Trump lawyer finally disbarred in CA

[RgrF]

Took long enough but they finally got there. From law school dean to zip in about 100 difficult steps.

In the 128-page ruling from the State Bar Court of California, Eastman was charged with one count of “failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States,” two counts of “seeking to mislead a court,” six counts of “moral turpitude by making various misrepresentations” and finally, two counts of “moral turpitude.”

[DeusxMac]

[Mr645]

Sort of like Bill Clinton?

OR just disbarred in California

[DeusxMac]

Mr645 wrote:
Sort of like Bill Clinton?

OR just disbarred in California

What has Bill Clinton got to do with John Eastman being disbarred?


Again, the Clintons living rent free in your head.
Clinton left the office of President 23 years ago

[lost in space]

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[bfd]

Mr645 wrote:
Sort of like Bill Clinton?

OR just disbarred in California

[Tiangou]

Also, Clinton was not disbarred. His Arkansas law license was suspended for 5 years as part of a settlement related to the Paula Jones case.

Notable quote from the Wikipedia article on that case:

The Jones lawsuit also led to a landmark legal precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that a sitting U.S. president is not exempt from civil litigation for acts committed outside of public office.

[Speedy]

Tiangou wrote:
Also, Clinton was not disbarred. His Arkansas law license was suspended for 5 years as part of a settlement related to the Paula Jones case.

Notable quote from the Wikipedia article on that case:

The Jones lawsuit also led to a landmark legal precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that a sitting U.S. president is not exempt from civil litigation for acts committed outside of public office.

Another SCOTUS decision that will soon be overturned.

[gabester]

Speedy wrote:
[quote=Tiangou]
The Jones lawsuit also led to a landmark legal precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that a sitting U.S. president is not exempt from civil litigation for acts committed outside of public office.

Another SCOTUS decision that will soon be overturned.
Wasn't already effectively when the Solicitor General opted not to pursue the 45th President for violations of the emoluments clause pertaining to income via foreign parties at his hotel a few blocks from the White House?

[Mr645]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/o...ancampbell