The way I see it, there are three possibilities:
Of course these are not mutually exclusive, at least as far as logic goes. But for the sake of argument, assume there was a prime mover in Pence for that decision. What do you think it was?
For my money, it’s 3, with little hesitation. Pence never opposed Trump, and still hasn’t, for reasons related to 1 or 2, despite having many ample and blatant opportunities.
I see it as 2. Pence ultimately was law-abiding enough to follow the rules.
I think he said all along that VPs don’t have the power to do what Trump wanted. So, I think he thought it wouldn’t work and it was illegal. It was just a subset of Republicans that wanted to overthrow our democracy (and a larger subset that wanted to cover up that overthrow, after they recovered from shitting their pants on that day).
The Whitebread Sepulcher is behind Door #3.
Variation on 3:
He thought that, in the likely case that it didn’t work, Trump (and Trumpies) would claim it was all his idea, and he would end up doing time for Trump’s ambitions.
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
#3 first, with an awareness of #2 and the fact that it’d be his head on the block when it failed.
Not sure the word “wrong” is something Pence worries about.
2 and 3, IMO. Pence hadn’t cared so far if Trump broke the law, but up until then I don’t think Pence had been personally involved in any lawbreaking. This time he would be if he’d obeyed.
There’s also door #4, enlightened self-interest. A far right-wing politician who wishes to have a future as a political decision-maker and contributor to the decision-making processes does not gain from installing a demagogue unfettered by any rules as absolute dictator. And although the dictator would not live forever, a system of “winner takes absolutely all the marbles, and rules be damned” doesn’t appeal to the kind of conservative who thrives on playing within a defined set of rules.
Pence went around asking legal experts, and his political friends for advice on the matter. Everyone told him that he shouldn’t do it, including judge J Michael Luttig and Dan Quayle . So basically reason 2, it was illegal.
He has certainly used the language of morality, of right and wrong, even though his specific beliefs or professions of what’s right or wrong probably don’t match up perfectly with yours or mine. I don’t know how much of that was sincere at the time and how much was hypocrisy, but power proverbially corrupts.
I think it was that Pence knew it was wrong, but his decision to take a stand on it was made easier by his self interest.
Pence knew Trump better than the average Joe. He saw Trump use people for his purposes and discard them, even take vengeful acts agains them and their family. He knew such an act was ultimately negate the constitution and was a step to opening the door to Trump being president for life, which was ultimately Trump’s ambition. This would put Pence in bind, he could never accent to presidency, as Trump’s children would have that position once Trump passed, and as VP that would only be at Trump’s whim. It was really a loose loose for Pence to stay linked to Trump, and Pence’s best shot was to jump off the Trump train and try to make it on his own, which would work much better for him then if he stayed with Trump.
That I believe was in itself motivation, but I also believe Pence knew that was wrong for the US, and the republican party and thus our 2 party system. It would reveal that they are in league with forces which want to end our democracy ‘for our own good’, and make America great for Trump again. As such, with the Republican party split MAGA/non-Maga, Pence has also set himself up to claim the center and patriots in a future election. So again his best self interest.
History is made of pivotal decisions of individuals, and he didn’t want to be known in the history books as the person that ended democracy in the United States.
#2. And Mother dissaproved.
#3. I think if he thought he could get away with it, he would have in a heartbeat. If he had a conscience, he would have happily testified against the guy who called for his assassination. What kind of idiot fights testifying against someone who tried to kill you? Certainly not someone who has a deep and profound affection for the rule of law.
Let’s consider the two possible outcomes, success and failure.
If he succeeds, then he’s just turned the US into a dictatorship in which he isn’t the dictator. He’s smart enough to know that he’d eventually end up in a gulag or in front of a firing squad on Dictator Trump’s orders, because that’s the sort of thing that happens in a dictatorship.
If he fails, it’s because General Milley decided that he was going to recognize Biden as the rightful POTUS and follow Biden’s orders rather than Trump’s. It might take a few weeks, with Biden likely having to hide out in Canada until his term of office officially starts, but it would eventually happen. At that point he would likely be facing a trial for betraying his country, and would also likely end up facing the death penalty.
Either way, the likelihood that he personally gets a happy ending to his story are slim to none. Best case is he somehow sneaks out of the country and ends up in exile in Russia.
See the above part. He wanted to do this, I’m sure, but he actually did go out of his way to find out if there even was a legal way to do it. When everyone and his dog told him it was illegal, he finally capitulated, because (for whatever reason) he finally decided that legality trumped his desire.
Had the legal opinions gone the other way, I have little doubt that he would have at least tried it.
I think the only way we’ll ever know what was really going on in his head is if he kept some daily notes, and eventually publishes a memoir.
Exactly. I think that the reason he asked so many people about it, is that he was desperately hoping one of them would tell him it was okay. If even a single person he trusted had told him that it was legal, he would have done it eagerly.
Which is why, reluctant as we may be to do so, we have to credit Dan Quayle as one of the saviors of American democracy.
Hijack, but weird to think of Dan Quayle as the wise old man of Indiana politics.
I’d agree w @Horatius, but not @MrAtoz.
Pence wanted confidence he would succeed if he tried Trump’s maneuver. Confidence doesn’t come from e.g. 10 sober advisors saying “no way” and one hot-head saying “sure!” In fact I’d argue he wanted very high confidence.
IMO the reason he kept asking more people even after it was obvious which way the consensus was falling was not searching for @MrAtoz’s single dissenting voice, but rather hoping to provide enough CYA against Trump / MAGA revenge on Jan 7 when Pence did not do Trump’s EC takeover maneuver. And even then it almost proved to be insufficient CYA on Jan 6; I have no doubt he’d have been killed by the mob had the insurrection gotten into the chambers before the pols were evacuated.
Proceeding counterfactually …
Let us imagine the details of the words in the constitution and the details of the small political and legal history on point pre-2020 were lots more favorable to Trump’s plan. As in, like in so much else done during Trump’s campaigns and administration, doing the EC overturn would be an unprecedented deviation from tradition and past practice, but not obviously illegal. IOW, it would meet the letter of the law, but not what had heretofore been considered the intent, much less the spirit.
Now what happens? Pence has a much harder decision. All the way from Nov 20 to Jan 6 there’d have been even more of a massive propaganda fog by Trump’s followers that this was both legal and The Right Thing To Do.
In that case, IMO Pence goes through with it. Then the massive protests and counter protests start all over the country. But especially in/near DC. What happens next is very hard to predict and would be a hijack as to this thread.