Bashing Garland for the election? Spell out the evidence he supposedly had that he could have used to convict Trump

[bigtree]

68. Supreme Court didn't reject Eastman's appeal over emails until 2023

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2024, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

...so how could they move forward on Eastman or Trump with most of the evidence tied up in appeals?

Every bit of evidence that involved communications with the president went through succsssive, lengthy appeals over privilege, all the way to the SC.


WASHINGTON, Oct 2. 2023 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by John Eastman, a conservative lawyer indicted in August over his role in efforts to overturn Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, in a case involving 10 emails that he had sought to shield from congressional investigators.

The justices declined to hear Eastman's appeal of a lower court's refusal to wipe out a federal judge's determination that the emails could be turned over to a House of Representatives committee due to an exception to attorney-client privilege involving communications likely used in furtherance of a crime.

The Democratic-led House panel issued a subpoena seeking the emails in its investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump's supporters and other matters involving efforts to undo Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 election victory over Trump.

In decisions in 2022, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter in Santa Ana ordered certain emails to be turned over, including those related to court efforts by Trump and Eastman to delay congressional certification of Biden's victory. Trump has made false claims that the election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud.

Attorney-client communications are normally safeguarded from disclosure. The so-called "crime-fraud" exception involves when a judge determines that they are likely used in furtherance of a crime.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-spurns-former-trump-lawyer-eastmans-appeal-over-emails-2023-10-02/


Jan 6 House committee didn't stop at the memo either as some totality of evidence:

Trump Lawyer Behind ‘Coup Memos’ to Overturn Election Argues Attorney-Client Privilege Should Keep Emails from Jan. 6 Committee

U.S. House of Representatives general counsel Douglas Letter, who appeared on behalf of the Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, was intent on piercing through the claimed privilege in order to obtain Eastman’s emails.

House Democrats want those documents in light of the so-called “coup memos,” the name informally given to two of Eastman’s memos advising then-vice president Mike Pence to disregard slates of electors from six state that voted for President Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election. In those states, then-president Donald Trump and his allies mounted dozens of ultimately unsuccessful legal challenges mounting false claims of election fraud.

Burnham likened those memos to various other legal disputes surrounding post-presidential elections from years past–including faithless electors during the 2016 election and the theory that, during the 2000 election, Al Gore could have done something similar to what Pence was asked to do in the waning days of the Trump administration. Unlike Trump, Gore conceded only one day after his projected defeat by George W. Bush.

Letter argued that “neither the Constitution nor the Electoral Count act provides any authority” for Eastman’s legal theory, which he repeatedly rubbished as, not really legal advice, but, rather, an entreaty for the former vice president to break the law. The committee’s recent memo detailed what statutes lawmakers believe Trump and Eastman may have violated.
https://lawandcrime.com/jan-6-committee/trump-lawyer-behind-coup-memos-to-overturn-election-argues-attorney-client-privilege-should-keep-emails-from-jan-6-committee/


remember, Eastman can write anything he wants. Free speech and all that. But the issue here was what he communicated to the president, and every one of those communications were appealed (ultimately unsuccessfully) through the appeals courts to the SC.