Thread by @meghanncuniff

John Eastman's reply to the Jan. 6 Committee's brief is in, and he calls it "a 60-page criminal indictment against the former President, bringing within its dragnet anyone who, like Dr. Eastman, provided legal advice or who otherwise fell within the former President’s orbit."

This is regarding Eastman's attorney privilege claims for his Chapman emails. He filed an opening brief, then Jan. 6 Committee filed its opposition last week in what was basically an epic news dump laying out a criminal case against Donald Trump. Now today it's Eastman's reply.

Here's Eastman's reply to last week's much-publicized email exchange between he and Pence's counsel Greg Jacob, the one where Eastman asks Jacob to consider “one more relatively minor violation” of the Electoral Count Act.

"Urging that one exercise constitutional authority without impediment from an unconstitutional statute is not urging of “illegal action,” but rather a recognition at least as old as Marbury v. Madison that the Constitution is superior to a mere statute." bit.ly/3tzPZgV

About all the people who told Trump he'd lost.

Him continuing to say he'd won "does not show “consciousness of wrongdoing.” It merely shows that the President arrived at a view of various factual questions which the Select Committee does not share."

One exhibit is a list of Jan. 6 Committee claims v. Eastman's replies. "Plaintiff denies any effort to “obstruct” results. Publicly available materials document a legal argument in favor of the permissibility of a brief delay in the certification process." bit.ly/3pKxrcy

Then there's 87 pages of evidentiary objections to stuff like this: "The Department’s senior leadership
and President Trump’s White House Counsel threatened to resign if President Trump elevated Clark and fired those who were resisting Clark’s requests." bit.ly/34ndb9z

Regarding tomorrow's hearing: Overall, it's about Eastman's attorney-client privilege claims to the Chapman emails, and the Jan. 6 Committee has lodged objections far beyond the crime-fraud exception claim that dumped a criminal case narrative against Trump into the filing (!)...

...So it's very possible Judge Carter could decide this issue without actually wading into the crime-fraud exception claim. Of course, it's also very possible he could go straight to it. Here's some background on this saga. It's started in January. bit.ly/3AnZPVX

That led to a privilege review process that Jan. 6 Committee Counsel Doug Letter complained was going too slow, so Judge Carter set the briefing schedule that played out over the last couple weeks. Here's my @lawdotcom article on Eastman's initial filing. bit.ly/3hbXV23

Then there was last week's opposition from @January6thCmte that asked Judge Carter to privately review Eastman's Chapman emails for possible crime-fraud exceptions, which is where the criminal case against Trump was detailed. bit.ly/3C9dG3q

Eastman then asked for Judge Carter to act as though the DOJ had already brought charges and order the committee to release any "exculpatory information" to him under Brady v. Maryland, which Carter promptly rejected.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1499980065785794564

Again, full document links to John Eastman's reply to Jan. 6 Committee brief detailing a possible criminal case against Trump.
Brief: bit.ly/34ndb9z
Disputed facts exhibit: bit.ly/3pKxrcy
Evidentiary objections exhibit: bit.ly/34ndb9z
⚖️

Here's my @lawdotcom article: John Eastman Calls Jan. 6 Panel's Crime-Fraud Argument Against Trump 'Bogus' as Hearing Looms bit.ly/3CpPGZO

I realized the tweet two up links to an exhibit instead of the main reply brief. Oops. Again, here's a real link to that brief. bit.ly/3tzPZgV