Pence Saved Republic

To The Editor:

With the Jan. 6 committee about half-way finished telling their findings, the picture couldn’t be more vivid or clear. As much as it pains me to say, Mike Pence saved our republic. While I disagree with him on just about every facet of politics, when the situation demanded he stood up and saved our country. On Sept. 18, 1987, James McHenry (a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Maryland) wrote in this diary: “A lady asked Dr. [Ben] Franklin, ‘Well doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?’ – ‘A republic,’ replied the doctor, ‘if you can keep it.’” It is not hyperbole to say that we almost lost it on Jan. 2, 2021.

While the right-wing bubble wants to paint this as a partisan committee hell-bent on partisan activities, the fact that you have a tried and true conservative (Liz Cheney) presenting the facts, Bill Barr submitting sworn testimony, Ivanka Trump submitting sworn testimony, J. Michael Luttig speaking under oath, and many other hard-core conservative testifying illustrate this is anything but partisan. To call any one of those people RINOs is disingenuous at best and out of touch with reality at worst. These specific individuals are at the heart of American conservatism with every single one of them having hard, verifiable, conservative bonafides.

The facts being presented by this committee are irrefutable and damning. John Eastman, a conservative lawyer advising Trump on the 2020 election, pleaded the Fifth 146 times during his deposition. In a campaign rally in Iowa in September 2016, Trump stated, “The mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” The testimony illustrates that Mr. Eastman knew and even acknowledged to Greg Jacob (attorney representing Pence) that the plan was illegal and would lose in SCOTUS nine-to-nothing. Trump was explicitly aware this was illegal. As it became apparent that the plan had failed, Eastman asked for a pardon. While a pardon was neither offered nor accepted, the SCOTUS held in 1915 (Burdick v US) that acceptance of a pardon carries a confession of guilt. Thus you must surmise from Mr. Eastman’s mere request of a pardon, he was well aware of his guilt in this attempted overthrow of the American government and was trying to cover his rear as it all fell apart. These actions represent the quintessential definition of sedition. And, make no mistake that Trump was 100% involved as already illustrated by the committee.

And to think, this is just what the committee has shared to this point... and we are just half-way through their public hearings with undoubtedly much more to come.

Eric Green La Grange