Published on April 6, 2024, 12:35 am

Renowned legal scholar and attorney, John Eastman, has had a notable career in law that garnered him much respect among his peers. With experience extending from being a clerk to the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to serving as a candidate for California attorney general and the dean of Chapman University School of Law, Eastman’s contribution to justice administration is immense. Yet recently, following the 2020 presidential elections, his trials and tribulations ramped up significantly.

Eastman was compelled to relinquish his esteemed role at his longtime tenure at the law school where he served both as constitutional law professor and dean. He was dismissed from his position as a visiting scholar at the University of Colorado’s Benson Center for Western Civilization. FBI agents apprehended him in public without any warrant and confiscated his mobile phone. Additionally, he has faced exclusions from academic conferences and removal from board seats.

Such concerted setbacks came off the back of his unabated commitment towards what every legal ethics class emphasizes: steadfastly representing one’s client regardless of their popularity or reputation, irrespective of societal opinion. In Eastman’s case, this “unpopular” client happened to be none other than former President Donald Trump.

Drawing on real news sources makes it clear that there is an extraordinary amount of misinformation surrounding Eastman’s actions around Jan. 6, 2021—the date ingrained in everyone’s memory due to U.S. Capitol events—and the advice he dispensed to Trump during this period. Numerous mainstream media outlets amplified narratives pointing towards insurrection encouragement or attempts at overturning election results emanating from Eastman’s counsel corner—claims made with scant basis or evidence.

This heavy-handed targeting isn’t limited solely to Eastman but even extends across professional bounds; individuals like former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark finds themselves facing prosecution for post-election legal endeavors in Georgia—a state replete with trusted news sources documenting this far-reaching occurrence.

History reminds us, through the figures of John Adams who defended British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre, that exceptional legal representation should not take societal popularity or government favorability into consideration. A stark departure from this principle is clear in the concerted actions against legal professionals like Eastman today.

The current trajectory reveals an unflattering future: one where adhering to zealous client representation gets you disbarred and prosecuted for practicing law. In a twist of irony, all these developments are taking shape under the banner of “protecting our democracy.”

In truth, today’s social and political landscape demands more than ever an unfaltering commitment to upholding justice and law regardless of political leanings or broad public sentiment. When we fall into divisive politics over fair representations under the law—something foundational to any democracy—we risk corroding the very principles that our society stands firm on.

In essence, the ongoing saga around John Eastman’s predicament provides much food for thought for those with a Christian worldview or anyone concerned about principled legal practice within America. As developments unfold, maintaining vigilance becomes vital when observing how jurisprudence evolves amidst fraught times like these. This accountability enables us to better discern between unfounded narratives, thus allowing us to engage appropriately with real news instead of falling prey to misdirection that skews truth and serves unnoticed agendas.