Former Trump Lawyer Files Petition With Supreme Court

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

A former attorney for former President Donald Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the hand-selected January 6 Committee, which is no longer in existence.

The petition, submitted by attorney John Eastman, claims that the former president’s presidential hopes were harmed by the lower court decisions that allowed the committee to obtain documents, noting that he seeks “to reverse lower court rulings that enabled the … committee to access information, arguing that those decisions harm the former president’s presidential aspirations,” The Epoch Times reported.

According to the petition, a judgment rendered on March 22 by Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge David O. Carter “created a stigma for both Petitioner and his client, the former President of the United States and current candidate for the presidency.”

According to Carter’s report from the previous year, the court concluded that it was “more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” The former president frequently referenced to his public remarks on January 6, in which he advised protesters to march peacefully and show respect for local law enforcement officers, The Epoch Times noted. Both Trump and Eastman have denied any wrongdoing.

The judge, who is from California and once ran a failed Democratic primary for California’s 38th Congressional District, also declared that the “illegality of the plan was obvious” and asserted that the United States was “founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections.”

Carter rejected Eastman’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege, arguing that it does not apply when the conversation relates to an alleged crime, the site added. Eastman had claimed the attorney-client privilege.

Carter then instructed Eastman to deliver papers and electronic messages to the House Jan. 6 committee, which was later disbanded after Republicans took over the lower House of Congress.

Emails apparently demonstrating “an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purpose of delaying” the certification of the 2020 election on January 6, according to Carter, were included among the 33 documents.

That was connected to Eastman’s document, which he wrote outlining a legal plan for Vice President Mike Pence to use on January 6 to reject the Electoral College votes for then-candidate Joe Biden. However, Pence ultimately chose not to abide by the advice offered in Eastman’s document.

Trump, who is currently a Republican presidential candidate for 2024, criticized Pence’s conduct on social media after the event.

According to earlier reports, Pence will declare his own presidential run in the coming weeks.

Late last year, Trump criticized Carter for making what he considered to be a politicized judgment.

“Who’s this Clinton appointed ‘Judge,’ David Carter, who keeps saying, and sending to all, very nasty, wrong, and ill-informed statements about me on rulings, or a case (whatever!), currently going on in California, that I know nothing about—nor am I represented,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

“With that being said … he shouldn’t be making statements about me until he understands the facts, which he doesn’t!” he added.

In his high court petition, Eastman claimed that the “respondent committee’s action of accessing disputed documents while a motion to stay was pending, and then publishing in a public filing a live link to the confidential documents that were the subject of the appeal, deprived Petitioner (Eastman) of the opportunity to show that the ‘crime-fraud’ conclusions of the District Court were clearly erroneous, thus clearing his name and that of his former client, former President Trump.”

“Because the law is clearly established and the facts are not in dispute, this case is a candidate for summary reversal with an order that the District Court judgment and orders be vacated,” he added.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend