Another victim of Trump cultism

 

Speaking of Trump's lawyers...

UPDATE 04/17/2026:  I'm sorry.  I should look up what eventually became of that, but instead...

Good

A California judge on Wednesday recommended the disbarment of John Eastman, calling to revoke the law license of one of former President Donald Trump’s top allies in his failed last-ditch gambit to subvert the 2020 election.

Judge Yvette Roland, who presided over months of testimony and argument about the basis of Eastman’s fringe legal theories, ruled that the veteran conservative attorney violated ethics rules — and even potentially criminal law — when he advanced Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results based on weak or discredited claims of fraud.

Though Eastman may appeal Roland’s decision, including to the state Supreme Court, the ruling forces his law license into “inactive” status while any review is pending, meaning he can no longer practice law in California.

“Given the serious and extensive nature of Eastman’s unethical actions, the most severe available professional sanction is warranted to protect the public and preserve the public confidence in the legal system,” Roland ruled.

  Politico

Perhaps too late for that, but this is the correct ruling.

At every turn, Roland said, Eastman ignored evidence that was unfavorable to his case and accepted at face value claims of fraud or misconduct aimed at sowing doubt about the election results.

“He turned a blind eye to any information that would not support his position of election fraud,” Roland wrote.

In all, Roland found Eastman culpable for 10 of 11 charges that state bar investigators brought against him, including misleading courts, lack of candor and, most notably, plotting with Trump to derail the transfer of power.

[...]

Roland said her disbarment recommendation was in part based on Eastman’s refusal to express regret and his attacks on the proceedings against him as politically motivated.

Eastman testified for hours during his disbarment trial, claiming that he relied on a cadre of statisticians and data analysts to conclude that the 2020 election was rife with misconduct and that state legislatures in a handful of swing states should step in to replace Joe Biden’s electors with Trump’s. But Roland said those analysts’ claims were easily refuted by expert testimony, and Eastman should have known better than to rely on them.

The only thing he relied on about them was that he'd use them as an excuse, because he knew very well they were bogus.

In addition, Roland concluded that Eastman stretched and contorted even his own outlier theories to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to single-handedly block Joe Biden’s victory, even when no state legislatures had signed onto the effort.

Eastman’s pending disbarment compounds the legal trouble he’s facing in other states. He’s been charged alongside Trump and other allies in Fulton County, Georgia, as a member of an alleged racketeering conspiracy aimed at corrupting the results of the 2020 election in the state. He was also identified, but not named, in Trump’s federal indictment in Washington, D.C., as one of six unindicted co-conspirators assisting Trump’s bid to seize a second term.

Jeffrey Clark should be next, and Trump should be in jail.

UPDATE 04/17/2026:  The wheels of justice grind slowly.

A "policy dispute"

Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who worked closely with former President Donald Trump in a bid to subvert the 2020 election, should face professional consequences — including the potential loss of his license to practice law — for his effort to throw the nation into chaos, D.C. bar disciplinary authorities argued Tuesday.

But a lawyer for Clark said it would be unreasonable to punish him for his work during the tumultuous days ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, when he spearheaded a proposal to encourage state legislatures to consider overturning the results. That plan was never adopted and Trump ultimately turned it down. Punishing Clark for being on the losing side of a policy dispute would set a dangerous precedent, Clark’s team argued.

  Politico

A policy dispute? A policy dispute? Brainstorming ways to commit felony overturning of the government amounts to policy disputes?

Investigators charged Clark with violating professional rules of conduct in late 2020 by attempting to coerce his bosses to send a letter to Georgia lawmakers encouraging them to reconsider the outcome of the election there based on “significant concerns” about the integrity of the vote.

[...]

Clark held unauthorized talks with Trump, violating DOJ policies against White House contacts, and then sought to outflank then-Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue, by telling them he planned to accept an offer from Trump to take over the department unless they agreed to send his proposed letter to Georgia.

[...]

Clark has spent two years fighting legal battles intended to scrap the case altogether, contending that the D.C. Bar has no jurisdiction over the conduct of federal government lawyers. But a federal court rejected Clark’s position, and an appeals court declined to step in to block the case from moving ahead.

[...]

