John Eastman had tried to stop the publication of e-mails to the select committee of the Parliament that was investigating the uprising of January 6, 2021 in the Capitol. In rejecting his lawsuit, Judge David O. Carter of Central California cited the criminal fraud exception, which removes protections for documents written to promote crime.
“Based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely that President Trump and Dr. Eastman conspired dishonestly to disrupt the “Joint Session of Congress” on the day of the uprising, ruled Judge Carter, who was appointed to the chair by President Bill Clinton in 1998. Mr. Eastman, a former professor at Chapman University in Orange, California, had promoted a marginal legal theory, arguing that Vice President Mike Pence could stop certifying the Jan. 6, 2021, election as part of his ceremonial role as vice president. Mr Eastman could appeal the decision. While Judge Carter’s ruling only addresses the narrow issue of legal privileges over documents, it could put more pressure on the Justice Department to consider a more formal investigation into Mr. Trump and the people around him during his presidency. . The Jan. 6 commission itself initially raised the possibility that the evidence supported criminal charges against the former president and his associates in an earlier testimony in the Eastman case. Attorney General Merrick Garland declined to say if such an investigation was ongoing, saying it was “standard practice” for the department not to comment on situations like this. Mr Eastman said he planned to comply with the judge’s order instead of appealing. His lawsuit against the Jan. 6 commission was “not an attempt to ‘conceal’ documents or ‘obstruct’ congressional inquiries, as the Jan. 6 commission falsely claims,” said Charles Burnham, Eastman’s lawyer. He said his client “respectfully disagrees with the judge’s findings”. The Democrat-controlled House set up the selection committee last year. He is in charge of investigating the events surrounding January 6, 2021, when Mr. Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol, temporarily suspending the certification of President Biden’s Electoral College victory. Mr Trump, who had urged his supporters to march on the Capitol at a rally earlier in the day, was referred to Parliament to incite an uprising. The Senate acquitted him. Two people familiar with the matter said that Jared Kouchner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and former White House adviser, is scheduled to meet with the committee this week. In other news Monday, the panel is also interested in talking to conservative activist Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, according to a person familiar with the matter. The panel wants to speak with Ms. Thomas about her texts to then-Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Mendows, urging him to remain steadfast in the pressure to overturn President Biden’s 2020 election victory. Contact Mrs Thomas for comment. Judge Thomas was the only dissenter on Jan. 19 when the court rejected Mr. Trump’s emergency request to block the transfer of the White House files to the Jan. 6 commission. He gave no explanation for his vote. After the commission received the files, the court refused to hear Mr. Trump’s case in his regular diary. It is not known whether Judge Thomas knew of his wife’s texts or whether the texts were part of the archives released as a result of the January Supreme Court ruling. Mr Meadows voluntarily provided some material to the committee, including text exchanges related to the January 6 attack. The Jan. 6 commission is also set to meet Monday night to vote on the recommendation to detain two former Trump administration officials, Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, in criminal defiance of Congress for defying congressional summonses.
Former Trump administration officials Peter Navarro, the blue collar and Dan Scavino have all been denied access to the investigation.
Photo: Alex Brandon / Associated Press; Andrew Harnik / Associated Press
A vote in the committee that despises them would send the issue to the plenary session of the House, which is controlled by the Democrats. The passage to Parliament would send the matter to the Ministry of Justice to consider whether to pursue a criminal case. Both Mr Navarro and Mr Scavino have invoked executive privilege, refusing to cooperate with the investigation. The House of Representatives has already voted in favor of Mr. Mendous and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress. Mr Bannon was indicted last year for refusing to respond to a committee summons. his lawyer had argued that Mr. Trump had claimed executive power over the appearance of his former aides. The Ministry of Justice will have to consider whether to prosecute Mr Navarro and Mr Scavino if the contempt vote is successful. Unlike Mr. Bannon, they were White House officials during the events in question. Historically, the Department of Justice has not opened criminal cases against current or former officials who have disagreements with Congress. The Department of Justice has not announced any action against Mr Meadows. One year after the pro-Trump riots on the US Capitol, lawmakers and Americans remain divided over what happened on January 6, 2021 and who is to blame. WSJ reporters look at changes in Congress since then and what it could mean for the 2022 midterm elections. Photos: Getty Images Controversy in the contention process is a dispute over executive privilege – the doctrine that some close aides to the president should be safe from providing testimony or documents to allow honesty in discussions between the president’s close advisers. Typically, the privilege belongs to the current president – and the Biden government has not claimed the privilege in most of the files sought by the select committee. Mr Trump has argued that former presidents should have some interest in deciding how to manage their files. However, the Supreme Court rejected part of that argument in January, upholding a lower court ruling that found most of Mr. Trump’s privilege claims would fail even if he were incumbent president. But this case involved presidential files and some legal issues requiring the filing of assistants have not yet been considered by the courts. Mr Scavino is a former White House deputy chief of staff who was initially asked to sit down in October to testify. The commission said reports said Mr Scavino was with Mr Trump as the former president considered how to persuade Congress not to ratify Biden’s election. In a report in support of the resolution, the commission said Mr Scavino was also monitoring social media on behalf of Mr Trump and was browsing sites that “indicated the possibility of violence” on Jan. 6, which The report said Mr Scavino may have warned. Mr. Scavino’s lawyer, Stan Brand, challenged Biden’s decision not to support Mr. Trump’s claim of executive privilege in connection with the January 6 files and testimonies of close associates. “On the one hand, Mr. Scavino has a ‘legal duty’ to invoke executive privilege, having been instructed by former President Trump to do so,” Brand wrote in a March 25 letter to Jonathan C. Su, Deputy Advisor. to Mr. Biden. “On the other hand, President Biden has advised that such a privilege cannot be claimed without the provision of legal authority to uphold the President’s authority to do so.” In its report, the January 6 commission wrote that Biden “has decided that the claim of executive privilege is not in the national interest and is therefore not justified.” Mr. Navarro, a former trade aide to Mr. Trump, did not appear in a deposition earlier this month. In his book, In Trump Time, he outlined a strategy by which Republicans would challenge Mr. Biden’s victory in about half a dozen states, and has also discussed supporting lawmakers to challenge Mr. Biden’s victory on the 6th. January. on the day Congress convened to certify the results. Mr Navarro described the commission’s investigation as “witch-hunting”.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Should Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino be punished with criminal contempt of Congress for defying a congressional summons? Why or why not? Take part in the discussion below. …
