A federal judge in California ordered a conservative law professor to turn over documents to the Jan. 6 congressional committee, saying they were not subject to attorney-client privilege because it was “more likely than not” that former President Donald Trump had committed crimes.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter said Monday that Trump had “launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election” using a plan that relied on legal guidance from John Eastman, the former dean of Chapman University law school. “The illegality of the plan was obvious,” and that Trump sought to “corruptly” obstruct Congress on the day it was certifying the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden, Carter said.
The ruling by Carter, who was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton, used unusually stark language for a judicial ruling to describe Trump’s actions and the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the House to disrupt the certification proceedings.
A Trump spokesman, Taylor Budowich, called the ruling “absurd and baseless” and “another example of how the left is weaponizing every branch of government against President Trump. The January 6 Committee and related proceedings is a circus of partisanship that is exposing public officials at every level of government for their willingness to put politics ahead of the law and the Constitution.”
A statement posted on the website of a law firm representing Eastman in the case said he “has an unblemished record as an attorney and respectfully disagrees with the judge’s findings,” but would comply with the court’s order.
The judge’s ruling carries no direct legal ramifications for Trump — he is not a party to the case. But the judge’s remarks reflect both the growing legal jeopardy for the former president and the political obstacles he’ll face in any attempt to return to office.
Still, despite having been impeached twice while in office and facing legal challenges since then, Trump continues to exert strong influence in the Republican Party. His endorsement is sought by many GOP candidates, some of whom continue to push Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election.
Eastman wrote multiple memos devising legal strategies under which then-Vice President Mike Pence could influence the certification process, including by not recognizing counts from closely contested states where Biden won. Pence ultimately refused to go along with the effort. Eastman echoed Trump’s claims of electoral fraud and spoke at the rally that preceded the Capitol attack, as did Trump.
Citing facts developed in the litigation, Carter found that Eastman knew his strategies were unsupported by law and in some ways violated existing laws, calling them “a partisan distortion of the democratic process.” The judge said Trump likely knew his claims of fraud were baseless, which in turn rendered the effort to block the congressional certification unlawful.
Based on that finding, one of the documents in question “likely furthered the crimes” of obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the U.S., the judge said, so it should be disclosed. Carter cited the crime-fraud exception to legal privilege, which prohibits lawyers from withholding documents if the communications were made in the furtherance of a crime.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Eastman in an effort to block the House committee investigating the Capitol riot from obtaining his emails. Eastman claimed privilege over 111 documents, but the judge found just 10 of them could be withheld.
“Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory,” the judge wrote. “If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.”
