World News

Trump lawyers saw Clarence Thomas as key to stopping Biden’s electoral count, emails show


Lawyers for President Donald Trump saw Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as key to overturning the 2020 election results, according to a series of emails provided to congressional investigators.

Eight emails, ordered by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California, include correspondence between Trump attorneys Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman and others discussing various legal strategies to convince Republican members of Congress to s oppose official certification of electoral votes in a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

In an email from Chesebro to Eastman and several others sent on Dec. 31, 2020, Chesebro argued that Thomas would “end up being key” to asking the High Court to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the states. disputed, and that they should “frame things so that Thomas can be the one to issue some sort of circuit court opinion or other circuit court opinion that Georgia is in legitimate doubt.”

“In reality, our only chance of getting a favorable judicial opinion by January 6, which could delay Georgia’s count in Congress, comes from Thomas – do you agree, Professor Eastman?”

In an email hours later, Chesebro reiterated that he believed “the best way to delay a state’s count in Congress” would be to get a case “pending before the Supreme Court by January 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice of the peace, hopefully Thomas.”

A few days earlier, Chesebro on Christmas Eve morning emailed Eastman, Justin Clark, Bruce Marks and others and put the odds that the court would take up the matter and issue a decision no more than 5% – and do it in Trump’s favor by Jan. 6 at “just 1%.”

But Chesebro said the “relevant analysis…is political” and “fuels the perception that the courts lack the courage to consider these complaints in a fair and timely manner, and warrants a political argument on January 6.”

Politico first reported on the content of the new emails.

Eastman argued that all of the disputed emails were protected by attorney-client privilege – a fundamental tenet of US legal practice which states that a lawyer must keep confidential what his clients tell him and the proceeds of it. work related to their representation. Carter cited a “criminal fraud exception” — including instances in which the communications were part of a crime — ruling that “the emails are sufficiently connected to and as part of a conspiracy to defraud states -United”.

startribune Gt Itly

Not all news on the site expresses the point of view of the site, but we transmit this news automatically and translate it through programmatic technology on the site and not from a human editor.
Back to top button