A few things:
- I’ve been focused on other stuff this week, so apologies for not blogging or making videos. I had to get my taxes filed yesterday, then I celebrated by starting my last house project – installing a new tile floor in the master shower.The master bath was remodeled during COVID, and the shower floor got black round tiles that looked amazing at the time, but 6 years of AZ’s ultra hard water left white stains that looked awful. The black floor had to go. In its place is something lighter and more neutral. That should be all finished by tomorrow.
- I’m never going back to YouTube, but the embedded video thing (while workable) isn’t ideal. So, I sucked up my pride and created an account (holding nose) here: https://rumble.com/user/DavidGingras
I haven’t post any content there yet, but I’m planning to move my videos over there soon. I also want to create a new page here where all my videos are better organized.For fun, I may use Rumble to do a livestream….maybe tomorrow? Don’t hold me to that — but you gotta experiment. Maybe Jim Lee can watch and ask questions! - Speaking of Jolly Old Jim, he’s taking my deposition next week. That should be interesting. The only hard question will be when the court reporter asks me if I swear to tell the truth.I’m struggling with how to respond. Here’s what my gut says I should say: “The truth? Like do you mean the same level of ‘truth’ Gregg Woodnick displayed when he lied to the court, and you said that was fine? How about the measure of truth Andrew Ivchenko used when he committed perjury, and you said that wasn’t a concern? Or do you mean the same level of truth Jim Lee used when he put things in the Complaint that were blatantly false? Or do you mean the type of truth Judge Mata displayed when she said Dr. Deans testified that Planned Parenthood is closed on Sundays? Is that the kind of truth you want, or is there a different definition we need to use?”Seriously — if I hold myself to the same truth standards as everyone else, the depo will be a shitshow. Gonna have to think about that a bit more.
- Speaking of truth — my heart fluttered a bit when I saw this story today: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/16/lawyer-john-eastman-disbarred-2020-election-trump
If you don’t know the story, John Eastman
iswas a lawyer who tried to help Trump steal the 2020 election. Eastman came up with a brilliant idea — he wrote a memo encouraging VP Mike Pence to lie and say there was election fraud when, in fact, there wasn’t.The State Bar of California charged Eastman with all sorts of misconduct. The trial took 34 days (Jim Lee would say they only needed 34 minutes). Eastman was found guilty of 10 out of 11 charges. Today the California Supreme Court pulled his ticket.
Notable is the fact Eastman argued some of his actions were protected by the First Amendment. That’s ballsy – the guy literally lied and tried to help a criminal steal the election through fraud. Free speech covers that, right?
No, it doesn’t. The California Bar Court did a pretty good job walking through all this in a 100+ page ruling filed last year. It’s got some real zingers in here, but this paragraph (from page 80 of the opinion) is a helpful summary:
The evidence and testimony at trial established that Eastman made multiple false and misleading statements in his professional capacity as an attorney for President Trump in court filings and other written statements, as well as in conversations with others and in public remarks. Both this opinion and the hearing judge’s decision detail, in the discussion of the individual counts where culpability was found, that Eastman knowingly made these false statements or had no reasonable factual or legal basis for making them. Accordingly, while we have applied the strict scrutiny standard to the facts of this case, we find Eastman’s First Amendment defenses regarding his rights to free speech and to petition the government for the redress of grievances do not bar a finding of culpability and discipline in this matter. Furthermore, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is employed as a tool in the commission of a crime.
I like the fact they had no trouble understanding something that Jim Lee (and the PDJ) seem to be SO confused about — the CA Bar Court explained lawyers DO have First Amendment rights, and thus can only be punished for making:
A.) FALSE statements that are intentionally false, OR;
B.) FALSE statements made with reckless disregard for the truth.I personally don’t think Jim Lee is confused about this. I don’t believe for one second Jim Lee really thinks a lawyer can be punished for a third type of speech:
C.) TRUE statements made with reckless disregard for the truth.NO, NO…as bad as Jim is, I am sure he knows there is literally ZERO authority to support this new third category of unprotected speech – TRUE statements made with reckless disregard. Give me a break.
But like all fascists, Jim wants to take away as many rights as possible, so he is pretending like that third new category isn’t new at all. He wants you think that’s just included in Category B. Just like Trump wants you to think he’s 6’5″ and 225 lbs.
He’s wrong, and the PDJ was wrong when she agreed with him. But that doesn’t make any difference. The AZ Supreme Court will decide who is right and who is wrong. And this isn’t even a close call.
And by the time that happens, they will have to mail the ruling (black text on white paper only, please🙏) to whatever foreign country I’m living in.
