Steve has a useful Twitter thread on why Eastman’s claim (as reported in the N.Y. Times) that he had inside access to the Justices’ deliberations concerning cases involving the 2020 presidential election might have been dishonest self-promotion on Eastman’s part and not actual inside access. Steve details the timeline on when the Court denied review in previous cases (December 8 & 11) in relation to the date of this newly reported email (December 24). Thus, Steve assesses that “even if there had been a fight inside #SCOTUS over whether to intervene, it would almost surely already have happened — and had been settled against intervention.” But Steve concludes that it would be too charitable to think that Eastman was merely “distorting the timeline”–instead, Steve thinks it more likely that Eastman was entirely “lying” about “being fed inside information about a fight inside #SCOTUS.” In addition to Steve, I’ve heard and seen other knowledgeable observers reach a similar conclusion.