John Eastman — Political Accountability Profile
Political Operatives

John Eastman — Political Accountability Profile

Skip to main content
Table of Contents
< All Topics
Print

John Eastman — Political Accountability Profile

Posted
Updated
ByCitizen Analyst
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%

Role: Former Dean of Chapman University Fowler School of Law (2007-2010); former Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service at Chapman (1999-2021, until forced retirement); former Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (1999-2021); former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (1996-1997); former clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig (1995-1996); originating legal architect of the December 2020 – January 2021 plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election (“the Eastman memo” plot).

Status: As of May 2026, indicted in Georgia (August 14, 2023, RICO + 8 felony counts as Donald Trump co-defendant) and Arizona (April 24, 2024, nine felony counts in fake-electors case). Disbarred in California (March 27, 2024 — California Bar Court ruling that Eastman should be disbarred; final disbarment ordered by California Supreme Court 2024). DC Bar disciplinary recommendation pending. Convicted of contempt of court in connection with congressional subpoena resistance (vacated on appeal). Has not been federally indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith but was named as Trump co-conspirator #2 in the August 2023 federal indictment (now dismissed).

Background

Origins and Education

John Charles Eastman (born April 21, 1960, in Madison, Wisconsin) grew up in suburban Maryland. His father was a federal employee. He attended the University of Dallas (BA 1982), Claremont Graduate School (MA in government, 1984; PhD in government, 1993, with a dissertation on the Founding Era), and the University of Chicago Law School (JD 1995, where he was an editor of the Law Review).

Federal Clerkships

  • 1995-1996: Law clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (a senior conservative figure who would later, ironically, publicly testify against Eastman’s January 6 theory before the J6 Select Committee)
  • 1996-1997: Law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, US Supreme Court

This Thomas clerkship would prove personally and professionally consequential — Eastman would maintain close ties with Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas through the subsequent decades and centrally during the 2020-2021 post-election period.

Chapman Law and Claremont Institute (1999-2021)

  • 1999: Joined Chapman University School of Law as Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service
  • 1999-2021: Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
  • 2007-2010: Dean of Chapman School of Law
  • 2010: Resigned as Dean to run for California Attorney General
  • 2010: Lost Republican primary for California AG
  • 2017-2021: Continued at Chapman; published on the unitary executive theory, the “originalist” case for restrictive interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “natural-born citizen” clause (challenging Kamala Harris’s 2020 eligibility), and the State Action Doctrine

Pre-2020 Constitutional Activism

Eastman was already a recognized figure in conservative legal circles by 2020 with positions including:

  • Opposition to birthright citizenship as applied to children of unauthorized immigrants
  • “Anti-Critical Race Theory” advocacy
  • Originalist constitutional interpretation hostile to the post-1937 administrative state
  • Pro-life litigation (Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence representing pro-life plaintiffs)
  • Affirmative action opposition
  • Election-integrity / voter-fraud advocacy

He was a frequent commentator on conservative outlets including The Federalist, National Review, and Newsmax, and had published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

The 2020 Election Period

Eastman became the central legal figure in the post-election scheme:

November 2020

  • Counseled Trump campaign on post-election legal strategy
  • Filed amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania (Supreme Court case attempting to invalidate four states’ electoral votes; rejected unanimously)

December 2020

  • Eastman Memo v1 (December 23, 2020): A 2-page memo titled “January 6 scenario” laying out a six-step plan for VP Pence to:
  1. On January 6, 2021, count the electoral votes
  2. Open the alternative-electors-states’ votes for both slates
  3. Decline to count any state’s votes where there were dueling slates
  4. Either (a) count Trump’s votes (illegitimate), or (b) declare that no candidate had reached 270 EVs and throw the election to the House for a contingent election under the Twelfth Amendment, where each state’s delegation gets one vote (Republicans had a majority of state delegations)
  • Eastman Memo v2 (early January 2021): A 6-page expanded version
  • December 2020: Multiple White House meetings; presented the theory to Trump, Pence, and Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob

January 2021

  • January 4, 2021 meeting at the White House: Eastman, Trump, Pence, and Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob met in the Oval Office; Eastman acknowledged to Pence and Jacob that his theory had no legal support and would lose 9-0 at the Supreme Court if challenged; this conversation was a key piece of evidence in subsequent investigations
  • January 5, 2021: Sat next to Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob during continued discussions; Jacob’s contemporaneous emails called the Eastman memo “the proverbial gosh-darn theory”
  • January 6, 2021: Spoke at the Ellipse rally before Trump’s speech, telling the crowd that VP Pence could “send these results back to the states for them to send a clean slate of electors” — a position he had privately conceded had no legal basis

