Thursday 16 June 2022 08:04 PM Trump's plot to get Pence to try and overturn the election was 'illegal' trends now
Multiple Republican officials on Thursday testified that Donald Trump's push to get Mike Pence to overturn the election results was 'illegal' and that then vice president withstood massive political pressure in not following Trump's wishes.
Thursday's hearing delved deep into constitutional law and the role of the vice president in overseeing the certification of the electoral college.
Trump and his supporters argued Pence could reject those results in his role as president of the Senate.
Pence and his legal team argued his role was ceremonial as outlined in the 12th amendment, which says: 'The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.'
Retired U.S. Appeals Court Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was an informal adviser to Pence during that time, spoke slowly about the vice president's role but his words carried weight. Luttig is widely respected among conservatives for his interpretation of the consitution while he sat on the federal bench.
Luttig testified that if the then-vice president had followed Trump's orders then 'that declaration of Donald Trump as the next president would have plunged America into what I believe, would have been tantamount to a revolution within a Constitutional crisis.'
The committee showed the various theories being banded about by Trump and his supporters to try and overthrow Joe Biden's victory, including have Pence recognize slates of alternative state electors who would support Trump instead of Biden and having Pence reject the results from seven states in order to send the election back to the House.
Luttig called the theories 'constitutional mischief.'
The committee also sought to show the pressure Pence was under to cave into Trump's demands.
Retired U.S. Appeals Court Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was an informal adviser to Pence during that time, testified that if Pence had followed Trump's orders it 'would have plunged America into what I believe, would have been tantamount to a revolution within a Constitutional crisis'
Donald Trump and his supporters were pressuring Mike Pence to overturn the election results despite being told it was 'illegal' and Pence himself told Trump he did not have such power
The panel played clips of Trump's speech on January 6th pushing Pence to 'come through for us' and showed testimony from officials in Trump's White House saying Pence was being pushed to throw out the electoral results - even though he had told Trump he didn't have the constitutional power to do so.
The panel also showed clips of MAGA supporters marching on the Capitol on January 6th. One threatened to drag politicians through the streets because Pence 'caved.' Others chanted: 'Bring out Pence!' And others yelled: 'Hang Mike Pence!'
Both Marc Short, Pence's former chief of staff, and Greg Jacob, Pence's legal counsel, testified that Pence personally told Trump he did not have the authority to overturn the results of the electoral college well ahead of January 6th.
Short, in video testimony played by the committee, said there were 'many times' Pence personally told Trump he could not make such a move.
Jacob described a meeting he attended in the Oval Office between Trump and Pence where the then-vice president 'never budged' from his stance that he could not consitutionally overturn the election.
The committee focused on two theories being pushed by Trump supporters.
One theory came from Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney advising Trump's campaign, who sent a memo to Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
The 'Chesebro memo' - as it became known - suggested that a handful of states that Biden won should present a set of 'alternative electors.' Pence should then recognize those alternative electors, who would support Trump.
Chesebro argued the Pence could say that 'he, and he alone, is charged with the constitutional responsibility not just to open the votes, but to count them — including making judgments about what to do if there are conflicting votes.'
Pence's team had rejected that idea.
Luttig testified that 'there was no support whatsoever in either the Constitution of the United States nor the laws of the United States for the vice president frankly ever to count alternative electoral slates from the states that had not been officially certified.'
Attorney John Eastman offered another option.
His memo outlined a scenario in which Pence would disregard seven states' Electoral College votes - thus ensuring no candidate received the 270 Electoral College votes required to be declared the winner.
The election would then be decided by the House.
Each state delegation would then have had one vote to cast for president, and since Republicans controlled 26 state delegations, a majority could have voted for Trump to win the election.
Jacob noted the consitutition 'is unambiguous that the Vice President does not have the authority to reject electors. there is no suggestion of any kind, that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment.'
Jacob said Pence's team looked at the constitution, legal precedent and American history when making their determination about Pence's role in the certification of the election.
'No vice president in 230 years of history had ever claimed to have that kind of authority - hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the
