Fani Willis Endures Disrespect, Racist Tropes, And Public Humiliation

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

The District Attorney And Race

The smoldering confrontation in an Atlanta courtroom between District Attorney Fani Willis and the coterie of Trump co-defendants had so many layers of gender, race, and power dynamics that it felt like a theatrical production in which the playwright got a little too exuberant and ended up with an over-the-top script.

Any playwright would die for Willis’ meme-a-minute dialogue, throwing off lines so memorable and original that it was hard to keep up:

“A man is not a plan.”

“I’m not going to emasculate a black man.” (Oh, but she did.) 

“I’m not a hand holder.”

The hearing was ostensibly about whether her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to manage the RICO election interference case was disqualifying. But that was a thin veil over the roiling cauldron of disrespect, racist tropes, and public humiliation that the defendants were indulging in.

Willis came in red hot, literally running from her office to the courtroom when it was her time to testify. She took over the room. She raised and waived objections from the witness chair. She refused to be led down primrose paths by defense counsel. She talked over everyone: defense counsel, the judge, and her own team. I couldn’t help but think that Trump himself would secretly admire her command and bravura.

But it wasn’t the performative high dudgeon that Bill Clinton patented and every politican since has doubled down with. It was the seething, barely controlled anger of a Black woman put in a position none of her white male counterparts have had to endure, at the hands of a criminal defendant no less. White prosecutors have used the power of the law to torment Black people for centuries, but a Black woman becomes prosecutor and finds herself tormented by white criminal defendants.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA – FEBRUARY 15: Attorney Allyn Stockton, representing Rudy Giuliani, speaks during a hearing in the case of the State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump at the Fulton County Courthouse on February 15, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. Judge Scott McAfee is hearing testimony as to whether Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade should be disqualified from the case for allegedly lying about a personal relationship. (Photo by Alyssa Pointer-Pool/Getty Images)

The most telling moment of the day for me came midway through her testimony, when Rudy Giuliani’s local attorney Allyn Stockton took his turn. He politely introduced himself to Willis and addressed her as “Madam District Attorney” and “Madam DA.” It was a modicum of respect. It was properly deferential to her position and role. Don’t be confused: He was adverse to her, and he proceeded to go after her, in a measured and professional way. But that show of cordiality and basic respect seemed to me to make Willis’ face relax, her body language loosen, her volume go down, and transformed her argumentativeness into a more conversational tone. He gave her deference she had earned, deserved, and was demanding for herself.

I personally think Willis erred by becoming involved with Wade. It put the prosecution of her career at risk. Maybe that would be the conversation to have if white male DAs who boink people in their office were dragged into court by criminal defendants on the regular. Not saying it’s never happened, but I’ve never seen it.

Most of the news coverage elided the racial and gender power dynamics at play. But Black people recognize this modern day spectacle of demeaning and dehumanizing treatment: Willis’ personal life scrutinized, her sex life exposed to public ridicule, her ways of handling money and relationships treated not as a difference of culture or social class but as unethical and disqualifying. And racists recognize it, too! Fox News was beside itself with the spectacle. To take one example, actually just one word: “pedigree.”

If Black people know what’s going on here and racists know what’s going on here, then why is everyone else content to leave their heads in the sand?

What Happens Next

The Georgia hearing continues today. Willis is due to continue her testimony, but I’ll be curious to see if her team declines to ask her any questions given her strong performance yesterday and instead just proceed straight to its case.

As for the judge, I suspect he’s looking for any way not to disqualify her. She’s the elected DA! Her office handles thousands of criminal cases a year. Judges don’t want to open the door to criminal defendants seeking to delve into the personal propriety of the prosecutor. It would be a nightmare beyond this historically important case.

