On Wednesday, prior to President Trump's speech to protesters in Washington, Rudy Giuliani spoke to the crowd. He then introduced Professor John Eastman a conservative Constitutional law professor at Chapman University in Orange, California. Eastman described how voting machines were allegedly rigged using algorithms to help Joe Biden get the needed number of votes to defeat President Trump. It should be noted that while both speakers passionately stated their belief that the election was stolen, neither encouraged violence, and neither made any mention of the marching to the Capitol. Yet, in addition to President Trump, both men are being accused of engaging in incitement. In addition, efforts are ongoing by some at Chapman University to have Eastman fired. A similar move is underway at Colorado University at Boulder, where Eastman is a visiting professor. The presidents of both universities have severely criticized Eastman's remarks but are refusing to fire him citing First Amendment protections.
The words of both Giuliani and Eastman can be seen here (hat tip Ugetube.com).
Last month, Eastman first came under fire for joining Trump's legal team in a court filing. He was accused of improperly using his work contact information at Chapman in the filing (hat tip Legal Insurrection).
Now, in the wake of Wednesday's events, Chapman president Daniele Struppa is facing demands to fire Eastman. In two statements to the campus community, Struppa has condemned Eastman but refuses to fire him.
"This week, John Eastman, a member of the Chapman faculty, played a role in the tragic events in Washington, D.C., that jeopardized our democracy."
That is an inaccurate and very unfair characterization. Eastman had nothing whatsoever to do with the events that took place at a separate location, in this case, the Capitol. As previously stated, he neither encouraged violence nor a march to the Capitol, let alone the storming of the Capitol. He expressed his belief that the election was stolen and outlined his reasons.
Here is Struppa's follow-up statement to the campus.
In addition, Phil DiStefano, President of the University of Colorado, Boulder, strongly condemned Eastman's speech even while conceding his first amendment rights and refusing to fire him.
While the presidents of Chapman and Colorado University are correct in defending Eastman's First Amendment rights and refusing to bend to the demands to fire him, their characterizations of Eastman's words and actions are unfair. As to the December issue when Eastman joined the Trump legal team, our recent history is rife with incidents when university professors have appeared on Capitol Hill to testify, and their university affiliations were prominently noted. Did we not know that Anita Hill was a professor at the University of Oklahoma when she leveled charges against Clarence Thomas in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings? Even Joe Biden should remember that. He presided over the hearings. What about when the Brett Kavanaugh hearings were taken over by the accusations of Christine Blasey Ford? And who was Christine Blasey Ford? A professor at Palo Alto University. That was hardly kept from the public as she testified. And how about that Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, who came to Washington to testify at Trump's impeachment hearings that the President had, indeed, committed impeachable offenses (in her opinion). We all knew she was a Stanford law professor. It was right there on the TV screen. How many times has that prominent Harvard Law Professor, Lawrence Tribe, weighed in on controversial issues, often on Capitol Hill, with his Harvard affiliation prominently displayed? Perhaps we should leave Hill and Ford off the list because, after all, they were the alleged victims, but don't tell me that university professors who enter the political arena are supposed to hide their credentials and pose as shoe salesmen. If it's OK for Pamela Karlan, it's OK for John Eastman.
To sum up, what we have here is an attack on Eastman for taking the side of President Trump in the election controversy. In academia, that is considered an unpardonable sin. To link him to the violence at the Capitol is wrong. That, however, will not stop the campus Jacobins from continuing their attacks. It is a sad commentary on the state of our universities today.
"Let's have trial by combat!" - Giuliani to the crowd, as Eastman stood by.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not a "belief" that the election was rigged. It's a lie. Giuliani failed 50 times in court to even make a case. He either knows its a lie or is stupid beyond repair.
Stop making excuses for traitors. They both need to go down with the ship that they steered into the storm.
"Stop making excuses for traitors. They both need to go down with the ship that they steered into the storm."
ReplyDeleteA bit overblown, don't you think?
No.
ReplyDeleteThey both know that it's a lie to say that there was fraud. They inspired a mob to attack the capitol.
They are loyal to Trump. Not to the Republican party, not to democracy, and definitely not to America.
And this from the guy who used the word "lynching" in his headline.
ReplyDeleteYes. I'm the one blowing things out of proportion. Clearly.
Check your own eye for planks.
I suggest you watch the tape of Eastman's words on January 6 and ask yourself if he in any way inspired the mob to attack the Capitol. He explained how and why he thinks voting machines were rigged. Ask yourself if he deserves the treatment he is getting from Colorado University and Chapman University.
ReplyDeleteAs for the term "lynching", we all know what it means when you put an adjective like academic in front of it. It is an expression and nobody (except perhaps you) takes it to mean an actual hanging of a person.
Get a grip!
The mob was inspired by the lie that the election was rigged. Can you really not conceive that he's lying?
ReplyDeleteSo yes, he deserves this treatment. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
And I understand your use of the word "lynching". My point is that, considering the history of this nation, its a gross metaphor to use.
Stop it. Clarence Thomas used it in his confirmation hearings. What if I had said crucified instead?
ReplyDeleteAnd let's clarify one thing: I am keeping an open mind on whether the election was rigged in key states. Maybe it wasn't, but it is possible, and you cannot dismiss the anger on the part of those who believe it. It didn't justify the violence at the Capitol, but there are a whole lot of people who were in Washington that day for the protests who did not engage in anything improper, who did not go into the Capitol. They should not all be tarred with the same brush.
How about "facing the consequences of his own actions"?
ReplyDeleteI absolutely dismiss the anger on the part of the people who believe it. If they had some legitimate reason to believe it, then that would be something else. But they have nothing. We knew that Trump would cry fraud if he lost because that's what he always does. His yes-men had the opportunity to present evidence, but they got sent packing.
The hilarious thing is that Guliani even had to admit while in court that it "wasn't a fraud case" even though during his conferences he said the exact opposite.
It's not that Trump, etc. genuinely think that there was fraud. They know that there wasn't. But they want to rile up the cultists.
Have you read the reports of what Trump did during the riot? He was happy that so many of them were wearing his merchandise. What's worse, he refused to call in the National Guard. Mike Pence had to do it! (He technically doesn't have the authority to do that, but I think that this is a case where it was correct to break the rules because it wasn't just about his safety.)
Are there some people who were genuinely misled and didn't participate in anything other than chanting and protesting? Absolutely. They are fools, but they're not necessarily traitors.
But the people who riled them up are. And the ones who broke in, smeared feces, stole stuff, etc. absolutely are. Every single one of them should face consequences. We agree on that, but you keep letting the instigators off the hook.
As for keeping an open mind, that's all good and fine, but at what point do you say, "There's probably nothing to see here." I think that Mitt Romney was right. Absolutely nothing will satisfy some people.