Skip to content
Search AI Powered

Latest Stories

In Trying To Cover His Own A**, John Eastman Threw Trump Under the Bus–How Trumpian

In Trying To Cover His Own A**, John Eastman Threw Trump Under the Bus–How Trumpian
Brent Stirton/Getty Images; Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Conservative lawyer John Eastman has been having a bad run of it.

After U.S. District Judge David Carter ruled back in March for the January 6 Committee and found Eastman’s claims of attorney-client privilege were invalid because he and his boss likely committed federal crimes—a ruling that has massive implications for the ongoing investigations—Eastman was back in court last Friday trying to protect from disclosure a second tranche of his documents.


But in so doing, in his filing Eastman directly tied his client Donald Trump to the scene of those crimes, effectively making it impossible for Trump later to make Eastman his fall guy. Specifically, Eastman listed “two hand-written notes from former President Trump about information that he thought might be useful for the anticipated litigation.” He also declared that he and Trump spoke directly by phone throughout his legal challenges to the election.

This matters a great deal because Trump no longer can claim, as he has with his financial statements records under investigation in New York, that he was simply going along with whatever the lawyers and accountants told him to do. He was a back-and-forth, active participant. In short, these sworn statements by Eastman demonstrate that if Eastman committed crimes, then Trump was his knowing and willing co-conspirator.

The strategy by Eastman has been a legal disaster from the get-go.

Had he simply complied with the January 6 Committee’s requests at the outset, rather than file a lawsuit to try and halt production of his documents to the Committee, the parties would have been left arguing in the court of public opinion whether the Eastman memos and emails demonstrate a conspiracy to overturn the election.

Instead, because of Eastman’s own court filing, the matter wound up before a federal judge, giving the Committee a rare and structured opportunity to make its case that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied to the documents. That mini-trial provided an opportunity for the Committee to gather, organize and present its evidence and to ferret out the defenses Eastman and presumably the White House would deploy.

Having lost once, and disastrously, before the judge, Eastman has not learned his lesson. Instead, rather bafflingly he has asked the court to reconsider its decision with respect to the likelihood of criminality, and in so doing he has shown even more of his cards with respect to his criminal defenses.

Further, in trying to make his best case for attorney-client privilege, Eastman again had to establish a baseline that the communications he sought to protect in this second batch of documents were between him and his clients, which he claims included the former president, congressmembers, and certain state legislators.

This is akin to roping others to your own sinking ship, and it’s clear Eastman and his attorneys haven’t thought this through. In order to justify his and Donald Trump’s various activities in furtherance of overturning the election, and to rebut the critical finding that the crime-fraud exception applies, Eastman now has to prove to an already skeptical judge that his actions were somehow justified.

As Teri Kanefield, a legal analyst for The Washington Post, observed, Eastman makes three essential claims in his defense:

  • 1) that the “mounting evidence of the scope of illegality and fraud in the 2020 election” shows he was not acting corruptly or dishonestly
  • 2) that the level of perceived fraud meant Eastman’s actions and advice were “a legitimate attempt to prevent a stolen election,” and
  • 3) that Trump had to rely on “trusted advisors” outside of “normal channels” because he couldn’t turn to his own government advisors at Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, who had told him plainly there had been no election fraud.

Of course, Judge Carter already has considered these arguments, or some version of them, in his prior order, in which he succinctly concluded that their actions amounted to a “coup in search of a legal theory.”

But since March, additional information has surfaced that further supports this conclusion, including that Eastman had written to state legislators in Pennsylvania to advise them that they could simply retabulate the results of the popular vote in order to “provide some cover” for nominating a Republican slate of electors for Trump.

That communication is nearly certain to be raised by the Committee in its reply as further evidence that Eastman wanted a certain result and was willing to abuse procedures and break laws to obtain it.

Nothing in Eastman’s filing undoes the two most critical factual findings already rendered. In his order, Judge Carter had singled out the infamous phone call between Trump and his team and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in December of 2020.

Carter wrote in his lengthy opinion:

“President Trump’s repeated pleas for Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger clearly demonstrate that his justification was not to investigate fraud, but to win the election."

He then quoted Trump:

“'So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break'.”

Carter concluded:

“Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely knew the electoral count plan had no factual justification.”

The White House’s efforts to coerce then Vice President Pence to violate his constitutional duties also loomed large in Judge Carter’s ruling.

Carter wrote:

“The illegality of the plan was obvious."
"President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, ‘no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority'."
"Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this ‘BOLD’,"—Judge Carter was quoting Eastman here—"President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.”

Further, a quick dissection of the evidence of “election fraud” proffered by Eastman shows that it is flimsy to the point of absurdity. Eastman cites a petition filed by the Trump campaign against election administrators in Georgia, documenting “scores of violations of Georgia election law” that they claim affected the election.

But as Philip Bump in his OpEd in The Washington Post points out, Eastman is trying to conflate changes to the voter laws in Georgia with election fraud. Challenges to laws expanding voter access are matters for the courts to decide, and in this case they all ruled against the Trump campaign.

Whatever your issue is with how the mail-in or early votes got counted, it can’t be used as grounds for state legislatures or the Vice President to usurp the will of the voters after the fact through procedural chicanery.

Bump aptly writes:

“It’s like claiming that someone committed arson and citing as evidence the fact that the service station near their house was selling gas without charging the required taxes."

Eastman also argues that “Statistical evidence, contained in Dr. Eastman’s privileged email exchanges … but also that which was publicly available at the time, strongly indicated ‘the intense improbability of the accuracy of the present Biden lead.”

But the source for this was an adviser to the Trump campaign itself, not some neutral expert.

And again, the answer to something that doesn’t “feel” right to you isn’t to undo the election by decree or through state lawmakers’ usurpation of the results, but to challenge the matter in court—which the Trump Campaign had done, of course, losing more than 60 cases and only winning one inconsequential matter in Pennsylvania involving when to count certain absentee ballots.

Finally, Eastman cites long-debunked claims about voter irregularities in far-away places like Antrim County, Michigan,—which turned out to be a case of human error due to misconfigured voting machines—as justification for the “BOLD” and sweeping plan to overturn the election.

But evidence of irregularities in one isolated county, which turned out not to be fraud at all, is not evidence of widespread fraud, nor could it reasonably be used to extrapolate to something broader. And again, the correct and legal procedure here would have been to file suit to challenge the results in that county, not to make a huge logical and conspiratorial leap to justify seizing control of the entire mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power.

One final observation. Trump is notorious for not keeping written records of anything that might tie him to a crime. He’s even been said to have flushed notes down the toilet or eaten them in front of aides.

But Eastman was just the opposite, spelling out in great detail all of the plotting and planning that was going on inside the White House, presumably because he believed it would never be discovered. Now a few of Trump’s notes and his communications with Eastman are likely to come out as Eastman compounds his legal woes with more unforced errors.

Considering Rudy Giuliani recently completed nine hours of testimony before the Committee, it’s hard not to conclude that Trump’s attorneys are fast becoming the people most likely to bring him down as they scramble to protect their own hides.

More from People/donald-trump

Jane Fonda; Robert Redford; Meryl Streep
Stephane Cardinale/Corbis/Getty Images; Stephane Cardinale/Corbis/Getty Images; Raymond Hall/GC Images/Getty Images

Jane Fonda And Meryl Streep Lead Hollywood Tributes To Robert Redford After His Death At 89

The world lost an acting legend yesterday with the announcement that Robert Redford had passed away in his sleep in his home in Sundance, Utah, at the age of 89.

Redford was well-known for his performances in films like The Sundance Kid, The Way We Were, The Horse Whisperer, The Natural, and The Great Gatsby; his production of The Old Man & The Gun, American Epic, and Chicagoland; and most recently, his advocacy for sustainability and climate change.

Keep ReadingShow less
Screenshots of Kash Patel and Cory Booker
@atrupar/X

Cory Booker Epically Shuts Down FBI Director Kash Patel During Shouting Match In Congress

New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker sparred with FBI Director Kash Patel during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting yesterday when Patel attempted to silence Booker for speaking after his time was up, prompting Booker to repudiate Patel for his behavior throughout the proceedings.

Booker criticized Patel for mass firings of career staff that he said stripped the bureau of leadership and expertise, remarks that came as Patel also faced Republican criticism over his handling of the FBI following the assassination of far-right activist Charlie Kirk.

Keep ReadingShow less
Chris Pratt
@prattprattpratt/X

Chris Pratt Roasted For Pretending To Close His Eyes While Praying In Viral Video

Chris Pratt is being roasted once again for what many consider yet another bit of performative Christianity.

Pratt, like many religious types, has been seizing the ongoing social media discourse about Charlie Kirk's death as an opportunity to highlight his faith.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Trump Ripped After Griping About 'Sissy' New NFL Kickoff Rule In Unhinged Rant

President Donald Trump was criticized after he complained about the NFL's new "Dynamic Kickoff" rule that is designed to make playing football safer, calling it "sissy" football in a Monday morning post on Truth Social.

Under the previous rules, kickoffs began at the kicking team’s 35-yard line, with the goal of sending the ball as far as possible to pin the opposing offense deep in its own territory. The receiving team would try to advance the ball, which would often lead to high-speed collisions as players sprinted directly at each other.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mehdi Hasan; JD Vance
Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Crooked Media; Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images

Political Commentator Epically Fact-Checks Vance's Baseless Claims About Political Violence

In the wake of far-right activist Charlie Kirk's assassination, Vice President JD Vance has stepped up his attacks on leftists, this time by baselessly claiming that the far-left is more likely to commit political violence than the far-right.

Vance hosted a special episode of Kirk's podcast to attack what he referred to as “the lunatics in American politics" and said without any evidence that the suspect in Kirk's killing was motivated by far-left ideology.

Keep ReadingShow less