How the US Democracy was saved with 1st Tweet by a retired judge!

The judge who saved American democracy with 1st tweet on January 6, 2021

“No one believes that a President of the United States should be criminally prosecuted except in the most extraordinary circumstances possible under our system of government by the same token most people would agree that even a President could and should be prosecuted for the most egregious criminal acts that a president might commit!”

- The former federal judge J. Michael Luttig

Like I said before, President Biden should have "Lock him up!" already.

Raw transcript by YouTube:

Lawyer Who Advised Pence Team Speaks Ahead of His Jan. 6 Committee Appearance | FRONTLINE

i mostly want to talk to you about 2020 and what you saw what concerns you and your role but but first was there was there anything that was concerning to you about american democracy before 2020 before we get to the campaign before we get uh to the election yes although i i i didn't frame it in that way uh at all i i had been uh concerned about dem our democracy american democracy um uh beginning during the primaries in 2016 because i i saw what everyone else saw which was the um at that point the the bombast uh and the uh uh the the language if you will of politics that represented to me uh uh an assault on on on american democracy which parts of that which parts of what you were hearing were the things that were really that really stood out to you well you know we're talking i'm talking now about the republican primary it started off with 14 or 15 you know uh candidates uh and uh you can recall those those prime primary debates and then the the uh campaigning during uh the primary itself uh and uh the politicians um who i believe are at at the root of of all evil um you know they were beginning to to talk the language of assault and attack on america herself and the the institutions of of uh of american democracy uh which i i consider to be uh the the congress of the united states uh the executive office of of the presidency and uh and the federal judiciary and uh those words sounded uh to me in a assault or attack on on democracy itself and then of course uh much later well no actually now that i think of it uh during the primaries um the the moderator asked of the candidates that in in one uh primary debate uh whether uh they would accept the results of an election and uh i don't remember how many if any more than than uh donald trump uh said that they would not necessarily accept the the results of the election uh and you know to me as it was i think to many people uh was a uh a stunning uh stunning answer to that question uh i think probably because i you know i am a lawyer and a judge uh i i heard that response even differently than than than than most people who who were concerned about it and i mean during that period you were a judge um and stayed out of politics and presumably you know when you're hearing something like that at that point you must have a question of you know what do you do how are we how are the politicians going to respond are you talking to to any of them at that point to leaders inside the party or expressing your concerns well i'm i'm uh i was actually not a a judge on on the bench at that point i had i had gone off into uh the private sector and i've never to my knowledge uttered publicly a a partisan word uh or thought um and uh uh so back the time i would have been expressing this view uh almost exclusively probably to my wife who my wife of 40 years with whom i you know share everything but i was profoundly concerned even during the primaries about the uh the the direction that the republican party seemed to be taking the country though unwittingly what do you mean by that by the republicans i don't think that i don't think that any of the candidates let alone the entire party let alone the nation had any any concept that the primary the republican primary could lead to what it has led to today and that's not uh uh to to to be critical of of of the public at all um i i'm not one who believes that the the public has any responsibility to uh understand and appreciate um all of the the nuance and all of the processes uh that uh that underlay uh uh our our democratic system of government i believe that that's the responsibility of our elected representatives now as i hear myself say that you know uh i i was i was profoundly critical of our uh political leaders uh so for instance i i was uh i was actually angry that that that in my view not one single uh leader in america um [Music] who had the the the moral authority um the uh the courage and the will to uh speak up and and and say this has to stop did so now i i i put particular emphasis on you know on on the the word moral authority by which i mean the moral authority to reach across the aisle uh to to uh uh american citizens of of all political stripes and be uh heard and and listened to uh i say that because uh you know i don't believe that there that there is any such uh political person or leader in in america today and i didn't think there was back in 2016. as you watch the the trump presidency and watch it take place did it uh confirm fears that you had going back to 2016 what did you see in that period between 2017 leading up to 2020. um what i saw was a straight line from the from the republican primaries to and through the uh the trump administration straight through to january 6 and continuing until this moment and did you see a continuing role for the the republican party in that period i mean how are you evaluating how how the party leaders were responding during the presidency i mean we talked to a lot of people back in 2016 and a lot of them said that they went along because they thought he wasn't going to win um and that there wasn't a harm um that would come from it and by 2017 he is the president um as you're going towards as you say on a trajectory towards january 6. um [Music] how did you evaluate the response of the country's leaders other leaders besides the president during through that period you know to the person i i didn't i thought that the the political response by our leaders was abysmal and inexcusable and and uh of course i'm i'm familiar with with with what you say that uh then and and even now uh there are whispers um everywhere that the politicians wish they had not you know perform their public office and service in the way that they did but to this day it they are still just whispers now was i did i become disenchanted and disillusioned with our political leaders no because that's exactly what i would have expected of them the argument that some of them make um that may be more more personal to you if they say there was flaws with with donald trump but uh you know the threat of a clinton presidency but particular judges and the supreme court nominations and you know that that there was a trade-off that was made and and it was almost an explicit trade-off for some for somebody like a mitch mcconnell how do you evaluate that balancing of course this is a subject i'm intimately familiar with uh and and and the way i i evaluate it uh as to the as to the politicians is in this way the uh i understand and appreciate very well uh the the the focus on the judiciary and ultimately on the supreme court that was a war that had been uh going on uh in the country and uh between and among the politicians for uh literally half a century uh and as that unfolded across that half a century uh the whole country and all of the politicians knew exactly what was going on at every moment up to and including the the the last three uh appointments and confirmations uh to the supreme court uh leading uh up to uh the victory for the republicans and the conservatives uh in the war for the court now i understand that but in against the larger backdrop of of of all of politics and the trump administration uh i i i don't excuse their larger and other behavior because of their insistence upon their their their you know different positions about the judiciary and the court that was really just a single issue political issue and not even uh the political issue of the greatest import uh to the nation or the country so to the politicians who say well look we we did this in the name of of the supreme court i say you know fine that doesn't excuse your abysmal public service as you watch watch the first impeachment what what do you take from from that from the moment from the result from what president trump at the time seems to take from uh from being acquitted and what it said about whether there were checks on him well without regard to to um former president trump's view or any other political figure uh uh for that matter uh the impeachment is a a constitutionally constitutional process that's provided for by the constitution itself uh and and that's not a a legal process it is by design of the constitution a political process it's for that reason that that a president or any other official subject to impeachment uh you know can be impeached for uh conduct or behavior that does not entail criminal uh violation of the law at all it's to say even that impeachment is available uh even purely political offenses uh to the nation as determined by the politicians themselves so uh now during the the first and the second impeachment uh i i was greatly interested in the the impeachment uh not just as a constitutional and matter though that was the preponderance of my interest but i was also interested in in as a as the political process as well but uh but i've never done politics and and don't don't care to so uh i know that's just to say that i understand all the issues the political issues surrounding it and and i have a view on on the uh uh i wouldn't say the appropriateness of of uh of the impeachment um but neither would i uh say the the legal uh appropriateness of it uh i have a view on whether as a political matter uh the democrats uh you know should or should not have attempted the impeachment what is what is your view on whether they should have well my political views neither here nor there uh and and i don't really care to give it to you i mean but there is a larger question about it which is in a which is about whether the constitutional checks function in a highly polarized uh government in a highly polarized society you know do the do do these institutions that the founders put into the constitution work if you have you know not uh three separate branches of government but really two parties um that are polarized that that are united i mean did you did you sense any feeling of stress on those constitutional checks in that no no zero uh in my view the the constitutional process functioned throughout the entire trump administration uh despite the pressure that was put on that that uh constitutional process uh by the president uh at many points deliberately uh and intentionally but as to the as to the impeachment process uh that was a uh was really a a perfect uh functioning of of the impeachment process under the constitution so as we get to 2020 in the this is in the run-up to the election period um what are you seeing that that is concerning you of course in in in the run-up you know uh you know defined to be let's say uh the fall in the fall uh leading up to to the november election um you know that's when uh the former president began to to suggest if not more that he he was not prepared to willingly leave leave the white house or if you're worried to lose the election uh that's and that's the period in which um you know some of some uh some journalists begin to to write lengthier pieces about just that uh and and i i was reading those pieces uh you know because that that becomes a constitutional legal matter that that is of great great interest to me and has been my whole life it was around that time that my wife um who by the way is also a lawyer uh and has worked in the white house previously um she said she began to say to me that that she didn't think that that uh the former president would leave the white house if he were to lose the election and uh in the early weeks and months when she was was saying that i was dismissing it saying that uh i that's just not really a possibility uh and and uh it's not an option to to a president who loses the election to remain in the white house um and uh about that time to her credit you know some very respected journalists were writing longer pieces and asking me for comment frankly as to what would happen if the president didn't leave leave the white house um and so that moved my own thinking to the next next phase uh and then the the third phase was uh i would pin around uh uh several weeks before the election uh when the president uh you know came full full full full circle to to his what was going to be his final position that he would uh he would challenge the election no matter what if he were to lose at that point my wife you know came to me again and said um you know as wives or want to do uh i told you so and uh uh and and as husbands are not want to do i said at that point i think you might be right um and uh and i said to her if you're right that we will be facing a a grave constitutional crisis uh during that time though i uh i would never go on the record as saying that ever but i was being asked by uh many journalists and and reporters in the media to say that we were in a constitutional crisis and i i did not believe even at that point that we were in a constitutional crisis and i and i refused to tell tell the country through the reporters that that i believe that we were and the response that you were seeing to what the president was saying what you were doing what you were learning as you were researching and reading about you know the process of how the president is um confirmed after the election um and what do you think of the response of especially republican leaders but of everybody else who's who's watching this um do they seem to share your concern yes i i was not reading or studying um the constitution or the laws i i knew that uh i i was studying the the public reaction uh of of not not just the public writ large but in particular our elected officials and uh their uh what i what i witnessed i believed uh was failed leadership uh in the form of uh knowing acquiescence in in uh what was about to happen reprehensible acquiescence and then it comes to the moment in the early hours after the election and the president comes out you've been concerned about this already and the president comes out and says frankly i did win this election the county is not done at that point um what but what are you thinking as you're as you're watching that i i thought the moment had arrived the the moment that would bring us into a constitutional crisis for what i believe believe then would have been the first constitutional crisis in american history so i may be a word of explanation um i i don't believe that that the country's ever in a constitutional crisis unless and until we are confronting circumstances that are that were never contemplated by the constitution uh that view leads me to the conclusion that uh that we're never in a constitutional crisis uh unless or until uh the the attack on on america and her democracy is from within not from without uh i believe that that that the constitution uh provides the the process and the mechanisms by which we can withstand uh any attack or assault on our country or our democracy from without but i believe that the constitution never contemplated and therefore didn't ever provide uh for for process and and mechanisms uh to withstand uh an attack on on america and her democratic processes from within and that's what i believed was happening at that point i wanted to ask you about a couple of stops along the way and responses people had to that moment um and see where you think that they that they fit in into this and one of them is that you know the president comes out and says this and it's ron jr and alex jones and some others are pushing the conspiracy theories but um by the end of the week there are some senior republicans who if they're not uh saying the election was 100 stolen or raising questions um about the election um by that weekend what did how do you evaluate the those responses from um republican leaders as they were coming out and saying you know it seems like there was fraud here we need to be fighting on this the uh statements from from political leaders merely that there are there there was or or might have been fraud in an election uh is is contemplated in the constitution and and eventually in the statutes of the united states through through the likes of the uh electoral count act of 1887 uh and and so uh those words you know um alone are not offensive words now in in 2020 you know for me it was the specific claims of fraud that were problematic uh the conspiracy theories if you will uh they didn't even uh uh they didn't even sound plausible or colorable to me just as they didn't sound plausible or colorable to many people uh they were the this was wacky stuff right uh that you know foreign foreign powers had infiltrated the the process down to the individual voting machines and and and the like uh that's the stuff of science fiction uh to me uh could it could that happen in today's world yes but i wasn't willing to believe it for a second uh uh during the 2020 election uh i had of course we all knew at that point that that uh donald trump had received i believe and you can correct me if i'm wrong the largest number of votes in the country of not only any republican president to that date but i think any president uh of either party to that date due to the the turnout in the 2020 election of course which was massive it turned out that that uh now president biden did receive a greater number of votes than than than than trump did and i believe than any other president has ever uh garnered in in history but uh again this is uh i'm out of my depth but but but uh directionally that's the way i saw the the election uh and so i thought that was enough for me to uh believe that uh that that trump had lost the election and so these these these far-fetched claims by sydney powell and and uh and giuliani to say the least did not resonate with me i mean when you watch those moments the four seasons total landscaping the press conference at the republican national committee where giuliani has the hair dye running down and the as you say conspiracy theories about the election what are you thinking as you're watching that is that um concerning to you is it reassuring because they seem you know it almost seemed like a joke uh to some people at the time what were you thinking as you were watching that well instances like that one and including that one were farcical they they were the they were comedy to me uh though tragic comedy uh but there were many such moments and many such claims again against my worldview of politics and politicians it was amusing at first and then gradually over a relatively short period of time became disturbing as i believed we were nearing that that moment of constitutional crisis that in fact occurred i mean it does seem like as we've talked to people that there's really two periods and there's a period of court cases and up to the electoral college and then there's a period after um the electoral colleges voted in the middle in the middle of december and one one of the questions i want to like maybe the last question i want to ask you about in that first period um is is there was as we've talked to to people there was a faith amongst a lot of republicans that there wasn't too much harm that could be done that the court system was going to take care of the claims that you know somebody like mitch mcconnell made a decision that he would he would um recognize joe biden's election after the electoral college certified in the middle of december and that there was no real harm in waiting uh to do that there was no real harm in waiting to speak up against the claims of fraud during that period because the system was strong enough to uh to handle it what do you what do you think of that argument of that position of of those who didn't believe the claims but who felt we'll just let the system play out well of course it should be apparent by now i don't think much of it at all that's exactly what politicians do every day all the time they wait and they wait before they ever take a position uh of any import to to the country and they wait until they no longer have to and then they figure out what they need to say in the aftermath uh to uh protect themselves from their failures earlier to speak out now as to the the uh to that view of of i'm sure many uh actually of everyone because of course the the president uh resorted to the courts himself as well as other republicans who were not do not consider themselves supporters of the former president and so all of the republicans and then of course by necessity the democrats uh turned to the courts they were more than happy to do that it meant they didn't have to for the moment it meant they didn't have to ever make any decisions that's failed leadership but that's that's what happens every day so yes they waited on the court now the uh the the tragedy the political tragedy in this instance was that the politicians understood what was at issue in in the the federal courts they understood that the federal courts were being called upon to decide some of the most momentous constitutional issues uh possible in the context of that two or three month uh litigation of the the election cases in in in particular what i'm focusing on and talking about is um the what's known as the independent state legislature theory that theory is a theory of constitutional law that has been embraced uh seemingly embraced now uh by at least seven supreme court justices including three who are no long two who are no longer on on the supreme court and the the the predicate the the foundation of these uh constitutional challenges to the election uh what was that was built around the independent state legislature doctrine or theory and the republicans in particular had reason to believe after justice barrett was was was confirmed to the court that there were five votes on the supreme court to embrace that independent state legislature theory making it a a constitutional doctrine now what would that have meant under the theory under what's known as the electors clause of the constitution the state legislatures have what's known as plenary and under the theory exclusive authority over the appointment of state electors who vote as part of the electoral college send those votes to the congress to be counted to determine who the next president united states is the significance the momentous significance of of this theory if if embraced by the supreme court would be that the legislatures could never be second guessed by in particular the state supreme courts so if the legislation in this context in 2020 if the legislatures wanted to send in alternative electoral slates to the official electoral slates that had been sent in under under the laws of that states of the states they could do so and it could not be second guessed by either the state supreme courts or eventually even the federal courts and the state legislature theory applies both to the electors state electors for the purposes of electing the president and vice president of the united states but also to congressional redistricting in in every state uh i i i go so far in that explanation uh so that i can say that uh right now in 2022 literally in the past week or two uh the the various parties in a redistricting case out of north carolina have filed their briefs in the united states supreme court uh variously asking the supreme court to either embrace the independent state legislature doctrine or reject it and on this supreme court as of um well i i think i i think fair to say as of only if a few months ago when the when the supreme court uh denied cert did not denied an emergency application of the parties to decide this case uh there there are four justices on the current court who expressed an interest in deciding the independent state legislature doctrine theory uh and even gone so far as to say uh this is a a matter of of great national importance that we the supreme court must decide before the 2024 election and and four being enough to bring it to the to the court for being enough to to bring the case before the supreme court for decision but not nest not the requisite votes to uphold you know uh the the doctrine that takes five and and as you evaluate evaluated that argument um where did you land at the time that i i did my uh last writing which was the cnn piece uh which i i titled the republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election uh i i had not done the the research and the thinking that that that would be necessary for me to come to a conclusion on that uh on that historic uh a question since the publication of the cnn piece uh you know i've been i've been asked by seemingly everyone on both sides of the issues to join them in various uh amicus and other briefs before the supreme court on the issue uh and and so as i sit here today i haven't i haven't come to a conclusion on on my view of of the constitutionality of that theory but even if it is constitutional i mean at its heart what the theory means is even if the majority of the population uh majority of voters voted for the electoral slate of one candidate that the legislature uh could overturn it i mean what are the implications of adopting that if that is even if it is actually constitutional and that's that's what the law should be what are the implications um or the implications of the political choice of a legislature just to decide to exercise that power well i i of course will leave to others the the political implications and consequences of that though i think i think we can stipulate that that that the political consequences for for the politicians is enormous politically uh but what i what i what i won't hesitate to say is that that uh the the implications and consequences for the supreme court's uh embrace of the independent state legislature theory are uh immensely consequential uh for uh for democracy uh in america and and maybe that's that's the point which i should i should say um you know we we are we are talking about american democracy there there's no there's there's no uh subject of higher importance than than that in america and and so we we need to understand what we're talking about when we when we throw around the term american democracy the dictionary definition of of of of of democracy and therefore of american democracy would be something like this a democracy is a system of of government and and and governance by which the uh the the the rules of government of governance and the and and the policy of the citizens that is the will of the people is expressed through the elected representatives of the people that would be a a textbook definition of of democracy uh and a for sure i you can understand that what we are talking about when we are talking about the electoral process processes uh in the united states is is would be fairly considered the the core of of of the democracy and of the democratic process uh in the united states of america now uh i i personally distinguish you know uh all of these these relevant terms in this way that that's what i consider to be american democracy uh itself uh that then uh i think that you have to i distinguish uh out of american democracy as a whole uh the the subset of uh the institutions of democracy uh that that the constitution created to protect and preserve that democracy and and that would be uh the congress of the united states the executive office of the president and the presidency uh and the federal judiciary and the supreme court those are what i think of as the institutions of our democracy and then uh i i think of the constitutional processes that secure our democracy and the and the corresponding laws of the united states that protect and further our our democracy as instruments or instrumentalities of our democracy uh and and so uh in my view uh i'll say for the moment over the past six years uh the there has been uh an unprecedented attack and assault not only on american democracy but also on the institution institutions of our democracy but also on the instrumentation instrumentalities or instruments of that democracy that's why i'm of the view that we're in a constitutional crisis because those three assaults or attacks if you will on those three organs of of of of american democracy uh have have occurred from within not from without in other words i think we are right now in in in a war uh with each other we're not in a a a war against a foreign power uh we're in a war uh with each other uh and it's a it's a it's an immoral war over morality in in america and uh this is a war that uh america cannot win this is one war that america can never win that's very useful explanation of the of where we are in the big picture of all this because i think we do sometimes get lost in the details or the legal claims inside it um what's going on and and and and and i don't believe that the public has a responsibility at all to understand any of this the responsibility you know rests with our public and officials our elected representatives and that's where the blame lies uh for for the for the for their failure to preserve and protect uh our our country's democracy so as we get to this period where the cases have been dismissed the electoral college has voted and and they're starting to be this is before you get a phone call from the vice president's attorney but but in that period they're starting to be talk about january 6 they're starting to be talk about the electoral college um are you growing are you growing more concerned in this period yes without without any question but not just concerned i was i was gravely concerned why because i i was beginning to to to see and witness the deliberate course uh that would lead to um the crisis that that occurred it was i could underst i could understand uh just as a lawyer i could under i understood all of the pieces and i could understand how they interlocked and i could understand at those later in those later weeks how they were going to interlock into what you know you might rightly call a perfect storm uh that that would uh that would lead the country into the constitutional crisis uh you know i had i i have a very uh well well informed uh and well considered view at this point in my life of the institutions of democracy uh and uh uh of american democracy the institutions of democracy and even now the the instruments and instrumentalities of of democracy that i described and those interlocking pieces that you see where it's headed and you say a constitutional crisis but what was the goal of those pieces what was the goal of those operating around the president um as they were putting those pieces together i i i didn't have any idea i didn't have any idea of of the precise goal in in the lead up to the election itself it was not until after january 6th and then even so after uh the memos and emails and conversations became public begin to become public uh so that i could analyze them if you will and understand exactly what the the the plan was i i suspected the plan and i understood what what what they were doing very well i didn't want to believe that there was anyone behind it uh who was knowledgeable enough uh intelligent enough uh to execute execute the plan successfully and i didn't think there was any such persons uh you know until long after january 6. and and and and and to complete the thought now now uh i think we all know that there were uh such such people and they were in fact they were in fact executing the plan that that that that we all saw i just want to be really clear about what that plan was i mean was that plan to raise questions about the future elections and change voting laws or would did that plan have a more concrete goal of what they wanted to accomplish on january 6 and in the run-up to january 20th no it was not it was not about the future at all it was about the the immediate the moment the the plan was to overturn the election through the exploitation of of of the uh of what i've called the institutions of democracy and the instruments and instrumentalities of our democracy there's and we know now there's no question about it they knew exactly what they were doing and they believed it they believed uh in the rightness of that at least legally and constitutionally whether they believed in it whether they believed it writ large was right i'll leave for someone else to to uh assess i want to ask you about um how do you get involved depends but first one thing i forgot to ask you about earlier which was um bill barr you know we've talked about people who didn't say anything um and he you know as we know planted didn't just plant said on the record to the associated press um said to the president that there was no fraud allegations um i know you know bar and you were at least watching that happen as it was publicly announced um what was the signal that was sent when that report came out that the justice department looked into it and that bar was going on the record on the fraud allegations well bill barr the then attorney general is a longtime friend of mine in fact well two two things bill and i went into the department of justice together in 1989. he is uh assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel uh and then um you know he uh prevailed upon me to come in as his deputy and uh you know long story short i i agreed so uh bill and i went into the department of justice in the george h.w bush administration and we were at the department under the leadership of then attorney general dick thornberg from pennsylvania so so then fast forward um you know as has been publicly reported uh bill and i were both under consideration uh to uh uh succeed sessions as trump's attorney general and then of course the president eventually called called bill so well that's that's a long way to to to bring me to your question i knew bill well and the day that he first publicly said that there was not not there's insufficient evidence of fraud nationwide to call into question the the the final electoral uh elec popular vote uh uh of of of the people for for president biden um i i knew at that point i i hadn't thought a bit about this until right now but that's the moment at which i knew that we were uh uh we were we were heading into the constitutional crisis why because uh i knew all too well what the the former president's reaction would be to that um and knowing bill i knew what his reaction would be to it and so um i i appreciated that that was the defining moment and that it would be the defining moment and and and uh and it was i mean not long after the election the secretary of defense uh is pushed out um bill barr resigns before christmas i mean how concerned just watching that and knowing bill barr is not the attorney general as we're going into january 6. how concerning was that for you enormously concerning you know bill's successor was to be bill's deputy jeff rosen uh uh who who i knew of but did not know personally but i knew that that jeff rosen could not possibly stand his ground against donald trump by the same token i understood well that if there was one person who could it was bill barr and he did and uh he his uh penalty uh or his sentence was exactly what he would have expected and the country would have expected he was fired uh but to your question i i became increasingly worried if that was even possible once bill left knowing that in my view