John Eastman’s Bad Defense Gets Worse

Mr. Jacob tells us he stands by his testimony. His notes taken that day read: “John Eastman meeting 1/5/21,” and “Requesting VP reject.” Mr. Jacob helped Mr. Pence uphold the Constitution, so he has reason to be proud. Mr. Eastman took the Fifth, and he reportedly sought clemency. “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list,” he wrote

Rudy Giuliani,

according to an email quoted by the Jan. 6 committee.

Marc Short,

the VP’s former chief of staff, was also in these meetings with Mr. Eastman. His full testimony to the Jan. 6 inquiry isn’t public, and we hope the committee will publish transcripts. But for now, Mr. Short tells us: “My sworn testimony to the Jan. 6 committee under oath matches Greg’s testimony, that the original request was for the Vice President to reject electors.”

What makes Mr. Eastman’s continued denials so bizarre is they’re contradicted by the record. In the run-up to Jan. 6, he wrote two memos, both of which suggest Mr. Pence might outright reject electors. At some point, he relented on this.

Here’s an email exchange that took place while the Capitol was being ransacked. Mr. Jacob: “Did you advise the President that in your professional judgment the Vice President DOES NOT have the power to decide things unilaterally?”

“He’s been so advised,” Mr. Eastman replied. “But you know him—once he gets something in his head, it is hard to get him to change course.” Hmmm . . . who put that idea in Mr. Trump’s head in the first place?

Months later, however, Mr. Eastman was buttered up at a gala by a woman with a hidden camera. “They’re already anticipating Trump winning in 2024,” he said. “They’re using my arguments from that memo, that they all said had no credibility, to argue that

Kamala Harris

can block Trump’s electoral votes.” Then his memo was correct? Mr. Eastman: “Exactly, except they’re not saying that, right?”

Even taking Mr. Eastman at face value that he merely wanted Mr. Pence to delay, it was terrible advice. Mr. Trump’s term was constitutionally over in 14 days. Courts had rejected his legal challenges. Political leaders in Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia had rejected the idea of attempting to appoint electors. “Trump, Giuliani and me met with 300 legislators on Jan. 2 via Zoom conference call,” Mr. Eastman said on that undercover video, “and they all spinelessly wouldn’t do anything.”

If they had tried, it would have been a constitutional crisis. Imagine: Amid mass protests, the Democratic House refuses to convene in joint session to tally new Trump electors. What then? Does the Supreme Court get involved? Does Speaker

Nancy Pelosi

become President Pelosi on Jan. 20? Mr. Eastman still hasn’t articulated an answer that doesn’t end with a bang.

Republicans rightly complain that state election laws were stretched too far in 2020, but the time to challenge that is before ballots are cast. When the GOP did so, it often succeeded. Yet Mr. Trump “did not have a legal team prepared to go and fight around the country,” former Attorney General

Bill Barr

said this summer. “So a lot of these, bending of the playing field, were his own fault.” Mr. Trump lost by thousands of votes in three states.

Providing awful legal counsel isn’t a crime. But as Mr. Jacob wrote in an email as the riot raged, Mr. Eastman’s advice “functioned as a serpent in the ear of the President of the United States.” That is what the history books will say.