A federal judge on Wednesday said he'll privately review John Eastman's Chapman University communications to determine which should be released to the Jan. 6 committee, avoiding a tricky argument over the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege put promising a more substantive ruling later.

The order does not directly address the committee's crime-fraud exception claim relating to a possible criminal case recommendation against former President Donald Trump, but U.S. District Judge David O. Carter promised a longer analysis in his final determination "of which, if any, documents must be disclosed."

Before the judge determines whether exceptions apply, however, he'll determine whether privilege ever existed and, if it did, whether it's since been waived. And House General Counsel Douglas Letter has argued extensively that Eastman can't claim attorney-client privilege over any of the communications because they are the property of Chapman University, and Chapman employees are told they have no expectation of privacy when using school equipment.

Letter also has argued that even if Eastman could claim privilege, his client—Trump—waived it by authorizing Eastman to publicly discuss their communications. Eastman's lawyer Charles Burnham said Letter has taken Trump's statements "wholly out of context," and he's also dismissed any argument that Eastman wasn't allowed to use Chapman system in his work.

Together, the arguments give Carter much to consider when reading the emails and any attachments. They also leave open the possibility that the judge could decide which emails, if any, to release to the committee without addressing the thorny argument over whether the crime-fraud exception negates any privilege claims.

But if Carter does reach the crime-fraud issue, he's already hinted it could be relevant when he suggested it during a hearing in January, which Letter and committee members have repeatedly cited. He also said in Wednesday's order that the committee's evidence "sufficiently supports a reasonable belief that the emails may reveal that they were not created in anticipation of litigation."

"As the Court has previously noted, the evidence suggests that communications from those days are essential to the Select Committee's pressing investigation," according to the order.

The order also observed that the committee argues the documents aren't protected "because they aimed to persuade Vice President Pence to act, as opposed to pursuing litigation on the Electoral Count Act."

The judge cautioned, however, that "reading the emails does not mean that the Court will ultimately require disclosure."