╌>

Donald Trump Could Face Criminal Charges After Explosive John Eastman Emails Revealed

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  2 years ago  •  28 comments

By:   Ewan Palmer (Newsweek)

Donald Trump Could Face Criminal Charges After Explosive John Eastman Emails Revealed
The panel investigating the insurrection previously said it would be "obligated" to refer evidence of potential crimes to the Justice Department.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



U.S.Donald TrumpJanuary 6Capitol RiotsDepartment of Justice

The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol has given further incentive to the Department of Justice to pursue criminal charges against Donald Trump after detailing how the former president may have engaged in a "criminal conspiracy" to overturn the 2020 election results.

Lawyers for the panel looking into the events leading up to the insurrection have listed a number of ways they claim show how Trump and his allies engaged in potential illegal acts to defraud the American people over the election results and then attempted to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat.

The allegations, submitted in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, were filed in response to attempts by one of Trump's lawyers, John Eastman, to fight a subpoena issued by the panel while citing attorney-client privilege.

The committee argues that a judge should reject Eastman's attempts to block the subpoena ordering him to hand over documents, as the normally well-protected privilege cannot be used if the lawyer and his client are attempting to cover up or engage in a crime.

Read more

  • Trump Facing 'Five-Year Felony' Over Classified-Docs Scandal: Kirschner
  • Donald Trump Calls Investigations Into His Businesses a 'Racist Attack'
  • Trump Walks Legal Tightrope as Investigations of Former President Intensify

To back up its claim, the committee revealed an email from Eastman in which he appeared to admit that his and Trump's plans to stop the election results being certified in favor of Joe Biden were illegal.

As part of their effort, Trump and his lawyer attempt to put pressure on former Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the votes from being certified in Congress in his role as presiding officer of the Senate.

In one email to Pence's lawyer, Eastman wrote: "I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation" of the Electoral Count Act to adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations into non-existent voter fraud.

"[Eastman] knew what he was proposing would violate the law, but he nonetheless urged the Vice President to take those actions," the filing states.

"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, [Eastman], and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the filing added.

"The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States."

The filing also states there is evidence that Trump and his team may have committed common law fraud for repeatedly pushing false claims that the 2020 election was rigged due to widespread voter fraud.

"The President and his associates persisted in making 'stolen election' claims even after the President's own appointees at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, along with his own campaign staff, had informed the President that his claims were wrong," the court documents state.

While the filings are the most detailed outline of potential crimes committed by Trump laid out by the panel, the January 6 House Select Committee is not actually conducting a criminal investigation and has no powers to bring forward any prosecutions.

Instead, the panel may use its findings to make a referral to the Department of Justice, which will ultimately decide whether to conduct a criminal probe into the former president. The panel's latest findings could be seen as an example of how a case could be put forward by federal prosecutors.

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson previously said the panel would be "obligated" to refer evidence of potential crimes to the Justice Department, although it is unclear whether it intends to do so with the latest court filings.

In a joint statement, Thompson and Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney suggested that the court filings provide evidence that a crime may have been committed.

"The facts we've gathered strongly suggest that Dr. Eastman's emails may show that he helped Donald Trump advance a corrupt scheme to obstruct the counting of electoral college ballots and a conspiracy to impede the transfer of power," they said.

Speaking to The Washington Post, former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason said that while the filings submitted by the Select Committee are "a major development," they are still only connected to civil proceedings concerning attorney-client privilege.

"To prove the actual crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors would have to meet a much higher burden," Eliason said.

Eliason said the significance of the filings is that "the evidence being uncovered points clearly in the direction of possible criminal conduct by Trump himself" in connection with the efforts to overturn the election.

"We can be sure that the Department of Justice is in contact with the committee and is watching closely."

In a statement to Newsweek , Charles Burnham, lawyer for Eastman, said that the attorney has a responsibility to protect client confidences, even at "great personal risk and expense."

"Because this is a civil matter, Dr. Eastman will not have the benefit of the Constitutional protections normally afforded to those accused by their government of criminal conduct.

