Just in: Judge Carter has ordered in camera review of John Eastman’s Chapman emails between Jan. 4-7, 2021. “As the Court has previously noted, the evidence suggests that communications from those days are essential to the Select Committee’s pressing investigation.”
Importantly, Judge Carter does not use the phrase “crime-fraud exception” anywhere in this (short) order. He also cautions that “reading the emails does not mean that the Court will ultimately require disclosure.” A much longer opinion is in store.
I'm working on another article, but in the meantime here's my @lawdotcom coverage of yesterday's hearing. bit.ly/35IfYuD
And here's my Twitter thread from yesterday's hearing (3 1/2 hours!) all in one place (113 tweets!). bit.ly/3KwZ5lr
This jumps out. A longer opinion is forthcoming, but we aren't guaranteed Carter will address crime-fraud exception. "The Court must first determine if a privilege initially existed before reaching waiver or exceptions." But we're likely to hear at least something about it.
From the article: The order also observed that the committee argues the documents aren’t protected “because they aimed to persuade Vice President Pence to act, as opposed to pursuing litigation on the Electoral Count Act.” bit.ly/3pT9GPE
One thing I was a little confused about reading Carter's order: His quote of Jan. 6 panel's quote from Eastman's Jan. 3 memo. (Double parentheses.) I had to look up the original Jan. 6 filing to see who was adding this emphasis to "from the Court." It was Jan. 6 panel.
It's of course still significant that Carter singled out that memo specifically, but it'd be a kinda bigger deal if he put that emphasis in himself, which he didn't. Here's the panel adding the emphasis in last week's brief. (Page 46 of 72. bit.ly/3CpJxx7)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Regarding Eastman-Jan. 6 Committee case with Judge Carter, the panel has a pretty good answer to Eastman's notice regarding the recent dismissal of a #J6 obstruction charge. A judge in another case is declining to dismiss obstruction, saying Nichols' opinion doesn't apply. 🧵
The obstruction dismissal from Judge Nichols in the Garret Miller case has gotten a lot of attention. Eastman's lawyers filed the opinion with Carter yesterday, telling him it changes the standard for obstruction, i.e. makes it harder for the panel's crime-fraud exception claim.
But it's just a trial court order, and as @emptywheel pointed out yesterday, Judge Contreras said of Nichols "I don't find his argument particularly persuasive" when saying he won't dismiss obstruction against another accused Capitol rioter, John Andries.
It’s almost 9 am here in California, which means it’s almost time for John Eastman’s hearing over the Jan. 6 Committee’s subpoenas to Chapman University. I’ll be sharing updates on this thread so stay tuned. ⚖️🧵⚖️
John Eastman and his lawyer Charles Burnham and House Counsel Doug Letter are appearing via video. Eastman has a portrait of Ronald Reagan visible.
Letter is in a big conference room, and when the court clerk asked him to test his audio, he said, “This is Doug Letter. I’m really, really happy to be here. Maybe I’m talking loud enough. Maybe I’m not. My granddaughter took her first steps a week ago."
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.
Here’s Michael Avenatti going through security to turn himself in at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, California, just a minute ago.
Avenatti slipped in and headed upstairs with one of his paralegals and his standby counsel in the California case, Dean Steward and Court eh Cummings Cefali.
Avenatti showed up in a black Buick Enclave driven by his paralegal, got out, then saw another photographer and got back in. Paralegal circled and dropped him off in front and he went in, then she parked and went in, too.
Here's Judge Jesse Furman's order today reiterating what was said in court on Friday: Michael Avenatti is to turn himself into the U.S. Marshals in the Central District of California by 5 p.m. today.
It's a busy day for Avenatti. Not only is he to be in jail as of tonight, his reply brief is due in his 9th Circuit appeal. Attorney Howard Srebnick (from @Nike trial) is representing him pro bono, and Srebnick got a deadline extension last week.
Srebnick's extension request cited in part the Stormy Daniels trial, but I'm not sure Avenatti has had much time since then to work with Srebnick on this reply brief.
It’s really unclear why Avenatti agreed to surrender. He won’t stipulate to basic evidence stuff in trial, but he’ll agree to go to jail? He does have a report date looming for his 30-month Nike sentence, but with California case still pending he could have argued for delay.
There was some talk in the courtroom that Judge Furman would order Avenatti remanded on the spot if prosecutors asked, just based on the way the judge had been lighting him up all trial. Others said it was unlikely, but maybe that was a factor in agreeing to surrender Monday?
Fixed this one: Regarding courtroom reaction, Avenatti had his head down with a red face. One of two women who’s been in court for him every day was sitting in a chair next to me, crying softly. His two paralegals from the California case were in court, too.