Clark’s efforts were intended to remain confidential — and the letter he drafted, which was never sent to Georgia, was supposed to remain secret, protected by various forms of executive and law enforcement privilege, until a leak to the press exposed the fraught discussions.

[...]

Trump ultimately backed down from his plans to elevate Clark amid a mass resignation threat by top DOJ and White House officials. Clark has been criminally charged by Georgia prosecutors for his role in Trump’s effort to reverse the outcome of the election, and he was identified as a co-conspirator in special counsel Jack Smith’s Washington, D.C. case against Trump.

[...]

John Eastman, one of the architects of Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election, is expected to face a disbarment ruling by Wednesday, when a California judge issues her proposed punishment for alleged violations of professional conduct.

At least somebody is taking this shit seriously and attempting to hold someone to account for the attempted coup.

Clark is unlikely to testify in the proceeding. His lawyers have indicated he is likely to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if called to the stand.

I think that would be wise. 

Does this not look like a half-baked shyster "straight out of central casting?" 

UPDATE 05:55 pm:

It was just a few days until Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress was slated to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, and Trump had suddenly resuscitated a plan to replace the leadership of the Justice Department with Jeffrey Clark, a little known DOJ official who Trump expected to mount a sweeping nationwide effort to help him remain in power.

So [Trump’s deputy White House counsel, Pat] Philbin called Clark, a colleague from their days in private practice dating back to the 1990s and tried to talk him out of it.

“I tried to explain to him that it was a bad idea for multiple reasons,” Philbin recalled Tuesday at a long-delayed disbarment hearing for Clark. “He would be starting down a path of assured failure … If by some miracle somehow, it worked, there’d be riots in every major city in the country and it was not an outcome the country would accept.”

  Politico

I expect he wishes he'd heeded Philbin's advice.

Philbin, who testified for about two hours on Tuesday, described Clark as wildly misinformed about claims of election fraud — countenancing a theory about “smart thermostats” being used to manipulate voting machines — and not sufficiently cognizant of the havoc it would wreak on the country if his plan succeeded. But he said Clark seemed “100 percent sincere” in his beliefs.

“I believe that he felt that he essentially had a duty,” Philbin said. “I think Jeff’s view was that there was a real crisis in the country and that he was being given an opportunity to do something about it.”

Well then Jeff shouldn't have been anywhere near the reins of power if he was deep into QAnon territory. Plenty of people are serving jail time right now for sincerely believing they were given an opportunity to do something about it on January 6.

“I don’t think I said anything on the phone. I just thought that that showed a lack of judgment,” he said. “Triggering riots in every major city in America, you’ve got to be really sure about what you’re doing and have no alternatives … In my estimation, that was not the sort of situation we were talking about.”

Exactly.

“We talked about some of the theories of fraud that were around. They’d been debunked and there wasn’t really any there-there,” Philbin said.

And yet, Clark still believed? I doubt it. He saw fame and glory and a top appointment in his future.

 

UPDATE 04/17/2026:  The wheels of justice grind slowly.

OOpsie

I think that makes it pretty clear why Thomas recused.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 04:39 pm:

Thomas recuses in a rare moment of integrity

And John Eastman is all out of appeals.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied an effort by lawyer John Eastman to appeal a ruling that found he may have acted criminally with the legal advice he gave former President Trump. It spurred a rare recusal from Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife corresponded with the California attorney in the weeks ahead of Jan. 6.

[...]

The order says that Thomas “took no part in the consideration” of Eastman’s petition.

  The Hill

Previously, the Thomases have claimed they never speak about each other's "work", so why is he recusing now? And why isn't he resigning instead?

The ruling from U.S. District Judge David Carter greenlighted release of [Eastman's] records, allowing for the piercing of materials normally covered by attorney-client privilege — something that can be granted only when a judge determined legal advice was given in furtherance of a crime or to carry out fraud.

[...]

Eastman has since been charged by authorities in Georgia as part of a broader racketeering case, along with several charges relating to making false statements.

He’s also listed as a co-conspirator in the Justice Department’s election interference case, but he and five others have yet to face any charges in the matter.

