Imagine if, in 2000, Al Gore had embraced Eastman’s theory. This would have meant that in his role as vice president, Gore would have had sole authority to accept or reject the electoral votes from all states, including Florida, where he lost by just 537 votes. Had he done so, he would have won the presidency by obtaining a majority of the electoral votes that were counted. By Eastman’s logic, Congress would have had no choice but to sit and watch Gore do it.

The Eastman memo has generated serious criticism among some observers, but it has gone largely unnoticed by most Americans, as Margaret Sullivan notes. And some have even dismissed Eastman’s “bold” play as unserious and unworthy of much concern.

Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, recently argued that concerns about Trump’s post-election efforts to stay in power are overblown, pointing out that no states changed their electoral results and that Pence ultimately did not intervene on his ticket’s behalf. Yet, we know that on Jan. 6, and before, Trump openly campaigned for both outcomes. An attempt by a sitting president to get his vice president to ignore federal law, state election officials, and the courts by single-handedly disregarding electoral votes should concern all Americans. That it did not happen does not dismiss the possibility that it could have happened.

Instead of discounting Trump’s radical effort as a zany scheme, we should approach it as we would any other attack upon the United States. If another country tried to attack us and failed, we would not ignore its attempt. Instead, we would do everything in our power to prevent a sequel. We should take the same approach when it comes to efforts such as that encouraged by the Eastman memo.