there was no one left who who who could stand against uh donald trump or or who would stand against donald trump so at that point at that point i was um utterly convinced that we were we were heading to to january 6. um and uh so at that point uh again i i don't even have a job at that point i've been out of uh public service in the public sector for 15 16 17 years and for the 15 years before that i was a sitting federal judge so i i was i had not been in public life much less in public in politics for 30 plus years at that point which is just a long way of saying that all i could do i did which was to uh think about what was what was happening and what was about to happen which was not not to to belittle that enterprise it was um it was the most serious thing i've ever had to think about um but i did do that and then you get a call from richard cullen can you tell me about that yes i on um january 4th in the uh night certainly in the middle of the evening in colorado which is where my wife and i were uh richard called richard cullen is a longtime and dear friend of mine and had been a vice president pence's outside counsel for several years at that point i knew on january 4th that richard was very close to the vice president so my wife and i were having dinner and richard uh calls it was nothing at all because richard and i had been talking you know multiple times every day or two for two plus years over everything that was going on in washington uh just because we're that that close friends uh so the call itself was nothing uh he called and he said uh he calls me judge which is fine and he said uh you know judge what what are you doing i said well elizabeth and i are having dinner what's up and he said do you know john eastman and i said yes he says well what what can you tell me about john and i said uh well you know john was one of my law clerks perhaps 20 25 years ago he's a a professor an academic i think i said uh at chapman uh law school in california um and uh i said what why are you asking and he said you don't have any idea do you and i said no and he said well uh the john eastman is advising uh the president and the vice president that uh the vice president on january 6 can essentially overturn the the 2020 election unilaterally uh i said to uh richard uh well richard you know you you can tell the vice president that that that i said that he he has no such authority at all uh and and that he must accept and the congress must count uh the electoral uh college votes as they have been cast and uh and and that he hasn't uh he is not free to uh not count uh any of the votes count other votes or otherwise uh discount any of the votes that have been cast if that's to be done at all that's a an authority and a power that's vested in the congress of the united states you know uh and certainly not in the single person of the provider presiding uh officer of the senate which is the vice president united states and richard said uh he he knows that that's your view and i said uh okay uh uh you know i i okay uh and uh and uh i said well look richard you know of course i uh i understand the gravity of this and i'd be willing to help um the vice president in any way i i can and uh and and please tell him that and and and we hung up uh my wife having um heard only one side of that conversation uh said something like um oh my god what was that and uh and i said well that was richard and and and he said that john eastman's advising the president and and and the vice president that that the vice president can unilaterally in effect you know laterally overturn the election uh and uh richard just called to ask me you know about about john and uh uh you know and my wife who had been gravely concerned about this even for a longer period than i had been gravely concerned about it you know was just uh deeply deeply troubled uh and and said uh that that i must i i i had to do something and i said to her this is my wife of 40 years i i said look hon i there's i'm just not part of this uh january 6 is is 24 hours away essentially and and i'm not even part of this in any way at all and uh you know as a as the wonderful wife that she is she um pled with me to do something and uh uh and and then we later went to bed that night and and with my having told her that i i was willing to do anything but there was nothing that i could that i could do and this was in the hands of of of other people so well we went to bed on the the night of january 4th before we go on i we will come back to the story and pick up the second phone call but i want to just unpack some things that are going on um inside that moment i mean the first is that you are getting a call from the vice president's personal lawyer um to weigh in on this legal matter i mean you've worked in the office of legal counsel the white house i mean there's there's lawyers there's institutions inside uh the executive branch there's a senate parliamentarian um who you would think would be be activated at this moment what does it mean that you were being that you were being called i i i understood immediately why i was being called because i understood everything about the the process and the individuals involved but at that point none of that was relevant i mean we are at january 5 and i had been following the the lead up to that day intensely for three or four days and as i remember the vice president was going to meet for lunch with the president in the oval office and at that time we now know the vice president was going to tell the president one last time that he was not going to do what the president wanted and that he was going to accept and count the electoral college votes as they had been cast so i i understood from my uh my life in in in all of those offices including the white house and and department of justice and the supreme court i understood uh all too well that there that this was the the final moment and this was a matter solely between the president united states and his vice president when you hear the name john eastman because we've talked about sydney powell about rudy giuliani about the lawyers who are who are public who are the public face of this um when you hear that john eastman is involved um does that does that signal a change in in the danger of the moment i i didn't i didn't perceive it as a change in the danger um but i did know as of that moment which for me remember was the night of january 4th for the first time that that the president was being advised by a constitutional scholar and a constitutional historian of the highest order which is to say that you know john eastman i'm confident at at that moment knew more about uh the constitution the constitutional history that informs the constitutional questions involved and the laws of the united states than probably anyone in the country john's a a brilliant scholar slash academic with a a particular interest in the constitution and constitutional history the reason i make that emphasize that latter point is that for conversational purposes there was little or no law on the several questions that were being uh pursued in those final days and specifically the the the power under the constitution uh that that resides in the presiding officer of the senate on j on january 6. there's there's just really little law in the past 235 years to and to inform us the country on the the role of the of the vice president on that that day i knew that john knew everything that there was to know and had thought through the possible uh authority and power of the vice president uh in in acting as presiding officer of the senate on on january 6. so i it did not increase the danger the danger was upon us and it was imminent and from my standpoint i knew to a certainty that that i had there was nothing i could do about it were you surprised that he was involved were you surprised at the conclusion that he reached somebody who you knew personally well we'll have to unpack those two questions uh uh i suppose i was not surprised that that that he was involved although you know i've been around the white house and the presidency for enough years now to know that that uh you know it's it's a surprise when any person you know has access to the president of the united states at any time let alone in in a a significant moment in in in history uh but that said john uh i knew john had this background i knew that he had uh access to a lot of of high ranking people in in the legal community uh and also in the the public public community so uh i was not surprised except in the one sense i i mentioned which is um i would be surprised at you know any person at all but i would also i'd be especially surprised for any person that i knew personally to to to learn that they were advising the president united states in the oval office at such a moment now your second question before january 6 and not until long after did i have the understanding of exactly what john had been advising at each step along the way and and i i gather now that his his advice you know changed uh you know uh frequently during that short period of time in response to developing circumstances his his his advice did not change you understand what i'm saying it's just that as circumstances changed his specific counsel and advice changed to accommodate the circumstances that the president was was confronting at that moment as opposed to the previous moment but it was not until long after january 6 when his his several of his memos came out in the woodward costa book peril that i could lay eyes on the the specific legal reasoning that that that john was using to advise the the president uh and uh and you know as a lawyer and as a judge you know that's that's the first and only time at which i could comment on on anyone's legal analysis and especially john's what do you think when you read those memos later i read them the first day that that that they were available from the the woodward costa book i read them very very carefully i understood every word and i understood the legal thinking behind every word but i was greatly concerned that john had given the advice that he had given at every er at every turn and at every turn of his analysis as i subsequently uh wrote i subsequently wrote i i diagrammed his uh his his legal analysis from beginning to end and concluded and said that that he was wrong at every uh every turn of his analysis every turn of his thinking i've heard the memos just in the run-up um to this interview and one thing that stood out in in one of them which wasn't a legal argument um it was the phrase we're no longer playing by the queensberry rules tell me what you read when you see him say something like that and what do you make of it yes that that was certainly one of of uh troubling statement that to me was uh a recognition by him to his client the president united states that uh that that they were were not going to um play by the at least by the letter of the law from that point forward that's not to say that what they did from that point forward was not within the law i'm not commenting on that i'm just saying when i read those words they told me as a judge and a lawyer that john and the president or anyone for that matter had decided at that point that they were not going to um play at least by the spirit of the law if not worse those are the uh i of course could be mistaken on this but you know i'm 68 years old i've i've i was a federal judge for 15 years um i've worked at the supreme court for a handful of years um and uh and i've been a quasi-public figure for 40 years now to my knowledge or to my recollection as i sit here today i've not uh uttered a single partisan or political word in public or in in writing and i've pledged to myself that i never would and and again i don't believe i ever have that's not uh to suggest in any way at all that i'm holier than thou that's just to say uh really how i view myself and my the privilege that i've had to work in the places that i've worked and especially as a united states court of appeals judge but every other lawyer you know is is certainly free to make that decision for him herself though i don't believe that any lawyer uh is is permitted to say those kinds of words to a client in writing ever let alone to the president united states of america at that particular moment those were ill-advised words but let's go to the second phone call that you get um the next day from richard cohen so i i i'm i'm still in colorado with my wife uh i get up uh very early in the mornings typically between 4 30 and 4 45 and that that day was no exception uh and we have a guest house in colorado my wife was over in the guest house and and i was up early having breakfast and having my coffee i had had my breakfast and i was having my cup of coffee probably around six i think no later than 6 30 colorado time and richard called he said judge we need to help the vice president and i said okay what what what do we need what does he what does he need uh and and and richard you know this long time friend of mine uh very seriously says well uh he and we don't we don't know um and i said well uh we have to decide then what what this even means what uh you know what what are we dealing with what are we talking about i believe in in that first call richard told me that the the vice president was going to meet with the president uh for lunch that day that that that afternoon of january 5th and my understanding i think then but i know subsequently was that the vice president was going to tell the president one last time that he he was not going to do what the president wanted him to do the next day and and richard said we have to do something very quickly i understood that to mean before the vice president met with the president in the noon noontime hour uh and again it would have been 8 30 8 8 30 uh east coast time and uh i said uh i said well richard i i i understand the the momentous nature of of of the of the moment and the gravity of the of the moment but i i don't have any idea even what you're talking about uh and and richard said well judge i i don't really either and then he said uh somehow we need to get your voice out to the country uh and i said okay on on what uh you know no believing i knew what but i just wanted to hear him say it and he said you know on uh what the vice president must do tomorrow and i said okay uh i'd i'd i literally said richard you know as you know i mean i don't i don't even have a job right now i'm unemployed i'm retired i haven't been in public life for um you know 17 years and i haven't been in political life for 35 years uh i don't have a fax machine uh i i i can't there's nothing there's no possible way uh that that i can you know get my voice out to the country uh and uh and besides uh i said to richard you know look i'm a nobody nobody cares what i think anyway so what what's this all about uh and richard said we need to get your voice out to the country very very quickly uh somehow and i said okay and uh and uh he said i'll call you back in 10 minutes so um you know i continued drinking my coffee and and brainstorming and um and and thinking as seriously as i can think about anything and he calls back in 10 minutes and he says so what what are you what are you going to going to do and i said i i i have no idea richard i haven't had a single thought i said just think yourself about what you're asking me to do get my voice out to the country how is that even possible and you want this done immediately i said richard i i i honestly don't even have a thought as to what to do and he said i'll call you back in five minutes so he calls back in five minutes and and he said uh uh so you thought up any of anything yet and i said uh i said well i i've had one thought i said i just opened a twitter account within the past week or two or three i guess i could tweet something but richard i i don't know how to tweet something and he said this is perfect he says you you have to do this right now and i said richard i don't know how to tweet something and he said you just have to do it he said uh i'll call you right back so um i'm sitting there still in in my uh dining room having my cup of coffee and uh all i had there with me was my iphone so um you know i i typed out uh the words that that that i ended up tweeting and that everyone knows right now and and i typed them out essentially verbatim as i tweeted them and and then i go downstairs to my office to try to figure out how to how to tweet this i had just learned how to tweet a hundred and whatever characters you're you're allowed but no more and i obviously had a lot more to say than 140 characters or however many or uh and so i was panicked you know i was panicked about all of this but specifically about that um you know my wife and kids had always said that there's no way i could be on twitter because i it's not possible for me to to say less than 140 characters you know but there i was on the the morning of january 5th and and i had to do this so uh i did the best i could and and what that meant was uh i copied and pasted from my iphone an email that i sent to myself on the iphone that included the the text of the tweet then i copied and pasted that on my laptop into a word document because a word document was the only thing i knew how to do so then i'm sitting there you know and you know i'm i'm nervous right and and uh uh i don't get stressed but that's the word that would communicate you know to to others i you know i i was i was stressed out not just because of the moment but because i didn't know how to do this and uh so i just thought okay the first thing i got to do is divide this long word document into 140 or 180 character individual tweets uh and so you know i won't digress to explain how one does that but everybody knows how but it's it's a herculean task because you know you don't want to break up the individual tweet uh you know except at the right point but that's invariably more than 180 characters or that you have so i go through all that that uh rigmarole and and i have now what i think are 180 or 140 characters fewer than than for each individual tweet in the thread and so now now i'm stuck and and so uh my son sends me my son's in the tech world and knows all things tech and uh and especially you know computer tech and all so he sends me the instructions uh the official instructions from twitter on how to tweet a thread which you know to a normal person or the instructions are very simple but to me they were not but in any event uh i followed those instructions over the next 30 minutes or 45 minutes and uh and finally came up with the the tweet thread uh and i i proof read it like i've never proved read anything in my life which is not to say that there are not typos in it as i tweeted them it's just that i i gave it all i had and uh and then uh i took a deep breath and uh and i and i tweeted it um at that moment i had uh not a single thought in the world that anyone uh would ever even see the tweet that's how little i knew about what was afoot in washington dc and uh i went about my business uh uh that that whole day uh until about noon eastern time january 6. not knowing anything about what the vice president intended to do until then but before i get to that i i will say that shortly after the tweet i tweeted richard called me actually i should have included this part of the story when i finally told richard that i could tweet something i said to richard i said richard i will never speak a single word on this subject unless every single word is personally approved by by vice president pence and i said richard i swear to you i mean this i will never say a single word unless he has personally approved it uh and uh richard said uh uh well he doesn't he he he he doesn't need to approve it and i said richard i don't really care what he thinks i will not do it unless he approves it and richard said uh oh okay judge i'll i'll call you right back and he calls right back and in in fight within five minutes and he says the vice president will will uh will be comfortable and and uh and pleased with anything at all that you say and i said richard i'm not doing it and he said uh you really have to at this at this at this point judge i've told you the vice president will be fine with anything you tweet and that's the case and we need to get this done now and i said richard uh i don't like this one bit uh but i'm going to do it so so that again that exchange between richard cullen and myself occurred on the morning of january five that would be probably have occurred around maybe as late as nine o'clock eastern time i mean it's an amazing so i'm i'm sorry so let me pick up now where i had left off previously um so within a few minutes maybe 10 uh richard i've now i've now tweeted uh and you know i'm done uh and richard calls me back and says uh um the new york times has your tweet uh and and they're going to be running it on the front page uh momentarily and i said uh i said good grief richard what on earth and he just said i just wanted to give you a heads up uh and i said you know thanks a lot you know and uh um i now know what i didn't know then which is um the vice president's team all inclusive because i don't know who in particular had the new york times holding for for my for my for what was turned out to be my tweet and for what purpose you know the the vice president or his team would have to explain that to you i mean it's an amazing moment and you're trying to figure out how to tweet i saw um in one detail of the story uh that you sort of had to convince your son to help you that he was he was reluctant well well yeah i mean as all millennials are toward their parents you know on all things tech uh you know both of my kids for years and and and and uh have always you know you you know parents call their kids and go you know can you help me do this on the computer and the kids say you know i don't have time for this you know you know you're uh um you know you're prehistoric you're a dinosaur and i'm i'm busy you know and so uh for my son at that moment you know i i said uh i said look john um this is serious business i don't have time to play around you either you know you either tell me how to do this right now or or i'll cut you out of the will and uh and you know that drew the the typical millennial response you can you can be sure but we got the job done what what was at risk in the vice president's decision i mean he's getting competing legal advice from john eastman from you and whether they could have successfully you know overturned the election or not but what what was at risk if the vice president did decide that he had that legal authority to reject certain votes to follow one of the plans um that's outlined in the eastman memo you could not overstate what was at risk and i'm not even sure that i can conjure up the words to describe what was at risk and what would have happened had the vice president gone along with the plan if you will and rejected the swing state electoral slates and god forbid awarded the presidency to to donald trump over joe biden who had won the popular vote um and i'm careful about stating that while i think about the answer to your question uh the the first first words are it would have thrown the country into a uh a constitutional crisis uh of a kind that the constitution uh doesn't com contemplate and therefore provide for um and uh and then if you want to to begin to explain the what would have happened uh you know i would say the first thing is no one in the world knows what would have happened next no one in the world knows what should have happened next and therefore no one in the world knows what could have happened next uh the the the short immediate answer is that all of all of this would be put before the supreme court of the united states for a final