Why it matters: The commission decided to seek testimony from Thomas earlier this month after it was revealed he had contacts with John Eastman, a lawyer at the center of some of former President Trump’s efforts to overthrow the election. What they say: “Given the Commission’s understanding of the facts, I do not think there is a sufficient basis at this time to speak with Mrs Thomas,” Thomas’s lawyer Mark Paoletta wrote in a letter to the committee. received by Axios.
He said the email Eastman posted had little to do with the investigation and that other Eastman emails he was looking at were “even less interesting”. She described the texts Thomas sent to Mendous and urged him to help overthrow the election as “simply sending messages to a friend” in her “personal capacity as an individual”. He also suggested that Thomas’s marriage to a Supreme Court justice be a factor, adding, “I’m convinced that if her name was Ginny Jones, the Commission would never have had fun talking to her.”
What follows: Paoletta said he wanted the committee to provide “more information” about how what they received about Thomas was “about the legislative purpose of the Commission”.
“Perhaps the Commission has more information that would lay the groundwork [for an interview]”I am happy to reconsider my recommendation if you have this information,” he wrote.
Between the lines: The letter echoes responses from other potential witnesses who do not intend to sit down for an interview.
Rejecting a summons from the panel last month, spokesman Jim Jordan (R-Ohi0) wrote that he had “no relevant information that would advance any legislative purpose” and asked, among other things, to consider in advance all the materials planned for admission during interrogation.
A select committee representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Axios.