Good luck, asshole. You should lose your license to practice law at the very least.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 02:49 pm:

UPDATE 04:25 pm:  So... not so much integrity as necessity.

Why seems pretty clear to me now.

Eastman surrendered and booked today

Trump says he's going to surrender on Thursday for his turn to get booked into the Fulton County jail.

Meanwhile in Georgia

Wonder what Trump's will be.

UPDATE 05:17 pm:

Another architect of the electors scheme named as a defendant in the case, lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, struck a similar deal, agreeing to a $100,000 bond.

[...]

Trump has agreed to a $200,000 bond.

[...]

The order was signed off on by Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee. The order, which was signed by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Trump's attorneys, says that Trump "shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a codefendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice."

It also says the "Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against the community or to any property in the community; The above shall include, but are not limited to, posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media."

  NBC

We'll see if he can manage that. They knew enough they had to get specific about his bleating habits on Truth Social.  Of course I won't be surprised if they have to amend it to spell out what may be considered a threat.

Trump's was the only [bond agreement] signed off on by Willis — the others were signed by her deputy. His was also the only one with terms that included not making threats to the community or on social media.

[...]

Fulton County sheriff's office said that when [Trump turns] himself in "there will be a hard lockdown of the area surrounding the Rice Street Jail."

And fundraising off it.

UPDATE 09:25 pm: Christ. Diarrhea of the mouth.

If ONLY he'd fly away to Vladimir and never be seen or heard from again.

Eastman's admission

I want to return to this revelatory interview with co-conspirator John Eastman.

[...]

Eastman gets into the core justification and purpose for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election and overthrow the constitutional order itself. He invokes the Declaration of Independence.

[...]

“Our Founders lay this case out,” says Eastman. “There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable. At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.”

“So that’s the question,” he tells Klingenstein. “Have the abuses or the threat of abuses become so intolerable that we have to be willing to push back?”

[...]

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force under American law. It’s not a legal document. It’s a public explanation of a political decision: to break the colonies’ allegiance to Great Britain and form a new country.

[...]

Governments shouldn’t be overthrown over minor or transitory concerns. But when they become truly oppressive people have a right to get rid of them and start over. This may seem commonsensical to us.

[...]

In other words, yes, you have a revolutionary right to overthrow the government if you really think its abuses have gotten that intractable and grave. But the government has an equal right to stop you, to defend itself or, as we see today, put you on trial if you fail. The American revolutionaries of 1776 knew full well that they were committing treason against the British monarchy. If they lost they would all hang. They accepted that. They didn’t claim that George III had no choice but to let them go.

[...]

In a way I admire Eastman for coming clean. I don’t know whether he sees the writing on the wall and figures he might as well lay his argument out there or whether his grad school political theory pretensions and pride got the better of him and led him to state openly this indefensible truth. Either way he’s done it and not in any way that’s retrievable as a slip of the tongue. They knew it was a coup and they justified it to themselves in those terms. He just told us. They believed they were justified in trying to overthrow the government, whether because of OSHA chair size regulations or drag queens or, more broadly, because the common herd of us don’t understand the country’s “founding principles” the way Eastman and his weirdo clique do. But they did it. He just admitted it. And now they’re going to face the consequences.

  TPM

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

And, there it is...

This suggests the Grand Jury will be voting on an indictment as early as today.

Also, Fanni Willis in Georgia has indicated she'll be ready to move in August.

UPDATE 03:23 pm:

Speaking of Georgia... 

Indictments imminent

It's likey, but not certain, that a conspiracy indictment includes Eastman with Trump. If true, Trump's lawyers will surely be sending their own memo.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 07/27/2023:  And, there it is...

OMG

And it won't be a bit fair if  Trump gets away with it while Eastman takes the fall.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Accountability in American politics is essentially nonexistent

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Jan 6 Final Hearing

As expected, the Committee has made criminal referrals to the DOJ in its final hearing on the January 6 capitol attack.

The referrals, unlike the committee’s contempt of Congress recommendations, do not need the approval of the full House. Like the contempt referrals, they cannot force prosecutors to charge or even start an investigation against anyone. Publicly known subpoenas and witness appearances, though, suggest that Trump and anyone else likely to be referred by the committee are already under active criminal investigation.