There was one strong witness against Willis, a former friend of hers who was fired as an employee of the DA’s office who testified that the Willis-Wade relationship began before she hired him in the RICO case. That upsets the timeline to which Willis’ has staked her defense. But Willis’ own testimony was compelling (and to a degree so was Wade’s). My own sense was that by the end of the day the judge was satisifed with the explanation and has found himself a way out of this mess.

Don’t expect a ruling today. The judge said it would come later.

Trump’s First Criminal Trial Is All Set

The other significant news in Trump prosecution world yesterday was in the Stormy Daniels hush money case, where the judge denied Trump’s motions to dismiss and kept the March 25 trial date. Jury selection is a little over a month away.

Waiting On SCOTUS

Following Trump’s reply filing late yesterday, the Supreme Court could announce as early as today whether it will take Trump’s immunity appeal up in the Jan. 6 case. Stay tuned.

BREAKING …

Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, 47, has died in prison, according to a statement from the federal penitentiary service for the region where he was incarcerated.

Big, Big, Big Deal

An unexpected surprise indictment from Special Counsel David Weiss, Hunter Biden’s tormentor: The ex-FBI informant who was at the center of the GOP’s bogus Burisma allegations against the Bidens was charged with the fabricating his claims.

It’s an unbelievable turn of events for Rep. James Comer (R-KY), Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), and the far-right media-propaganda complex who had trumped up Alexander Smirnov’s allegations. Philip Bump grapples with the implications for the Bidens’ accusers (and what a fantastic kicker to Bump’s story – be sure to click on it).

How’d it play on Fox News? It didn’t.

2024 Ephemera

  • MT-Sen: After one week in the race, Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) has dropped his bid for the GOP nomination to take on Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). Rosendale was totally screwed when Donald Trump endorsed NRSC-backed GOP candidate Tim Sheehy on the same day Rosendale announced his candidacy. The move does put Republicans in a stronger position to unseat Tester.
  • WI-Sen: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) will be challenged by Republican businessman Eric Hovde.
  • Nikki Haley: Trump’s court “chaos” will sink Republicans in November.

Have A Great Holiday Weekend!

Morning Memo can’t thank you enough for your support and feedback. See you back here Tuesday!

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

Willis Takes The Stand At Dramatic Disqualification Hearing

Fulton County Superior Court held a hearing Thursday to address whether District Attorney Fani Willis should be removed from prosecuting the Donald Trump election interference RICO case.

Over a full day of dramatic testimony, Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade both took the stand, facing questions from lawyers for Trump operative Mike Roman, for Trump himself, and for other defendants in the RICO case. The day concluded with two hours of questions in which Willis mounted a fiery rebuttal to the accusations about her and Wade’s relationship, repeatedly accusing Roman’s lawyer of lying.

Continue reading “Willis Takes The Stand At Dramatic Disqualification Hearing”

DeSantis Wants To Water Down Book Ban Now That He’s No Longer Running For President

Back in Florida after a humiliating run against Donald Trump, Gov. Ron DeSantis is trying to do some clean up.

Continue reading “DeSantis Wants To Water Down Book Ban Now That He’s No Longer Running For President”

A Small Nevada County Finally Got a Wartime School Board

When I got interested in taking a second look at some of the many school boards that were taken over by far-right “anti-woke” activists in 2022, it was hard to know where to start. You know about threesomer and Moms for Liberty Cofounder Bridget Ziegler and “Cool Mom” Clarice Schillinger, who will soon stand trial for the underage keggers she allegedly held in her home before decking various high school students who left too early. But there are so many other cases across the country. Most examples aren’t so lurid, eye-popping or hilarious. But they give those high flyers a run for their money. There is a common theme. It’s not all right-wing politics and bans on transgender students in sports. There is also a common pattern of taking over school boards and then pulling up stakes from the mundane but critical task of overseeing local public schools and instead refashioning the office into what amounts to a jurisdictional castle from which traditionalist culture warriors sally forth into the local community on various right-wing power trips, usually spending tons of money and violating numerous laws in the process.

Continue reading “A Small Nevada County Finally Got a Wartime School Board”

TPM on The Case

You see there to the right (if you’re reading TPM on a desktop computer) our live blogging of the fairly surreal hearing today in the Fulton County prosecution of Donald Trump. This is the one dealing with claims of wrongdoing tied to prosecutor Fani Willis’s relationship with fellow prosecutor Nathan Wade. See that here. But I wanted to make sure you saw the third and final installment of our series on the Ken Chesebro document trove. The third installment goes into new detail on the lawyer/conspirators’ efforts to game out which members of the Supreme Court were most likely to go along with their plot to steal the presidential election. As you might expect, Thomas and Alito come in for special consideration.

Continue reading “TPM on The Case”

Jack Smith Urges SCOTUS To Stay Out Of Trump’s Immunity Case

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

Decision Time

In a new filing late Wednesday, Special Counsel Jack Smith got his first shot at Trump’s effort to persuade the Supreme Court to consider his claims of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

With veteran Supreme Court advocate Michael Dreeben on the brief, Smith presented an elegant and economical argument against Trump’s unprecedented and ahistorical bid for presidential immunity.

But the brief was more notable for what it was trying to steer the justices toward: not taking up the case at all. By reinforcing and amplifying the unanimous DC Circuit decision against Trump, Smith tried to offer the high court the easiest off ramp of all. If the justices decide not to take the case, the appeals court ruling stands and the case immediately goes back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to set a new trial date for Trump.

I remain skeptical that the Supreme Court will pass entirely on the case, but I’m less skeptical than I was. The appeals court opinion was strong, unanimous, and clearly designed to give the Supreme Court few loose edges to grab ahold of. It was from that position of strength that Smith urged the justices to let the appeals court decision stand as a formidable statement on the law, the framework of the Constitution, and history.

In the alternative, Smith argued that if the Supreme Court wants to take the case it should treat Trump’s original filing last week as a request to do so (so far Trump has only asked the Supreme Court to pause the underlying proceedings while he prepares to ask it to take up the case) and expedite a briefing and argument schedule that would still allow the trial to take place before the November election.

Indeed, timing was the real subtext of the Smith brief. The window for getting a trial in before Election Day is narrowing dangerously, and Smith kept hammering home the need for a prompt resolution to the matter:

[T]he public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office. The Nation has a compelling interest in seeing the charges brought to trial.

Smith’s filing was ahead of schedule; it wasn’t due until Tuesday. Trump will likely file a reply in the coming days. No fixed timetable for when the Supreme Court will render its decision, but I would be surprised if we don’t get something from the court by the end of next week.

Trump In Court Today

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s hush money prosecution of Donald Trump is coming back to life with a hearing scheduled for 9:30 ET this morning with the trial judge. Among the issues expected to come up at the hearing:

  • Trump’s bid to dismiss the indictment;
  • firming up the trial date, currently March 25; and
  • various other pretrial matters, including the mechanics of jury selection.

Trump is expected to attend in person.

Duly Noted

With the criminal cases bearing down on him, Trump is reviving his calls for the House GOP to impeach Joe Biden.

Fani Willis In The Hot Seat

This morning, state Judge Scott McAfee will convene an evidentiary hearing in the Georgia RICO case on whether Atlanta DA Fani Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting the case.

This is the needlessly sordid matter involving Willis’ romantic relationship with a prosecutor she hired. The judge seems less interested in the romance than the claim Willis is improperly benefiting financially from the prosecution. It’s a stretch, but the judge has indicated that’s where his focus is.

Willis’ defense has placed considerable import on her claim that the relationship didn’t commence until after she hired the prosecutor. Whether that holds up to scrutiny (and the damage it will do to her credibility with the judge if it doesn’t) is what I’ll be keeping an eye on.

The hearing could stretch into tomorrow. We have a liveblog covering it for as long as it goes.

