Justice Clarence and Ginni Thomas
Virginia “Ginni” Thomas‘s lawyer sent a response Tuesday to the sham January 6 Committee one week after they formally requested her testimony.
The committee noted in their formal testimony request they believe she has “information relevant” to their probe.
Thomas’s lawyer, Mark R. Paoletta, said he does “not understand the need to speak with Mrs. Thomas” and indicated she is willing if they can provide further information regarding their intentions.
“Before I can recommend that she meet with you, I am asking the Committee to provide a better justification for why Mrs. Thomas’s testimony is relevant to the Committee’s legislative purpose,” Paoletta wrote.
Paoletta argued that “The Emails John Eastman Produced To The Committee Provide No Basis To Interview” Ginni Thomas.
In their request for the interview, the committee wrote that it had “recently obtained additional information regarding” John Eastman’s activities as they related to Thomas.
“In your June 16, 2022, letter, you base the interview request on a supposed connection between Mrs. Thomas and John Eastman: ‘The Select Committee has obtained evidence that you had certain communications with John Eastman during this time period. We believe you may have information concerning John Eastman’s plans and activities relevant to our investigation,'” Paoletta wrote.
“But the Committee has not identified this alleged ‘evidence,” he noted.
“Instead, press reports have insinuated that Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Eastman were engaged in a plan to overturn the presidential election results,” he continued.
“Indeed, leaks from this Committee have led reporters to write that recently produced’ emails’ from Mr. Eastman’ show that Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election were more extensive than previously known.’ But, as you are aware, Mr. Eastman’s emails show no such thing,” Paoletta shot back.
Eastman published a Substack shortly after news broke that the committee wanted to interview Thomas in which he posted all of the alleged communications between himself and Thomas.
The Substack included a copy of an email in which Thomas asked Eastman “to give an update about election litigation to a group she met with periodically.” Paoletta argued that the emails do not appear relevant to the committee’s work.
Paoletta argued that text messages to former chief of staff Mark Meadows were “her personal views” and sent in her “personal capacity as a private citizen.”
“Accordingly, I do not see how these texts could be remotely relevant to the Committee’s legislative purpose. Thus, please provide additional information so we may understand the basis of your request to speak with Mrs. Thomas,” he wrote.
Paoletta ended his lengthy letter by issuing a strong rebuke against the January 6 committee’s “intentions.” He criticized how the sham committee “has otherwise commented about her and other witnesses, or about her husband.”
Thomas’ lawyer also noted that Committee Chair Bennie Thompson has “some animus” towards the Supreme Court Justice and argued whether the committee would “be fair” to Thomas.
“There is no story to uncover here,” Paoletta wrote. “As she has already acknowledged, Mrs. Thomas attended the rally on January 6, but left well before the President began to speak, and well before any individuals began marching to the Capitol. She held no official or unofficial role in the White House, nor in President Trump’s reelection campaign.”