The incriminating part is that Eastman, the lawyer, told his co-conspirators that his scheme was illegal, but when Bowers (not part of the conspiracy) questioned the legality, Eastman told him to do it anyway and "let the courts sort it out later." They were expecting a 6-3 decision because three of the justices owe Trump (at least in the conspirators' minds). But Trump could be halfway through an illegal second term before the issue got to the Supreme Court. Your "done deal" aspect is salient.
The point is if your lawyer is telling you the scheme is illegal but do it anyway, it is not a "novel legal theory to be tested."
Agree.
The incriminating part is that Eastman, the lawyer, told his co-conspirators that his scheme was illegal, but when Bowers (not part of the conspiracy) questioned the legality, Eastman told him to do it anyway and "let the courts sort it out later." They were expecting a 6-3 decision because three of the justices owe Trump (at least in the conspirators' minds). But Trump could be halfway through an illegal second term before the issue got to the Supreme Court. Your "done deal" aspect is salient.