John Eastman has filed a motion with the court to prevent the the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th domestic terrorist attack on Congress from obtaining two notes to him handwritten by Donald Trump and at least 110 other items, NBC News reports.
Eastman claims the notes are protected under attorney-client privilege and contain information Trump “thought might be useful for the anticipated litigation” filed in an attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the November 2020 election. Many of the other items were communications with the Trump campaign legal team or White House staff.
A conservative advocate and a member of the conservative Claremont Institute, Eastman claims he was acting as an attorney for Donald Trump but he has been unable to show any letter of retainment, billing, or other type of documentation showing that he was working for Trump or the campaign in an official manner. There is also no record of him being retained by the White House in any official capacity.
Another hurtle Eastman faces is that the information in question is being sought as part of an investigation in alleged criminal activity, and attorney-client privilege does not hold for discussions of ongoing or future crimes. In some cases in the past, lawyers who are knowingly participating in the crime are convicted as well as their clients.
He’ll have a difficult time proving that he did not know his actions constituted a crime because in an email to former Vice President Mike Pence’s chief council Greg Jacobs, Eastman admits that his plan would call for “a minor violation of the law.” A “minor violation of the law” is still a crime, similar to being “a little bit pregnant.”
Eastman’s legal team is also attempting to hide at least 50 communications with seven state legislators who sought information on illegally preventing election results in their state from being counted in the Electoral College. Eastman championed a flawed legal theory that state legislators could reject the election results in their state and assign Electors who would vote against the electorate’s choice. Eastman also claimed, incorrectly, that the Vice President has authority to reject slates of Electors certified by the states.