Civil Liability and Litigation

  • Sued for defamation by Dominion Voting Systems (settled 2022 for undisclosed terms)
  • Subject of multiple state-level investigations
  • Subject of California State Bar investigation (filed 2021)

Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings (2022-Present)

California Bar

  • January 2023: California Bar filed disciplinary charges (11 charges)
  • March 2024: California Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland ruled Eastman should be disbarred; she found that he had “made false and misleading statements” and “engaged in moral turpitude”
  • Eastman has been on involuntary inactive enrollment since November 2023
  • California Supreme Court entered final disbarment order in 2024

DC Bar

  • 2024: DC Bar disciplinary process; recommendation for disbarment pending as of May 2026

Federal Court / Eastman v. Pelosi (Subpoena Litigation)

  • 2022: Eastman litigated the J6 Committee’s subpoena for his Chapman email records
  • Federal Judge David Carter (CD Cal.) ruled in March 2022 that the email production was warranted; in his opinion, Carter wrote: “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021”
  • This was the first federal-court finding that Trump and Eastman likely committed federal crimes

Georgia (Fulton County)

  • August 14, 2023: Indicted as Trump RICO co-defendant
  • Eight felony counts including violation of GA RICO, solicitation of violation of oath by public officer, and false statements
  • Pleaded not guilty
  • Case status frozen following Willis disqualification August 2025

Special Counsel Jack Smith

  • Federal indictment (August 1, 2023): Eastman named as Co-Conspirator 2 (not separately indicted in the federal case)
  • Federal case dismissed November 2024 after election

Arizona (Maricopa County)

  • April 24, 2024: Nine felony counts in fake-electors prosecution
  • Pleaded not guilty
  • Pretrial as of May 2026

Eastman v. United States Capitol Police (Civil)

  • 2022: Eastman sued by Capitol Police officers
  • Pending

Democratic Malice Assessment

Cumulative Designation: Sustained Campaign of Democratic Destruction

Metric Value
Qualifying actions scored 4
Highest individual DMS 5 — Systemic Malice
Primary categories Election Process Sabotage, Rule of Law Destruction

Scored Action 1: Authored the Eastman Memos (v1: December 23, 2020; v2: early January 2021)

Category: Election Process Sabotage
DMS: 5 — Systemic Malice

Action: Authored the Eastman Memos (v1: December 23, 2020; v2: early January 2021) — a structured legal plan for VP Pence to reject, delay, or redirect certified electoral votes from seven states, triggering a contingent election the House would resolve state-by-state in Trump’s favor

Key Evidence: Eastman Memo v1 and v2 (produced to J6 Committee); Federal Judge David Carter’s March 2022 ruling that Trump and Eastman “more likely than not” dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session; Jack Smith federal indictment naming Eastman as Co-Conspirator #2; California Bar Court disbarment ruling finding Eastman “engaged in moral turpitude”

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: Authoring a multi-step constitutional subversion plan goes far beyond advocacy of a legal theory. The Eastman Memos were operational documents — they specified each step, anticipated each objection, and outlined the contingent-election path to the House. The ideological path would have been to file amicus briefs and accept the Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of Texas v. Pennsylvania. All five distinguishing factors apply: process subversion (the Memos were a blueprint for subverting the constitutional certification), targeted asymmetry (solely designed to produce a Trump win), expert rejection (60+ courts, Trump’s own DOJ, Pence’s counsel all found the theory legally invalid), accountability avoidance (Eastman’s disbarment followed), pattern context (coordinated across seven states).

Scored Action 2: January 4, 2021 Oval Office meeting

Category: Election Process Sabotage
DMS: 5 — Systemic Malice

Action: January 4, 2021 Oval Office meeting — privately acknowledged to VP Pence and Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob that the Pence theory “would lose 9-0 at the Supreme Court if challenged,” then continued to publicly advance it

Key Evidence: Greg Jacob’s contemporaneous emails and J6 Committee sworn testimony; Pence memoir and sworn statements; J6 Committee final report; subsequent disbarment proceedings citing this as evidence of “moral turpitude”

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: The January 4 meeting is the evidentiary cornerstone for Eastman’s intent. He told the Vice President of the United States, in the Oval Office, that his legal theory had no legal support — then publicly told a crowd on January 6 that Pence could act on exactly that theory. This is not a case of an attorney advancing a good-faith losing argument. It is a documented case of advancing a theory the attorney himself had conceded was legally baseless, in furtherance of an election subversion plan. Expert rejection proven by self-admission.

Scored Action 3: Organized or coordinated the seven-state fake elector scheme (AZ, GA, MI, NM,…

Category: Election Process Sabotage
DMS: 5 — Systemic Malice

Action: Organized or coordinated the seven-state fake elector scheme (AZ, GA, MI, NM, NV, PA, WI) as originating legal architect — providing the constitutional theory that operationalized the alternate-slates plan

Key Evidence: Jack Smith federal indictment (Eastman named Co-Conspirator #2); Georgia RICO indictment (Aug. 2023, 8 counts); Arizona fake-electors indictment (Apr. 2024, 9 counts); state-level fake elector documents

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: The fake-elector scheme required a constitutional theory to validate state-level operatives’ participation. Eastman provided that theory knowing it was legally invalid. The scheme was implemented across seven states — systemic scope. Process subversion + pattern context + accountability avoidance (subsequent criminal indictments in multiple states) = all criteria met.

Scored Action 4: Spoke at the January 6 Ellipse rally, publicly telling the crowd that VP Pence…

Category: Voter Confidence Subversion
DMS: 4 — Active Direction

Action: Spoke at the January 6 Ellipse rally, publicly telling the crowd that VP Pence could “send these results back to the states for them to send a clean slate of electors” — a position he had privately conceded was baseless two days earlier

Key Evidence: Video/audio record of Ellipse speech (January 6, 2021); comparison to January 4 admission (evidence before J6 Committee); J6 Committee findings

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: Publicly advancing a theory you privately acknowledged had no legal basis, to a crowd of tens of thousands outside the Capitol during the certification, is not protected advocacy. It is targeted disinformation delivered at a moment designed to create pressure on the constitutional process. Active Direction rather than Systemic because the Ellipse speech was a single event rather than a sustained multi-state operation.

What Is NOT Scored

Eastman’s broader constitutional conservatism, his scholarship on natural-born citizen doctrine, his Claremont Institute writing, his conservative legal advocacy, and his post-disbarment media activity are ideology. DMA scoring applies exclusively to his operational role in the election subversion scheme — specifically the actions he took after his own acknowledgment that the constitutional theory was baseless.

Assessment Basis

All factual predicates are cited to primary sources — the Eastman Memos themselves, J6 Committee sworn testimony and final report, federal and state court records, and bar disciplinary findings. The January 4 acknowledgment of legal invalidity is the critical intent element; it is documented in multiple independent contemporaneous accounts.

Legal Disclaimer

The Democratic Malice Assessment is an analytical framework applying defined criteria to documented public conduct. Designations are evaluative conclusions, not statements of criminal guilt. No DMS score constitutes a finding of criminal liability. The factual predicates are cited to primary sources; the evaluative conclusions are protected expression. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its progeny apply to this assessment of a public figure’s public conduct.

Role in Democratic Erosion / Jan 6 / Trump 2.0

Eastman is the originating legal architect of the most aggressive constitutional theory advanced in the post-2020 election period — the “Pence has authority to reject electors” theory.

His distinctive contributions:

The Constitutional Theory

  • The “Twelfth Amendment ambiguity” theory — that the constitutional text leaves open the question whether the Vice President has independent authority over the count
  • The “alternate slate” theory — that states could submit dueling slates and the VP could decide which to count
  • The “House contingent election” theory — that under Twelfth Amendment, each state delegation casts one vote, where Republicans had a 26-23 advantage in 2020-2021

The Operational Plan

  • The fake-electors-organizing scheme in seven states (AZ, GA, MI, NM, NV, PA, WI)
  • The pressure-campaign on state legislators
  • The pressure-campaign on Pence and his staff
  • The integration with Rudy Giuliani’s “elite strike force” and the Sidney Powell “Kraken” track

The Communications Strategy

  • The Ellipse speech
  • Multiple Newsmax / Fox News appearances
  • Twitter/X posts
  • Coordination with Trump campaign messaging

The Continuing Influence

  • Despite disbarment, Eastman remains a sought-after speaker on conservative legal circuits
  • Published “On the True Date of the End of the American Republic” and similar pieces
  • Continued advisory roles within MAGA legal infrastructure

Project 2025 / Continuing Movement

  • Eastman has been an informal advisor to multiple Trump 2.0 administration officials including DOJ figures involved in birthright-citizenship litigation (Trump 2025 EO)
  • His “natural-born citizen” theory — used in 2020 to challenge Kamala Harris’s eligibility — has been resurrected by some MAGA legal figures in 2024-2025

