FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE JANUARY
SIX COMMITTEE JUST LAID OUT THE
CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST DONALD
TRUMP SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO
WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY SIX.
THE REVELATIONS WERE MADE IN A
COURT FILING IN CALIFORNIA,
WHERE LAWYERS FOR THE COMMITTEE
ARGUED THAT TRUMP ATTORNEY JOHN
EASTMAN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED
TO WITHHOLD EMAILS UNDER
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
EASTMAN, YOU MAY RECALL, WAS
THE LAWYER WHO TRIED TO PROVIDE
A LEGAL BASIS FOR TRUMP'S
EFFORT TO OVERTURN THE
ELECTION.
COMMITTEES LAWYERS ARGUED THAT
EASTMAN'S TALKING AND SHOULD BE
REVIEWED PRIVATELY BY THE JUDGE,
TO DETERMINE IF THEY FALL UNDER
THE, QUOTE, CRIME OR FRAUD
EXCEPTION, TO THE ATTORNEY
CLIENT PRIVILEGE RULE.
IN THE FILING, THEY REVEAL THAT,
QUOTE, THE EVIDENCE PROVIDES AT
MINIMUM, A GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR
CONCLUDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS VIOLATED SECTION 18 OF THE
U.S. QUOTE.
SPECIFICALLY THAT HE OBSTRUCTED,
INFLUENCED, OR IMPEDED, OR
ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT FOR AN
OFFICIAL PROCEEDING OF THE
UNITED STATES.
THEY ALSO SAY THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS A GOOD FAITH
BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE
PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF HIS
CAMPAIGN ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES.
THEY EXPECT THAT THE DOCUMENTS
MAY REVEAL THAT THE PRESIDENT
AND HIS ALLIES WENT INTO
CAMPAIGN FRAUD.
I'M JOINED NOW WITH ONE OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
CONGRESSMAN JAMIE RASKIN FROM
MARYLAND.
CONGRESSMAN I'M GLAD TO HAVE
YOU SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE I
KNOW IN YOUR PREVIOUS LIFE
YOU'RE A LAW PROFESSOR, AND
THIS IS ALMOST LIKE A LAW
SCHOOL FINAL EXAM.
THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THIS
IN TERMS OF THE FILING, AND IN
TERMS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING.
SOME WONDERING IF YOU COULD
EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THIS SAYS.
LET'S START WITH EASTMAN.
WHAT WAS HIS ROLE AND HOW IS HE
ATTEMPTING TO FIGHT THE
COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS?
>> YES, IT'S LIKE A LAW SCHOOL
FINAL EXAM WHERE THE WHOLE
THING OF DEMOCRACY IS THE
ANSWER.
BUT, LOOK, JOHN EASTMAN WAS
OPERATING AS A FREELANCE LEGAL
POLITICAL OPERATOR.
HE WAS SPEAKING ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY AT RALLIES, AND HE WAS
MAKING THE ARGUMENTS THAT
DONALD TRUMP CAME TO ABSORB AND
INTEGRATE INTO HIS APPROACH,
WHICH IS THAT VICE PRESIDENT
MIKE PENCE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY
JUST LIKE WASH AND NULLIFY
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES.
AND, EASTMAN WAS RUNNING AROUND
SAYING THAT THE ELECTORAL COUNT
ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AND, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION,
THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS USING
UNKNOWN POWERS TO NULLIFY
ELECTORAL VOTES THAT WERE
CERTIFIED BY GEORGIA AND
PENNSYLVANIA.
SO, WE HAVE DEMANDED TO GET ALL
OF THIS INFORMATION, ALL OF
THESE EMAILS FROM HIM THAT HE
ENGAGED IN AS PART OF THIS
CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE ELECTION.
AND, HE HAS ASSERTED THE BOOK
OVER BY THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
PRIVILEGE, THE PROBLEM IS THAT
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE
WAS ACTING AS THE PRESIDENTS
ATTORNEY, OR THAT THEY FORMED
AN ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP.
THEY HAVE FORMED ONE, IT WOULD
CLEARLY HAVE BEEN WAIVED BOTH
BY THE PRESIDENT IN TELLING HIM
TO GO OUT AND TO MAKE ALL OF
THESE ARGUMENTS, AND BY HIM IN
TERMS OF HIS CONDUCT.
BUT THAT FINALLY, WE SAY IF THE
COURT SOMEHOW OR TO FIND THAT
THERE WASN'T AN ATTORNEY CLIENT
PRIVILEGE, THEN VERY CLEARLY,
IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
BECAUSE OF THE SO-CALLED CRIME
FRAUD EXCEPTION.
WHICH IS THAT ATTORNEYS AND
CLIENTS ARE NOT COVERED FROM
DISCOVERY, IF THEY ARE INVOLVED
IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
AND HERE, WE IDENTIFIED LEADS
THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND
ACTIVITY.
ONE, CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT THE
FEDERAL PROCEEDING, THE JOINT
SESSION OF CONGRESS TO COUNT
ELECTORAL VOTES.
TO, A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES BY SENDING IN
THESE COUNTERFEIT SLATES OF
ELECTORS AND THEN USING OUT AS
A PRETEXT FOR SHUTTING DOWN THE
PROPER COUNTING OF ELECTORS
UNDER THE 12TH AMENDMENT AND
THE CONSTITUTION.
AND THIRD, JUST COMMON LAW
FRAUD.
SO, THE WHOLE THING WAS
BASICALLY AN ATTEMPT TO
PERPETRATE THE SCAM THE
PRESIDENT WAS TALKING ABOUT
STOPPING THE STEAL.
HE WAS TRYING TO PERPETRATE THE
STEAL OF THE ELECTION.
AND JOHN EASTMAN WAS VERY MUCH
PART OF THOSE PLANS.
>> YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES
STRIKE ME AS FAIRLY SAVVY ABOUT
ALL THIS.
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
YESTERDAY WHEN THIS FILING WAS
FILED, WHEN IT BECAME PUBLIC,
IT MADE HUGE HEADLINES BECAUSE
THE COMMITTEE SAYING WE HAVE A
GOOD FAITH REASON TO BELIEVE
THE EX PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
IS THIS JUST AN ARGUMENT THAT
YOU'RE USING IN THIS FILING TO
ARGUE THE ALTERNATIVE AND TRY
TO GET THESE DOCUMENTS?
IF TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY AS A
CURRENT REFLECTION OF THE
BELIEF OF THE COMMITTEE BASED
ON THE INFORMATION IS GATHERED?
>> BEFORE WE EVEN SPELL ALL
THIS OUT AND OUR PROCEEDINGS,
THIS WAS RAISED BY THE JUDGE.
THE JUDGE HIMSELF RAISED THAT
IN THE CASE.
AND SO, WE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO
ADDRESS A.
THE JUDGE REASONABLY RAISE THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER ALL OF THIS
COULD BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY
CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHEN IT WAS
MEANT TO PULL A FAST ONE AND
OVERTHROW THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
SO, WE THINK WE FOLLOWED
THROUGH ON THE JUDGES
INVITATION.
AND, AGAIN, BECAUSE WE ARGUED
SEQUENTIALLY, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE THERE ARE A LOT OF
WAYS THE DECIDED BEFORE YOU GET
TO THE CRIME FRAUD EXCEPTION.
AND OF COURSE, THE STYLE IS
WITHIN THE REALM OF CIVIL LAW.
IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION.
BUT I THINK IT'S FAIRLY