"Nonetheless, we look forward to responding in due course," Burnham added.

Trump has been contacted for comment.

trump-crime.jpg?w=790&f=7489de6917e0bf37933bea2a0981ed5b Donald Trump speaks about Operation Warp Speed in the Rose Garden at the White House on November 13, 2020 in Washington, DC. The January 6 select committee said Trump "may have engaged in criminal acts" to overturn the 2020 election.Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    2 years ago

No client-attorney privilege when discussing crimes.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1    2 years ago

"May have"?  Old stale non-news! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Truth be told, I wish they would quit fucking around and indict, charge, convict, and jail him...so there is zero chance of his running again...if the "evidence" is there

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 years ago

Eastman's and Trump's memos prove they did...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    2 years ago

Could you publish some of those "memos" here? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.2    2 years ago

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2  evilone    2 years ago

Is the indictment of Donny-Bag-O-Doughnuts on the same timetable as Hilary (any day now for the last 6 years)? I mean we are still talking about "potential crimes" and not actual crimes. As it is I'm guessing the Dems will make as much hay about this in the run up to the election saying they've sent everything to the DoJ - The DoJ will say they are looking at it, but it will take time - then other than some grousing opinion pieces that will be the end of it, unless/until Donny Clownshoes runs again in 2024.

Seriously...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    2 years ago

Trump will try and get out of this on a technicality and his butt lickers will agree with the tactic. 

His guilt is not entirely or even mainly a legal one. He is guilty of betraying the American people and should be run out of politics, by everyone. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 years ago

How did he betray the American people? He's no longer president, which is what electorate wanted

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    2 years ago

What you know about the "evidence " in this case could be written on the back of a fleas ass. 

Here's five seconds - tell us everything you know about Trump's attempts to steal the 2020 election. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    2 years ago

Then show us the evidence. I don't care what he tried to do, it couldn't and didn't  succeed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    2 years ago

For the 1000th time, a crime doesnt have to "succeed " to be a crime. You do know that "attempted murder" is illegal dont you ? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 years ago

Whatever.... But allegations without evidence is false witness.

Any real facts about this incident would have been posted here long ago

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.5  evilone  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.4    2 years ago
But allegations without evidence is false witness.

That's not what Trump, his lawyers & sycophants have been saying, to this day about the (Big Lie) election. They have said many, many, many times they have allegations that a court must investigate to find the evidence! Why is that Greg? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  evilone @3.1.5    2 years ago

"they have allegations that a court must investigate to find the evidence!"

So they don't already have any evidence?   jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.7  evilone  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.6    2 years ago
So they don't already have any evidence?

Isn't that what judges asked Trump's lawyers when they laughed them out of court?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.6    2 years ago

Butt, we have the memos as evidence now...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.9  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.6    2 years ago

Here are Eastman's memos that are evidence.

"PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario 7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate. The 12th Amendment merely provides that “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch. The Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional, provides: If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. It allows the two houses, “acting separately,” to decide the question, whereas the 12th Amendment provides only for a joint session. And if there is disagreement, under the Act the slate certified by the “executive” of the state is to be counted, regardless of the evidence that exists regarding the election, and regardless of whether there was ever fair review of what happened in the election, by judges and/or state legislatures. So here’s the scenario we propose:
eastman-memo-p2-normal.gif?ts=1632224037143
1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required). 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected. 4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well. 5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.
  2 1   of   2  
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4  Trout Giggles    2 years ago

I'll actually believe it when I see him doing a perp walk out of Mar-A-Lago

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
6  Paula Bartholomew    2 years ago

When "could be charged" becomes "is charged" complete with silver bracelets, then I will go yay.  Until then, I am not going to get excited.

 
 

Who is online

afrayedknot
Vic Eldred
Hal A. Lujah
JohnRussell
Sean Treacy
Just Jim NC TttH
George
Jeremy Retired in NC
evilone
jw


409 visitors