John Eastman’s attempt to block Chapman subpoena fails

Former Chapman law professor John Eastman’s temporary restraining order on the release of his emails has been overturned as the university must now release 101 emails requested by the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6 investigatory committee. Wiki Commons

John Eastman’s attempts to block access to emails he sent preceding and immediately following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol have officially failed.

California federal Judge David O. Carter found March 28 that the former Chapman law professor “more likely than not” conspired with former President Donald Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and ordered a reversal of Eastman’s temporary restraining order (TRO) on the subpoena issued to Chapman University over his emails.

The ruling orders 101 of Eastman’s emails from his university address between Jan. 4 and Jan. 7, 2021 to be released to the U.S. House of Representatives’ panel investigating the Jan. 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol. It also followed the release of an email exchange confirming Eastman’s culpability in the scheme to commit election fraud. 

Eastman’s official statement on the March 28 ruling maintains that his goal in blocking the subpoena was to protect attorney-client privilege in his interactions with clients during this period. 

“As an attorney, Dr. John Eastman has the responsibility to protect the confidences of his clients to the fullest extent of the law,” the statement said. “Dr. Eastman’s case against the Jan. 6 committee seeks to fulfill this responsibility. It is not an attempt to ‘hide’ documents or ‘obstruct’ congressional investigations as the Jan. 6 committee falsely claims.”

Eastman spoke at the California Republican Assembly Convention held in Buena Park 10 days prior to this ruling and discussed how his legal team had “won” the suit to block Chapman from turning over the requested documents without providing Eastman with the ability to review them for violations of attorney-client privilege.

Meghann Cuniff, a reporter based in Southern California, attended the event and recorded Eastman’s statements and her experience as an attendee on a Twitter thread.  

“They somehow think I’ve got smoking guns that are going to prove that we were going to — I don’t even want to — I’ve got to be careful what I say because I’m still in the fight with them,” Eastman addressed the crowd, according to a tweet from Cuniff. 

Cuniff told The Panther she believes that Eastman did not make that comment out of an abundance of caution, but because he thought it was “cool” to highlight his legal battle in this way. 

“He’s kind of proud of what he did on Jan. 6 and he’s bragging about it,” Cuniff told The Panther. “He likes saying that stuff about ‘Oh, I’ve got to be careful, my attorneys are going to kill me.’ He thought it was cool to say.”

Cuniff speculates that Eastman’s goal in making such a speech is to solidify his defense that he genuinely believes the election results were fraudulent and to secure donors for his fundraiser on Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo to secure his legal fees.

“I think he’s really trying to get behind and dig into the idea that he firmly believes the election was stolen and he’s not making something up to try and justify a coup,” Cuniff told The Panther. “But the stuff he was going over was bullshit; I mean, most of everything he was saying was debunked.”

Carter has also called attention to Eastman’s past involvement in 2000 on behalf of former President George W. Bush, for which the judge said Eastman was “praised.”

Christine Todd Whitman, a former member of the Bush administration and former governor of New Jersey, believes the circumstances of Eastman’s involvement in the Bush and Trump elections are different. Though she emphasized that, in both cases, she would have preferred the election to be decided solely by the polls.

“The outcome (of the 2000 election) was the decision of the Supreme Court, (and) the difference here is that the losing candidate conceded,” Whitman, who is currently the co-chair of the States United Democracy Center, told The Panther. “I will say that I don't believe that is the way we ever want to see presidential elections decided, but that was a close election.”

Whitman signed a bipartisan complaint in 2021 requesting an investigation into Eastman’s involvement in the Jan. 6 attack and was also involved in Bush’s defense during the vote recount in 2000. She told The Panther she does not recall Eastman playing a prominent role in the Bush campaign, but she believes he was culpable in the events following the 2020 election.

“At States United, one of the things we strongly believe is that people have to be held accountable for their actions,” Whitman said. “Clearly, (Eastman) had the ear of the president and was someone on whom the president relied, so we can expect that (Eastman) had quite a bit of influence.” 

As the investigation continues, Cuniff believes the question of indictment is still far off. 

“Right now, we’re not even close to there being any kind of indictment, and I think a lot of people think that this isn’t something the Department of Justice (DOJ) is going to want to pursue,” Cuniff told The Panther. “No matter how strong the report is from the January 6 Committee and how much they recommend charges, it’s still going to be up to the DOJ.”

Nevertheless, Cuniff concedes that Eastman could still end up convicted. 

“Thinking about a conviction is really far off, but I don’t know, especially with these emails that the committee is now getting, they’re going to be able to put together a stronger case,” Cuniff said.