The congressional Jan. 6 committee released some incredible documents Wednesday evening, as part of a court filing in which the committee alleged, among other things, that then-President Trump violated the law when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election results.
One might conclude that in a former life Eastman was a consigliere to John Gotti, but it’s self-evident that he is (was) too stupid and unschooled in the law.
So now that the precedent has been set that the Electoral Count Act is not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed
Having broken the law already, the law is no longer sacrosanct, so we can go to town and smash it to smithereens!
Eastman, a lawyer, former clerk to justice thomas, and law school professor, thinks breaking the law is AOK.
JFC.
A few weeks ago there was a story about how Eastman had to prove there was an attorney-client relationship between himself and Trump. Anyone know what proof he provided to the court? I’ve not seen anything on it.
So they just needed more time Eastman? 72 days and your guys couldn’t convince 22+ judges that there was major fraud, fraud, or fraudlite that happened in the 11/03/20 election.
When Eastman has his own day in court, I want financial penalties against him as part of the judgement. And no paltry penalties either, hefty penalties, you know as a deterrent to future assholes who think they can overturn the people’s vote.
If none of that moves the needle, at least a good portion of the 75 million people who supported President Trump will have seen a process that allowed the illegality to be aired.”
Has anyone actually come up with any specific information on what this illegality, with respect to the election, was? Did I miss something?
Hence, why California, I think it is, is re-considering his ability to practice.
(Jacob to Eastman): Respectfully, it was gravely, gravely irresponsible for you to entice the President with an academic theory that had no legal viability, and that you well know would lose before any judge who heard and decided the case.
Glad to see Pence’s chief counsel agrees with me that Eastman’s plan was barking loony and that no court or serious person would go along with it.
Whether “minor” or major, a lawyer cannot assist a client in the commission of a crime. Eastman might want to pay attention to this from the Supreme Court: “It is the purpose of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege to assure that the “seal of secrecy” between lawyer and client does not extend to communications made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud or crime.”
He provided the CA federal court with an unsigned letter allegedly from the TFG campaign. It’s attached somewhere in the same filing this article is excerpting from. The jan6 committee’s attorneys shat all over that letter.
Thanks Igor. 
This is the same case. The J6 Committee takes apart Eastman’s attempt to prove an attorney-client relationship starting at p. 21 of the brief they filed last night. Eastman appears to have provided the court with an unsigned engagement letter that would have been with the campaign, if it had actually been signed.
This: advocating for “a relatively minor violation” of election law’ signals the end of Eastman’s license to practice law. And here Eastman acknowledges that Trump “had the idea in his head” that Pence could nullify the election results… who gave Trump that idea? Eastman. Again, say goodbye to your law license.
Trump knew damn well he lost because everybody with any knowledge of the election actually told Trump. But he kept saying otherewise. As when Trump told Leslie Stahl why he berates the press (so that people won’t believe anything written about him), so he berated the election results. It’s his mein, his style, the way he thinks, the way he operates. But this time, it seems he really went to far.
The congressional Jan. 6 committee released some incredible documents
I don’t often quibble with grammar or usage, but these documents are not “incredible,” any more than they are “surprising,” or “shocking.”
One more relatively minor violation …
How many did he knowingly commit? There’s no privilege other than the Fifth Amendment shields the answer to that question. And that privilege won’t extend to any written communications in which he cops to the same.
Not being a criminal lawyer I have a stupid question,
Is a “minor violation of the law” like being a little bit pregnant?
Maybe my mind is just overloaded this week, but I can’t think of who at that time would have had the authority to sign that letter, short of TFG. Who was running the campaign beyond the brownian motion of grifters clamoring for the president’s ear?
only when the greater evil demands it, of course.