Mediaboss Marketing

Former US Vice President Mike Pence delivers a China policy speech at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, in Washington, DC, USA, 14 July 2021 (EPA)

Former Vice President Mike Pence purportedly refused to get into a vehicle with secret service agents amid the 6 January riots out of fear there was a conspiracy to vindicate the insurrection.

The claims come in an extract of Washington Post journalists Carol Leonnig and Philip Ruckers new book I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J Trumps Catastrophic Final Year, released this week.

According to the journalists, Mr Pence refused to evacuate the Capitol a number of times on 6 January as pro-Trump rioters stormed the building in a bid to prevent the certification of the 2020 election results.

Amid the riots Mr Pence was evacuated from the Senate chamber to his ceremonial office, where he remained protected by secret service agents alongside members of his family, the books account recalls.

However, his security reportedly thought Mr Pence was vulnerable because the second-floor office had windows that could be breached.

Tim Giebels, the lead special agent in charge of the former vice presidents protective detail, reportedly twice asked Pence to evacuate the Capitol to which Mr Pence refused, The Post said.

Im not leaving the Capitol, he reportedly told Mr Giebels. The last thing the vice president wanted was the people attacking the Capitol to see his 20-car motorcade fleeing. That would only vindicate their insurrection.

As the chaos continued to unfold, Mr Pence was said to have been ordered to leave the office and was escorted to a subterranean area that rioters couldnt reach and towards an armoured limousine.

Mr Pence then reportedly outright refused to get into the vehicle, saying his security detail would ignore his demand not to leave the building and would instead take off against his wishes.

Im not getting in the car, Tim, Mr Pence replied. I trust you, Tim, but youre not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. Im not getting in the car.

According to RawStory, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace said that sources with knowledge of the day said Mr Pence feared a conspiracy, feared that the Secret Service would aid Trump and his ultimate aims that day.

Story continues

She added: This is the most harrowing version of Mike Pences day Ive seen reported.

During the insurrection, Mr Pence was made a target of rioters fury following inflammatory statements by Donald Trump, with many heard shouting Wheres Mike Pence? and Hang Mike Pence.

Mr Trump and his supporters were angry at the vice president for refusing to block the electoral certification, a power he did not possess.

Mr Trump called on Mr Pence to overturn the results only hours before their certification saying: All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!

On the afternoon of 6 January the former president Tweeted: Mike Pence didnt have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.

Mr Pence and the other lawmakers who had been evacuated later returned to the Senate chamber to see out the certification of the election results.

The Independent has contacted Mr Pences political advocacy group, Advancing American Freedom, for comment.

Read More

Giuliani falsely told Trump constitution gave Pence right not to certify 2020 election, book says

Trump gave Pence 10 mins at weekly lunches to talk about his hard work before turning on TV and ranting, book says

Trump sends provocative who shot Ashli Babbitt? email after conservative report ties officer who killed rioter to Pence

Biden calls Cuba a failed state and communism a failed system

More:
Mike Pence refused to get in car amid 6 January riots ...

Mike Pence has equated Democratic efforts to pass voting rights protections with the 6 January attack on the US Capitol, writing in a staggeringly misleading and inaccurate op-ed that both were power grabs which posed a threat to the US constitution.

As vice-president to Donald Trump, Pence refused to overturn the 2020 election, rebuffing pressure to reject valid slates of electors at the Capitol on 6 January 2021.

Such an effort would have amounted to a coup dtat, the rightful winner of the presidential election Joe Biden denied the Oval Office.

Some rioters chanted Hang Mike Pence as they roamed the halls of Congress. Others erected a gallows outside.

Fight to Vote

Sign up for the Guardians Fight to Vote newsletter

But in the Washington Post on Friday, Pence argued that Democratic proposals to expand voter access such as requiring mail-in ballot drop boxes, loosening voter ID requirements and allowing for same-day registration and voter access were just as unconstitutional as an attempt to upend constitutional procedure with violence.

The other Democratic proposal Pence said was akin to the Capitol siege was a proposal to restore a key piece of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required places with a history of voting discrimination to get changes approved by the federal government before they go into effect.

