Judge says Trump ‘more likely than not’ committed Jan. 6 crimes

A federal judge in California ruled Monday that Donald Trump’s legal adviser, John Eastman, must release about 100 emails to the House Jan. 6 Committee. In doing so, the judge wrote that Mr. Trump “more likely than not” committed crimes related to Jan. 6.

|
Evan Vucci/AP/File
In an order forcing a Trump attorney to turn over emails to the Jan. 6 House Committee, a federal judge in California said that President Donald Trump "more likely than not" committed crimes on Jan. 6.

A federal judge on Monday asserted it is “more likely than not” that former President Donald Trump committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election, ruling to order the release of more than 100 emails from Trump adviser John Eastman to the committee investigating the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge David Carter marked a major legal win for the House panel as it looks to correspondence from Mr. Eastman, the lawyer who was consulting with Mr. Trump as he attempted to overturn the presidential election.

“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,” Judge Carter, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in the ruling submitted in the federal Central District of California.

Mr. Eastman was trying to withhold documents from the committee on the basis of an attorney-client privilege claim between him and the former president. The committee responded earlier this month, arguing that there is a legal exception allowing the disclosure of communications regarding ongoing or future crimes.

Charles Burnham, an attorney representing Mr. Eastman, said in a statement Monday that his client has a responsibility to his attorney-client privilege and his lawsuit against the committee “seeks to fulfill this responsibility.”

“It is not an attempt to ‘hide’ documents or ‘obstruct’ congressional investigations, as the January 6th committee falsely claims,” Mr. Burnham said.

Taylor Budowich, a Trump spokesperson, also responded to the judge’s decision, calling it an “absurd and baseless ruling by a Clinton-appointed Judge in California.” He called the House committee’s investigation a “circus of partisanship.”

The March 3 filing from the committee was their most formal effort to link the former president to a federal crime. Lawmakers do not have the power to bring criminal charges on their own and can only make a referral to the Justice Department. The department has been investigating last year’s riot, but it has not given any indication that it is considering seeking charges against Mr. Trump.

The committee argued in the court documents that Mr. Trump and his associates engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” to prevent Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College. Mr. Trump and those working with him then spread false information about the outcome of the presidential election and pressured state officials to overturn the results, potentially violating multiple federal laws, the panel said.

The trove of documents the nine-member panel has publicly released so far, which include some emails already retrieved from Mr. Eastman, offers an early look at some of the panel’s likely conclusions, which are expected to be submitted in the coming months. The committee says it has interviewed more than 650 witnesses as it investigates the violent siege by Trump supporters, the worst attack on the Capitol in more than two centuries.

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Judge says Trump ‘more likely than not’ committed Jan. 6 crimes
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2022/0329/Judge-says-Trump-more-likely-than-not-committed-Jan.-6-crimes
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe