An independent source said the emails were part of a stretch of messages provided to the committee after a federal judge ruled that Eastman’s correspondence was relevant to the work of the committee investigating former President Donald Trump and efforts to cancel the 2020 presidential election in the months leading up to January 6.
There is some discussion about adding the role of Thomas in the effort to annul the election results to some of the committee’s upcoming public hearings, but sources warned that the panel’s schedule is already very full and there are currently no plans.
Thomas did not respond to a request for comment from CNN. Eastman’s lawyers declined to comment, as did a spokesman for the House Select Committee.
California Rep. Pete Aguilar, a member of the committee, did not confirm that he was in possession of the emails, but told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Wednesday night that the hearings would include only content that the committee considered specific to the focus. your research.
“The committee will not be shy about seeking additional information from people who have information relevant to the investigation,” Aguilar told Cooper in response to a question about adding Thomas to the committee’s hearings.
“We’re not talking about details, but these hearings are pretty firm and closed, and we hope to put together this puzzle for the American public and share what we know so far,” the California Democrat continued.
Eastman was the architect of a lobbying campaign around then-Vice President Mike Pence. He argued that Pence had the legal authority to prevent certification of election results. It was a theory that Pence eventually rejected, to the anger of Trump and his supporters. Eastman also once served as Clarence Thomas’ secretary. As previously reported by CNN, Ginni Thomas was in regular contact with then-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows between election day and January 6, encouraging him to keep the effort to an end. To hold elections. results. Thomas has repeatedly said that her political activism has nothing to do with her husband’s work in the Supreme Court.
Clarence Thomas was involved in Supreme Court cases related to the 2020 election controversies and, in a February 2021 opinion, disagreed because the full court refused to accept a challenge to Pennsylvania’s postal voting procedures. He expressed support for the claim that election fraud is a threat to the United States.
“We are lucky that many of the cases we have seen will only involve changes in inappropriate rules, not fraud. But this observation only provides a small comfort,” he wrote. “Elections free of solid evidence of systemic fraud are not enough on their own for electoral confidence.” No other justice joined his opinion.
Last January, Thomas disagreed on his own, as the court allowed the National Archives to release thousands of Trump White House documents to the Jan. 6 committee for the former president’s attempt to assert the privilege. executive.
Thomas has refused to be challenged in cases related to the 2020 election.
Sources said the House Select Committee has considered playing the role of Ginni Thomas in an attempt to cancel the election investigation, but has not yet convened it to testify or issue a summons.
NYT: Eastman Claimed Vision of Supreme Court Internal Brawls to Take Case in 2020 Elections
On Wednesday night, The New York Times reported that Eastman claimed in December 2020 that there was a “heated fight” between Supreme Court judges over whether arguments about the then president’s efforts should be heard. to overturn the results of the 2020 election and another pro-Trump. The lawyer suggested that the “wild ‘chaos” on January 6 could push the high court to take action.
In an exchange on December 24, 2020, John Eastman spoke about alleged internal fights in an email to campaign officials Kenneth Chesebro and Trump, hoping to encourage Supreme Court judges to hear an election case , the Times reported, citing two people informed about the content of the email.
“So the odds are not based on legal merits, but on an assessment of the judges’ backbone, and I understand that there is a heated fight going on,” Eastman wrote, referring to the trial of at least four judges who they are needed to take on a Box. He added: “For those who are willing to do their duty, we should help them by giving them a Wisconsin certificate request to add to the mix.”
According to the Times, Chesebro responded, “the chances of action before January 6 will be more favorable if judges start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on January 6 unless they rule then, anyway.” .
The exchange was part of a group of emails obtained by the select committee of the House investigating the riots at the U.S. Capitol, the Times said, and took place days after Trump himself called for a “savage” protest. in the Ellipse, near the White House January 6, 2021, the day the election votes were set to be certified by Congress.
CNN has not confirmed the report and it is unclear what real view, if any, Eastman had on the deliberations among Supreme Court judges.
CNN has contacted the Supreme Court for comment, and the Jan. 6 committee declined to comment Wednesday night. Chesebro and an Eastman lawyer did not respond to requests for comment from the Times.
In the email exchange, there was a request for the Trump campaign to pay for the effort to file a case in high court and it could have been denied, the Times also reported.
Asked about the email exchange, Maryland MP Jamie Raskin, a Democrat and a member of the Jan. 6 committee, said Thursday that the email “suggests that there were at least some people maneuvering in right-wing legal circles to trying to push the Supreme Court into action “.
Raskin also told CNN’s “New Day” that if there is evidence of Eastman’s comments about what was going on among Supreme Court judges, “we will report that he said that.”
“That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true,” Raskin warned. “I could have lied about what I knew inside. On the other hand, maybe I had some back channel connection with the Supreme Court, and we want to find out if that’s true. To determine if, you know, the same thing. The people who were establishing a back channel to the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and the domestic violent extremist movement also had a back channel, in some way, to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. “