United states

Ginny Thomas’ lawyer questions the “basis” for the commission’s January 6 interview

Lawyer for Conservative activist Ginny Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent a letter Tuesday to the elected commission on January 6th asking how valuable her testimony would be to the commission’s investigation.

Why it matters: The commission decided to seek testimony from Thomas earlier this month after it emerged that she had been in contact with John Eastman, a lawyer who is at the heart of some of former President Trump’s efforts to cancel the election.

What they say: “Based on my understanding of the facts available to the Committee, I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds at the moment to speak to Mrs Thomas,” Thomas’s lawyer, Mark Paoleta, wrote to the committee in a letter received from Axios. .

  • He said the email published by Eastman had little to do with the investigation and that the other Eastman emails he reviewed were “even less interesting.”
  • He described the messages Thomas sent to Meadows, pressuring him to help cancel the election as “just texting a friend” in her “personal capacity as a private citizen.”
  • He also suggested that Thomas’ marriage to a Supreme Court judge was a factor, writing: “I am left to believe that if her name was Ginny Jones, the committee would never even have fun talking to her.”

What’s next: Paolletta said she wanted the committee to provide “more information” on how what they received about Thomas was “relevant to the committee’s legislative purpose.”

  • “Perhaps the commission has more information to establish this basis [for an interview]and I am ready to reconsider my recommendation if you provide this information, “he wrote.

Between the lines: The letter reflects the answers of other potential witnesses who do not intend to sit for an interview.

  • Member of Parliament Jim Jordan (R-Ohi0), rejecting a summons from the committee last month, wrote that there was “no relevant information that would contribute to any legislative purpose” and requested, among other things, a preliminary review of all materials they planned to present during the interrogation.

A spokesman for an elected committee did not immediately respond to Axios’ request for comment.