…”likely criminal”…


Not my words, but the word of the judge who ruled Eastman has to turn over most of the documents requested by the January 6th Commission.

“Carter said there was enough evidence to find a likelihood that Trump committed at least two felonies: obstruction of an official proceeding, a serious charge that has been brought against hundreds of Capitol riot defendants, and conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

…”Carter acknowledged that the case before him is not positioned to address who should be assigned responsibility for last year’s attack on the Capitol.”

While no criminal finding is in the order, there apparently is enough information to indicate that John Eastman’s records are not ALL protected by attorney-client privilege because there are possible criminal acts involved.

18 thoughts on “…”likely criminal”…

  1. It will be interesting to see how that progresses through the appellate courts. It should bring clarity to the question of whether Biden has the authority to waive a previous President’s Executive Privilege.


    1. Didn’t the Supreme Court already rule on that? In an 8-1 vote, they ruled the EP claimed by TFG does not exist once he is out of office.

      The judge in the Eastman case reviewed all of the documents requested and ruled the majority of them had to be turned over because there is probable criminal activity involved. EP goes away in the same manner.


      1. SCOTUS made no such ruling. Both the SCOTUS denial of the injunction and the appellate decision concede executive privilege of prior Presidents to the extent that is benefits the republic and not just the former President as an individual. The appellate decision goes to great lengths to explain the need for the privilege.


  2. “. . . the question of whether Biden has the authority to waive a previous President’s Executive Privilege.”

    Uh, try to pay attention. This issue has already been through the Courts up to and including SCOTUS.

    I have already shared with YOU the FACT that the Appellate Court addressed whether or not the documents Biden released were covered by Executive Privilege. They found that they were not and according to that Court they would not have been covered by Executive Privilege EVEN if Trump were still President.

    So, your claim about what President Biden did is completely bogus. There was NO Executive Privilege to waive.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Even Kavanaugh. in his opinion stated:
        “To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome.”

        It may not be precedent, but it can LEAD to precedent. And even Kavanaugh says the privilege is NOT absolute, as claimed by TFG.

        And in this case, the judge ruled that there was “likely criminal” activity indicated in the records between Eastman and TFG. There is NO privilege in this instance. And we are talking about attorney-client privilege, which IS covered as being protected, EXCEPT in the case of criminal wrongdoing.


      2. You are correct. The case is not precedent for future BONA FIDE claims of Executive Privilege by former Presidents.

        But now you are trying to change the subject. We have been talking about THIS CASE. Your claim that Biden has damaged future Presidents by waiving Trump’s Executive Privilege is a bogus claim. There was no bona fide Executive Privilege covering this material for him to waive. They (the Courts) made that determination based on examining the material in THIS CASE. Another meritless time waster by a criminal trying to run out the clock. His lawyers should be censured for going along.

        I quote from the SCOTUS ruling. . .

        “The Court of Appeals, however, had no occasion to decide these questions because it analyzed and rejected President Trump’s privilege claims “under any of the tests [he] advocated,” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F. 4th 10, 33 (CADC 2021), without regard to his status as a former President, id., at 40–46. Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision.”

        I am not sure why you bring up Bannon at this point. The materials related to his machinations were not legitimately covered by Executive Privilege either.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. RE: “Not my words, but the word of the judge who ruled Eastman has to turn over most of the documents requested by the January 6th Commission.”

    Well, not actually. “Likely criminal” are the words of The Hill’s headline writer. The judge never used those words.

    I mention this only to bring attention to a Catch-22 in this story. IF Trump’s actions were criminal, then the standard protection of privilege would be void. But the judge didn’t rule that Trump’s actions were criminal, only that they MIGHT be criminal.

    It seems to me that the protection of privilege should be sacrosanct UNTIL a finding of criminality is reached. Since no such finding has been recorded, the judge’s ruling is invalid on its face.

    That is, you can’t assume a crime that hasn’t been proved, just as you can’t accuse a man of being insane because he wants to fly a war plane.


    1. ““Likely criminal” are the words of The Hill’s headline writer. The judge never used those words.”

      OK, Dr. Semantics. But he did indicate the same thing, just not in the same words used by EVERY SINGLE HEADLINE WRITER from EVERY SINGLE NEWS SOURCE I saw this reporting on.

      In this instance the judge indicated that it was probable a crime was committed or planned (conspiracy). Not only is the decision valid, it is a legal kick in the balls to Eastman and TFG. He also indicated he could not determine actual criminality because the suit did not request that. He based his ruling on the probability of criminal activity and in order to advance the investigation ruled it was necessary for the documents to be released.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I believe the judge said “more likely than not” which is a leftist judge’s opinion and a far cry from your interpretation. Why all the semantics anyway? We all know Pelosi wrote the final report on Jan 7. Gee, I wonder what it says just in time for midterms.


    1. Thanks for my daily dose of drivel and spittle.

      Why do you say the judge is a “leftist”? DO you have proof of that, or are you just spitting up your formula?

      Once again, you show your drooling hatred for anything you don’t like. Whether or not it is REAL. Like your assertion that Pelosi wrote the report the next day. She’s good; even she isn’t THAT good.

      If the weatherman tells you it is “more likely than not” that the sun will rise n the East tomorrow, are you going to doubt that assertion? Or are all meteorologists leftist science deniers?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I get it, drama, inane accusations and spittle are your forte in lieu of a cogent argument. Grow up.

        He is a Clinton appointee, nuf said.


      2. In response to your ignorant example, a reasonable case would be if the weatherman said it is more likely than not to rain, I’d say that is slightly left of maybe. Sounds like maybe, maybe not to me


    2. Here. Let me point out the quote from the link that you seem to want to ignore: ““Carter said there was enough evidence to find a likelihood that Trump committed at least two felonies”…

      Two felonies. Likelihood. I think my interpretation is pretty spot on.

      The judge said what he said. Sorry it points towards a possible trip to FCI Fort Dix for your boy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Like I said, a left wing judge’s opinion but “enough evidence to find a likelyhood” falls well outside of any compelling evidence and still flatly falls under maybe, maybe not. Don’t keep your hopes up.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s