The January 5th West Wing meeting took place between attorney John Eastman, Vice President Mike Pence’s legal counsel Greg Jacob, and Vice President Pence’s Chief of Staff Marc Short. [1] The purpose of the meeting was to continue the legal discussion from the day prior and to press Pence’s advisors on the theory that the Vice President could alter or delay the certification of the 2020 election results that Eastman had outlined in his memos.
At this meeting, Eastman took the more aggressive of the two takes he outlined in his memos, that being that Vice President Pence reject electoral votes from contested states outright, Greg Jacob recalled that Eastman "came in and said that the request that he was there to make of us is that we reject the electors." [2] [3]
Jacob forcefully pushed back, asserting that the Vice President had no constitutional authority to unilaterally decide the outcome of a presidential election. [4] After some back and forth with Jacob, Eastman acknowledged that his theory had no precedent and that the Supreme Court would likely rule against it unanimously. [5] Nonetheless, Eastman continued to argue that the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional and that the Twelfth Amendment could be interpreted to give the Vice President discretion in how to count votes. [6]
Additionally, Jacob challenged Eastman on the precedent, first asking whether he was suggesting that Al Gore could have declared himself the winner of the 2000 election., Eastman eventually conceded that "no, there wasn't enough evidence for that". [7] By the end of Jacob's hypotheticals, Eastman conceded that "no reasonable person would actually want that clause read that way" acknowledging it would effectively allow one party to win perpetually. [10]
As the conversation drew to a close, Jacob asked, "Can’t we just acknowledge that this is a really bad idea?" Eastman did not fully agree, but replied, "I get everything you’re saying". [8] He concluded by stating, "They’re going to be really disappointed", and then left. [9]
1: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 105, line 19
2: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 105, lines 20-23
3: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 106, lines 7-8
4: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 109, lines 6-8
5: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 110, lines 22-25
6: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 109, lines 6-8
7: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 109, lines 24-25, and page 110 line 1
8: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 111, lines 1-3
9: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 111, lines 3
10: Deposition of: Greg Jacob Page 110, lines 5-9