Federal judge says it's 'likely' Trump committed a felony on January 6 while attempting 'to secure the Presidency by any means'

• A judge said in a Monday ruling that Trump "likely" broke federal law while trying to overturn the election results.
• "The illegality" of Trump's plan to disrupt Congress' election certification on Jan. 6, 2021 "was obvious," the judge said.

A federal judge said in a Monday ruling that former President Donald Trump "likely" obstructed Congress — a felony — when he tried to disrupt the election certification process on January 6, 2021.

The determination came in a ruling ordering the conservative lawyer and Trump ally John Eastman to turn over more than 100 emails to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot.

Eastman, who has resisted cooperating with the January 6 committee, argued that his and Trump's plan to halt the election certification process was "legally justified" because it was "grounded on a good faith interpretation of the Constitution," US District Judge David Carter said.

"But 'ignorance of the law is no excuse,' and believing the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional did not give President Trump license to violate it," he continued. "Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process."

Carter went on to point out the dozens of lawsuits Trump's campaign and his Republican allies filed in court contesting the election results in battleground states that Joe Biden won.

After "filing and losing more than sixty suits, this plan was a last-ditch attempt to secure the Presidency by any means," the ruling said, adding that the "illegality of the plan was obvious."

Trump and Eastman "launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history," Carter wrote. "Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory."

Carter's ruling stems from the House select panel's subpoena to Eastman's former employer, Chapman University, for emails he sent from his university account. Eastman became a person of interest to the committee after new details emerged about his role as Trump's legal advisor after the 2020 election, during which he drafted a legally dubious memo laying out a six-step plan for then Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election.

"If Dr. Eastman and President Trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution," Carter's ruling said. "If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself."

Trump held a widely anticipated "Save America" rally immediately preceding the Capitol riot, during which he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol and "fight like hell" against Congress' certification of Biden's election victory.

Shortly after, thousands of his frenzied supporters stormed the Capitol, breaching barriers, clashing with law enforcement officers, and trying to break into the House and Senate chambers. Lawmakers, staff, and journalists were quickly evacuated, but a bipartisan Senate report concluded that at least seven people died in connection to the events of January 6.

Last month, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in a separate case that Trump can be sued over the Capitol riot and engaged in a "civil conspiracy" with key supporters and far-right groups.

The word "we" being "used repeatedly in this context implies that the President and rally-goers would be acting together toward a common goal," Mehta wrote. "That is the essence of a civil conspiracy."

The focus of Mehta's ruling were three civil lawsuits brought against Trump by Democratic lawmakers and Capitol Police officers who defended the building on January 6.

The judge ruled that Trump is not immune from the litigation and can be held accountable for his actions and statements related to the Capitol riot. Mehta acknowledged the import of his decision but said that the events of January 6 were unprecedented.

"To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step," his ruling said. "The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent."