CNN reported yesterday on revelations in a forthcoming book by veteran Washington Post journos Bob Woodward and Robert Costa titled Peril, detailing the chaotic final days of Donald Trump’s administration as Trump desperately tried to remain in power after being defeated in the 2020 presidential elections.
Surrounding Trump in those final days was a circle of dedicated supporters who were fully devoted like Trump to finding any possible way to overturn the results of the 2020 elections. Trump’s quasi-legal mostly-PR strategy for accomplishing this was assisted by a surprising number of individuals with Colorado ties, from former Secretary of State Scott Gessler to local attorney Jenna Ellis–and also, pertinent to our discussion today, the University of Colorado’s 2020 “Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought and Policy,” John Eastman:
A conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump’s legal team tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence that he could overturn the election results on January 6 when Congress counted the Electoral College votes by throwing out electors from seven states, according to the new book “Peril” from Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.
The scheme put forward by controversial lawyer John Eastman was outlined in a two-page memo obtained by the authors for “Peril,” and which was subsequently obtained by CNN. The memo, which has not previously been made public, provides new detail showing how Trump and his team tried to persuade Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the election results on January 6.
In short, Eastman’s plan was for Pence to assert himself as the “ultimate arbiter” of electoral votes, declare that “alternate slates” of electors (which did not legally exist) effectively nullify the results from swing states, and either declare Trump the winner outright or force the question to the House where each state would have one vote and Republicans could have hypothetically voted to overturn the result. Although Trump and his legal minions including Rudy Giuliani were enthusiastic about the plan, Vice President Mike Pence was not–and then when Trump began to turn on his own vice president:
The plan was first proposed to Pence when Eastman was with Trump in the Oval Office on January 4, during one of Trump’s attempts to convince Pence that he had the authority to stop the certification of the election.
“You really need to listen to John. He’s a respected constitutional scholar. Hear him out,” [Pols emphasis] Trump said to Pence at that meeting, Woodward and Costa write in “Peril.”
Eastman’s attempt to persuade Pence to go along with a plan to overturn the result of the 2020 elections during the certification process was reported in January, but Eastman’s primary authorship of said plan, as well as these details of the process, are new information. Pence’s refusal to go along with this monstrously undemocratic scheme cost Pence his friendship with Trump…and also may have saved the country.
Here in Colorado, as readers know, the question of whether the 2020 elections were legitimate turned into a major stumbling block for Republican gubernatorial candidate Heidi Ganahl in the rollout of her campaign last week. Ganahl repeatedly dodged the question when asked by the Denver Post and the Colorado Sun during her launch tour press event-and by the time a third reporter came calling, 9NEWS’ Marshall Zelinger, Ganahl testily informed Zelinger that she was not going to answer such “divisive questions.”
Allowing us to explain again why that is an untenable position for CU Regent Ganahl:
The Benson Center, said Ganahl, teaches students about “the beauty of western civilization and the history.”
“We bring a visiting scholar or two to the campus who has a different point of view than most of the faculty at CU,” Ganahl said.
“There are fantastic folks who come in,” said Ganahl. “Right now, it’s Dr. John Eastman, who’s riling some folks up.” [Pols emphasis]
Regent Ganahl is, as much as any individual, the reason John Eastman is Colorado news.
Heidi Ganahl has a lot of “divisive questions” in her future. And she’s going to have to answer them. If Ganahl does not want to answer the most important political question of our times, despite her connection to one of the principal agents in Donald Trump’s attempt to subvert democracy, she simply has no business running for governor of Colorado.
So obviously, keep those “divisive questions” coming.