And the way to think about January 6 is not what it meant for then but about the lessons it teaches for election subversion next time, as i lay out in this @harvlrev Forum forthcoming article:
@HarvLRev Josh, you should spend time as I have talking to people like @LarryDiamond Steve Levitsky, Gretchen Helmke, who study how democracies become authoritarian countries. The danger signs are all here.
You can watch the discussion on the third panel of the conference we ran a few months ago on the risks of Election Subversion at the @UCILaw Fair Elections and Free Speech Center. Video:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wrote five opeds and commentaries in 2021 about the risk of election subversion and what we need to do to help preserve American democracy from the risk of a stolen presidential election in 2024. It started with this pre-Jan 6 @theatlantic piece: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
And Eastman's whole point is preposterous: he put "crazy" wrong theories in a legal memo from him to be distributed to others, without even noting that the arguments are weak or don't represent his own views? No respectable lawyer does that in giving legal advice.
And even now Eastman hedges, saying the issue of the VP's authority to unilaterally reject electoral votes is not "resolved." Absurd and dangerous.
The risk of election subversion and a stolen election in 2024 became a national story last week, even though the issue isn't new (I wrote about the danger in @nytimes back in April).nytimes.com/2021/04/23/opi…
Here's why I think it's starting to resonate and where we go from here. /1
First, we had the release of the @costareports@realBobWoodward book peril, with revelations about the Eastman memo that literally directed VP Pence how he could simply steal the election for Trump. /2
This was followed by @CNN obtaining first a two page draft of the Eastman memo, and then Eastman himself (!) giving CNN a six page version that made him look even worse. /3
I wrote @slate about how @Fedsoc is trying to play it both ways here. They won't confirm or deny if Eastman remains head of one of their practice groups, even as they continue to list him as a contributor. It's despicable. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Here's the relevant bit on @Fedsoc's relationship with John Eastman.
I've spoken at many @FedSoc events, and I'm listed as a "contributor" on their page. fedsoc.org/contributors/r…. They often bring a liberal onto their panels for a better discussion.But I won't ever speak at another FedSoc event again while Eastman remains a member in good standing.
Here's a lie from John Eastman in the longer memo, when he urges VP pence to just declare the winner based on a false claim of dual electors:
And here's Eastman admitting in his memo that the Supreme Court was never going to intervene to help Trump in the case---despite demanding that at Jan. 6 rally before the insurrection that injured over 100 law enforcement officers
I have written a new draft paper, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…, "Identifying and Minimizing the Risk of Election Subversion and Stolen Elections in the Contemporary United States," in connection with @UCILaw's Sept. 24 conference on Election Subversion. calendar.law.uci.edu/event/fefs_ele… /1
Abstract: The US faces a serious risk that the 2024 presidential election, and other future U.S. elections, will not be conducted fairly, and that the candidates taking office will not reflect the free choices made by eligible voters under previously announced election rules. /2
The potential mechanisms by which election losers may be declared election winners are: /3