The Chesebro Docs

The final installment in TPM’s series on a trove of documents obtained by reporter Josh Kovensky in the Michigan fake electors investigation:

Supreme Pressure Campaign: Trump Attorneys Gamed Out Which Supreme Court Justices Might Help Them Steal the Election

Ouch!

Punchbowl: The disaster that is the House Republican leadership

Tea-Leaf Reading In the NY-03

I’m a huge skeptic of immediate post-election analysis. It’s burdended by a lack of data, a surplus of partisan spin, competitive pressures to “explain” results, and groupthink. One tell: The tendency to land on single proximate cause for the result. With those caveats out of the way, here’s a taste of the post-election analysis in the NY-03 special election to replace George Santos:

  • Semafor: Democrats think they’ve found a winning border message
  • Aaron Blake: Suozzi gives Dems an immigration road map. It could be tough to follow.
  • WaPo: Democrats see 2024 blueprint in N.Y. election that centered on immigration
  • Politico: Some Democrats see an immigration blueprint in NY win. Progressives are worried.

Ain’t Nepotism Great?

With Lara Trump to be installed as RNC co-chairwoman, some Republicans are worried Donald Trump will once again start using party funds to pay his legal bills.

2024 Ephemera

  • Rep. Mark Green (R-TN), the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee who just oversaw the bogus impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, announced he will not run for re-election this year. Green is the fifth committee chair who has decided not to seek re-election this cycle.
  • Michigan GOP chair officially ousted after weeks of chaos.
  • AP: “Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled Legislature on Tuesday passed legislative maps that were proposed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers — a move designed to prevent the liberal-controlled state Supreme Court from implementing maps that might be even worse for Republicans.”
  • CA-22: Democrats find themselves in a messy primary battle for a swing seat that had been a potential pickup opportunity.

Matt Gaetz Pickup Lines: A Primer

The Valentine’s Day gift we all needed: Someone read to ABC News some of the Matt Gaetz texts obtained by the House Ethics Committee in its probe of the sex trafficking allegations against Gaetz that the feds declined to prosecute.

The man has such game:

  • “Hey — any interest in flying on a private plane to the keys May 19-21?”
  • “2 guys, 4 girls. A very high-quality adventurous group”
  • “As is true with all time you spend w me, it’ll be fun and chill”

Aside from the cringe factor, ABC News describes the texts’ import in this way:

The messages, if accurate, mark the first known example of alleged direct private communication between the Florida congressman and a woman who his one-time close associate Joel Greenberg told investigators he had been paying to have sex with other men, according to documents and interviews with multiple sources.

The woman in question was underage at the time she was being paid by Greenberg to have sex with other adult men, but by the time of the Gaetz texts above she was over 21, according to the ABC News report.

Headline Of The Day

And the winner is: “Putin Trolls ‘Soft’ Tucker Carlson”

Credit to Politico Europe, which has a bit more edge than its domestic counterpart:

Of course, had Putin actually wanted to go toe-to-toe with a formidable opponent, the Kremlin wouldn’t have hand-picked Carlson for his first interview with a Western journalist since he launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Carlson, the famously Russia-friendly ex-Fox News host, is known more for a penchant for cozying up to autocrats than for probing reportage.

Sad Blast From The Past

Remember Rachel Dolezal, the white woman busted almost a decade ago for pretending to be Black? And when I say pretending to be Black, I’m not sure I’m doing it justice.

Dolezal was the head of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, Washington, and an African Studies professor. So she wasn’t just playing pretend in her own head, she was holding herself out in a very public way as a Black activist. It all came crashing down around her in spectacular fashion.

She popped up again this week, under a new name, when she lost her job with an Arizona school district after a local TV station found her OnlyFans account.

