I’ve written before that the lawfare prosecution of me in Arizona by state Attorney General Kris Mayes is an outrageous abuse of the law, one pursued entirely for political purposes. I fear that it just got more so.
Keep in mind that I had nothing to do with challenging the 2020 election results in Arizona. Nothing. I did not represent President Trump in Arizona. I did not submit any legal filings. I did not speak with any electors in Arizona. Kris Mayes knows all this, but she orchestrated my indictment anyway.
Click here to donate to my legal defense fund.
At the core of the lawfare claims against me, President Trump and other defendants is that through various means we were engaged in “election interference” in the 2020 presidential election. It turns out it is Kris Mayes who is interested in election interference – and not just in 2024 but in 2026 when she herself will be running for reelection.
The state’s prosecution of me was designated as a “Complex Case” earlier this summer. I warned then that this designation would greatly increase the transactional costs of my defense and that has been made crystal clear by a new ruling issued on August 26.
The Arizona judge has set a tentative trial date of January 2026. You read that right. More than a year and a half away. That’s a year and a half of legal fees by lawyers who will have to be actively engaged in the case the whole time. Hundreds of thousands, if not a million dollars or more, is what I will be incurring going forward just on this one case.
I am very grateful for the support I’ve received thus far to my legal defense fund, but this latest ruling in Arizona by itself could cost me more than what I’ve raised to date. And that says nothing about what I am facing in Georgia, California and Washington DC. That is why I am appealing for your help today. I can’t do this on my own. Please be generous.
It’s clear that I am in this mess for the long haul and that the ultimate cost of my defense may end up being even higher than the $3 million I previously estimated.
The timing of the prosecution of me in Georgia depends on what state officials do with the challenge to DA Fani Wills. Our team assumes that the trial will occur sometime next year, but delays could push it out even further.
I am fighting the effort by lawfare radicals to have me disbarred in California. A state Bar judge recently made that recommendation. I am appealing but my law license has been put on “inactive” status throughout the appeal. It’s a complicated appellate process that involves going first to higher authorities in the California State Bar Court, and then to the California Supreme Court and also involves substantial legal issues to be litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, I’m fighting a similar effort at the federal level before the US Supreme Court where lawfare radicals are also seeking my disbarment.
You’ve probably read that federal Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a “superseding” indictment against former President Donald Trump alleging election interference. As before, I am an unindicted co-conspirator in this new filing, which was made in response to the Supreme Court ruling that presidents are entitled to some level of immunity from prosecutions for official actions taken in office.
All of these cases are involved, difficult and costly to defend.
In Arizona, the delay to 2026 is based on the court’s expectation that discovery, motions, interlocutory appeals, etc., will make anything sooner unrealistic.
There is some hope that I may be able to defeat the assault in Arizona short of a full trial. The Arizona judge is considering several motions to dismiss the case, including my own motion based on a brand new amendment to Arizona’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows criminal defendants to have a case dismissed if it involves the exercise of their First Amendment rights (as this one clearly does) and the state can’t prove it wasn’t motivated by the Attorney General’s desire to prevent, retaliate against, or deter the exercise of those First Amendment rights.
Because the issue is so novel, we do not have a read on how the judge might rule, or when he might rule. But the fact that this hearing, originally scheduled for a few hours on a single day, lasted three days because of the large number of defendants is a good indication of how costly this litigation is going to be.
I’ve already expended more than $1 million fighting these lawfare radicals, and it’s going to take at least three times that amount to ultimately prevail.
The thought of me having to pay a full legal team to work day in and day out for years to fend off all the assaults that have been hurled my way from lawfare radicals is simply exhausting. The reality is that I can’t handle this burden on my own. I need the help of patriotic Americans like you to fight back.
I hope you will consider a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, or $1,000 or more. Whatever amount you are able to contribute will be put to immediate use in furthering my defense to the withering legal assault I am facing.
Thank you for whatever you can do to help.
Sincerely,
John Eastman
Constitutional Scholar
Former Attorney for President Donald Trump