[...]

The committee’s last act is likely to be the release of its final report this week, possibly on Wednesday. It plans to release an executive summary of the report Monday, following the hearing.

   MSN

Four criminal referral counts against "Trump and others."

The House Jan. 6 committee has decided to recommend the Justice Department pursue criminal charges against former President Donald Trump, including obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiring to make false statements, and insurrection.

  MSNBC

A live-blog report is at that MSNBC link.

The Committee also made referrals to the House Ethics Committee of Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, and Kevin McCarthy for refusing to comply with subpoenas. I don't think there's enough time for that committee to do anything, however, as the Republicans take over the House on January 3, and I expect them to dismiss the referrals.

John Eastman, Trump's skeezy lawyer, was criminally referred to the DOJ for obstruction of an official government proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States. I don't know yet, but I think Jeffrey Clark may be referred for some of the crimes as well. The hearing did not give names other than Trump. They merely said, "and others."

The new evidence offered in this last hearing consisted of a couple of clips of Trump adviser Hope Hicks testifying before the committee. Her testimony came after the last hearing in October (seems like so much longer ago), as I'm sure she decided it was time to come clean before ending up in the grinder herself. She - or at least her attorneys - can read handwriting on the wall. All they showed us, however, was that she claims she tried to convince Trump before January 6 to put out word the people coming to the capitol should remain peaceful. At least she said she told then-Trump attorney Eric Herschmann, and he said he'd already tried and Trump refused.

Live updates as the hearing was happening can also be read here at NBC News. 

The 154-page (includes 50 pages of footnotes) executive summary was out ahead of the hearing.

The one thing I feel fairly certain about is action by the DOJ on the count of inciting or assisting an insurrection, since they've already tried and convicted people on the charge of seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government and of obstructing an official proceeding, and Trump very obviously incited AND assisted (if only by refusing to do anything about it).  And, incidentally, that is the provision of the Constitution that prevents someone from holding office if found guilty.

That's what makes me think it's the one charge the DOJ will take up, assuming people would be willing to prevent him from holding office even if they're not willing to send him to jail.  I don't think this country is ready (or maybe ever will be) to send a president to jail.  That would be like admitting we're no better than a third world country.  And, by God, we're THE USA!

Kind of cool that the room in which they held the hearing was recently renamed...

I wonder if the asshole Republicans will try to change that when they take over the House in January.

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  And so begins the riling up of "his" people again.

What a surprise

Mr. Paoletta’s letter suggested that the communications between Ms. Thomas and Mr. Eastman, turned over to the committee after Mr. Eastman sued to try to avoid doing so, contain little of note.

“The only other email Mr. Eastman produced where he and Mrs. Thomas communicated directly is from Nov. 6 — a month before Mr. Eastman filed anything on President Trump’s behalf and two months before” the Jan. 6 riot, Mr. Paoletta wrote. “In that email, Mrs. Thomas merely forwarded a document with a few comments to Mr. Eastman and another person. Someone else drafted the document, which discussed ways to address the election fraud concerns held by millions of Americans.”

  NYT

You don't say. Could she maybe provide emails to the committee?

“Not a single document shows any coordination between Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Eastman,” he wrote, saying they all had been sent “on or before Dec. 9.”

“It is in this context that Mrs. Thomas has expressed a willingness to try to come before the committee as a means of clearing her name,” Mr. Paoletta wrote. “But, based on my understanding of the facts the committee has in its possession, I do not believe there is currently a sufficient basis to speak with Mrs. Thomas.” Mr. Paoletta allowed that if the committee revealed additional information, he could reconsider his position. But he expressed concerns about Ms. Thomas appearing before the committee amid what he described as a highly charged atmosphere in which Ms. Thomas had been criticized in the press for her political activity.

At least she has a smart lawyer.

Squeezing John Eastman

John Eastman, an architect of Donald Trump’s last-ditch bid to subvert the 2020 election, has dropped a lawsuit aimed at blocking the Jan. 6 select committee from obtaining his phone records.

In a late Tuesday filing, Eastman voluntarily dismissed the suit, claiming that he’d been assured the committee was only seeking his call logs — not the content of any messages held by his carrier, Verizon. The select committee has long contended that it lacks the authority to obtain message content.