Their plan to end the filibuster to allow Democrats to pass a bill nationalizing our elections would offend the founders intention that states conduct elections just as much as what some of our most ardent supporters would have had me do one year ago, Pence wrote.

The notion that Congress would break the filibuster rule to pass a law equaling a wholesale takeover of elections by the federal government is inconsistent with our nations history and an affront to our constitutions structure.

The characterization was inaccurate. The US constitution explicitly gives Congress a role in setting the rules for federal elections.

Article I, Section IV reads: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.

Pence also falsely wrote that Democratic proposals would require states to adopt universal mail-in voting, a term typically used to describe the process in states like Colorado and Washington that automatically mail ballots to registered voters.

Legislation proposed by Democrats would require states to allow anyone who wants to vote by mail to be able to request a ballot, but would impose no requirement that states automatically send them to all voters.

The former vice-president has previously downplayed the Capitol attack by saying there was too much focus on one day in January. In his column for the Post, he said: Lives were lost and many were injured.

Seven people, law enforcement officers among them, died in connection with the attack. More than 100 officers were injured.

More than 700 people have been charged in connection with the attack. On Thursday, 11 members of the Oath Keepers militia were charged with seditious conspiracy.

Democrats charge that elections laws passed in Republican-run states since 6 January 2021 seek to restrict voting by groups liable to vote Democratic, African Americans prominent among them.

Biden has spoken forcefully on the issue, saying federal voting rights protections are needed to counter such racist moves. Republicans have protested the presidents rhetoric.

Republican legislators have also sought to make it easier to overturn election results, while Trump allies seek to fill key elections posts from which they would control the counting of votes in future elections.

Voting rights bills proposed by Democrats would increase protections for election officials who have faced an unprecedented wave of harassment over the last year. They would also prevent partisan actors from removing elections officials without cause and make it easier for voters to go to court to ensure valid votes are not rejected.

In short, Democrats aim to put in place legal standards to guarantee that no other vice-president is put in the position Pence was on 6 January 2021.

While Biden has made a strong push in support of the voting rights legislation, its prospects look dim. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, staunch defenders of the filibuster, the 60-vote rule required to advance most legislation in the Senate, said on Thursday they would not vote to amend the requirement.

Because no Republicans support doing away with the filibuster, the Democratic voting rights bills cannot pass right now.

Go here to read the rest:
Mike Pence equates voting rights protections with Capitol attack - The Guardian

As the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol rushes to gather evidence and conduct interviews, how far it will be able to go in holding former President Donald J. Trump accountable increasingly appears to hinge on one possible witness: former Vice President Mike Pence.

Since the committee was formed last summer, Mr. Pences lawyer and the panel have been talking informally about whether he would be willing to speak to investigators, people briefed on the discussions said. But as Mr. Pence began sorting through a complex calculation about his cooperation, he indicated to the committee that he was undecided, they said.

To some degree, the current situation reflects negotiating strategies by both sides, with the committee eager to suggest an air of inevitability about Mr. Pence answering its questions and the former vice presidents advisers looking for reasons to limit his political exposure from a move that would further complicate his ambitions to run for president in 2024.

But there also appears to be growing tension.

In recent weeks, Mr. Pence is said by people familiar with his thinking to have grown increasingly disillusioned with the idea of voluntary cooperation. He has told aides that the committee has taken a sharp partisan turn by openly considering the potential for criminal referrals to the Justice Department about Mr. Trump and others. Such referrals, in Mr. Pences view, appear designed to hurt Republican chances of winning control of Congress in November.

And Mr. Pence, they said, has grown annoyed that the committee is publicly signaling that it has secured a greater degree of cooperation from his top aides than it actually has, something he sees as part of a pattern of Democrats trying to turn his team against Mr. Trump.

For the committee, Mr. Pences testimony under oath would be an opportunity to establish in detail how Mr. Trumps pressuring him to block the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.s victory brought the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis and helped inspire the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

It could also be vital to the committee in deciding whether it has sufficient evidence to make a criminal referral of Mr. Trump to the Justice Department, as a number of its members have said they could consider doing. The potential charge floated by some members of the committee is violation of the federal law that prohibits obstructing an official proceeding before Congress.

