"I believe that what can be achieved on Jan. 6 is not simply to keep Biden below 270 electoral votes. It seems feasible that the vote count can be conducted so that at no point will Trump be behind in the electoral vote count..."

"... unless and until Biden can obtain a favorable decision from the Supreme Court upholding the Electoral Count Act as constitutional, or otherwise recognizing the power of Congress (and not the president of the Senate) to count the votes."

Wrote Kenneth Chesebro — AKA Co-Conspirator 5 — in a newly revealed memo, quoted in "Previously Secret Memo Laid Out Strategy for Trump to Overturn Biden’s Win/The House Jan. 6 committee’s investigation did not uncover the memo, whose existence first came to light in last week’s indictment" (NYT).

The false electors scheme... involved lawyers working on his campaign’s behalf across seven states, [and] dozens of electors willing to claim that Mr. Trump — not Mr. Biden — had won their states.... 

As he had done in the earlier memo, Mr. Chesebro cited writings by a Harvard Law School professor, Laurence H. Tribe, to bolster his argument that the deadlines and procedures in the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional and that state electoral votes need not be finalized until Congress’s certification on Jan. 6. 

Mr. Chesebro had worked as Mr. Tribe’s research assistant as a law student and later helped him in his representation of Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 election. 

Calling his former mentor “a key Biden supporter and fervent Trump critic,” Mr. Chesebro cited what he described as Mr. Tribe’s legal views, along with writings by several other liberals as potential fodder for a messaging strategy. It would be “the height of hypocrisy for Democrats to resist Jan. 6 as the real deadline, or to suggest that Trump and Pence would be doing anything particularly controversial,” he wrote....

Yesterday, Professor Tribe published an essay decrying Cheseboro's interpretation of the position taking back in 2000. Tribe asserts that his argument was specific to the Florida law at play in Bush v. Gore.

[And] Mr. Chesebro cited a constitutional treatise in which Mr. Tribe wrote that a past Congress cannot bind the actions of a later Congress, which Mr. Chesebro used to buttress his proposal that parts of the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional. But Mr. Tribe wrote that what he meant was Congress can pass new legislation changing such a law....

Whatever the details of what Professor Tribe really meant, the question now is whether the Chesebro interpretation is so manifestly wrong as a legal theory that Trump could not creditably rely on it in fighting, legally, for a victory in the 2020 election. Chesebro, who worked directly with Tribe, was citing Tribe as an authority and purporting to know what Tribe meant and presenting this legal theory as something that could be pursued legally. It's supposed to be a crime for Trump to have relied on that? 

FROM THE COMMENTS: Ampersand said:

Tribe's legal theorizing always has as its first step the conclusion that the Dems win. The second step is to reason backwards from the conclusion, and the third step is to rearrange the sequence to create the appearance that he didn't start with the conclusion. 

Chesebro jumbled it up. What a dope.