Trump Lawyer Humiliates Himself During Disbarment Hearing

Former Trump lawyer John Eastman - author of the infamous "Coup Memo" - is facing justice in California this week that could result in him being disbarred. And based on how the case is going, it looks like being disbarred is a very likely possibility. Eastman was slapped down by the judge this week when he tried to call an unqualified witness to lie about the 2020 election, and the judge wouldn't let it happen. Farron Cousins explains what's going on.

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

Former Trump lawyer, John Eastman, who wrote the infamous coup memo telling Donald Trump that Mike Pence absolutely can overturn the results of a presidential election. Uh, well, he's in court this week in the state of California for writing coup memos that said that Mike Pence can overturn the result of a election. Now, the reason he is in court for those memos is because the state bar of California filed a complaint against Eastman. So Eastman now has to go to for, uh, court and fight for his license as a ruling against him, could result in him losing his license in the state of California. So that, uh, hearing trial, whatever you wanna call it, uh, kicked off this Tuesday. It is supposed to last for eight days, and Eastman has already completely humiliated himself after the judge had to smack him down. When he tried to call a completely unqualified witness to testify on his behalf, that Eastman, uh, uh, excuse me, that witness, that Eastman's legal team wanted to call was a man by the name of Joseph Fried.

Now, Mr. Freed is a certified public accountant, so noble profession, sure, but nothing to do with elections yet still, Mr. Freed wrote an ebook a year or two ago where he talked about all the fraud that allegedly took place in the 2020 election. Now, this guy freed, did not provide any actual evidence of it. He just tried to make the case that Biden didn't win and Trump actually did. So Eastman thought, Hey, this guy seems to know what he's talking about. Let me bring him in for my disciplinary hearing so that he can tell everybody I'm right and I won't lose my law license. To which the judge said, oh, hell no. Of course, that's not exactly what the judge said. The judge said, I don't see how Mr. Fried is qualified to be an expert. the, uh, state bar lawyer that added onto the judge and said, uh, we don't believe the opinion of a CPA is relevant and also freed. Never identified any instances of fraud in his book. So things aren't going well for John Eastman, especially when the best witness you have in your defense is a guy that has no experience whatsoever in elections and wrote a book about fraud where he wasn't even able to prove fraud. So, not exactly an expert. Maybe Mr. Fried needs to go back to being a public accountant. But here's the other part of this. Eastman law, Eastman's lawyers, excuse me, are making the dumbest legal argument possible, right? The whole center of this matter are

Those memos where Eastman laid out the legal rationale for Mike Pence overturning the 2020 election, gave it to Donald Trump, and Trump tried to use those because Eastman was his lawyer. So you're giving advice to your client that this is what you're allowed to do. Now, Eastman's lawyers have gone into this disciplinary hearing and said, Hey, listen, you're infringing on my dude's, uh, right to Freedom speech. He's allowed to say these things. That's the dumbest legal argument I've ever heard, because nobody's saying he's not allowed to say them. Like he can go out in the media and say these totally incorrect things. He can write a book and say these completely incorrect things. He can stand on a street corner and scream them at the top of his lungs, all he wants, nobody's infringing on his freedom of speech. There is a difference, however, between your right to say whatever the hell you wanna say, and legal advice given by an attorney to their client.

Those are rules that are strictly enforced. Those are rules that are black and white. They're literally in the law books. So Eastman as a lawyer cannot give his client intentionally bad advice by skewing what the law actually says. That would in fact be a form of legal malpractice. It would also violate the ethical code that lawyers agree to when they take the bar in a certain state. Therefore, Eastman's words, his advice to his client, Donald Trump, would not be protected under freedom of speech because they're governed by an entirely different set of rules.