Eastman’s move comes, however, as the legal threats he’s facing have begun to mount. Last week, FBI agents seized Eastman’s phone as part of a Justice Department inspector general investigation related to the 2020 election. Earlier this month, a federal judge forced Eastman to turn over hundreds of Trump-related emails to the Jan. 6 select committee, rejecting many of his claims of attorney-client privilege. That judge, David Carter, had already determined that Eastman and Trump “likely” entered into a criminal conspiracy to obstruct Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

  Politico

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

3rd Insurrection hearing

Judge J Michael Luttig has the manner of an old judge who is dictating to an old secretary who takes everything down in longhand, with as many pauses as spoken words.  Half the time I forgot how he started a sentence by the time he got to the end of it.

At one point, Congressman Aguilar asked the Judge if he could briefly explain something he had written.  Oh hell no he can't! I thought.  And I'm sure I wasn't the only one.  But then toward the end of the hearing he was asked what he meant by something he said, and he answered, "Just what I said."  That was exactly what I thought and was crying in my head, "Don't make him explain it!"  I guess even he was tired of hearing himself.  LOL.

Thank god he didn't give an opening statement.  But the written statement is here if you'd like to read it.

The other witness was Mike Pence's chief counsel on January 6, Greg Jacob.  Who wouldn't like that he sent an email from inside the capitol while under attack to Trump lackey, attorney John Eastman saying, "Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege."  That can be our marching motto.  Say it to anybody any time you're in trouble.

Attorney Jacob says he got Eastman to agree that Al Gore didn't have (nor should have had) the right to throw out electoral votes or return them to the states in 2000, and that Kamala Harris shouldn't have it in 2024; nevertheless, Mike Pence should "do it today."  And why would Eastman have a problem with that?  That's the way Mitch McConnell has run the GOP for years.

Also:

So much criming going on.

Trump decided otherwise.  Maybe Eastman and Rudy can ask to get on the list to be cellmates.

I would say Eastman will be doing time, but he strikes me as the type who will flip and sing like a canary.  If Trump doesn't put a hit out on him first.  Which makes me wonder who replaced Michael Cohen.

And we can only hope precious Ivanka withstands the fallout from the clip in this hearing where she testified that Trump called Pence to berate him when he wouldn't perform.

The "P" word, is what the deposed woman said.  That pee business never dies.

From another deposition, Trump also called Pence a wimp during that call.

This three hour (thanks, Judge Luttig!) hearing was definitely not prime-time material.  Those it didn't put to sleep probably would have changed the channel 20 minutes in. 

And yet, there was some good stuff that came out.

Over to Aaron Rupar for the highlights.  Begin here:

And beware that the woman sitting behind Greg Jacob is scary.  I saw her smile once, though, so it's probably okay.

Previous hearing.

Ginni's emails

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol has obtained email correspondence between Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and lawyer John Eastman, who played a key role in efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, according to three people involved in the committee’s investigation.

  WaPo

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack plans to seek testimony from conservative activist Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

[...]

The decision comes after public and private wavering among committee members in recent weeks over the importance of Thomas’ role in Jan. 6 and former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.

Thomas played an active role in pushing then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to take measures to help overturn the 2020 election results, according to texts obtained by the Washington Post and CBS News.

The committee had reportedly been leaning against inviting Thomas to testify as recently as last month.

  Axios

And I didn't think they'd do it.

Emails obtained by the panel reveal correspondence between Thomas and legal scholar John Eastman, a central figure in former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Other emails, reported by the New York Times, reveal that Eastman messaged a pro-Trump lawyer claiming to have insight into a "heated fight" between Supreme Court justices over whether to hear an election case.

Gee, I wonder where he heard that. Can't wait to see THOSE emails.

“We think it’s time that we, at some point, invite her to come talk to the committee,” Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told Axios.

I think so.  "Invite" her.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday hearing trailer

Great.  But where was this arrogant lawyer when the public needed to know what was going on?

UPDATE:

"Ground Game"

Many were wondering if the emails Trump adviser John Eastman voluntarily turned over to the committee were as bad as they were, what would the ones he held back reveal?  Federal judge David Carter helped answer that question.

