Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

Thanks, @kyledcheney

Here's the 16-page ruling. (Yesterday, the judge released a 2-page advance notice)

politico.com/f/?id=0000017e…

I wouldn't want to be John Eastman right now.

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1486174772916629512

Despite the lack of evidence of fraud, a significant portion of the population came to believe the election was tainted by fraud.

I wonder how that happened! 🤔

(Sarcasm. I know how it happened, as so does the judge.)

In addition to Trump (and a few others) Eastman also represented clients who he wouldn't name because he said their identity was privileged.

What?!

The privilege doesn't protect client identies except in rare circumstanes. (Hmm. I'll have to think more about what that means.)

This was a preliminary injunction. To get a preliminary injunction, Eastman has to meet four elements

The court said he didn't meet element #1, likely to succeed on the merits at a full trial), so they don't have to analyze the other three.

Come on, everyone. Isn't reading legal documents fun? 🤓 Well, it's fun when the bad guys lose.

So, now we get to the discussion of why he's likely to lose on the merits. We start with, YES, the J6 committee is legitimate.

A right-wing talking point has been that the committee is illegitimate because Pelosi didn't appoint enough Republicans.

The court says the rules simply require that 5 members be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.

Therefore, Pelosi followed the rules. (Screenshot #1)

Eastman then tries to argue that the committee lacks a legislative purpose for requesting these particular documents.

The court says nope. There is a valid legislative purpose (#2) . . .

And here's the part that has to hurt:

Dr. Eastman’s actions clearly fall within the bounds of an investigation into “the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy.”

The court then lists the evidence that he had a part in fomenting an attack on American representative democracy.

First, he wrote that memo on how Pence could just declare Trump the winner (I wrote about the memo here⤵️)
washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…

They keep talking two memos. (#1) Did I miss something? what was the second?

He also told legislators they could ignore election results and appoint their own electors.

And he spoke at the pre-attack rally. (#2)

Did you notice the part about how speaking at the rally falls under the category of helping to "foment" the attack?

A lot of people spoke at that rally.

The court then gives legislative purposes for investigating Eastman, including amending the electoral count act (#1)

Now we come to another argument raised in all of these lawsuits (including Trump): the committee is really doing law enforcement, which is executive branch work.

I always thought this was a curious argument. Why should he care if the committee is overlapping with law enforcement unless he broke laws🤷‍♀️

Moreover, as the Court pointed out, the SCOTUS has held that a legitimate congressional investigation may turn up evidence of crimes.

The court also shot down Eastman's First Amendment argument because he gave no specifics of how his rights would be infringed, and the rules do not require a specific number of Republicans on the committee.

He also raised a Fourth Amendment defense. . .

. . . arguing that the subpoena was “so broad and indefinite as to exceed the lawfully authorized purpose” of the Select committee.

Nope, said the court. It isn't too broad. (The committee attempted to narrow the demands after the subpoena was issued.)

Finally, he argued that the subpoena should be rejected because some requested docs violate attorney-client privilege.

The court rejected the argument but will let him try to assert privilege over individual documents.

Whew! Done!

You're welcome⤵️

https://twitter.com/cayzzer/status/1486194952421838855

I hope you were all taking notes.

What? You didn't know there would be a test?