My statement on Bannon on January 2 acknowledges that that was one of the scenarios that was being discussed. But the issue that I presented to the vice president, when he asked me point blank, I told him, I said,' It's an open question,' which is true. And I said,' I happen to think it's the weaker argument,' which is true. And that's why I recommended that he delay rather than taking that step.

John Eastman

My legal team put together a letter responding to the subpoena request, explaining all the reasons why I was going to assert my privileges under the Fifth Amendment, not to come testify and not to produce all these documents.

I mean, this is the most far-reaching intrusion on First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights I've ever seen.

So if somebody were just to say, I don't like the results, even though they were properly conducted and there's no evidence of fraud, I don't like the results as I'm going to certify my favorite slate of electors. The political reaction to that would be so severe and so swift, and nobody would do that. And nobody has done it in 150 years. But what we have here is a systematic violation of state laws by election officials, t his level of corruption just can't be allowed to stand. And I think that makes, I think that makes the exercise of the vice president's power here very compelling.

I think if the vice president, as presiding over the joint session, would at least agree that because those ongoing contests have not been resolved, we can't count those electors. That, that, that means that nobody has a majority of the electors, and either they delay things -- so those constitutional challenges are resolved -- or they say,' OK, well, we don't have electors from those states, that nobody has a majority. This is going to Trump White House.'.