Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning

by Liz Cheney

Flynn went on to say that “martial law” had been imposed “64 times” in the past. But it certainly had never been imposed to “basically re-run an election” in swing states. Flynn noted that, “We have a constitutional process” that has to be followed. But the constitutional process had already been followed. Governors had certified the votes in each state, and the Electoral College had already met and voted. What exactly was Flynn urging Trump to do?

Phil and I spent several days rereading the principal judicial rulings in the election litigation. We walked through all the constitutional arguments, and reread the Federalist Papers that addressed these issues. None of this was a close call. Over a few days we compiled a 21-page memorandum that spelled it out succinctly. The simple conclusion: Congress does not have the authority to undo an election by refusing to count state-certified electoral votes. Period.

On January 3, I circulated my 21-page memo to all my House Republican colleagues. The memo provided members with detailed information making clear there was no ambiguity about our constitutional obligations. If they objected to certified state electoral slates now, they would be doing so knowing that their actions were unconstitutional and knowing that the courts had already concluded there was no legal or factual basis for doing so.

Members believed Trump should be impeached, but they feared a vote for impeachment would put them—and their families—in danger. We were now entering territory where the threat of violence was affecting how members voted, preventing them from voting to impeach the

I knew that what I was about to do would likely have negative political consequences for me in Wyoming. But there was no question what my oath required.

The GOP was becoming an anti-Constitution party. And too many of our leaders were willing to accept that.

Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Steve Bannon, and Peter Navarro had each talked to Donald Trump about January 6, and each of them refused to testify before the January 6th Committee. The House of Representatives voted to hold them in criminal contempt.

After laying out all of these specific findings, the court reached a final conclusion:

Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory.… If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.