decision that's under my view of the supreme court and the justiciability of of of a claim like this prior to to january 6 i believe many if not most scholars and knowledgeable people uh would suggest that perhaps the supreme court would not take that case for technical reasons they would argue that that it's non-just non-justiciable either it's a political question or or the answers are committed to a different branch of the government in this case those uh those uh scholars would say the legislatures in the states or congress have the final authority not the courts again i disagree with that and the advice that i gave was was premised on that understanding of mine that the supreme court would decide the several questions that would get the country out of the constitutional crisis that it would then have been in i'm just making the point that i i i don't have any corner on the market uh as to that jurisprudential understanding of of of the constitution okay and many many people including uh john eastman and the and the other scholars who who assisted him they for instance did believe that the supreme court would not decide the cases because that the court would conclude that that it the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the cases and and their plan was grounded ultimately in that belief as to the jurisdiction of the supreme court but uh i i digress too much but but that's to say that in the end i believe the supreme court would intervene but it's possible that i hold a minority view on that i i don't know if the court had not intervened and that's really goes to your question um first it would have meant that that we would not have had a president uh on inauguration day and likely for considerable time thereafter while the political process uh figured out the answer to it um that political process would have necessity been one of of utter chaos utter chaos uh in america and and consequently in the world i mean america cannot be without the its leader of the free world for even a single moment and that is contemplated in the constitution itself i mean you know the constitution provides for the the next a president to assume office at a a date in time certain and the the then incumbent president to leave office at that same date and time in order that there not be a single moment when there is not a president of the united states of america had the vice president not done what he did it's there is no way that we would have had a president uh on inauguration day and and i don't believe we would have had a president on inauguration day even if the supreme court had to decide these issues because these are enormously consequential constitutional questions that of necessity require some amount of briefing and deliberation by the supreme court and and at that moment we would have been just weeks away from the inauguration i don't think the supreme court could have decided it but the ultimate point is is that you know at any moment where the the the united states does not have a president of the united st in danger and at risk and needless to say the the united states is in danger and at risk literally including from a national security standpoint uh so that's the the short answer of the much much longer exceedingly complicated constitutional and legal uh answer to to the question of what would we have been confronted with had the vice president not done what what he did thank you i mean i think that really sets the stakes the stakes well and uh it's it's hard to imagine the um level of chaos not just legal chaos but political and uh you know america's place in the world that would have would have ensued let me ask you about that one i would i would just say to you know the the stakes could not would could not have been any higher under our form form of republican democracy than they would have been had vice president pence not done what he did it's not possible for the stakes to be any higher under our form of government i mean it's amazing and it's amazing as we've made this film to realize you have a constitution you have institutions you have courts and yet decisions made by one person by multiple people throughout throughout this story have real real consequences that the the system depends on a level of good will or norms yes i i i would put it this way uh the um the the the institutions and in instruments and instrumentalities of of our democracy uh it is necessary that we have them but it's not sufficient without leaders acting in good faith in the interest of the country as opposed to their partisan political interests this the country could not long exist it's it's literally that significant and what we what we saw play out on january 6 was uh the the the assault or attack from within uh on on our institutions of democracy and the political in the in the american political process and the american political experiment uh the attack and assault from within by our public officials who were acting themselves not in the interest of the country but out of their own personal political interests uh that is something that that's that's the war that the one war that america can never win let me ask you about one other moment before we get to january 6 which maybe not didn't represent an existential threat in the way the vice president's decision did um but was the decision um of ted cruz who had clerked for you and a number of other senators that they were going to try to the 11 senators that they were going to try to somehow delay the voting of the electoral college to send things back to the state and it's not entirely clear to me what the goal what they how they saw it playing out but how did you evaluate um his role um the efforts that they were making the the role played by any senator or congressman in my view unfortunately is authorized by the electoral count act of 1887. that that's the act that that explicitly gives congress the authority to overturn a presidential election in a host of different circumstances those circumstances are are circumscribed by design but in actual effect are little circumscribed because of the ambiguity in the terms that permit congress to overturn an election nonetheless the law permits objections to electoral states in in the technical legal sense that's that's what uh senator cruz and and other senators and other congressmen did uh that's a frightening thought to me to me but before january 6th i suspect it was not a frightening thought to many people at all my hope is that that today it's a it's a frightening thought to everyone but regrettably i i i know it's not an especially frightening thought to anyone on capitol hill because at this point i don't believe that congress will amend the electoral count act uh in order to minimize to the greatest extent possible a repeat of january 6 2020 and even if it was legal what what responsibility or or how do you evaluate those those efforts well that as i've said you the the institutions of our democracy and the instruments of of our democracy are unnecessary but insufficient uh for the america to function in some ways the the most important of those two ingredients of the process are the people the individuals the leaders of of our country that's where we as the people who who are represented we the people who have given the power to our elected representatives are entitled uh to insist upon good faith and good judgment in my own personal view that expectation you know uh is ill-founded and ill-conceived at this point in our uh in our political world the um another way that i i have i have put it is that our our political our political leaders face choices every day between uh country and and and politics personal and partisan politics every day they are faced with a choice between those two but they rarely believe that they're faced with that choice on anything and in my personal view admittedly a cynical political view they never act as if they believed that their choice was between country and politics and that's a failure of the of the political uh process in america political with a capital p process that's the failed leadership that i've referred to uh repeatedly over the past six months is it disappointing personally i mean ted cruz said you were like a father figure well i i'm i'm not going to speak to you know my my my view of of what ted did um because that's neither here nor there he he's an elected senator of the united states um he has to uh live with the consequences of his decisions just like every other elected official did but uh but am i disappointed uh with the entire political process and then specifically the our our elected representatives yes i'm i'm beyond disappointed as i believe all americans should be i don't want to believe that there's a single citizen in the united states who can look at what's going on in in in in politics today and in washington dc believe for one moment that this is even acceptable let alone that this is what it ought to be again we're we're at war with each other and i don't see today uh any any catalyst any intervention any off-ramp uh to this war um on the on the horizon uh we to begin to to walk ourselves off the ledge even to begin you have to have conversation with and among each other today there's no such thing as conversation conversation we don't talk to each other we don't talk to each other we scream at each other you know we cast aspersions we criticize you know with uh with one liners and sound bites and refuse to discuss any issue at all as long as that's the case the the the country's in a a a a spiral spiraling decline from which it can never recover and and this is just common sense um rhetorically i would just ask you know how how can any person at all disagree with what i just said all i said was look look at where we are this is not where we want to be this is not what america is this is not where we want to go let's stop just stop right now let's stop and begin talking to each other about how we go forward from here and eventually how we solve the problems that that beset the the country now the reason why at this moment i don't believe that anyone anyone even wants that conversation uh is because we're we're locked in this vicious political war and uh and there's no agreement uh among us uh on the even the fundamental values and principles on which america was founded and has become the greatest nation uh in the world and uh on the the basis of which our uh not just our freedom but our our hopes and dreams for for america are entirely dependent not only is there do we not have agreement on even those most basic principles and values we have fundamental disagreement as to to those values and principles uh it is almost like we are we find ourselves uh back at the the founding of the republic the the creation of this of this great nation but uh with vastly different antagonistic views of how to recreate the nation that we all created 235 years ago when we get to january 6 the president and his lawyers and advocates they've tried to overturn the election in the courts they've tried state legislatures they've put pressure on mike pence he issues the statement um that you mentioned i'm quoting you and by that point you know that john eastman must know have you read his memos without pence on board that there's not a legal route or a plausibly legal route to change the outcome of the election and they have this rally and the president goes out and speaks and he mentions pence and he singles them out and others at the rally are talking about fighting what do you what do you think when you look at that moment um what are you thinking as you watch it what does it say about our this story of american democracy so on on january 6 i was working in in my office in colorado uh up until around the the noon time eastern time uh at that point i went over to have lunch with my wife uh not knowing anything about what was happening in real time at that moment in washington dc when i walked in the door my my wife was um just fear and and and and terror in her eyes and she said uh have you been watching and i said no watching what and she said uh whatever word she used i don't remember but you know uh the the the us capital is under attack and and you know you know just tingling you know went down my spine just like everyone else um and i said i said oh my god no i i what's going on and she said uh uh well look you just you have to see it she said but but first i gotta tell you that um they there are they've erected gallows on the grounds of the capitol and they're they're chanting to hang mike pence and across the bottom of some screens uh is uh is running that that you advise the the vice president uh that he should uh to do what he what he is now told the the the world that he is going to do um at the capitol and uh uh and my wife said um said uh uh look mike i'm uh i'm scared uh for uh us and and for for our safety and uh i said uh okay i i i understand i haven't seen any of this uh i said let's let's talk about this this is serious and i said uh look you know no one knows where where we are no one knows we're in colorado um you know no one really knows where we are at all but if they if they if they wanted to do something to us they would would go to our home in chicago so uh if you want we'll we'll i'll get some some kind of security at our home in chicago uh and that's what we did um so then um you know we we don't even know how to turn the television on and so but we tried to turn the television on to watch it and couldn't um and then i said well can you pull it up on the computer laptop and she said maybe so she she pulls it up on a computer laptop we set it on the mantel next to the the dining room table and and we're watching uh the the events at the capitol um and uh my wife my wife was in tears and uh um in a short very short time i told her that uh i i couldn't watch it and i was gonna go back to to work and and i left so i mean i it would take me uh hours to to explain everything that was going on in my mind but it was everything going on in my mind was what was going on in everyone else's minds the you know in the in the moment the the mental process is uh is uh receiving so many you know inputs that that it's that the only output is just incomprehensibility of this and the bewilderment as to what's going on and finally if at all what on earth does this mean for the united states of america you get a call from the vice president the next day i got a call from the vice president i believe the morning of january 7th my wife and i had gone down to the ups store there in colorado because she had to mail something i was standing inside because it was cold um and i got a call uh that registered as spam s-p-a-m and uh um just like everyone else i i never answer a call from spam i don't even answer calls that i don't recognize let alone spam calls um but i was just standing there doing nothing and you know um i don't even know why i answer the call whenever i answer a call like that i i say nothing at all usually for the duration of the call because most typically uh it's a recording that cuts off you know unless or until you say something so i say nothing so i i i said nothing for what seemed to me to be you know longer than i usually say nothing and then a a voice came on it said is this judge ludig and i said you know guardedly yes it is and the voice said please hold for the vice president of the united states and um so i uh scurried outside to you know to get into our car so i'd have some privacy uh and as i was getting into the car the vice president came on the phone and you know and said judge mike pence and that's how the conversation began um the vice president was uh as as gracious and kind uh as any person could ever be under any circumstance at all let alone the circumstance under which he was calling me i couldn't even i could i couldn't and i could never have imagined that the vice president would have called me ever but he did i just think i forgot to ask you um when you find out you're quoted in the statement um was that how surprised were you that that was and i mean that would that was a very important statement when he issued it i mean was it a relief to you to know that he was now on the record about what he was going to do how did you react no no no that that was not my i was not relieved that to know that that's what the vice president was going to do at all and and i never even had that thought um you must remember that i i had no idea even that anyone would see the tweet the day before i had zero thought that the vice president would use it even if he saw it which is to say i didn't really know think or believe that the vice president would ever see the tweet i know you you know people could say well that's kind of naive in light of what actually happened but the way i would in my defense explain it is that uh no one knew that the vice president was going to issue that letter to the congress and to the nation nobody and to the extent i even thought about it i just assumed and i think to 100 certainty that that the vice president would never mention anybody or anything uh from the podium uh in the chamber you know at at noon on january 6 2020. so i wasn't expecting anything at all and then on the afternoon of the fifth writer i believe now as the vice president was on his way to the capitol uh he he he released the let letter and uh a couple of my clerks uh from years ago saw it for some reason i now know it's because it was carried you know in the news and they emailed to me and and uh you know characteristically for clerks and children you know you know there was something uh each of them separately said something like judge what on earth are you doing and so i just responded you know and said uh what do you mean elizabeth and i are just out here in colorado and uh and we're about to have lunch and they both wrote back immediately and said you know don't be coy with us you know and i said guys i'm not being coy i don't even know what you're talking about and uh and then they wrote back immediately and said the vice president united states has just you know released his letter to the to the nation and and he cites you and and and some statement that you you gave uh and and i i wrote back to them and and literally said guys i i still don't even know what you're talking about you know if the vice president issued some letter that refers to a statement by me do you have it and if you do send it to me and they both sent it and that was the first that i knew or ever expected or even imagined that the the tweet would find its way into the public domain after january 6 there's a there's a lot of criticism of the president's conduct of what went on before it feels like maybe there's going to be a turning point especially inside the republican party but the farther that it it moves beyond january 6 um the less that the condemnation of january 6 of what happened after 2020 um the quieter the voices are um and you described the republican party as has fallen through a rabbit's hole in alice in wonderland what do you mean by that what happens after january 6 as you're watching uh the party well the allusion to alice in wonderland i think people generally understand but the the the short explanation is that you know uh alice finds herself in a subterranean world where nothing makes sense and everything is upside down uh and there is therefore intellectual and rational chaos that's what i meant to convey because that's where i believe the republican party to the person was at that time and is essentially today a year and a half later you know we've we've begun to see some uh cracks uh in the in the republican party recently but only begun and only recently and i believe that even those cracks are only due to the opportunity that's been presented the convenience opportunity that's been presented to our our republican leaders to consider distancing themselves from the former president uh the opportunity being the the the the recent primaries but as i would have expected of of of all politicians and including the republicans um you know at best they're waiting for an opportunity that they can avail themselves of they're not about to seize the opportunity and make it themselves by speaking out i mean when they make an active decision say to uh take liz cheney out of the leadership for example how important are those decisions that they're making on the way in the in the wake of january 6. i i don't do politics and i never have um and i don't want to ever do politics or even for that matter speak a word about politics but the day that i uh read with the rest of the the country that the republican party had censored liz chaney uh was the the final straw for me to the extent that i had a straw in the wind for republican politics why because uh i don't believe that you have a political party at all uh if the the the putative members of that party would censor liz cheney simply and merely for wanting to investigate as a member of congress the events of january 6th it's unimaginable to me in in my worldview of politics that any person in america would not favor an investigation of of january 6. i i'm not naive i understand the politics involved just in that investigation in my view notwithstanding the politics every single american citizen and every single member of congress should have urged an investigation of the events of january 6 which which leads me to you know my um pessimism at the moment if if the country's reaction to january 6 had been what it ought to have been uh i would not have especially any concerns today uh for the country and for for for our democracy uh on the the one year uh anniversary of january 6 2020 uh the new york times asked me to uh to comment on where i thought the country was a year later uh and i did and and uh i think i said something like on january 6 2020 i was gravely concerned for america and for our democracy i said a year later for the new york times that uh i was more concerned then than i was january 6 2020 that's all i said what the the reason i said that was that the reaction to january 6 2020 was the polar opposite of what it should have been what it ought to have been uh by the country uh and uh and if we can't agree that what occurred on january 6 was wrong and to digress in the view of the republican party was quote legitimate political discourse if we can't agree as an as a nation as to the wrongness of the event and that statement by the republican party we'll never agree on anything you know that um judge carter's written about um and i think in the eastern lawsuit possible theories of criminal liability do you think there's a role for a criminal investigation um or potential crimes in the run-up to january 6. i i have studiously and scrupulously avoided comment on that uh and and many many have asked me that uh and and uh and i i wouldn't comment on that today what what what uh what i'll say uh as to the former president and to john eastman is this um it's exceedingly difficult to bring criminal charges against a lawyer for his or her advice to a client uh that's not to say that that it's it's not uh that it's impossible or that it's not at times appropriate but it's uh exceedingly difficult and it's rare the only way that that could ever happen is if the the lawyer was advising his or her client as to the law in bad faith purposely advising the client as to the law when the lawyer did not believe that that was the law from that you can understand it's it's it's rare and it should be rare though it's not impossible as to the president uh because he's not exercising a professional service in the way that a lawyer does and it's a political uh service to the to the nation uh different rules apply to him uh criminal rules and those rules cut in in both directions at the same time uh?

