The California Supreme Court has disbarred John Eastman, a lawyer who advised President Trump on efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The court’s decision upholds a recommendation from the State Bar Court, which found Eastman advanced false claims about the election to mislead officials and the public. Eastman’s attorney plans to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the ruling infringes upon First Amendment rights. The State Bar stated that Eastman’s misconduct was incompatible with the integrity required of attorneys in California.
Read More
During a Fox News appearance, Donald Trump advised supporters to focus on the absence of nuclear attacks, even as essential prices rise. He asserted that oil prices would eventually decrease, though potentially remaining elevated through the midterms. Trump also defended his threats against Iran, comparing them to their anti-American rhetoric and claiming they brought Iran to the negotiating table. He further reiterated his belief that the 2020 election was fraudulent.
Read More
In the midst of launching military action against Iran, Donald Trump simultaneously disseminated claims regarding a supposed Justice Department directive to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis concerning a grant application while she investigated Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump asserted this information was pertinent to Americans following his confirmation of U.S. involvement in “major combat operations” in Iran, operations he characterized as a necessary prelude to the Iranian people taking control of their government. These actions followed Trump’s prior claims that the conflict was justified by Iran’s alleged attempts to undermine his 2020 re-election bid, and occurred while he himself faced charges related to the 2020 election results.
Read More
The FBI’s special agent in charge of the Atlanta field office, Paul Brown, was removed from his position after raising concerns about the Justice Department’s renewed investigation into Fulton County’s role in the 2020 election. Sources indicated Brown questioned the probe into unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations and refused to execute searches and seizures related to the election. This change came as the FBI executed a search warrant at the Fulton County Elections Hub, seizing election records. This investigation is occurring despite multiple audits and court rulings confirming the legitimacy of the 2020 election results in Georgia.
Read More
On Wednesday, FBI agents were observed conducting a search at the Fulton County Election Hub in Georgia, a facility opened in 2023. The investigation is reportedly connected to the 2020 election, where claims of voter fraud were prevalent. While the exact nature of the probe remains undisclosed, the FBI confirmed a court-authorized law enforcement action was underway. This search comes amid the backdrop of legal challenges and investigations surrounding the 2020 election results in Georgia, including a DOJ lawsuit and a previous indictment that was ultimately dismissed.
Read More
FBI agents executed a search warrant at the Fulton County elections office in Atlanta, as confirmed by an agency spokesperson. The search is connected to the ongoing investigation into the 2020 presidential election. The Justice Department has also taken action, including suing the county clerk for access to election documents and seeking to compel their production, citing alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act. This stems from a probe into claims of election interference, which has led to legal battles and continued scrutiny of the county’s handling of the 2020 election.
Read More
Special Counsel Jack Smith, during a hearing before a Republican-led congressional committee, asserted that President Trump’s actions in the 2020 election conspiracy and classified documents cases clearly violated the law. Smith presented evidence demonstrating Trump’s criminal activity, emphasizing that his investigation was based solely on facts and not political motivations. Despite facing criticism from Republican lawmakers, Smith defended his pursuit of the cases, specifically highlighting Trump’s role in the January 6th attack and the mishandling of classified documents. Although indictments were won in both cases, the cases were abandoned due to existing legal opinions.
Read More
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Special Counsel Jack Smith testified, predicting a likely criminal indictment from the Trump administration as part of a retaliatory campaign. Smith, overseeing investigations into Donald Trump, vowed not to be intimidated and acknowledged the challenges faced by his team. The hearing largely revisited the 2020 election, with Republicans criticizing Smith’s methods and Democrats defending his actions. Smith defended his impartiality, emphasizing his apolitical service and experience. The proceedings featured intense questioning on his appointment, investigation costs, and tactics, including payments to a confidential source and obtaining congressional call logs.
Read More
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee, defending his decision to prosecute Donald Trump based on evidence of criminal activity related to the 2020 election and attempts to overturn the results. Smith asserted that Trump knew his claims of election fraud were false yet persisted in promoting them to maintain power. He also warned about Trump’s campaign of retribution against those involved in the cases. Smith expressed concern over the state of the rule of law under a second Trump administration, emphasizing its fragility and the need for collective commitment to uphold it.
Read More
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee, defending his decision to bring charges against Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith’s testimony followed a previous closed-door interview and focused on his investigation into election interference, including the controversial decision to obtain phone call metadata from Trump-allied lawmakers. Smith justified these actions by stating they were necessary to establish a timeline and emphasized that the investigation was a direct result of Trump’s actions, and not the actions of those lawmakers. He also refuted Republican arguments that his actions were a violation of the First Amendment, asserting that fraudulent activities are not protected.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker