Eastman’s memo outlines a scenario in which Pence would disregard seven states’ Electoral College votes — making sure no candidate received the 270 Electoral College votes required to be declared the winner — thereby throwing the election to 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.
In a conversation with CNN, Eastman said that his statements have been consistent and that he told Pence during their January 4 meeting that throwing the election to the House was “the weaker argument” and ultimately did not advise it.
“My statement on Bannon on January 2 acknowledges that that was one of the scenarios that was being discussed. But the issue that I presented to the vice president, when he asked me point blank, I told him, I said, ‘It’s an open question,’ which is true. And I said, ‘I happen to think it’s the weaker argument,’ which is true. And that’s why I recommended that he delay rather than taking that step,” Eastman said.
After CNN pointed out that on Bannon’s radio show, Eastman did not specify that the option to throw the election to the House was the “weaker” option, Eastman responded, “That’s right. Because it was a radio show.”
“I didn’t go into a whole legal treatise about the weights and the demerits. I said, ‘These are the things, these are a couple of things that have been suggested.’ That was certainly one of the paths that had been suggested by a lot of people. Was that the advice I ultimately gave to Pence? No, because I told him I thought it would be foolish to exercise that even if he had that authority.”
But days before the election certification on January 6, Eastman suggested Pence could do just what his memo outlined.
Eastman argued that a contingent election was one of two possible routes to take.
“I think if the vice president, as presiding over the joint session, would at least agree that because those ongoing contests have not been resolved, we can’t count those electors. That, that, that means that nobody has a majority of the electors,” he said. “And either they delay things — so those constitutional challenges are resolved — or they say, ‘OK, well, we don’t have electors from those states, that nobody has a majority. This is going to the House.'”
“Either route requires that we look at what actually happened here and get to the bottom of it,” said Eastman.
‘Courage and the spine’
“Are we to assume that this is going to be a climactic battle?” Bannon asked.
“Well, I think a lot of that depends on the courage and the spine of the individuals involved,” Eastman responded.
“When you just said the courage and the spine,” Bannon said, “are you talking on the other side of the football? Would you be, would you be, that’d be a nice way to say a guy named Mike, Vice President, Mike Pence?” asked Bannon.
“Yes,” Eastman answered.
“So if somebody were just to say, I don’t like the results, even though they were properly conducted and there’s no evidence of fraud, I don’t like the results as I’m going to certify my favorite slate of electors. The political reaction to that would be so severe and so swift, and nobody would do that. And nobody has done it in 150 years. But what we have here is a systematic violation of state laws by election officials,” said Eastman.
“This level of corruption just can’t be allowed to stand. And I think that makes, I think that makes the exercise of the vice president’s power here very compelling,” he said.
In the interview with CNN, Eastman said he could not recall what he meant by the vice president’s power being “very compelling,” but reiterated he believed the vice president had the power to delay the election and that throwing the election to the House was the weaker of two arguments.