no one believes that that that a president of the united states should be criminally prosecuted except in the most extraordinary circumstances possible under under our system of government by the same token most people would agree that even a president could and should be prosecuted for the most egregious criminal acts that that a president might commit?

so the question for the country and and and most immediately for the department of justice as to the former president is is the latter namely you know does the president's behavior and conduct first constitute a criminal offense under the united states code that's a that's a an awesome decision to have to make a decision that only the attorney general of the united states can make merrick garland if he makes that decision he must then decide the eve the even more awesome decision of whether the united states should prosecute the former president even assuming he had he had committed a criminal offense so those two layers of decision for as to the decision whether to prosecute former president trump uh is to tell tell you uh how exceedingly difficult that decision is how rare it it will always be and how rare it ought always be you write that in your new york times editorial that there's a clear and present danger to our democracy now which is which is very strong language language you didn't didn't uh you're borrowing that language what what did you mean to convey when you said that and why were you issuing such a strong warning yes i uh of course borrowed that phrase uh it's one of the most famous phrases in the law um and uh i in in in the context the the question was does free speech present you know a clear and present danger to to our society uh yes i i i borrowed that phrase uh what i meant by it was um exactly what the phrase intended to impart originally and is meant to impart today it's clear that's a that's a legal term it's clear that this everyone understands it everyone sees it there's no issue it's it's not ambiguous it's clear second it is a present danger it is a danger right now that's occurring in front of our eyes a clear danger that's occurring in front of our eyes in plain view to all so that's you know that's why i introduced that piece in the new york times with with that statement so what was the clear and present danger that i was talking about um there i was talking about uh the well i was talking about even there in that piece the danger that uh president trump and his allies in in congress and in the states uh were preparing to to exploit the the uh electoral count act of 1887 in 2024 in the same way that they had exploited it in in 2020 but but i was also saying in in in that new york times piece a couple of months before the cnn piece that i wrote that this is the blueprint for republicans uh in 2024 the blueprint to do exactly in 2024 what they attempted but did not succeed in doing in 2020. now in my own thinking why was that a clear and present danger it was easy for me to me as i said in the new york times piece they are not only doing it in plain view they're boasting that that's what they're doing and they're telling us in in complete transparency that that's what they are going to do because you've written a lot about ways to change the electoral account at ways to change the law where we where you could potentially present prevent these abuses and as you've said they've run into to a roadblock which leaves us with the as as we've just been talking about it the good will the norms the commitment you know not to the letter of the law but to democracy as a value um how important now are is that how much danger is there on that front on the goodwill front on the commitment to democracy that is the the danger and that is the threat and that is the only danger and threat it is the people it is our elected representatives of we the people if they are not willing to do their job then democracy can't be saved but neither can america it's that simple you could have a you could have america an american democracy without any rules at all if you could rely upon the good faith of the of our elected representatives but but our founders understood the folly in that and that's why they created the constitutional system of governance that that we have today in in in the constitution but they were uh in fact i just recently was reading and and and having this thought the the founders are political figures themselves but what i was reading recently convinced me where i had not been convinced before that they totally understood that a nation cannot be entrusted with its public officials and public representatives and it's for that reason that the framers built and created the the constitutional structure for our governance which they believed rightly would protect america even from its public politicians that's why today i believe that america and for sure american democracy is at risk because those representatives whom the founders completely understood would tend to act in their own self-political interest rather than the interest of the country the founders believed that the system would constrain them today proves that the founders as wise as they were as to that were mistaken thank you let me be first if michael has the follow-up or anything that we missed did vanessa have anything um no i mean you mentioned the tweet uh the twitter thread that you would on january that i was wondering would you be willing to read some of it i have it right here if you don't mind um the uh you know what i'd say is background for for all of you is that um words are the most important thing in my life um every every single word that i've ever spoken or written i've measured and calculated for at least minutes every single word i look up every word even though i know that the definition perfectly well and could recite it i look up every important word and then i look up the synonyms and the definitions of the synonyms before i choose the word that i use and that's my whole life and so just imagine january 5th and i'm told to write something for the country on the biggest constitutional issue of our times and to do it immediately and what i'm going to read you is is what what came out and i'll tell you that my whole life um at many moments like that um you know i've literally prayed for the words to come and um not one single time in my life have the words not come when i needed them uh that's where my mind was while i was preparing that to eat um i was more than conscious even though i had no idea that i was writing for history and and i did the very best i could to choose the words that i wanted to be remembered in history so that's a complete digression and a personal one very personal one but since she wants me to read it i just want you all to to have that back story as you call it the most important words to me by the way were the the loyalty words because those were the words in which i understood that i was speaking to the personal relationship between the two men as tortured as it was at that moment i wanted to speak to that um so relatively speaking the first words were not as much as important to me as the latter and of course i don't think i've ever even seen the latter words quoted anywhere right but but just in terms of your personal interest those were the words that i summoned and and and asked for um you know the only responsibility and power of the vice president under the constitution is to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast the constitution does not empower the vice president to alter in any way the votes that have been cast either by rejecting certain of them or otherwise how the vice president discharges this constitutional obligation is not a question of his loyalty to the president any more than it would be a test of a president's loyalty to his vice president whether the president assented to the impeachment and prosecution of his vice president for the commission of high crimes while in office no president and no vice president would or should consider either event as a test of political loyalty of one to the other and if either did he would have to accept that political loyalty must yield to constitutional obligation neither the president nor the vice president has any higher loyalty than to the constitution of the united states thank you so much for for doing this i mean one thing that comes that comes through from your story is how you guarded your credibility throughout your career every word that you issue not you know weighing in on every moment of of things not getting involved in politics and then this monumentous moment happens where the vice president's personal lawyer is calling you in a moment of constitutional crisis and that reputation that uh carefulness that you've built up before was was part of the reason you were well probably was the reason you were in that position um at that crucial moment in history yeah that's that's the whole story and and that's the whole story for me personally you know too uh i've never said a word about the rather lengthy conversation the vice president i had on january 7th um and uh and of course he's not said anything about it publicly as to the pressure he was under and why he came to me um you know i'll have to take that to my grave but um it's uh it was probably the most uh meaningful moment in my life you know um because it brought my whole my life full circle you know from from where i began and uh you know to that historic moment that was like about as serendipitous as as as could ever be you know i mean you're just like i'm just sitting there going oh my god uh you know i look i you know i personally believe that uh that was divinely inspired and it wouldn't surprise me if the vice president thought the same but whatever it was for me it was um it was it was a big deal?