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

Johnson Ignores Looming Funding Deadlines In Downplaying Dems’ New York Win

Tom Suozzi’s win in the New York 3rd Congressional District replacing serial fabulist George Santos Tuesday night will bring Republicans’ majority in the House down to 219-213 once the longtime New York Democrat is sworn in. The high-stakes congressional seat flip for Democrats means that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will only be able to lose two Republicans on any party-line vote with full attendance in coming weeks (Republicans still have two vacant seats left by ousted-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) who resigned in January).

Continue reading “Johnson Ignores Looming Funding Deadlines In Downplaying Dems’ New York Win”

NY3 Post-Game: It’s All Over But Deciding Why The Dem Win Doesn’t Matter

With the clear light of morning I wanted to do another after-action report on the results out of the special election in New York’s 3rd congressional district. According to the close-to-final results, former Rep. Tom Suozzi beat Mazi Pilip by eight percentage points, 54% to 46%. That is a decisive if not a huge margin.

Continue reading “NY3 Post-Game: It’s All Over But Deciding Why The Dem Win Doesn’t Matter”

The Supreme Pressure Campaign

Donald Trump’s attorneys in 2020 thought that they had one advantage which nobody — not the Democrats, not lower-court judges, not Congress — could outmatch: the Supreme Court.

At their most feverish, attorneys for Trump believed that the Supreme Court could eventually be bullied into declaring Joe Biden the loser of the 2020 election and Trump the winner. They deployed a series of strategies, detailed in a trove of documents given to Michigan prosecutors by attorney Ken Chesebro, aimed at stoking a chaotic stalemate in Congress, thereby forcing the Court to act. 

The same set of real-time emails and texts between Trump campaign officials and attorneys also shows how the group sought to influence individual justices as they filed lawsuits seeking to overturn Biden’s victory in several swing states. In the trove, attorneys game out which justices would view their claims most favorably, and speculate over how certain claims or lawsuits could create pressure to build a majority on the court.

At times, the Trump attorneys recognized that their play for the Supreme Court was a Hail Mary. It’s from that desperation, the documents suggest, that the push for chaos and delay emerged — a nearly hopeless quest to leave the Supreme Court as the only actor left standing, with Congress buckling under procedural radicalism. 

But at other points, the lawyers seemed deadly serious in their speculation. John Eastman, the law professor, wrote in one email that he believed the Supreme Court would probably agree to invalidate Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions about the election, but that the justices were “likely grappling with” the question of what “remedy” to provide. Chief Justice John Roberts would want “to account for the riots angle if they go our way,” Eastman imagined. 

This story largely plays out in the final weeks before Jan. 6, after the Trump campaign had finished convening slates of its own, fake presidential electors who were willing to cast ballots saying Trump, not Biden, had won their state. To the Trump campaign, that scheme, too, was a means to theorize the high court into wrenching states that it lost away from Biden. As Chesebro wrote in late November to several attorneys working on the campaign’s effort to invalidate the Wisconsin result, the point of convening fake electors would be “to benefit from an eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling” voiding the election result, allowing the Trump electors to swoop in and replace the Biden electors from their state in the Electoral College. 

But it wasn’t until mid December, after the fake electors were sworn in — and after the Supreme Court signaled that it would not help the Trump campaign, rejecting on Dec. 11 a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas — that conversations about how to exert pressure on the justices began to accelerate. 

The New York Times reported on one of the emails obtained by TPM, in which Chesebro cited “wild chaos” as potentially forcing the Court to act, and another in which he stated that the question of whether to bring suits before the Court was “political.” 

The trove of documents obtained by TPM paints a fuller picture. TPM obtained the documents after Michigan prosecutors with Attorney General Dana Nessel (D)’s office sent out a tranche of records provided by Chesebro as part of his cooperation with their investigation. Chesebro supplied the documents, which include emails, texts, and legal memos, to prosecutors. The records do not provide a comprehensive accounting of the Trump campaign’s entire effort to reverse the President’s loss; they reflect what Chesebro provided as he sought to avoid further prosecution. 

The documents provide new details about and insights into the Trump campaign’s legal maneuvering before Jan. 6, a story we told in part I and part II of this series. They tell another story, too: how a group of attorneys for the Trump campaign, including Chesebro, sought to use lawsuits before the Court to advance their goal of reversing Trump’s loss, including by:

  • Filing lawsuits before SCOTUS challenging the results in enough states to create the impression that more electoral votes were still in play than the margin by which Trump lost
  • Forcing SCOTUS to step in by causing a stalemate in Congress on Jan. 6
  • Bringing enough lawsuits to SCOTUS so as to pressure friendly justices to act more aggressively

The story picks up in the weeks after the election, when the Trump campaign filed lawsuits across the country, seeking to invalidate or overturn the results in several states. They lost in nearly every case that they brought, and saw dozens more lawsuits dismissed. As time ran out, they had to decide: Which cases should they continue to pursue through appeals to the Supreme Court?

At first, they focused on two lawsuits, one challenging the results in Pennsylvania and another in Wisconsin. 

Chesebro had entered the Trump campaign’s legal world via his work on the Wisconsin case, which the state Supreme Court dismissed on Dec. 14. On Christmas Eve 2020, Chesebro found himself trying to persuade Trump campaign officials to give the green light on asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter. 

Bruce Marks, a lawyer and former politician from Pennsylvania, was counsel, along with John Eastman, on a lawsuit the Trump campaign had filed asking the Supreme Court to hear a case that sought to reverse the result in Pennsylvania. 

Marks had his own unique background: in the early 1990s, he lost a state Senate race, only to have a federal judge overturn the result and order him into office upon a finding of massive fraud in the election. 

Marks’ story became a north star of Trump’s legal efforts in 2020, serving as an example of what the courts had the power to do, if they only had the will. 

On the morning of Dec. 24, Trump campaign official Justin Clark emailed Marks, Chesebro, and other attorneys with an inquiry: If they brought their cases to the Supreme Court, what did they think the odds of winning were? And how much would pursuing the Wisconsin case before SCOTUS cost?

Marks replied that he believed bringing cases from additional states — including Wisconsin — before the Supreme Court would help his Pennsylvania case. 

“While it is difficult to estimate success on Cert petitions, the success of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are intertwined,” Marks wrote to the group, copying Eastman on the exchange. “Wisconsin is an important step to getting to challenging 37 electoral votes.”

“Odds?” Eastman chimed in, responding to Clark’s request. He gave them odds: 10-20 percent that the Court would take the Pennsylvania case; “having Wisconsin in probably pushes that more towards the 20% side of the range or higher.” 

“Odds of the Wisconsin case getting granted? ZERO if we don’t file,” Eastman added. 

It was a carpe diem approach to seeking review from the Supreme Court, and one echoed by Chesebro, who wrote 10 minutes later that “you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take” and that he would defer to Eastman’s “personal insight” into which justices were the most distressed by the Trump campaign’s claims. 

“A campaign that believes it really won the election would file a petition as long as it’s plausible and the resource constraints aren’t too great,” Chesebro wrote.

This intersected directly with the Trump campaign’s quest to find 270 electoral votes using non-electoral means. As Eastman wrote in a message a couple of hours later, a lawsuit to overturn the results in Arizona and Bruce Marks’ suit in Pennsylvania had already been filed before the Supreme Court — 31 electoral votes out of Biden’s lead of 36. Eastman wrote that Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes, was “the most viable option to fill this gap.” 

Earlier on in the Christmas Eve exchange, Wisconsin attorney and former judge Jim Troupis had warned the group: The path to success was “unclear” and “ill-defined.” The attorneys, he wrote, should be concerned about the “obligations” that come with asking the Supreme Court to hear a case. “I have made clear from the outset that I would strongly oppose any Petition where the goal is purely political,” Troupis wrote in an attachment cited by Chesebro. 

