Trump's Lawyer Crushes Liberal Fantasies, Reveals What Pence Testimony Would Actually Do for 45
Former Vice President Mike Pence will be one of the best witnesses at the trial of former President Donald Trump, according to Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro.
Lauro made the claim on the Sunday news shows despite statements by Pence that Trump called on the vice president to violate the Constitution and overturn the 2020 election results as they were being certified by Congress.
The issue is part of last week’s four-count indictment charging the former president and leading 2024 GOP candidate with election interference and other crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion.
Lauro told Major Garrett of the CBS program “Face the Nation” that Pence got Trump’s request wrong,
“What is it that you believe happened between the president and the vice president and do you have any fear of the vice president being called as a witness in the case?” Garrett said.
“No,” Lauro replied. “No. In fact, the vice president will be our best witness.”
“What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in,” he continued. “That was my statement, and what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying.”
Lauro said Pence would be a good defense witness for three reasons.
First, he said, because the former vice president agreed that John Eastman, the former Trump attorney who provided the former president with legal advice, was a solid legal scholar.
Second, Pence “agrees there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level,” Lauro said.
“All of that will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump,” he said.
“And finally,” Lauro continued, “what Vice President Pence believes — and believed — is that these issues needed to be debated on Jan. 6. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in the Jan. 6 proceeding.
“President Trump, on the other hand, believed — following the advice of John Eastman, who’s a legal scholar — that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level.
“Now, of course,” he said, “there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump, but the bottom line is never — never — in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally.
“It’s unheard of.”
For his part, Pence last week said: “The president specifically asked me — and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers — asked me to literally reject votes, which would have resulted in the issue being turned over to the House of Representatives and literally chaos would have ensued.”
“I want the American people to know that I had no right to overturn the election,” he added. “And that on that day, President Trump asked me to put him over the Constitution. But I chose the Constitution. And I always will.”
Tellingly, 147 members of Congress apparently had some agreement with Trump – most of them voted on Jan. 6 not to certify the election results of two states, and a pair of the lawmakers rejected results from one state.
In the life of the nation, there have been disagreements over all kinds of things, including elections. Recall the long ordeal of determining who had won in 2000: George W. Bush ultimately defeated Al Gore following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in his favor.
It’s been said the 2000 conflict should have been more correctly resolved in the House of Representatives. Contrary to Pence’s claim, the Founders offered that as a solution for disputed elections, hardly a call for chaos.
The pair of impeachments of Trump (including one when he was out of office) and his three (so far) indictments on dozens of criminal charges indicate these battles are not about questioned processes in the republic.
These are efforts to keep the former president from regaining office, no matter what the voters or the Constitution might say.
Is it any wonder Trump continues to dominate in GOP primary polling?
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
