But Mike Pence refused to uphold his oath of office by illegally certifying the fraudulent election. He has no power to "void" votes. But, he does have a constitutional duty to certify electoral votes- meaning, to decide whether or not a state has legally, and constitutionally presented its electoral votes to the senate so that those votes can be counted, or not.

"Not certifying" is the same thing as voiding. There's no technical difference, just an argument of sophistry.

Please cite where in the Constitution, does the text state that the President of the Senate is authorized to "certify" anything? I'll save you the trouble... you won't find it, because it's not there.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The POTS has one explicitly defined duty, and one duty only, which is to open all the certificates. That's it. The Constitution is silent as to anything else. All the rest is inference. And there's the rub. You, along with countless others over the past 220 years, are arguing what you believe the POTS should have the authority to do, or not do, regardless of what the Constitution actually says or doesn't say. But what one wants something to say, doesn't change what it actually says, or doesn't say. Because of this lack of foresight on the part of the Framers (alas, human nature), the debate over the mess has continued for over two centuries. The argument that the POTS has such alleged authority, is the absolute weakest of all of the arguments. If there is one positive takeaway from the findings of the 1877 Electoral Commission, it's that they definitively put this unfounded argument to bed. If you'd read their reports, you'd not still be attempting to rally behind an utterly stupid argument, pushed by the same people who push Calhounian Lost Cause "unilateral withdrawal" drivel. They are convincing you to rally behind a logically void argument, in order to make you look stupid.

Now, arguably the "necessary and proper" clause does authorize Congress with the power to create federal statutory law to iron out the nuts and bolts of the Count procedures, as in the appointment of tellers, record keeping, order by which the certificates are opened and counted (alphabetically, order received, oldest state first etc.) etc etc. We can see as far back as the 1st Congress, this process playing out. But this doesn't give Congress any authority to grant itself unilateral judicial power as far as adjudicating Electoral disputes, which would render the separation of powers between the Legislature and the Judiciary moot.

You need to research exactly what happened in the senate on Jan. 6.

I'm quite well aware of what exactly happened.

Some states sent "dueling elector's" (constitutional term) to the senate.

Where in the Constitution would we find such a term? Again, I'll save you the trouble. You won't. It's not there. The concept and term of "dueling electors" actually comes from the debates over what was to be done during the Civil War elections, which spilt over into the Reconstruction period. Though the term started appearing in speeches, writings and debates, even in Congressional resolutions, it never made its way into statutory law let alone the Constitution. Again, while the concept itself is open to debate, you're arguing that something is in the Constitution, that simply isn't there. As to the concept of "dueling Electors", there are the Electors appointed by the states, in accordance with state and federal law (or at least purported to be) and there are Electors who dispute the appointment of their opponents as having been done illegally. The only certificates that make it to the "Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate" are those of the Electors legally appointed. The question then that arises, is over whether the Electors appointed by the state were done so legally. And yes, this is a valid issue, but one that is not up to the POTS or the Congress to determine, but up to the courts, more specifically, SCOTUS, at least unless and until Congress constitutionally establishes a lower tribunal specifically tasked with Electoral adjudication.

The senate invented an unconstitutional rules loophole on that day to "allow" the senate to refuse the legal, constitutional right of those states' delegate's to challenge their vote counts.

Rules loophole? What rules? Made on what day? What's the loophole? You can't just keep making shit up like this. On Jan 6, 2021, the Congress followed the procedures as laid out in 3 U.S. Code Chapter 1, which was derived from the 1887 ECA. The Congress and the POTS followed the "law". Whether or not everything in these laws are constitutional, is the actual issue. In any case, Congress did what they did, and the only legal remedy that remained (and still remains) was for Trump to appeal to SCOTUS for justice. Bluntly put, despite his "complaining" he didn't really do a damn thing, a strategy which appears to have been intentional. Whether or not SCOTUS was compromised, failed in their responsibility, or was in on letting the sting play out, so that the military could be used, is still up for debate. I don't know either way. Can't say. All I can say, is what the Constitution says, and how the process is supposed to be followed.

tldr; your anger is justified, but you're blaming the wrong person, which is exactly what the enemy wants.

"my considered judgement that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not."

What Pence said here, was 100% correct.

I’ve come to believe Pence provided the cover for the January 6th false flag when he issued that letter saying he was powerless. When he did that he provided the “motive” for the January 6th False Flag.

The enemy wanted him to do what "MAGA" allegedly wanted him to do, which would have actually been unconstitutional. The enemy would then say "aha got 'em! It's a coup! Pew pew pew pew."

Pence's letter was calling the enemy's bluff and forcing them into making the first move at that stage of the rebellion. His action was comparable to sending the Star of the West to resupply Ft. Sumter. And he suckered them into firing, not really doing much damage, but nonetheless revealing their hand, which was that they wanted to have a truly violent, deadly day on Jan 6th. As we all know, that didn't happen. All that was left, was for the unlawful inauguration, the actual firing on Ft. Sumter, in keeping with the historical comparison.

If he didn’t publish that letter MAGA would have left DC believing he was fighting for them.

The letter made no impact on what he did, and was always going to do. Say he doesn't publish it? He still wasn't going to act unconstitutionally and do what "some" wanted him to do. Unless he "rejected the votes" (again, he had no constitutional power to do so), it was inevitable that the historically and constitutionally illiterate "MAGA" still would have pinned him the scapegoat like Lost Cause propagandists did to Longstreet and Ewell at Gettysburg. That's exactly what the enemy wanted. Cause division. Get MAGA angry, and project it in the wrong direction to distract them from the real problems, and like killing two birds with one stone, go apeshit crazy and fuel a real war... instead, what happened was the "WoRst DaY iN HiStorY" the "DeAdLy iNSurERECTioN." Desired effect, thwarted.

You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. - Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural

Trump and Pence, together, made them cross the Rubicon.