Editorial: Grassley gets a mention

Another day, another indictment. This one at the hands of the district attorney in Atlanta, Ga., accusing Donald Trump and others of conspiring to fraudulently overturn the 2020 election results. Iowa Republicans, led by Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Judiciary Committee, suggested that it was all a political set-up. What about Hunter Biden? Most presidential candidates traversing the Tall Corn State said the same.

This indictment was delivered by a grand jury in Fulton County. Separately, federal grand juries handed up indictments against Trump and associates in the District of Columbia and Florida, organized by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Smith is prosecuting the illegal possession of classified documents, and a conspiracy to defraud the government surrounding the election. It is important to recognize that Trump could not pardon himself from a Fulton County District Court verdict; neither could the governor.

Willis more broadly details how Trump & Co. tried to fabricate votes, intimidate election officials, and present false electors to local authorities and to Congress. Included in the expansive indictment is a curious reference to Grassley in an email exchange among Trump legal advisors before the Jan. 6 insurrection:

“Judiciary Committee hearings on the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act could invite counter views that we do not believe should constrain Pence (or Grassley) in the exercise of power they have under the 12th Amendment. Better for them just to act boldly and be challenged, since the challenge would likely lead to the Court denying review on nonjusticiable political question grounds.” This almost incomprehensible legal mumbo jumbo was an overt act in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy, according to the indictment.

Grassley and his staff have insisted that they were not clued in to any schemes about not certifying the election results on Jan. 6. As president of the Senate, Vice President Mike Pence was supposed to certify the election results. When approached by the schemers, Pence told them he could not reject the election certificate. If Pence could not be in the Senate on Jan. 6, Grassley would stand in to sign for him.

The senator made this weird statement on Jan. 5:

"Well, first of all, I will be — if the Vice President isn't there and we don't expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate.”

Aides explained that he misspoke or misinterpreted something. They reiterated that Grassley was not clued into discussions about not certifying the election.

It remains interesting that the episode is worth mentioning in this indictment. We take Grassley at his word, and are eager to learn more about how all of this unfolded as the Georgia case and others illuminate the facts.