Hi, I have a question. I got into a long discussion with my law-student brother who, while very conservative and a Trump voter, is certainly no anon and very by the books. He said to me about Pence’s decision on the 6th that it was his constitutional duty to certify the votes, even though they may have been fraudulent, because the states had given him their already certified votes. In other words, the states came to pence and said, “we elected this guy, we’ve already certified it.” This left Pence, even if he knew the votes were fraudulent, no choice but to push them through because the constitution dictates it so. The VP “shall” certify the votes, notwithstanding the validity of them, since they’ve gotten to that point. Hopefully this makes sense.
What are your thoughts on this?
I believe there is precedent in the past where a VP over stepped his strict constitutional role and then cut a deal with the opposition. So anyone who says "this is exactly what a person should do" is talking with book knowledged but not practical knowledge.
In this case, there was also the fact that certain states sent dual slates of electors and afaik the constitution does not say anywhere that the slate "certified" by the legislators is the "real" slate.
But, these are merely academic questions. We have to remember that the plan worked out exactly as planned. There was no expectation from Trump that Pence would actually do anything different. Its not about who can do what, but rather that the system as a whole has been captured from top to bottom. Some could be due to corruption, some could be due to procedural issue, but the bottom line is that Trump never had a venue to air the election fraud on its merits.