The Commission is Eastman's work and persuasive efforts to represent Trump after losing on the 2020 election day. Vice President Mike Pence refuses to prove the results, focusing on his important role in. In particular,Eastman wrotetwo notesoutlining his theory-both arguing that Pence was free to reject the voter's accredited slate. "Ultimate Arbitrator" —and he advised Trump in discussions with the President-elect.
At the Commission's third hearing this month, panelprovides evidence that this legal position was widely and strongly rejected by lawyers within the Trump administration. Did. In particular, they recognized the absurdity of the notion that Pence could somehow delegate all of this power to himself. In particular, the predicate of the nominal fact that there was widespread fraud in the election was also wrong, so evidence presented by the Commission is that bythe Trump administration and many key officials in the campaign. was denied.
Nonetheless, Eastman advised Trump to pursue his strategy, but Pencedid not followand the result was a January 6 riot. rice field.
During the siege, Pence's lawyer Greg Jacobreflects Eastman's allegations "a result-oriented position that would never be supported if attempted by the opposition."And, "Thank you for your bullshit," he added, "We are now under siege." Still, the next day, Eastman was another White House. Continued lobbying with his lawyer, Eric Hirschman. Great criminal defense counsel. ThenEastman toldRudolph Giuliani, "If it's still in progress, I've decided I should be on the amnesty list."
Eastman never got forgiveness, but he was right to worry.
In March, theCommission was part of a dispute over the creation of Eastman's email that there was evidence that Eastman'sand Trumpwere involved. Claimed to have submittedto the court. Criminal activity based on several different arguments. This included, in particular, (1) Eastman, Trump and others participating in an "aggressive public misinformation campaign to convince millions of Americans that the election was actually stolen." And (2) they "in the [jamming] election certification process." Judges agree withand twoare criminal as part of a "campaign to overturn democratic elections." We conclude that we are likely to have committed an illegal act. It lacked legal justification as well as factual grounds. The judge was planning to conclude that it was actually a "coup for legal theory."
As a matter of fact, even if the two arguments reinforce one, Trump and Eastman, who are engaged in criminal activity, claim to be logically and legally independent of each other. It is important to pay attention to the discussions undertaken by the Commission. another. In other words, if Trump and Eastman's efforts stopped before January 6, they could still be on the hook of their "aggressive public misinformation campaign" on fraudulent elections. Similarly, even though Trump and Eastman believed in unfounded fraud allegations, they were still criminal because their efforts to pressure Pence to reject official voters were clearly illegal. You may be liable. Both controversies are unprecedented, as are the remaining legal turmoil that Trump and his enablers have unleashed on the country.
The Commission has repeatedly promoted the court's decision during the hearing, but it is important to note a few things. First, as the judge himself pointed out, the dispute is not a "criminal charge" or "civil liability lawsuit", but a civil dispute regarding the creation of emails, so the relevant legal standards are more than criminal cases. It was much lower. Second, because Trump was not a party to the dispute, he probably trusted Eastman's legal judgment, even though he might have heard from others, in his defense. No direct discussion was presented. And third, the opinion came from the Federal District Court in California. It is "convincing authority", but not to mention the judgein Washington, who presides over the January 6 indictment of the Justice Department. It is not binding.
The judiciary should take seriously the outlook for the actual criminal case against Eastman, but there are reasons to be careful when predicting what will happen. For one thing, the government rarely imposes criminal acts on lawyers based on his ostensible work as a lawyer, butit certainly happens whenis particularly harsh.
This case is even more unusual because it assumes the legal position that Eastman had taken. Lawyers are usually given avery wide berthand are based on the principle that enthusiastic and client-oriented advocacy on behalf of clients is essential to the operation of our hostile legal system. increase. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who served as an Appeal Judge for almost a quarter of a century, will understand this and take it very seriously before reaching any kind of claim decision.
The Commission's view is that Eastman did not really believe his claim was credible, and as a result, in assessing evidence from the hearing
60} Created a variation of the repetitive theme. Eastmanis deliberately lyingor instead deceived and probably simply engaged in the ambitious reasoning of
this Perhaps the strongest evidence on the point was Jacob's testimony, first presented in March of the Commission. Court submissionreiterated in Jacob's official testimony. Eastman admitted that at some point in the internal debate, he would lose "9-0" if the Supreme Court directly examined his theory of Pence's authority. However, Jacob made this exchange after arguing that the court never reached the question because Eastman exercised a principle of discretion known as "Political Question Doctrine". I showed that. Listen to cases that are so politically criticized that they offer questions that are (probably) better resolved by government and legislative bodies. This wasn't a good argument, but at least it was logically coherent, trying to see what was really happening in Eastman's head and how much he was trying to deceive. Make it complicated.
Untilblamedat the end of last year, Eastman wasopenly talking to people about the basis of his legal position. Of a lawyer who knew what he was doing was wrong. For example, last September, Eastmanhad a long talk withLawrence Lessigon a podcast. He taught Eastman at low school and remembered him as an "extraordinary student." Not only was "praised", he systematically refuted Eastman's allegations with Lessig for nearly two hours, occasionally correcting him on the issue of basic but important facts related to the history of relevant law. Election law expert. Eastman sounds ridiculous and sincere, so it's a fascinating way to listen.
Still, it would be premature for the Justice Department to make any decision to prosecute Eastman based solely on this record. If the federal prosecutor has not yet done so,investigate Eastman's behavior,investigate Eastman's behavior, and may not be owned by the Commission. It is necessary to consider the complete and underlying circumstances, including evidence (both grounds for justification and punishment) ormay not have presented
Trump With respect to, the Ministry of Justice had good reason to pursue acriminal investigation before the House Commission metbut recentlysome observershave been East. It seems that he treats Mann's revelations as if they were equally applicable to Trump's potential liability and legal exposure. This was a misunderstanding that could have been facilitated by the judge's opinion in the Eastman case, and the analysis seemed to equate the behavior of the two men. However, there is a big difference between the two cases.
Of course, Eastman was Trump's lawyer and was therefore more knowledgeable about the related issues. As long as the legal position taken by Eastman and Trump is unfounded and we are talking about the second potential case of the two arguments mentioned above that they knew a lot, Trump advised Eastman. Will provide a colorable defense based on. It is not clear whether Eastman actually believes that he has a sincere basis for his claim, using establishedlegal tools and principlesavailable in the department. A hard-working investigator needs to solve it.
Not surprisingly, there are now reports thatexplicitly reflects what was obvious for months: Trump recently distanced himself from Eastman. Deliberately kept in public, Trump and his allies are meeting a lawyer as a possible "corrupt man" of.The defense is always aware that Trump is the most unlucky rich man in the world,corrupt advisersandhe is surrounded by terrible lawyers. Make us believe. Consistent with Trump's prejudiced political and economic interests.
Similarly, some members of thelegal critichave decided to speculate thatmay be co-operated by Eastman. Already working onagainst Trump and finally defeating him. Again, déjà vu is inevitable.After all, a list of infamous Trump insiders that people once wanted to turn him on — Paul Manafort,Roger Stone,Allen Weisselberg,Michael Flynn,Steve Bannon,Tom Barrack, and evenwere not useful collaboratorsMichael Cohen— Long.
This time it may be different, but don't hold your breath.
