Former Trump Lawyer Files Petition With Supreme Court Over Defunct Pelosi-Picked J6 Committee


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

A former lawyer for then-President Donald Trump has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in a legal action related to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked — and now defunct — January 6 Committee.

The petition, filed by attorney John Eastman, 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.

The petition argues that a March 22 decision by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee, “created a stigma for both Petitioner and his client, the former President of the United States and current candidate for the presidency.”

Last year, Carter wrote that the court found it “more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” However, both Trump and Eastman have denied any wrongdoing, and the former president has frequently referred to his public statements on January 6, where he urged protesters to demonstrate peacefully and show respect for local law enforcement officials, The Epoch Times added.

The California-based judge, who waged an unsuccessful campaign as a Democrat for California’s 38th Congressional District some years ago, also ruled that the “illegality of the plan was obvious” and claimed 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.”


Eastman had asserted attorney-client privilege, but Carter dismissed the claim, stating that attorney-client privilege does not apply when the discussion pertains to an alleged crime, the outlet noted further.

At that time, Carter directed Eastman to hand over documents and electronic communications to the House Jan. 6 committee, which was subsequently disbanded after Republicans gained control of the lower congressional chamber.

Carter claimed that among the 33 documents were emails that purportedly showed “an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purpose of delaying” the 2020 election certification on Jan. 6.

That was related to Eastman’s memo in which he outlined a legal strategy for Vice President Mike Pence to reject the Electoral College votes for then-candidate Joe Biden during the Jan. 6 session that Pence presided over. However, Pence did not ultimately follow the suggestions outlined in Eastman’s document.

Following the event, Trump, now a 2024 GOP presidential candidate, expressed criticism of Pence’s actions on social media.


Previous reporting claimed that Pence will announce his own presidential candidacy in the upcoming weeks.

Trump ripped Carter late last year for issuing what he called a highly partisan decision.

“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.


Eastman argued in his high court petition 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.

Send this to a friend