WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s former adviser says a Jan. 6 committee court filing alleging he and the ex-president committed crimes in attempting to prevent certification of the 2020 election results is unprecedented and a hearing in the case should be indefinitely delayed.
The committee has “unveiled an entire criminal case” in a fight over evidence, John Eastman said in a court filing Friday. “Were this court to sustain the defendants’ claims, it may be the first formal finding of presidential criminality by a federal court in United States history.”
Eastman, former dean of the Chapman University School of Law, drafted a two-page memo after the 2020 election that outlined ways for Vice President Mike Pence to derail the count of Electoral College votes in Congress, thereby denying Joe Biden’s victory and handing the election to Trump. He also spoke alongside Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani at a Jan. 6 rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol.
Eastman has sued in California to block the release of his emails at Chapman University sought by the congressional committee investigating the riot, citing attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. In a filing Wednesday, the committee said the emails may contain evidence Trump and Eastman obstructed an official proceeding — a felony that carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison — conspired to defraud the U.S. and committed common law fraud.
A hearing in the matter is scheduled for March 8 in federal court in Santa Ana, California.
Eastman claims the committee failed to disclose all the evidence it has, and what it did disclose was done selectively. He asked the judge to order the committee to turn over additional evidence.
“In responding to these claims, plaintiff is effectively forced into the position of acting as a pseudo-defense attorney for the former president,” Eastman said.
In the filing Wednesday, the panel cited the federal crime-fraud exception to argue that Eastman’s claims to attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges don’t apply — and are not a legal shield to blocking the release of the emails. Attorney-client privilege, in most instances, doesn’t cover statements made by a client to their lawyer if they were meant to further or conceal a crime.
The committee urged the judge to reject Eastman’s requests in a response filed later Friday.
“Nothing here places plaintiff’s (or anyone else’s) liberty in jeopardy,” the committee said. “If this court ultimately finds that the crime-fraud exception applies, plaintiff will not be incarcerated, nor will he suffer civil sanctions. Chapman University will produce relevant documents.”