[Judge Carter ordered Eastman] to disclose a batch of 159 sensitive documents to the Jan. 6 select committee, including another email that the judge said presented evidence of a likely crime.

[Carter] also ordered Eastman to provide 10 documents about meetings Eastman held with a secretive pro-Trump group that included a “high-profile” leader discussing strategies for overturning the 2020 election.

The 10 documents in question related to three December meetings held by the group. “Five documents include the agenda for a meeting on December 9, 2020,” the California-based judge indicated. “The agenda included a section entitled “GROUND GAME following Nov 4 Election Results,” during which a sitting Member of Congress discussed a “[p]lan to challenge the electors in the House of Representatives.” Other meetings of the group took place on Dec. 8 and Dec. 16, Carter noted.

  Politico

That "sitting Member of Congress" will no doubt be named this month.

“Dr. Eastman’s actions in these few weeks indicate that his and President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence — it targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. Convincing state legislatures to certify competing electors was essential to stop the count and ensure President Trump’s reelection.”

[...]

Among the documents Carter ordered disclosed were several communications directly from Trump, which Carter said were not protected by his attorney-client relationship with the president. One of the documents was a photo with a handwritten note from Trump about the size of his campaign rallies, and two were relayed by Trump’s executive assistant and sought advice for framing Trump’s public statements about a plan to send alternate slates of electors to Congress — an element of the effort to overturn the election.

The single email that Carter said pertained to a potential crime was an exchange on Dec. 22, 2020, in which an unidentified attorney encouraged Trump’s legal team not to pursue a case in court related to the Jan. 6 session of Congress.

“Because the attorney concluded that a negative court ruling would ‘tank the January 6 strategy,’ he encouraged the legal team to avoid the courts,” Carter indicated.

“This email cemented the direction of the January 6 plan,” Carter continued. “The Trump legal team chose not to seek recourse in court — instead, they forged ahead with a political campaign to disrupt the electoral count. Lawyers are free not to bring cases; they are not free to evade judicial review to overturn a democratic election. Accordingly, this portion of the email is subject to the crime-fraud exception and must be disclosed.”

Crime. Fraud.

“Because these documents only relate to the political plan for January 6, they were not made in anticipation of litigation and thus are not protected,” Carter ruled.

Carter also ordered Eastman to disclose 54 emails related to his contacts with state legislators and “other third parties” to discuss alternate slates of presidential electors. He ordered the release of a single paragraph of one otherwise-protected email in which Eastman offered talking points to members of Congress about their authority to delay the counting of presidential electors.

[...]

[Carter] determined that more than 400 of Eastman’s remaining emails were legitimately privileged and not subject to disclosure to the Jan. 6 committee. “Review of the 409 protected documents shows that none are ‘pivotal’ to the Select Committee’s investigation,” Cater added. “The majority of the documents include opinions and discussions about trial strategy in ongoing or anticipated lawsuits.”

[...]

The ruling caps a six-month legal odyssey for Eastman, who sued to block the select committee from accessing his Chapman University records in January. Eastman used Chapman’s email system to communicate with lawyers, campaign operatives and associates of Donald Trump.

[...]

[Carter] described the attempt as a “coup in search of a legal theory,” determining that Eastman’s efforts to couch the effort in legal scholarship masked a more sinister effort.

[...]

[T]he centerpiece of Eastman’s plan was focused on Jan. 6, an effort to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally prevent Biden from taking office. Under Eastman’s approach, Pence — who was constitutionally required to preside over the Jan. 6 counting of Electoral College votes — had the sole power to choose which votes to count. Eastman urged Pence to refuse to count dozens of Biden’s electors and either recess the joint session of Congress or send the election to the House.

To accomplish this plan, Eastman pushed state legislatures in several states Biden won to certify alternate slates of pro-Trump presidential electors, which Pence could point to as a pretense for his actions.

I'm going to assume that the GOP will attempt to make Eastman the fall guy for the whole coup attempt and fight to keep Trump out of it. I don't know how successful that will be - we'll see what the January 6 hearings reveal - but there might well be a GOP "Member of Congress" going down as well.