MS NOW⁠95%

California attorney who tried to help overturn 2020 election loses law license ⁠0%

By The Associated Press⁠63%

4/15/2026, 7:10:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 22.7% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 583 faulty-reasoning hits from 551 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A California attorney who aided President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results has lost his license to practice in the state. 
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered John Eastman disbarred and his name stricken from the state roll of attorneys. 
It caps a yearslong effort by the state bar to strip Eastman of his law license after he developed a legal strategy to have then-Vice President Mike Pence interfere with the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory. 
A judge for the State Bar Court of California in 2024 recommended that he lose his California law license. 
Eastman argued he was being punished for simply giving legal advice. 
George Cardona, chief trial counsel for the State Bar of California, said Wednesday's decision follows clear evidence that Eastman "advanced false claims about the 2020 presidential election to mislead courts, public officials, and the American public.” 
“The Court’s order underscores that Mr. 
Eastman’s misconduct was incompatible with the standards of integrity required of every California attorney,” he said. 
Eastman’s attorney, Randall Miller, said the decision “raises pivotal constitutional concerns” and that they plan to seek review in the U.S. 
Supreme Court. 
The ruling, he said in a statement, “departs from long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent protecting First Amendment rights, especially in the attorney discipline context.” 
The States United Democracy Center, which filed an early ethics complaint against Eastman, cheered the decision. 
“His unethical actions have had real, lasting consequences for our democracy,” Christine P. 
Sun, a senior vice president for the nonprofit, said in a statement. 
Eastman was a close adviser to Trump in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. 
Capitol. 
He wrote a memo laying out a plan for Pence to reject legitimate electoral votes for Biden while presiding over the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 in order to keep Trump in the White House. 
Prosecutors looking to strip Eastman of his law license had depicted him as fabricating a baseless theory and making false claims of fraud in hopes of overturning the results of the election. 
An attorney for Eastman had countered that his client wasn't trying to steal the election but was considering ways to delay electoral vote counting so states could investigate allegations of voting improprieties. 
Trump’s claims of fraud were roundly rejected by courts, including by judges Trump appointed. 
Eastman has also faced criminal charges in Georgia in the case accusing Trump and 18 allies of conspiring to overturn the Republican’s loss in the state. 
The case was dismissed in November. 
Earlier that month, Trump had pardoned Eastman and many others accused of backing the Republican’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. 
The pardon only applies to federal crimes. 
Eastman had served as a law clerk for U.S. 
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and as dean of Chapman University law school in Southern California from 2007 to 2010. 
He was a professor at the school when he retired in 2021 after more than 160 faculty members signed a letter calling for the university to take action against him. 
The California State Bar is a regulatory agency and the only court system in the U.S. that is dedicated to attorney discipline. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.3%The Associated Press: 2.8%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.4%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%The Associated Press: 3.2%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.7%The Associated Press: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.7%The Associated Press: 11.1%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect22.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%The Associated Press: 1.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 17.6%The Associated Press: 11.0%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias17.6%This article: 7.8%The Associated Press: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%The Associated Press: 2.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%The Associated Press: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%The Associated Press: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.7%The Associated Press: 3.8%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority14.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.0%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.3%The Associated Press: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon8.3%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 5.6%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.1%The Associated Press: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote1.1%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

551 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers27%attributed speech401writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Eastman • 11 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Cardona • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Cardona • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRandall Miller • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageRandall Miller • 25 words • 0.0% coverageStates United Democracy Center • 16 words • 0.0% coverageChristine P. Sun • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChristine P. Sun • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words11% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%States United Democracy Center: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.