Legal Status and Investigations

  • Indictments:
  • Georgia (Fulton County, August 2023)
  • Arizona (Maricopa County, April 2024)
  • Federal: Named co-conspirator #2 in the dismissed Special Counsel federal case
  • Bar status:
  • California: Disbarred (2024)
  • DC: Disciplinary recommendation pending
  • Civil litigation: Multiple Capitol Police officer lawsuits; previous Dominion defamation suit settled
  • Contempt convictions: Held in contempt of court in connection with subpoena litigation; ruling vacated on appeal

Personal-Public Interest Conflicts

Financial Holdings

  • Eastman is not a person of substantial wealth by Trump-orbit standards
  • Chapman pension: Forced retirement from Chapman in 2021 with a confidential settlement; modest academic pension
  • Claremont Institute compensation (2021-present): Senior fellow / advisor income
  • Personal real estate: Modest
  • Speaking and consulting income: Significant in 2021-2024; declined after disbarment
  • Defense costs: Substantial; legal defense fundraising via “Eastman Legal Defense Fund” and adjacent vehicles
  • Trump-orbit fundraising assistance: Save America PAC and other entities have provided indirect financial support to legal-defense costs of multiple J6-implicated figures, including reportedly Eastman

Foreign Exposure

  • No FARA registrations
  • No documented foreign-government deals
  • No foreign business interests
  • Pre-2021 academic engagements: Various international academic engagements, none with apparent conflicts

Regulatory Recusals and Waivers

  • N/A — never in government

Family Business Entanglements

  • Children: Adult; no documented administration entanglements
  • Wife: Not a documented business or political principal

Specific Decisions Intersecting Personal Interests

  • Eastman’s continuing advisory role: With key Trump 2.0 figures, particularly on birthright-citizenship and election-integrity matters, suggests his ideological commitments and his post-disbarment income streams remain professionally aligned
  • “Natural-born citizen” doctrine: Eastman’s pre-2020 advocacy on this question intersected with his 2020 advocacy against Kamala Harris’s eligibility; the issue continues to surface in MAGA legal advocacy

Key Connections

Federalist Society / Conservative Legal Network

  • Clarence Thomas — Eastman’s former boss; ongoing close personal relationship; Eastman’s 2021 communications with Ginni Thomas were extensive
  • Ginni Thomas — Wife of Justice Thomas; documented J6-period communications with Eastman
  • Leonard Leo — Federalist Society co-chair; broader network alignment but not direct partnership
  • J. Michael Luttig — Former boss; testified AGAINST Eastman before J6 Committee — among the most damaging witnesses
  • Mike Davis — Article III Project; trump-aligned network
  • Cleta Mitchell — Election integrity
  • Hans von Spakovsky — Election-integrity ally

Claremont Institute / Conservative Movement

  • Larry Arnn — Hillsdale College; Claremont alumnus
  • Charles Kesler — Claremont Review of Books
  • Michael Anton — Claremont alumnus; Trump 1.0 NSC; “Flight 93 Election” essay author
  • Glenn Ellmers — Claremont fellow
  • Numerous Claremont-trained conservative academics

J6 / Coup Plot Network

  • Donald Trump — Direct co-conspirator
  • Mark Meadows — Coordination
  • Jeffrey Clark — DOJ takeover scheme parallel
  • Rudy Giuliani — “Elite strike force” parallel
  • Kenneth Chesebro — Operational architect of fake electors
  • Boris Epshteyn — Trump aide
  • Sidney Powell — Parallel “Kraken” track
  • Phil Waldron — Election-fraud claim source
  • Russell Ramsland — ASOG / Allied Security Operations Group

Political Allies

  • Mike Pence — Target of pressure; subsequently testified against Eastman
  • Greg Jacob (Pence counsel) — Cross-examined Eastman privately; testified to J6 Committee with damaging recollection
  • Various Republican state legislators in AZ, GA, MI, PA, WI subject of Eastman pressure campaign

Adversaries / Opponents

  • J6 Select Committee — Cheney, Thompson, et al.
  • California State Bar — Disciplinary authority
  • Federal Judge David Carter — Wrote the “more likely than not” Crime-Fraud opinion
  • J. Michael Luttig — Public testimony against
  • DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith
  • Federal-court system in DC, AZ, GA
  • Capitol Police officers in civil litigation

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@citizenanalyst.ai with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

For Trump Supporters: Questions Worth Considering

Eastman — a University of Chicago Law School graduate, former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, and former law school dean — drafted a memo outlining a six-step plan for Pence to reject or delay certification of electoral votes on January 6. On January 4, 2021, he sat across from Pence and Pence’s counsel and acknowledged that his own theory would lose 9-0 at the Supreme Court if challenged. Two days later, he spoke at the Ellipse rally and told the crowd that Pence could “send these results back to the states” — a position he had already privately conceded was legally baseless. He was subsequently disbarred in California after the bar court found he made “false and misleading statements” and “engaged in moral turpitude.” He was indicted in Georgia and Arizona. A federal judge found it “more likely than not” that Trump and Eastman “dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress.”

