The choose committee has proof that when a prime Pence aide challenged Eastman’s plan on Jan. 4, 2021, Eastman initially instructed him he believed two Supreme Courtroom justices would again him up. One in every of them was Ginni Thomas’ husband, Justice Clarence Thomas.
Eastman’s assertion, described by Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob to the choose committee earlier this yr, gave the impression to be a guess primarily based on evaluation of Thomas’ lengthy authorized profession. Eastman had cause to know Thomas’ views nicely: He clerked for the George H.W. Bush appointee within the Nineties earlier than turning into a mainstay in deeply conservative authorized circles.
However the revelation that Thomas’ spouse stored involved with Trump’s chief of workers Mark Meadows within the weeks after Trump’s defeat — urgent him to maintain attempting to overturn the election — provides a brand new wrinkle to the timeline. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) instructed POLITICO that the brand new particulars elevate necessary questions on whether or not Eastman had a particular cause to imagine Justice Thomas would help his radical gambit, or if he was merely voicing a hunch.
Eastman’s lawyer Charles Burnham didn’t reply to questions on whether or not Eastman maintained ties to the Thomases or communicated with both of them within the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 defeat. There’s no recognized proof that Eastman was immediately in contact with both of the Thomases throughout his marketing campaign to stress Pence to subvert the outcomes.
However the conservative authorized scholar has taken pains to keep away from revealing his interactions in that timeframe.
Eastman has sued the Jan. 6 choose committee to stop them from implementing a subpoena for his data and testimony. He’s additionally sued his former employer, Chapman College, to stop the varsity from turning over hundreds of pages of his emails to the choose committee. And when Eastman appeared earlier than the committee final yr, he embraced a blanket technique to withstand their questions: pleading the Fifth.
Throughout that deposition, investigators particularly requested Eastman to articulate whether or not he believed the Supreme Courtroom would have supported his gambit. He replied with a single phrase: “Fifth.”
Aside from Trump, Eastman has confirmed to be probably the most vital determine within the choose committee’s investigation, one the panel’s prime lawyer — Home Normal Counsel Douglas Letter — referred to as the “central participant within the improvement of a authorized technique to justify a coup.”
The panel is engaged in in depth, hard-fought litigation to acquire Eastman’s Chapman College emails, and it’s awaiting a federal choose’s choice about whether or not Eastman can proceed to protect them behind claims of attorney-client privilege. Whereas the panel says it has put a few of its authorized fights on the again burner, Letter has remained mounted on successful the battle towards Eastman. And the choose committee used the combat to publicly unload a few of its key proof, together with excerpts of interview transcripts with Eastman and Jacob, Pence’s counsel.
The committee says Eastman has failed to indicate he had a professional attorney-client relationship with Trump, and that even when he did, the Home’s want for the paperwork requires waiving the privilege. Home attorneys argued in courtroom papers that Eastman might have conspired with Trump to commit a number of crimes — together with felony obstruction of Congress — within the aftermath of the election.
Eastman’s idea centered on Pence, who was required by the Structure to preside over a joint session of Congress to rely the votes solid by the Electoral School. Although it’s usually a ceremonial occasion, Eastman developed a idea — and satisfied Trump to again him — that Pence may merely refuse to rely the votes of a number of key states Biden received. Probably the most excessive model of his plan referred to as for Pence to easily declare Trump the winner on the spot. The model Eastman instructed would have buy-in from Thomas, in response to Jacob, would have had Pence postpone the rely and ask GOP state legislatures in Biden-won states to think about changing Democratic electors with Trump loyalists.
Jacob instructed the choose committee that when Eastman pushed this concept, he replied, “If this case acquired to the Supreme Courtroom, we’d lose 9-0, wouldn’t we, if we truly took your place and it acquired up there?”
Eastman stated he truly believed the courtroom would vote 7-2, Jacob recalled.
“And I stated, ‘Who’re the 2?’ And he stated, ‘Effectively, I believe perhaps Clarence Thomas.’ And I stated, ‘Actually? Clarence Thomas?’ And so we went via just a few Thomas opinions and, lastly, he acknowledged, ‘yeah, all proper, it will be 9-0.’”
Jacob instructed the committee he couldn’t bear in mind the opposite justice Eastman had talked about as a possible vote in Trump’s favor.
Nonetheless, in a Dec. 11 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas, splitting from the remainder of the courtroom, to say they might have docketed a problem some conservative states introduced towards election procedures in additional liberal ones. Each justices indicated, although, that they wouldn’t have stepped in to grant the emergency reduction the pink states sought.
Thomas’ more moderen vote towards the choose committee’s effort to acquire Trump-related data via the Nationwide Archives — he was the lone dissent — has sparked renewed controversy in gentle of the emergence of his spouse’s messages with Meadows. Although it’s not clear any of her correspondence had been, or ought to have been, included within the Archives information, it has sparked questions on whether or not Thomas ought to have recused from the matter.
When Eastman appeared earlier than the committee to plead the Fifth, committee counsel John Wooden requested him about Jacob’s view that not a single Supreme Courtroom justice would have supported Eastman’s plan.
“Dr. Eastman, did you, in truth, agree with Mr. Jacob that not a single member of the Supreme Courtroom would help your place?” Wooden requested.
“Fifth,” Eastman replied
“And, Dr. Eastman, which place was that that Mr. Jacobs stated not a single member of the Supreme Courtroom would help?” Wooden requested.
“Fifth,” Eastman stated once more.
On Jan. 6, as rioters bore down on the Capitol, Eastman and Jacob engaged in a tense email exchange, during which Jacob accused Eastman of being a “serpent within the ear” of the president and inspiring him to embrace unsupportable authorized theories. He reiterated his perception that no justice of the Supreme Courtroom or appeals courtroom choose would have agreed with Eastman’s technique.
Eastman replied that he disagreed, arguing that if Pence had postponed the session and referred to as on the state legislatures to behave, the courts might have demurred.
“I stay of the view not solely would which were probably the most prudent course … but in addition had a good likelihood of being authorized (or at the least not enjoined) by the courts,” Eastman wrote.
After one other temporary disagreement, Eastman closed his e-mail alternate with Jacob: “When that is over, we must always have a very good bottle of wine over a pleasant dinner someplace.”
Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.