Well. We have three more court filings in the John Eastman-Trump-J6 saga.
Shall we read them together? 🤓
Bottom line: Eastman is in trouble. And he's not happy.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
politico.com/f/?id=0000017f…
1/
Shall we read them together? 🤓
Bottom line: Eastman is in trouble. And he's not happy.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
politico.com/f/?id=0000017f…
1/
Background: The Eastman-Jan. 6 committee saga left off with
🔹Eastman is trying to keep certain emails from J-6 by claiming executive privilege
(Eastman says you can't have them because they are privileged communication between me and my client Trump.)
2/
🔹Eastman is trying to keep certain emails from J-6 by claiming executive privilege
(Eastman says you can't have them because they are privileged communication between me and my client Trump.)
2/
🔹J-6 invoked the crime-fraud exception (there is no executive privilege over legal advice was given in furtherance of illegal or fraudulent activity).
The way this works is the court looks at the communications to see if the lawyer was offering help in committing a crime.
3/
The way this works is the court looks at the communications to see if the lawyer was offering help in committing a crime.
3/
If the court finds ⤵️ the exception applies and no privilege.
americanbar.org/groups/litigat…
This isn’t a conviction because that happens after an indictment, and requires a finding that each element of the crime is supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
4/
americanbar.org/groups/litigat…
This isn’t a conviction because that happens after an indictment, and requires a finding that each element of the crime is supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
4/
But Eastman understands that this is a shortcut to a court finding that he offered his advice in furtherance of a crime.
He understands what will happen. He knows exactly what will be splashed all over the headlines.
So he filed a [LOSER!] motion to try to prevent this.
5/
He understands what will happen. He knows exactly what will be splashed all over the headlines.
So he filed a [LOSER!] motion to try to prevent this.
5/
His motion:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
He says wait, hold on. They’re accusing me (and the former President⤵️) of a crime.
I should get all the protections a criminal defendant gets in criminal court, and this includes seeing whatever exculpatory evidence the committee has.
6/
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
He says wait, hold on. They’re accusing me (and the former President⤵️) of a crime.
I should get all the protections a criminal defendant gets in criminal court, and this includes seeing whatever exculpatory evidence the committee has.
6/
A person indicted has the right to see whatever exculpatory evidence the prosecution has.
(Hold that thought for now. I'll come back to that as a reason the DOJ doesn't fire off indictment the moment it has evidence of a crime.)
He wants all exculpatory evidence . . .
7/
(Hold that thought for now. I'll come back to that as a reason the DOJ doesn't fire off indictment the moment it has evidence of a crime.)
He wants all exculpatory evidence . . .
7/
. . . including dissent within federal agencies about election fraud. (Oy)
But you can see what he wants to do. He wants any "evidence" (doesn't have to be good evidence) which he will then give to the newspapers to show that the committee has evidence that he was RIGHT.
8/
But you can see what he wants to do. He wants any "evidence" (doesn't have to be good evidence) which he will then give to the newspapers to show that the committee has evidence that he was RIGHT.
8/
He says slow down! This is serious! We're talking about TRUMP (#1)
(It's a version of the 'special rules apply to former presidents' theory)
Interestingly, he also talks about how fast this is going. With a real criminal trial it could take years to get a final decision (#2)
9/
(It's a version of the 'special rules apply to former presidents' theory)
Interestingly, he also talks about how fast this is going. With a real criminal trial it could take years to get a final decision (#2)
9/
Next, J-6 responds: politico.com/f/?id=0000017f….
Basically, they say there is no legal basis for any of what you're asking for.
The Court agrees. The court says no, you don’t get all the protections of a criminal defendant.
10/
Basically, they say there is no legal basis for any of what you're asking for.
The Court agrees. The court says no, you don’t get all the protections of a criminal defendant.
10/
You see (the court explains to the law professor) in a criminal trial, your liberty is at stake. Now your emails are at stake.
See these screenshots.
So the hearing goes forward.
11/
See these screenshots.
So the hearing goes forward.
11/
Sidenote: One reason the DOJ doesn't jump to indict the moment it has evidence of a crime if the investigation is ongoing and may turn up more evidence and more crimes:
A defendant has a right to see what the prosecutor has.
See the problem?
12/
lawshelf.com/shortvideoscon…
A defendant has a right to see what the prosecutor has.
See the problem?
12/
lawshelf.com/shortvideoscon…
Twitter says: There is evidence so INDICT NOW.
Then the defense lawyer waltzes in, files a motion and gets to see everything the prosecutor has. WHAM other people up the chain still being investigated also find out.
13/
Then the defense lawyer waltzes in, files a motion and gets to see everything the prosecutor has. WHAM other people up the chain still being investigated also find out.
13/
Yup, exactly. I could have said that right up front⤵️
1 tweet instead of 14.
Brief and accurate.
But would that be as much fun, I ask you?
14/
1 tweet instead of 14.
Brief and accurate.
But would that be as much fun, I ask you?
https://twitter.com/JayFay75/status/1500116330887925761
14/
Aaaaand right on cue, I get replies that look like this:
That means I've earned another cup of coffee, this time with cocoa and a few drops of mint extract.
That means I've earned another cup of coffee, this time with cocoa and a few drops of mint extract.
I have a new theory about why so many TV prosecutors are saying "what's wrong with Garland? There's enough evidence now!"
Prosecutors have a different view of criminal cases than defense attorneys. Sometimes defense lawyers think that prosecutors . . .
Prosecutors have a different view of criminal cases than defense attorneys. Sometimes defense lawyers think that prosecutors . . .
https://twitter.com/CanUHearMeThink/status/1500147441508704257
. .. define themselves by how good they are at getting convictions.
So I see some of these prosecutors (many of whom would never qualify for Merrick Garland's job because they've never actually worked at that level) flexing their muscles, saying I COULD DO IT . . .
So I see some of these prosecutors (many of whom would never qualify for Merrick Garland's job because they've never actually worked at that level) flexing their muscles, saying I COULD DO IT . . .
. .. "I'm tough. I'm good. Garland is a wimp for not trying on this evidence."
Defense attorneys see things differently. They LOVE it when prosecutors file charges before gathering all the evidence, or when they file charges without enough evidence to prove each element . . .
Defense attorneys see things differently. They LOVE it when prosecutors file charges before gathering all the evidence, or when they file charges without enough evidence to prove each element . . .
. . . of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Federal prosecutors have about a 96% conviction rate.
That means defense lawyers don't win very often.
The few wins we get are when prosecutors and investigators are sloppy, or when they think they've got enough but they don't.
Federal prosecutors have about a 96% conviction rate.
That means defense lawyers don't win very often.
The few wins we get are when prosecutors and investigators are sloppy, or when they think they've got enough but they don't.
Well, that and when the client is not guilty :)
https://twitter.com/ViewsPlusNews/status/1500151712346214405
To clear, I have never said that the DOJ will come forward with a barrage of indictments.
I haven't seen the evidence.
What I've said is that everything Merrick Garland has said makes sense to me . . .
Here's what he said. I suggest reading it all.
One thing he says is the investigations are ongoing.
Twitter thinks that it's a great idea to indict the top people on the chain while investigations are ongoing.
I see the folly in that.
justice.gov/opa/speech/att…
One thing he says is the investigations are ongoing.
Twitter thinks that it's a great idea to indict the top people on the chain while investigations are ongoing.
I see the folly in that.
justice.gov/opa/speech/att…
I totally missed the irony of "his emails."
https://twitter.com/tattooedtergum/status/1500117731617738752
Well goodness. I just found a totally careless mistake in the first tweet.
In this particular dispute, he's claiming attorney-client privilege, not an executive privilege. Apologies.
In this particular dispute, he's claiming attorney-client privilege, not an executive privilege. Apologies.
I combined this thread with an earlier thread on the Joshua James plea agreement (seditious conspiracy) and turned them into a blog post, here:
terikanefield.com/tyranol-john-e…
terikanefield.com/tyranol-john-e…
Three problems here.
1. The upcoming election has no effect on ongoing DOJ investigations.
2. Even if the DOJ wanted to rush things for political reasons, rushing investigations leads to bungling it.
3. The suggestion here would politicize the DOJ.
https://twitter.com/DSHowell/status/1500534780194025479
1. The upcoming election has no effect on ongoing DOJ investigations.
2. Even if the DOJ wanted to rush things for political reasons, rushing investigations leads to bungling it.
3. The suggestion here would politicize the DOJ.
Actually 4 problems.
4. "Stick to the playbook" means "stick to the law." Yes, I know there are large accounts on Twitter who think that the DOJ should stop following rules, but guess what happens when the DOJ stops following rules?
If both sides abandon rule of law, it dies.
4. "Stick to the playbook" means "stick to the law." Yes, I know there are large accounts on Twitter who think that the DOJ should stop following rules, but guess what happens when the DOJ stops following rules?
If both sides abandon rule of law, it dies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
