&ei=40

eastman, honey, you're going to have to do better than that :rose:
 
in his disbarment case, the judge paused the trial during testimony by an expert witness

"I'm going to take just a minute to inform everyone about something that I just learned about, and that is that I've been informed that the Bannon War Room is live-streaming this proceeding," Roland said. "And I think I made it very clear at the outset that no one is to live stream the proceeding, that individuals may have access through a public link on the State Bar Court website."
eastman's lawyer 'I have no knowledge'...

so they need to find out how and who is responsible and hold them accountable for contempt, no?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=cac91249fd73483aca7cf7fbb630be19&ei=188
 
So, in other words;

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
Wow, the issues are really settling in- can’t even get the url to hyper link all the way and the bolding.

Feeling some pressure around the eyes?
 
in his disbarment case, the judge paused the trial during testimony by an expert witness


eastman's lawyer 'I have no knowledge'...

so they need to find out how and who is responsible and hold them accountable for contempt, no?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=cac91249fd73483aca7cf7fbb630be19&ei=188

It would depend on who is live streaming the trial and where they're getting the feed. A hacker into the raw media transmission isn't going to care about the court or its order. The media isn't going to freely admit they're the ones giving the Bannon war room the raw feed because it implicates them in violating the court's order. And, unless the war room is subject to the order, they could skate.

In the end, the only possible perpetrators to possibly haul in for a contempt hearing are the media employees operating the courtroom camera/audio setup and if they aren't the ones doing it, it goes nowhere.
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...1&cvid=f6760c89fcc44fe69df5dabe2c394eb2&ei=19

Judge finds eastman
culpable for moral and legal violations, a preliminary step that could see the attorney be suspended or disbarred. After 32 days of testimony, according to Bloomberg Law, the judge said she’d made a “preliminary finding” of culpability, and that the court would move forward to hear both rebuttal and aggravation testimony, and eventually mete out punishment.

 
Back
Top