Federal Court finds that Trump Corruptly Tried to Obstruct Electoral Vote Count

[Res Ipsa]

The January 6 committee subpoenaed documents from Dr. Eastman, the author of a memo that outlines a plan to have the Vice President change the results of the election by rejecting votes from certain states. Eastman objected to production of 111 documents
under the work product protection for materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Committee sought an order from the U.S. District Court requiring Eastman to produce the documents.

One of the exceptions to the work product protection is known as the crime-fraud exception. The Committee argued that this exception applied to the 111 documents. The opinion describes what the Committee had to show in order for the exception to apply:

The crime-fraud exception applies when (1) a “client consults an attorney for advice that will serve [them] in the commission of a fraud or crime,” 197 and (2) the communications are “sufficiently related to” and were made “in furtherance of” the crime.198 It is irrelevant whether the attorney was aware of the illegal purpose199 or whether the scheme was ultimately successful.200 The exception extinguishes both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.201 The party seeking disclosure must prove the crime-fraud exception applies by a preponderance of the evidence,202 meaning “the relevant facts must be shown to be more

The Court held that the Committee had satisfied (1) but not (2). With respect to (1), the Court held:

Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

Based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

You can read the opinion here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .260.0.pdf

Keep in mind, these rulings are not likely to be binding on Trump because he is not a party. Also, the burden of proof applied by the Court is "more likely than not" and not the "beyond reasonable doubt" that would apply in any criminal case. And, this is a hearing on a motion and not based on evidence presented at a trial. Still, it's interesting to see a judge's ruling on the issue.

[Doctor Steuss]

Section 4 certainly doesn’t attempt to sugarcoat. Yowza.

Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic
election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the
ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the
seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and
deepened public distrust in our political process.
More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for
accountability. This case cannot provide it. The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute
over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit.
At most, this case is a warning about the dangers of “legal theories” gone wrong, the powerful
abusing public platforms, and desperation to win at all costs. If Dr. Eastman and President
Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power,
undermining American democracy and the Constitution.

[Kishkumen]

The saddest thing about all of this is that Trump came within a hair’s breadth of destroying our republic and he will most likely skate. He is most likely a criminal tax cheat and the NY DA was too frightened to prosecute him. This total piece of garbage will go to his grave a free man, and it makes a mockery of our entire system.

This represents a catastrophic failure of our system. Heaven help us next time around. A buffoon failed. How will his competently criminal successor fare?