Skip to content

The January 6 Committee Is Pushing Another Scandal That Isn’t

A recent court filing by the January 6 special select committee is giving us our first indication that Donald Trump and his lawyer may be guilty of criminal behavior.  We know this is serious because it’s being reported by the New York Times – America’s paper of record.  You know, those bastions of accuracy that received a Pulitzer Prize for 3 years of false reporting about the Russian collusion conspiracy.  The Times is even reporting that the evidence will likely result in a criminal referral.  The paper was probably tipped off by one of their reliable sources – like ahem … Adam Schiff.

This whole episode was triggered when one of the lawyers for the Donald Trump campaign, John Eastman, had the gall to suggest that the committee had no right to see confidential communications between himself and his client.  When he was served a subpoena for emails between himself and his clients, he obstructed justice (in the committee’s opinion) by challenging the subpoena in court.

The committee countered Eastman’s court filing by informing the court that attorney-client privilege does not apply when being used to commit a crime.  Donald Trump had obviously committed a crime by speaking out against the election – see recent DHS advisory identifying such people as “threat actors.”  Therefore, Eastman has also committed a crime, by colluding with Trump, writing legal opinions, and sharing them with the Vice President.  Donald Trump and John Eastman were attempting to interfere with congressional business – using legal processes.  The committee has informed the court that based on a common-law standard, this is proof of fraud and obstruction.  That’s right, no actual law or statute was violated, just their understanding of common law – I kid you not.

Common law is:

A body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. Common law influences the decision-making process in unusual cases where the outcome cannot be determined based on existing statutes or written rules of law.

Which means, as soon as they said “common law”, they were admitting that no actual written statute or law had been violated.  They’re saying a crime has been committed, in an area where nobody has codified it into law yet.  And they want the judge to break the attorney client privilege, to help them prove that a law that hasn’t been written yet, has been broken.  Are you freaking kidding me?

This is the same caliber of legal reasoning that we got from the Mueller investigation.  Remember part II of the report.  They asserted that Trump may have committed obstruction, by publicly asserting his innocence, and resisting turning over evidence that didn’t exist, about a crime that didn’t happen (per part I of the report).

So, let me put this in layman’s terms.  The committee wants to break attorney-client privilege because Eastman is obviously a criminal, since he works for Donald Trump and he is reported to have written a legal opinion that differs from that of the committee.  That certainly makes him a “threat actor” (per the DHS), but I’m not seeing how asserting the constitutional rights of his client makes him a criminal.  The committee just wants the judge to help them find the evidence of a crime, that they’re pretty sure happened – even though they can’t prove it yet.

"*" indicates required fields

Are you voting in the midterm elections?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Oh, and that NYT statement that the evidence will probably result in a criminal referral is the “wait until we tell dad” threat.  In this case, dad would be Merrick Garland, who will undoubtedly pursue this in criminal court – since that’s what he does as the head of the Peoples Department of Justice (PDoJ).  The PDoJ is all about finding the criminal first and then identifying the crime later these days.  When he does, it will prove that he shouldn’t even be allowed to have a law license.  It’s scary that he was ever a judge.  Thank you, Mitch McConnel, for saving us from decades of legal opinions from this nut.

I’m not saying that the committee can’t win this most recent battle.  It actually might.  It is being fought in a California court after all – the land of decriminalized crime.  If the committee does win, it will mean that

  • Attorney-client privilege will be a thing of the past, along with executive privilege.
  • Use of legal processes may be interpreted as commission of a crime.
  • Lawyers giving legal opinions may have committed a crime in doing so – nothing chilling about that.
  • Freedom of speech will no longer apply to political matters – I’ll bet the founders didn’t see that coming.

We’ll also have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the January 6 committee is comprised of idiots, whose hatred trumps their legal training, oath of office, and common sense.

Going forward, the combined actions of the committee, the PDoJ, the DHS, and the Biden administration will have destroyed a significant portion of our constitutional protections, just as the Republicans take over congress.

I expect this to be a landslide year, but even I don’t expect the Republicans to gain a veto-proof majority.  Also, nothing in the past year indicates that Biden is capable of triangulation or compromise.  He’s going to veto anything a Republican-led Congress passes, and Americans will be treated to 2 years of blessed legislative gridlock.

The Republicans are going to have 2 years with nothing to do but conduct investigations – in an environment where the Dems have just changed the rules. I told you the committee was comprised of fools.

By John Green

John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He currently writes at the American Free News Network and The Blue State Conservative.  He can be followed on Facebook or reached at

Enjoy HUGE savings at My Pillow with promo code BSC

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Blue State Conservative. The BSC is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented.

This article was first published by the American Free News Network.