What is the maximum length a president can go to fight an election’s results? He can go as far as the law allows.
Donald Trump and millions of his supporters believe that the 2020 election was stolen in multiple states. The legal team of the president fought to certify these electoral votes until the process was completed.
The Capitol building was broken during the process of counting electoral votes. Congress had to stop proceedings for several hours. The vote was eventually completed and Mike Pence certified its results.
Did those legal efforts cross a line? Did there exist a conspiracy to stop Congress from certifying the election as valid?
California court filing claims that there was. A committee investigating the January 6th riots suspects that John Eastman, one among several lawyers who assisted Donald Trump for President with legal challenges to the election count, may have committed crimes. Therefore, his claims to attorney-client privilege in testifying and turning over documents are null by the “crime/fraud exemption” to confidentiality normally granted attorneys and their clients.
Republicans in Congress and Eastman believe it’s a fishing expedition. Eastman communicated with Pence to persuade him not to certify election results. He gave him legal opinions explaining why he was able to do so. Pence refuted these opinions.
Washington Post: This court filing by the committee is the strongest yet. It asserts that Trump and his associates could have committed crimes in the attempt to overturn Biden’s victory. Additionally, it falsely stated repeatedly that the election had been stolen.
“The facts that we have gathered strongly suggest Dr. Eastman’s email may show that Donald Trump advanced a corrupt scheme in order to obstruct electoral college ballots counting and a conspiracy to prevent the transfer of power,” said the chairman of the committee, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D.Miss). Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), was the vice-chair. ), stated in a statement.
It is clear that Trump was helped by Eastman to develop the legal theory that could stop the counting of electoral ballots. It is unclear whether it was corrupt or not.
The committee is concerned that Eastman participated in a conspiracy to “impede power transfer.” However, the problem with the committee is that Trump and Eastman didn’t simply sit down and accept defeat without any challenge.
The committee’s lawyers argued that it had evidence that Trump and others could have committed criminal or fraudulent acts and that Eastman was used to furthering those activities.
Nothing has been released by the January 6 Committee to date — no statements, writings, speeches, or interviews — that could lead anyone with even a little objectivity to believe that anything related to this committee could be considered a “good faith belief” about anything. The committee’s claim of “good faith” is a fabrication and a transparent tool to access thousands of documents and emails for which they can create a justification for its existence.
It was more of a joke to make a lot of money and let the anti-Trump press get into a frenzy for a few weeks than a serious attempt to uncover any hidden truth.
Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor, called the filing “a major advancement” but pointed out that it is only a civil proceeding regarding attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors would need to prove the actual offenses beyond a reasonable doubt in order to do so.
Democrats and the media have tried to convict Trump and half of the Republican Party. It is not enough to prove “actual crimes beyond any reasonable doubt.” Trump’s convictions of crimes that are still alleged or proven will generate headlines.
