On August 4, John Eastman, previously counsel for the president, attempted to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in a bid to postpone attorney discipline proceedings, which were being brought against him in California. Eastman’s argument was that he would be unable to defend himself without potentially incriminating himself in a possible criminal prosecution in Fulton County, Georgia.
Three weeks after Eastman’s attempt, the presiding Judge of the State Bar Court, Yvette Roland, declined his petition, stating that Eastman had in fact waived his Fifth Amendment right by testifying for more than eight hours without once claiming the Fifth in matters relevant to electoral interference in Fulton County.
Since his initial filing, Eastman has been formally charged in Georgia and is confronting nine charges under District Attorney Fani Willis’s far-reaching RICO indictment. Despite this, Eastman continues to make public appearances, giving interviews on television.
An example of this is his recent appearance on the Fox news channel, where he joined fellow former Justice Thomas clerk, Laura Ingraham, to discuss his case in Fulton County. In this interview, Eastman publically challenged his opposition to produce a single email or communication that would support their ‘implausible theory’.
Is this claim a bold one? There are messages available to the public which show that Eastman, just after the Capitol was attacked, encouraged Pence’s aide, Greg Jacob, to commit a relatively minor violation of law in consideration of the fact that the mob had already overlooked the procedures of the Electoral Count Act.
Apart from his scandalous memos and incriminating emails, Eastman also seems to have been aware of potential criminal charges. Expressing this, he sent an email after January 6, 2023 to Rudy Giuliani, expressing his interest in being included in a potential presidential pardon list, should one exist.
To add to the unfolding drama, in the second part of his interview, Eastman insisted that there is a significant amount of evidence pointing to electoral fraud. This claim was met with skepticism by the host, Laura Ingraham, adding a further layer of intrigue to the ongoing saga.
More information can be found in the original article by Liz Dye on Above the Law.