Main menu


Coup 4 Dummy Attorney John Eastman humiliated in court. Also.

(Photo courtesy of Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Another day, another ritual spanking in court for Trump’s coup curious lawyer John Eastman, faced with another series of embarrassing disclosures by the Election Commission on January 6th last night.

A former law professor is losing the war to prevent Chapman University from passing emails to the selection committee on January 6th. Not surprisingly, this incomparable genius used his work email to plan a coup.

Last week, Eastman made some progress, hmm, interesting A discussion to obscure his communication. Most of these were retreads of U.S. District Judge Carter’s allegations that were previously rejected in the final round of the disputed document, but Eastman unilaterally rejected Swing State’s election vote to Vice President Pence. He had a nifty new one to defend his product claim to the plan to let him. The court has already stated that the plot had hatched by promoting crime, not proceedings, that is, by interfering with formal proceedings, and refused to enjoy the privilege. But Eastman argues that what happens if Congress actually decides on the voter vote, and therefore the procedure is basically a proceeding.

Yes, he actually did this discussion with a straight face.

Reprivilege of documents from January 4th to 7th, 2021 [Docket No. 260] (“Order”), the court was created in anticipation of various legislative proceedings, specifically state elections and the number of parliamentary elections, rather than the documents being prepared in anticipation of proceedings. He dismissed many of Dr. Mann’s claims of work product privileges. .. The documents in question at 22, 23.66 are not related to the usual legislative process, but to the procedure in which Congress is acting in a ruling position. Therefore, they are the direct legislative subject matter equivalent to proceedings.

The committee has a reaction to it, and it’s hey, are you getting higher?

Well, that’s not the case. But close it!

First, Dr. Eastman does not cite the authority of his “legislative proceedings” theory that Congress turns into a arbitrage body when it weighs the alternate slate of voters. .. Br. At 25.

Second (and most deadly to his argument), Dr. Eastman’s theory relies on events that never happened: the state is actually submitting an alternative slate for voters. None of the states submitted certificates or documents disguised as voters’ votes in connection with the 2020 presidential election. As a result, Congressional authority to weigh electoral alternative slate, whether it was a arbitrage process or not, was not triggered.

Third, Dr. Eastman’s actions were not an effort to participate in the arbitrage process (as they may be subject to privilege protection of work products). Instead, they were criminal acts that were subject to the exception of criminal fraud and were therefore not protected by privileges.

“Even if Congress acts in some arbitrage position when weighing voters’ alternative slate, the attorney’s efforts to disrupt that process are not the result of an attorney eligible for protection. The outline of the committee insists.

And the Commission explained in great detail “the lawyer’s efforts to destroy that process.” Eastman threw himself on the floor to avoid cooperating with the investigation and threw a six-month taunt, but most of his correspondents simply handed over the paperwork and testified when called. This means that the Commission has already gained much of the communication Eastman is currently trying to claim.

This is sometimes hilarious, as is the case with a single email with a party that Eastman has characterized as a “potential client.”

A correspondent lawyer contacted by the Commission wrote that his client “has never held or considered holding Dr. John Eastman.” He contacted Dr. Eastman only to correct Eastman’s falsely stated position on the PA Constitution. He had no privileged communication between the lawyer and his client. “

However, most of the 22 email chains entered as exhibits last night show Eastman’s evolving legal theory as the preconditions of his plan to keep Trump in the office did not come true.

On November 5, before the election, former Foley & Voter partner Creta Mitchell told Eastman that he “regained his constitutional obligations” and “rather than delegated to the governor” for Trump’s election. He asked to draft a memo urging people to be nominated. Voter will. By November 28, he had a draft work urging the legislature to “exercise their power to legally nominate voters’ slate.”

In an email on December 19, Eastman admitted that “unless these voters get a certificate from a state legislator, they will die when they arrive in parliament.” Eastman even assumed that the Constitution would give the legislature the power of the plenary session and even convene themselves without the governor’s power to regain the voters.

However, the Swing State legislature did not agree with Eastman’s recommendation. This forced Eastman to move the goal post — and not the last.

On December 4, Eastman told Pennsylvania Parliamentarians that “at least one member and one senator have signed in writing and are upheld by both parliaments to reject the slate of state voters. He wrote that an “opposition” was necessary. .. This was in the same email that Eastman said there was no specific evidence of fraud, but he just gave the absentee ballot a full haircut and Congress turned the state into Trump. I explained how.

In the absence of Trump’s authorized “alternative” voters, the court will not uphold the allegations of fraud, and if Congress is unlikely to challenge Swingstate’s Biden voters, Eastman will do everything before. Abandoned legal grounds and landed on Trump The theory of the final case of the campaign: Mike Pence completely rejects Swingstate voters and declares Trump a winner, or the result is a problem Yes, you can allow the state to vote by a delegation of the House of Representatives. Trump’s victory.

All of this is a very bad view for the president’s lawyer. Not only because the parties he claims to protect have already handed over the controversial communications to the Commission, but also as Eastman is trying to hide his own responsibilities behind false privilege claims. I’m pretending to be. But, as Judge Carter explained in April, his changing rationale was clearly a “coup for legal theory.”

This wasn’t privileged, and it’s certain because hell wasn’t legal advice. It was a plan to keep Trump in the office by Hook or a scammer, and it’s all out now.

Eastman vs. Thompson [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz dye She lives in Baltimore and writes about law and politics.