The combination of the pressure brought to bear on Mr. Pence and Mr. Trumps repeated public exhortations about his vice president If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election, he told supporters on the Ellipse just before they marched to the Capitol could help the committee build a well-documented narrative linking Mr. Trump to the temporary halting of the vote certification through rioters focused, at his urging, on Mr. Pence.

A criminal referral from the committee would carry little legal weight, but could increase public pressure on the Justice Department. The department has given little indication of whether it is seriously considering building a case against Mr. Trump.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said last week that federal prosecutors remained committed to holding all Jan. 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. But he did not mention Mr. Trump or indicate whether the department considered obstruction of Congress a charge that would fit the circumstances.

There are nonetheless some early indications that federal prosecutors working on charging the Capitol rioters are looking carefully at Mr. Trumps pressure on Mr. Pence and his efforts to rally his supporters to keep up that pressure even after Mr. Pence decided that he would not block certification of the Electoral College results.

In plea negotiations, federal prosecutors recently began asking defense lawyers for some of those charged in Jan. 6 cases whether their clients would admit in sworn statements that they stormed the Capitol believing that Mr. Trump wanted them to stop Mr. Pence from certifying the election. In theory, such statements could help connect the violence at the Capitol directly to Mr. Trumps demands that Mr. Pence help him stave off his defeat.

Gina Bisignano, a Beverly Hills beautician who helped her fellow Trump supporters smash at a window at the Capitol, noted in court papers connected to her plea that she had marched on the building specifically after hearing Mr. Trump encourage Mr. Pence to do the right thing.

While in the crowd, the papers say, Ms. Bisignano filmed herself saying, We are marching on the Capitol to put some pressure on Mike Pence. The papers also note that once Ms. Bisignano reached the building, she started telling others what Pences done, and encouraged people carrying tools like hatchets to break the window.

Similarly, Matthew Greene, a member of the Central New York chapter of the Proud Boys, said in court papers connected to his own guilty plea that he had conspired with other members of the far-right group to send a message to legislators and Vice President Pence who were inside the Capitol certifying the final stage of the election.

Greene hoped that his actions and those of his co-conspirators would cause legislators and the vice president to act differently during the course of the certification of the Electoral College vote than they would have otherwise, the papers said.

Mr. Trumps pressure campaign on Mr. Pence has been well established in news reports and books over the past year. Mr. Trump, aided at times by a little-known conservative lawyer, John Eastman, repeatedly pressured Mr. Pence to intervene in Congresss certification of the 2020 presidential election, saying he had the power to delay or alter the outcome.

Mr. Pence consulted a variety of people in weighing what to do, and when he ultimately refused, Mr. Trump attacked him with harsh words.

Once the mob stormed the Capitol, with some rioters chanting for Mr. Pence to be hanged, Mr. Trump initially brushed aside calls from aides and allies to call them off.

In the last week, around the anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot, both the chairman of the committee, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, and its vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, have suggested they want Mr. Pence to testify voluntarily.

On Friday, Mr. Thompson told NPR that the committee might issue Mr. Pence a formal invitation as soon as the end of the month. That same day, another committee member, Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, underlined Mr. Pences importance in a television interview, saying he viewed him as an indispensable person to talk to.

A refusal by Mr. Pence to cooperate could lead the committee to take the highly unusual move of subpoenaing a former vice president, setting up a potential court fight that could delay a resolution for months as the committee tries to wrap up its work before the election.

Mr. Pences personal lawyer, Richard Cullen, began discussions this summer with the top investigator on the House Jan. 6 committee, Timothy Heaphy, a former federal prosecutor. Mr. Cullen had worked alongside Mr. Heaphy at the same law firm several years ago.

Mark Meadows. Mr. Trumps chief of staff, who initially provided the panel with a trove of documents that showed the extent of his rolein the efforts to overturn the election, is now refusing to cooperate. The House voted to recommend holding Mr. Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress.

Scott Perry and Jim Jordan. The Republican representatives of Pennsylvaniaand Ohioare among a group of G.O.P. congressmenwho were deeply involved in efforts to overturn the election. Both Mr. Perryand Mr. Jordanhaverefused to cooperatewith the panel.

Michael Flynn. Mr. Trumps former national security adviser attended an Oval Office meeting on Dec. 18 in which participants discussed seizing voting machines and invoking certain national security emergency powers. Mr. Flynn has filed a lawsuitto block the panels subpoenas.

Phil Waldron. The retired Army colonelhas been under scrutiny since a 38-page PowerPoint documenthe circulated on Capitol Hill was turned over to the panel by Mr. Meadows. The document contained extreme plans to overturn the election.

John Eastman. The lawyer has been the subject of intense scrutinysince writing a memothat laid out how Mr. Trump could stay in power. Mr. Eastman was present at a meeting of Trump allies at the Willard Hotelthat has becomea prime focus of the panel.

Since then, the committee has declined to formally ask Mr. Pence for an interview and Mr. Cullen has told the committee he is unsure what Mr. Pence will do. Both sides hoped that, given Mr. Cullens relationship with Mr. Heaphy, they could work out some sort of agreement.

Complicating the negotiations, Mr. Cullen, who helped Mr. Pence navigate the Russia investigation without being called as a witness, will have to step aside as Mr. Pences lawyer because he will become a top adviser to Virginias incoming governor, Glenn Youngkin, when Mr. Youngkin is sworn in this week.

In the absence of Mr. Pences cooperation, the committee is trying to learn how Mr. Pence handled the pressure from Mr. Trump. Last fall, the committee interviewed J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge who found himself coming to Mr. Pences aid in the two days leading up to the Jan. 6 attack. Mr. Luttig, in response to a request from Mr. Cullen, a longtime friend, put out a statement that said Mr. Pence had no ability to stop the certification of the election, which Mr. Pence ultimately used as political and legal cover in his decision to buck Mr. Trump.

In their questioning, committee investigators asked Mr. Luttig if Mr. Pence was wavering about what to do in the two days before Jan. 6. Mr. Luttig told the committee that he thought Mr. Pence had decided what to do.

In recent weeks, the committee has moved to question Mr. Pences former chief of staff, Marc Short, and his former chief counsel, Greg Jacob, who are considered the two key Pence witnesses.

Mr. Short and Mr. Jacob were both closely involved in Mr. Pences consideration of whether to go along with Mr. Trumps assertions that he could act to block the certification of the Electoral College results. Three days before the Jan. 6 riot, the two men met with Mr. Eastman, a lawyer then advising Mr. Trump, about Mr. Eastmans memo setting out a case for why Mr. Pence had the power to hold off the certification.

Media reports and a statement from at least one committee member have given the impression that Mr. Pences team has provided significant cooperation, and some of his former aides have spoken with the committee. But Mr. Short, arguably the most important witness from the team, publicly attacked the panels credibility three weeks ago.

I cant have a lot of confidence that this committee is going to provide some sort of impartial analysis, Mr. Short said on Fox News. I think that when the Democrats rejected the people that Kevin McCarthy put forward to make it a more bipartisan commission, I think it went down more of a political show-trial path.

Although Mr. Short was subpoenaed by the committee, he has yet to testify and has refused to commit to cooperating with it. His lawyer, Emmet Flood; committee lawyers; White House lawyers; and the National Archives are negotiating over what topics Mr. Short can discuss and whether any are covered by executive privilege.

If Mr. Pence rebuffs the panels request to testify voluntarily, it will be forced to decide whether to subpoena a former vice president, a move that Congress is believed to have not taken since it subpoenaed John Tyler, a former president and vice president, in 1846.

See the original post:
Mike Pence Seen as Key Witness in Jan. 6 Investigation - The New York Times

President BidenJoe BidenHouse Democratic campaign arm outraises GOP counterpart in final quarter of 2021 Putin's 'Brezhnev Doctrine' involving Ukraine could backfire Rising inflation adds pain to student loan debt MORE and Vice President Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisJoe Biden's disastrous 48 hours The Hill's Morning Report - For Biden, it goes from bad to worse Voting advocates focus on next steps after Biden speech MORE missed a unique opportunity to generate some much-needed national unity when they commemorated the one-year anniversary of Jan. 6, 2021.

They rightly recalled the disgraceful events of that dark day and characterized them correctly as an attack on American democracy, a deliberate attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. The tragic irony is that most participants on the ground had been convinced by the apocalyptic urgings of former President TrumpDonald TrumpThe fates of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump Resolution to honor Capitol workers on Jan. 6 would have been voted down by Hawley, senator says Trump to rally supporters in Texas MORE and his coterie that they were the ones defending American democracy against an attempt to subvert it by forces on the left.

The unprecedented measures taken to enable voting during the pandemic provided fertile ground for conspiracy theorists and election losers to manipulate public opinion with charges of fraud. The arguments reflected a lack of faith in the integrity of U.S. institutions and the fundamental resilience of the American system. It was fed by Trumps own refusal to accept democracys self-correcting capacity through regular elections. For all the rioters claims of resisting tyranny, Jan. 6 resembled less a skirmish in the Revolutionary War than a foray during Americas Civil War. The display of Confederate flags showed that some of the Capitol invaders openly welcomed that comparison.

Trumps selfish intentions were actually foreshadowed less than 24 hours earlier when Georgia held an election for two Senate seats that would determine the fate of the Republicans 52-48 majority. If Trumps own doomsday rhetoric was to be believed, the fate of the republic was at stake on Jan. 5, 2021, every bit as much as on Nov. 3, 2020 even more so because by then the House of Representatives and the White House were already destined to be in the hands of progressive Democrats.

Yet, instead of rallying Georgias Republicans to reelect at least one of their GOP senators and keep control of the Senate, Trump spent most of his speech again bemoaning his Nov. 3 loss and the alleged fatal flaws in Georgias election process. He managed to depress enough of the Republican vote to squander both seats and give Democrats control of the U.S. Senate.

Trump followed up his Georgia fiasco by repeating his subversion of Republican prospects in Virginias gubernatorial election last November. He questioned GOP candidate Glenn YoungkinGlenn Youngkin150 ex-EPA staffers ask Virginia lawmakers to oppose Wheeler nomination Republicans: Be optimistic, but not complacent Biden seeks to avoid referendum with sharp attacks on GOP MOREs devotion to the MAGA cause, and thus his electoral suitability, and even calledon Republicans to boycott the 2022 and 2024 elections if his 2020 defeat was not retroactively undone.

After Youngkin won, despite Trumps belated and counterproductive endorsement, and Trump took credit anyway, he circled back to his Georgia obsession. He gratuitously observed that progressive Democrat Stacey Abrams would have been a better governor than Republican

Brian KempBrian KempStacey Abrams's shocking snub of Biden, Harris signals possible 2024 aspirations Kemp pads out campaign war chest ahead of tough reelection bid The hero of Jan. 6 whose name must not be spoken MORE, who defeated her in 2018 and refused to obey Trumps directive to overturn Bidens 2020 victory. Trump is now supporting a primary challenge to Kemps reelection by the same Sonny PerdueSonny PerdueThe hero of Jan. 6 whose name must not be spoken With soaring demand for meat, it's time to fund animal-free protein research Perdue on possible run for Georgia governor: 'I'm concerned about the state of our state' MORE whose Senate reelection defeat he helped cause.

Trumps betrayal of the Republican Party pales in significance to his attempted subversion of the U.S. Constitution on Jan. 6, which Biden and Harris greatly relished in reliving and inappropriately linked to todays Democratic legislative agenda. But they failed to offer a well-earned grace note that would have gone a long way to advance the nations healing.

Harris recalled the resolve I saw in our elected leaders when I returned to the Senate chamber that night not to yield but to certify the election; their loyalty not to party or person but to the Constitution of the United States. She did not mention the name of the one person most exemplary of that resolve former Vice President Mike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceMcCarthy says he won't cooperate with 'illegitimate' Jan. 6 probe Jan. 6 panel asks McCarthy to cooperate Majority in new poll backs reforming law Trump tried to use to subvert Electoral College MORE, who was uniquely targeted by the rioters and positioned to submit to or defy their unconstitutional demands. He alone held the power to further disrupt, or to restore, the constitutional process. Despite all the pressure from Trump and his allies, Pence refused to abandon or subvert his constitutional responsibilities.

Harris likened Jan. 6 to other traumatic dates in modern U.S. history Dec. 7, 1941, and Sept. 11, 2001. But she might also have included Nov. 22, 1963, April 30, 1968, and June 4, 1968, when John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyMORE, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, respectively, were assassinated for political reasons. Some of the Capitol invaders were quite explicit in their own murderous intentions, shouting Hang Mike Pence, while, as Biden said, literally erecting gallows to hang the vice president. Pence did not flinch.and the words Harris used when she introduced Biden a public servant with the character and fortitude to meet this moment could well have been used to describe Pences unwavering stand.

Bidens speech made a passing reference to some courageous men and women in the Republican Party trying to uphold the principle of that party, but like Harris, he failed to credit Pence for his brave defense of the Constitution. Biden could have reminded the country that just as he performed his vice presidential duty in 2016 and declared Trumps electoral victory over Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonNYT columnist floats Biden-Cheney ticket in 2024 Centrist Democrats urge progressives to tamp down rhetoric Stacey Abrams's shocking snub of Biden, Harris signals possible 2024 aspirations MORE, Pence carried out his constitutional responsibility to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Biden and Harris could have noted that no vice president in the history of the nation has had to perform that normally routine function under more difficult and extreme circumstances, with intense pressure not only from a mob threatening his life but also from the president himself.

Oddly, Biden instead seemed to claim personal credit for the stand that Pence took, as if he, rather than Pence, had been the man in the arena on Jan. 6: I did not seek this fight brought to this Capitol one year ago today, but I will not shrink from it either. I will stand in this breach. I will defend this nation. Thats what Pence actually did.

Biden stated: To me, the true patriots are the heroes who defended this Capitol. Congressmen,

Democrats, Republicans stayed. Senators, representatives, staff they finished their work the Constitution demanded. They honored their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Chief among them was the unmentioned Vice President Mike Pence. Biden and Harris would have served the country well had they singled him out for special appreciation. But like some of the Trump bitter-enders to whom Pence is now anathema, his name is not to be uttered.

Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies and a member of the advisory board of the Global Taiwan Institute. Follow him on Twitter @BoscoJosephA.

The rest is here:
The hero of Jan. 6 whose name must not be spoken | TheHill - The Hill

Donald Trump must have awoken on the morning of Jan. 6 last year with a terrible sense of foreboding. It was the day his nemesis, Joe Biden, was scheduled to be certified as the winner of the presidential election. He had spent two whole months, November and December, trying to forestall what was going to happen that day. We now know from reporting on the period after the election that he didn't do anything except play golf and talk to his outside lawyers, like Rudy Giuliani, and outside advisers, like Steve Bannon, about possible ways the results of the election could be overturned.

He spoke with Bannon on Dec. 29 from Mar-a-Lago. Bannon told Trump he had to return from Florida and be present in Washington to prepare the ground for what they had planned for Jan. 6. This meant he would have to skip his big annual New Year's Eve celebration at his club in Palm Springs, no small matter in the world of Donald Trump, who loves to be surrounded with adoring fans who have paid big money to be in his presence. But Bannon pushed him and pushed him hard. He had to work on Mike Pence. He had to pay attention to the memos written by another of his outside lawyers, John Eastman, laying out in two scenarios how Pence who would preside over the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 could refuse to certify the electoral votes from battleground states and throw the election into the House of Representatives, where, as one memo delightedly declares, in all caps, "TRUMP WINS."

Trump had been after Pence to help him overturn the election for weeks. On Jan. 5, he cornered Pence in the Oval Office and called Eastman, who was in the "war room" in the Willard Hotel across the street, and the two of them pressured Pence to refuse to certify enough electoral ballots from states like Arizona and Pennsylvania and Michigan such that neither Trump nor Biden, would have achieved the 270 electoral votes necessary to win. Supposedly, in that scenario, the ballots would be returned to the states where the Republican-led legislatures would convene and appoint new slates of electors and, again in all caps, "TRUMP WINS."

RELATED:Ex-Trump aide Peter Navarro says 100 House members were "ready" to carry out election coup

According to Bob Woodward and Robert Costa's book "Peril," which uncovered the Eastman memos and provides the bulk of the reporting on what transpired between Trump and Pence, the vice president demurred during that Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting with Trump. The next morning, Pence spoke to the conservative retired judge J. Michael Luttig, who had been Eastman's boss in the Justice Department, about a letter he would release later that day. Following the legal advice of Luttig, as well as that of another conservative lawyer, John Yoo, Pence wrote that "my considered judgement [is] that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not."

According to "Peril," Pence remained at the vice president's residence in the Naval Observatory on the morning of the 6th and did not go to the White House. Trump had begun tweeting veiled threats directed at Pence at 1 a.m. and continued at 8:17 a.m. with this: "All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!" But Pence went straight from his home to the Capitol, leaving Trump in the Oval Office making his final preparations for the rally on the Ellipse, which he had advertised with a December tweet: "Be there. Will be wild!"

Woodward and Costa made a valedictory tour of the cable shows on Thursday, appearing on "Morning Joe" and later the same day on "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell." Woodward displayed his own copy of the Eastman memos on the air and referred several times to another sheaf of papers he described as a file of research from the office of Sen. Lindsey Graham that showed no evidence whatsoever of election fraud. Liz Cheney appeared on CNN, telling Jake Tapper: "'The president of the United States is responsible for ensuring the laws are faithfully executed; he's responsible for the security of the branches.So for the president to, either through his action or inaction, for example, attempt to impede or obstruct the counting of electoral votes, which is an official function of Congress, the committee is looking at that, whether what he did constitutes that kind of a crime. But certainly it's dereliction of duty."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Cheney has talked about possible crimes committed by Trump on or around Jan. 6 before, but it was Woodward's appearance on MSNBC that really caught my attention. I've been a sort of Woodward tea-leaf reader since the Watergate days, throughout his various tomes on presidents as the years have passed. What has always amazed me about Woodward has been his almost congenital refusal to draw conclusions from the extensive reporting he's done on presidents and their administrations. He'll interview them and come up with extraordinary quotes and documentary evidence, but all he ever does is present it without comment. He has been called a "stenographer" for good reason, because of his reluctance or outright refusal to analyze or draw conclusions from some of the groundbreaking revelations he has reported over the years.

But not this week. Brandishing handfuls of documents and looking as animated as I've ever seen him, Woodward made repeated charges that what Trump had done in attempting to overthrow the election of 2020 was "a crime against the Constitution." I'm not going to review my Woodward library on a quote-hunt, but I'm pretty sure it's the first time I've ever heard him accuse a president or former president of a crime.

I'm dwelling on Woodward's recent appearances on television for a reason. Ever since his famous work on Watergate, he has made a point of not reporting anything unless he's confirmed it with multiple sources or has seen it written in a document he has in his possession. For that reason, Woodward has always known a lot more than he has written. He's not necessarily withholding information from his readers, he is simply meticulous about what he feels he can report as true and what he can't. In his appearances on television, he always seems beyond buttoned-up. He's clearly a guy who's not just careful about what he says, but obsessively so.

Not on the anniversary of Jan. 6. Bob Woodward looked like he was about to burst, holding out his sheafs of documents like they were tablets that had been passed down to him on a mountain. Woodward is reticent. He is careful. But he also reflects very accurately what the Washington establishment is thinking and talking about amongst themselves the behind the scenes chatter of the "permanent government," if you will.

Watching him on TV and reading my Bob Woodward tea leaves, it looked to me on Thursday that he has heard talk from friends and sources amounting to more than rumor that Trump is going to end up charged with a felony, or multiple felonies. He made clear that he thinks the House Jan. 6 committee is being thorough, almost to a fault, in the way they're going about their investigation of the events before, during and after the day itself. Woodward is a Washington Whisperer par excellence. He's been at it for almost 50 years. He is one of the least excitable guys I've ever met. But on Thursday, as he was being interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell, he looked like he was about to levitate out of his chair.

That's why for Donald Trump, Jan. 6 this year was even worse than Jan. 6 last year. As Richard Nixon discovered, when Bob Woodward says you're in trouble, you've really got something to worry about.

Will the wheels of justice ever catch up with Donald Trump?:

See the article here:
Donald Trump should be very afraid: This anniversary was not good news for him - Salon