I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that pending criminal indictments are not exactly the ideal excuses for stalling a disbarment procedure. In any event, it was a lot of fun watching MSNBC host Alicia Menendez, along with guest lawyers Harry Litman and Peter Strzok shred Eastman’s argument to bits.

Strzok said the disbarment charges, alone, are “extraordinary.” They include failure to follow the constitution, failure to follow federal law, misleading the court and moral turpitude. “Imagine, if you will, a physician who was charged with killing somebody on the operating room table, and in the pursuit to try and revoke their medical license, they said, ‘No, no, no, let me keep it until the courts decide whether or not I killed this person or not.’ It's an absurd argument.”

Politico reported that one of Eastman’s arguments is that possible criminal charges will force him to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and thus prevent him from testifying to defend his law license. Strzok acknowledged that Eastman is entitled to due process and the ability to defend himself. But Eastman has already given “innumerable hours of testimony” in the bar proceeding, Strzok said.

There’s a chance the disbarment proceeding could be somewhat delayed, Strzok added, but along with the potential federal indictment is an indictment against Eastman in Fulton County, Georgia. “I just don't see any near end to the things that John Eastman is very likely about to go through,” Strzok said.

Litman was no less scathing. After his nut and crackpot remark, Litman said, “His tendency to incriminate himself, which is what triggers his Fifth Amendment right when he’s charged, that won't go away until the trial has run its course, appeals have happened, et cetera. So what he's really asking is could he have a - oh, you know two, three-year kind of pause on the disbarment proceedings and, more importantly probably for him, not go into criminal proceedings as someone who has been found to have done these 11 things that Pete just mentioned, up to and including moral turpitude.”

Menendez got in a good smackdown of her own. She said that Eastman’s lawyer has said there’s hope he will not be indicted. “If that was the case, then wouldn't they maybe not be so concerned about how charges could impact his disbarment proceedings?” she asked Strzok.

“At the end of the day, there is an obligation to adhere to a certain moral and ethical standard to have a bar license,” Strzok said. “That is independent of any sort of criminal behavior.”

Litman expects charges against Eastman and the rest of Donald Trump’s unindicted co-conspirators. “This is a guy who crawled out from under a rock because Trump was looking for anybody who would just tell him a crazy legal theory. He's also going to try to say he relied on it. There's 18 reasons why that won't fly either,” Litman said.

But Eastman and fellow unindicted co-conspirator Jeffrey Clark are being touted as rock stars and heroes by many conservatives, Menendez pointed out. So making sure the coup plotters and enthusiasts don’t try the same plan again is crucial.

“The stakes could not be higher,” Menendez said, as she ended the discussion.