Talk:John Eastman

I don't think Judge Carter ruled that Eastman "was likely to have 'dishonestly conspired to obstruct'" ... that wasn't the matter before the court, so the court couldn't have ruled on it. Judge Carter, in a ruling on another matter, opined that Eastman "was likely to have 'dishonestly conspired to obstruct'".

118.161.250.117 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

NYT says ruled, CNN says said. I'll change it to found. soibangla (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Carter just ruled again about Eastman and Trump, and he did not mince words. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Basic information to add to this article: in which city/state Eastman lives. It's Orange, California, isn't it? Or did he relocate to Santa Fe, New Mexico in the summer of 2022? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, today's indictment is interesting. However, it is still an accusation that he has not yet been convicted of. As such, we're in WP:BLPCRIME territory. I don't think we can skip mentioning the indictment altogether, but there was an attempt to add it to the first sentence, which goes beyond reasonable consideration, and I have undone. The indictment is not what made him notable, it couldn't be, he was notable well before tonight. And in the longer run, it clearly will not be what this article hangs on, because either he is convicted, in which case the conviction itself may be key to the article, or he is not convicted, in which case the indictment didn't mean that much. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The felony criminal indictment today is just the latest culmination of the two year and nine month sequence of events that made this otherwise obscure person notable. Coverage in reliable sources of the indictment is massive worldwide, and belongs in the article. Of course, we should not permit any language stating or implying or inferring that Eastman is guilty, before any conviction. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Should be mentioned. All are innocent until proven guilty. 47.155.4.162 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The subject has had an article in place since 2007. I've been editing it since 2011, and saw no reason to call for deletion due to any lack of notability. There is a reasonable case to be made that being involved with Trump and even advocating for the non-certification or overturning of the Biden election should be at or near the top, but it should not be framed in terms of the indictment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I did not mean to imply that Eastman was not notable before the 2020 election and its aftermath. The word I used was "obscure" and Wikipedia has many biographies of people who are both obscure and notable. I should have said "highly notable" or "famous" and not contrasted obscurity and notability. There can be no doubt that Eastman is now far better known than he was three years ago, and that his indictment is now a very important part of his life story. I think that the indictment deserves a sentence at the end of the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am fine with there being a brief mention of indictment at the end of the introduction, as it currently is (although I do think that paragraph needs more summarizing and less step-by-step, date-by-date detail, as a matter of style.) It was the insertion into the opening sentence to which I objected. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

In fact, let me give a suggested opening. Replace the current first sentence with John Charles Eastman (born 1960) is an American lawyer and former academic who provided advice to then-President Donald Trump on maintaining the presidency and preventing its transition to Joe Biden in the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. He is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank. Thoughts? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Time to add that he was INDICTED in Georgia. Also, I agree the fact that he was a board member of the Federalist Society is highly relevant to understand him and his place in history. 47.155.4.162 (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have the subject listed as chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage, a role he took on in 2011. He was listed in that role on a leadership page of the website that was up into March of 2023, but which disappeared by May. There was a site redesign that the Wayback Machine detected in April, and a new page which omits mention of Eastman (or any other name as chairman), a status that continues to this day, although the numbers of leaders listed has been reduced from three to two. This does not necessarily mean that he left the position, and I am not advocating any change in the article at this time, but rather suggesting that we keep an eye open in regards to the possibility. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I just reworked edits that claimed that he was former chairman as well as similar edits regarding other positions he has held, as the edits lacked sources making the statement that he was no longer in those positions. Edit comments indicated that these edits assumed his absence from those positions due to not being listed on the appropriate web pages, but removal from a website does not mean removal from a position, particularly for someone currently under public scrutiny the way that Eastman is. Had the website listed someone else as chairman, that would be reasonable proof that he had been replaced; but barring that, it is possible that Eastman retains the title and they'd just rather not advertise the fact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I took a look at NOM's IRS 990 forms (available at Tax Exempt Organization Search Details). Eastman is listed as a director in their 2019 990, but not in their 2020 990. Since all "current officers, directors, trustees" must be listed, I think it's safe to say that Eastman is no longer with NOM. Unfortunately, I don't think we can say that in the article since this is wp:or. Nowa (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't assume it's safe to assume they didn't make an error on their 990s. They listed him on their website as chairman into 2023, which could just be poor maintenance, or could be truth. (They had edited the page circa 2018 with the removal of Chairman Emeritus Robert P. George.) He is still listed as Chairman on his Fed Society page, which again is unedited old text but he spoke for them multiple times in late 2020. Even if he's not Chairman, when he ceased being in that role is at least an interesting question. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a direct link to John Eastman's Newsweek Op-Ed article that raised concerns of "birther-ism" related to Kamala Harris' status as Joe Biden's vice presidential running mate: https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483 Pbohl (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is already linked as a reference (currently number 68) in the appropriate section. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Already done Jamedeus (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply