Exclusive: The secret history of Pence’s Jan. 6 argument - btbirkett@gmail.com - Gmail

Exclusive: The secret history of Pence’s Jan. 6 argument - btbirkett@gmail.com - Gmail

BY RYAN LIZZA

Presented by

Listen to today's Daily Briefing

DRIVING THE DAY

RUSSIA-UKRAINE LATEST —“Russia to stage nuclear drills with Ukraine tensions high,” by AP’s Vladimir Isachenkov, Yuras Karmanau and Darlene Superville in Kyiv — Meanwhile, President JOE BIDEN this afternoon will speak with the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, the U.K., the EU and NATO, per ABC News. THE PLAYBOOK INTERVIEW — On Wednesday, we spent three hours talking to one of the most influential conservative legal thinkers of his generation: J. MICHAEL LUTTIG. — As a staffer in the GEORGE H.W. BUSH White House, Luttig helped put CLARENCE THOMAS on the Supreme Court. — As a federal judge, he authored some of the most consequential decisions of the post-9/11 era, including a defense of the federal government’s authority to designate alleged terrorists as “enemy combatants.” — In 2005, he was the runner-up to be GEORGE W. BUSH’s choice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. (DICK CHENEY favored him, HARRY REID threatened a filibuster, and Bush gave the job to Luttig’s good friend, JOHN ROBERTS.) More recently, Luttig played a key behind-the-scenes role during the Trump administration. He was considered as a possible FBI director, and strategized with his old friend BILL BARR when both men were considered as replacements for A.G. JEFF SESSIONS. In the end, Luttig never served DONALD TRUMP: His wife told him she would leave him if he did. Like a lot of conservatives, Luttig watched the Trump administration unfold with growing dismay. But he remained quiet. Then, Trump used the Electoral Count Act, an obscure 19th-century law, to try to convince then-VP MIKE PENCE that he had the ability to overturn their loss to JOE BIDEN and KAMALA HARRIS. The legal strategist behind Trump’s effort was well known to Luttig: JOHN EASTMAN was one of his many influential former law clerks. Eastman, despite his reputation now, was respected on the right. Pence needed someone with even more clout to convince conservatives that Eastman’s scheme was a crackpot idea. They needed Luttig. The full story of how Pence world recruited the former judge to provide the legal arguments for Pence’s actions on Jan. 6 is told here for the first time in the latest episode of our “Playbook Deep Dive” podcast.

A message from Facebook: We’re making investments in safety and security—and seeing results Facebook has invested $13 billion over the last 5 years to help keep you safe. Since July, we’ve taken action on: •34.7M pieces of explicit adult content •26.6M pieces of violent and graphic content •9.8M pieces of terrorism-related content See how we're working to help you connect safely.

Here’s a key excerpt, edited for clarity and length: Luttig: I was first called by the vice president’s outside counsel, RICHARD CULLEN, on the evening of Jan. 4. We now know that that was after the fateful Oval Office meeting that day between the president and vice president, where John Eastman made the argument that the vice president could overturn the election unilaterally as presiding officer. … He called the night of the 4th and says, “Hey Judge, what do you know about John Eastman?” And I said, “He was a clerk of mine 30 years ago.” He says, “Well, what else do you know?” I said, “I don’t know. John’s an academic, he’s a professor, he’s a constitutional scholar — and he’s a brilliant constitutional scholar.” … Richard said, “You don’t know, do you?” And I said, “Know what?” He said, “John’s advising the president and the vice president that the vice president has this authority [to reject electoral votes] on Jan. 6” — two days hence. And I said, “Wow, no, I did not know that. You can tell the vice president that I said that he has no such authority at all.” Richard said, “He knows that,” I said “OK,” and we hung up. … I got up the next morning … I’m having my coffee, and Richard calls — which is not unusual. But the call was unusual. He said, “Judge, can you help the vice president?” And I said, “Sure, what does he need?” He said, “Well, we don’t know what he needs.” And I said, “What do you mean you don’t know what he needs? Then why are you calling me?” He said, “Look, this is serious.” I said, “OK, I understand. What do you want?” He’s talking with MARC SHORT and the vice president. And he says, “We need to do something publicly, get your voice out to the country.” … Just try to put yourself in my position. I had not a clue [what to do]. … He called back … and I said, “Alright, I opened a Twitter account a couple of weeks ago, but I don't know how to use it.” He said, “Perfect.” And I said, “I told you: I don’t know how to use it.” He said, “Figure it out and get this done.” So I called my tech son, who works for PETER THIEL, and said, “How do I tweet something more than 180 characters long?” Ryan Lizza: Wait a second … The vice president is being pressured by the president of the United States to overturn the results of the election. And you’re the go-to legal mind who’s respected among Republicans that the vice president is looking to to essentially stop a coup. Do I have that right? Luttig: To answer the question you’re asking: I understood the gravity of the moment and the momentous task that I was being asked to help the vice president with. I had been following all of this very closely in the days leading up to it. It was then — and may forever be — one of the most significant moments in American history. I’m a cutup, but I’m deadly serious when the time comes, and that day, I was as serious as I can possibly be. Lizza: But first, you’ve got to learn how to tweet. Luttig: So my son says, “Dad, I don’t have time for this. You’ve got to learn this stuff on your own.” To which I said something like, “Just tell me right now how to get this done, or I’ll cut you out of the will.” … So I go down to my office, and I open up the [Twitter] instructions on my laptop and I copy and paste what I’ve written on my iPhone into my laptop … I read and reread it multiple times, and then I take a deep breath and I hit “tweet.” … Lizza: The vice president cited your legal analysis on Jan. 6 in his famous letter explaining what his responsibilities and authorities were that day. Luttig: Yes, that might be the greatest honor of my life. But it came to my attention in the least auspicious way. I got two back-to-back emails on [Jan.] 6 from two of my clerks … They said, “The vice president is on his way to the Capitol, and he cited you in his letter to the nation.” … That’s the first time that I ever knew what was to happen with the tweet from the day before. No one had ever told me that. … I was floored … The vice president called me the next morning to thank me . … And I said to the vice president that it was the highest honor of my life that he had asked me, and I will be grateful to him for the remainder of my life. Click here to listen to the full conversation, including details of Luttig’s latest legal crusade: convincing Republican senators to reform the Electoral Count Act so a repeat of Jan. 6 can never happen. TOP-ED — “Our Democracy Shouldn’t Rest on a Rickety Law,” by Sen. SUSAN COLLINS (R-Maine) writing about the Electoral Count Act in the NYT. Her concluding paragraph: “We do not know if we will succeed, but we are trying to fix a serious problem. The senators working on this legislation have philosophical, regional and political differences. When we disagree, we attempt to persuade one another — we cajole, haggle and even argue — but we do so with an eye on a common goal. That is the way it is supposed to work in a democracy. Maybe we could refer to the process as ‘legitimate political discourse.’”