“I don’t disagree with Judge Troupis’s comments here,” Chesebro replied, before going on to sketch out a theory over several emails throughout the day, proposing a plan to pressure the Supreme Court to overturn the election: the campaign could file enough Supreme Court cases to persuade the justices that they held the power to “change the electoral outcome.” 

“Why intervene if it can make no difference in the end,” he wrote, apparently channelling what he hoped enough justices would come to believe. In a separate message that same day, Chesebro suggested to the group that Trump should file the lawsuit to sway internal Court politics, saying “getting this on file gives more ammo to the justices fighting for the Court to intervene,” he wrote. 

Eastman wrote that he believed the campaign was on solid legal ground, and so the odds were based not on “the legal merits, but an assessment of the Justices’ spines,” before exhorting the group to help the justices who were “willing to do their duty” by filing the Wisconsin case. 

After more back-and-forth, Eastman shared the theory that Chief Justice Roberts would likely be concerned, if the Court ruled in favor of Trump, about “the riots angle” — a premonition of what might come after handing Trump an election he lost.  

Clark, the campaign official, wrote in to the sprawling thread two hours after Eastman’s “riots” email with some skepticism: he said that the campaign wouldn’t pay the attorneys “unless we get some wins,” and, worse for Chesebro and Eastman, that his impression was that the odds of success in Wisconsin were zero. He also echoed Chesebro’s theory that, if the election certification in Congress could be derailed, Jan. 6 could extend for days, writing “it also sounds like Jan 6 is a hard deadline for legal recourse unless congress doesn’t count the votes one way or another.”

The campaign eventually assented. On Dec. 29, Rudy Giuliani sent a certification authorizing the attorneys to ask the Supreme Court to hear the Wisconsin case. 

The Trump attorneys were also reviewing the option of Georgia. At 16 electoral votes, it was a potentially lucrative prize to be stolen; but as Eastman had written in the Wisconsin thread, the campaign’s lawsuit in the state was “stuck in a quagmire with the state trial courts not even assigning a judge” to consider it. 

The group decided to file a federal version of the Georgia lawsuit, seeing it as a way to get around what they regarded as an infuriating cold shoulder from the state judiciary. But a question continued to hang over their efforts, even as they continued into 2021: What was the point? 

The attorneys had to keep themselves going — every day that the Supreme Court continued to ignore their filings was a reminder of just how unlikely their success was. Marks, the Pennsylvania attorney, wrote an email to attorneys involved in the Georgia case on New Years Eve asking if the federal judge could issue an injunction allowing the state legislature to appoint the Trump electors. 

Chesebro replied within minutes that he saw an added benefit with Marks’ gambit: Georgia federal courts are in the 11th Circuit, which is overseen by Justice Clarence Thomas. 

Again, Chesebro wrote, the point was to make a statement via the Court.

“Merely having this case pending in the Supreme Court, not ruled on, might be enough to delay consideration of Georgia, particularly if Pence has the legal ability and will to insert himself at least enough to win delay,” he wrote. “Realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas — do you agree, Prof. Eastman?”

“I think I agree,” Eastman replied. All the Court needed to give was a “likely,” he wrote — some suggestion that a ruling which signaled some chance of winning down the line might be enough. After all, Eastman said, he was talking to Georgia lawmakers and Jan. 6 was one week away: all they needed was a small push to decertify Biden’s win in the state before the big day. 

By that point, the emails suggest, even the most optimistic Trump attorneys were losing hope of a clear-cut win before the Supreme Court. In talking points for members of Congress emailed among Clark and the attorneys on New Year’s day, Eastman added rhetoric to that effect.

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that it has no intention of addressing this illegal and unconstitutional conduct,” he wrote. “So upholding the rule of law now falls to other constitutional actors who have constitutionally assigned roles.  

At this point,” he concluded, “the best we can likely hope for is a strident dissent from Thomas or Alito that maps out the illegal conduct and the constitutional actors who can provide a remedy.”