Lawfare update: Texas judge dismisses case against Sidney Powell; Eastman states his case

by WorldTribune Staff, February 24, 2023

A Texas judge on Wednesday dismissed disciplinary charges filed by state regulators last year against pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, finding “numerous defects” in the evidence presented.

The State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline had sued Powell last March, claiming she “had no reasonable basis” for filing lawsuits challenging Joe Biden’s reported victories in key battleground states in the 2020 presidential election.

Judge Andrea Bouressa, of Collin County District Court, said in the Wednesday decision that she had difficulties finding evidence that the state bar tried to cite in the case. The judge also criticized the bar commission for not properly labeling its exhibits in its filing, leading her to only consider two of the eight exhibits the commission had filed.

Defending The Republic noted: “The Bar had no evidence as a matter of law that Powell violated any rule in her four election fraud cases.”

Bouressa said her ruling “resolves all claims between all parties and is final and appealable.”

A representative for the Texas state bar said the commission would review the decision.

Meanwhile, John Eastman, the law professor who developed the plan to challenge Joe Biden’s electors on January 6, 2021, is fighting back against the Left’s move to disbar him.

In the Eastman case, the State Bar of California filed an official complaint of 11 charges, alleging that he endeavored to “plan, promote, and assist then-President Trump in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states.”

Related: Dark money group tied to Soros, CCP targets lawyers who backed Trump, March 10, 2022

In his response to the California Bar’s attack, Eastman explained that what he did was review the election law in order to advise Trump and Vice President Mike Pence on the various legitimate strategies they could employ to address reports of rampant irregularities in the 2020 election.

“In other words, he did what lawyers in our adversarial legal system are supposed to do. He looked at the law and advised his client on what courses of action he could legally take in order to achieve his ends. Had he done otherwise, he would have betrayed the interests of his client,” Roger Kimball, editor and publisher of The New Criterion, wrote in defense of Eastman.

Eastman, in a Thursday interview with OAN, stated his case.

“We’ve now got people who are so addicted to power, whether in government or collaborators on social media, that they’ll throw off the liberty of all our fellow citizens in order to achieve it or hold it,” Eastman told OAN. “And that’s why they’re going after people.”

Action . . . . Intelligence . . . . Publish

You must be logged in to post a comment Login