Here’s a question worth sitting with: Eastman was not an amateur — he was a Harvard-educated constitutional scholar with a PhD from the Claremont Graduate School, a Supreme Court clerkship, and decades of conservative legal scholarship. He spent his career arguing for originalism and constitutional fidelity. And he privately told the Vice President of the United States that the plan he was publicly advocating had no legal support and would fail unanimously at the Supreme Court. Then he went to the Ellipse and advocated it publicly anyway, to a crowd that was about to march on the Capitol. The California Bar Court found that he made false and misleading statements and engaged in moral turpitude. His career was built on the credibility of the rule of law. What does it tell you about a constitutional lawyer’s commitment to the Constitution when he privately admits his theory is wrong but publicly advocates it anyway?

Sources

Primary court records

  • Eastman v. Thompson et al., US District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:22-cv-00099 (JVS) — Judge David O. Carter’s March 28, 2022 crime-fraud opinion (the “more likely than not” finding). CourtListener docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62613089/john-c-eastman-v-bennie-g-thompson/
  • United States v. Trump, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:23-cr-00257 (TSC) — August 1, 2023 federal J6 indictment naming Eastman as Co-Conspirator 2; case dismissed November 2024. CourtListener docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/
  • State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947 — August 14, 2023 RICO indictment (Eastman charged with 8 counts, including OCGA § 16-14-4 violation and solicitation of violation of oath by public officer). Indictment text: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23904792-2023-08-14-indictment-doc
  • State of Arizona v. Boris Epshteyn et al., Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CR2024-105423-001 — April 24, 2024 fake-electors indictment (nine felony counts against Eastman). Indictment: https://www.azag.gov/press-release/state-arizona-indicts-individuals-2020-fake-elector-case
  • In the Matter of John Charles Eastman, State Bar Court of California, Case No. SBC-23-O-30029 — Judge Yvette Roland’s March 27, 2024 disbarment recommendation (11 charges; findings of moral turpitude and false and misleading statements). Opinion: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/23-O-30029-1.pdf ; licensee record: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/193726
  • John C. Eastman v. Bennie G. Thompson et al., US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 22-56013 — appeal of the CD Cal ruling above.

Congressional record

  • Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Final Report (H. Rept. 117-663, December 22, 2022) — Eastman is named extensively across the report and its transcripts. Full text: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-J6-REPORT
  • Greg Jacob testimony to the J6 Select Committee, June 16, 2022 hearing. Transcript: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034632/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034632.pdf
  • J. Michael Luttig testimony to the J6 Select Committee, June 16, 2022 hearing. Transcript: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000038440/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000038440.pdf

Primary documents

  • Eastman Memo v1 (“January 6 scenario,” December 23, 2020), released via J6 Select Committee. Text: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-83bd-d7f7-a5e7-fbff92460000
  • Eastman Memo v2 (six-page expanded version, early January 2021), released via J6 Select Committee.

Other civil litigation

  • Capitol Police officer civil suits against Eastman (multiple filings; pending as of publication).

Contemporaneous reporting and biography

  • Bob Woodward & Robert Costa, Peril (Simon & Schuster, 2021).
  • Maggie Haberman, Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America (Penguin Press, 2022).
  • Politico, “Inside the Eastman Memos” reporting series (2022): https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/28/eastman-emails-trump-jan-6-00021123
  • New York Times, “How John Eastman’s Plan to Overturn the Election Worked” (2022): https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/john-eastman-jan-6.html
  • The Atlantic, John Eastman coverage (2024): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/03/john-eastman-disbarment-california/677856/
  • John C. Eastman, “On the True Date of the End of the American Republic” (post-disbarment essay), Claremont Review of Books: https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/

Cross-References

Accountability Cross-References (Added 2026-05-07)

Pardon Status: Pardoned second term 2025. Authored ‘Eastman Memos’ outlining Pence plan to reject electoral votes.

Administration Role / Post-Jan 6 Status: Pardoned; no confirmed formal appointment.

See also:

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%
5
Please Share Your Feedback
How Can We Improve This Article?

Related Articles